Many people are unaware that in 1986 Congress gave the U.S. vaccine industry a shield from product liability that is unlike any other in existence. In most cases, if a pharmaceutical product injures or kills a person, the manufacturer of that product can be held financially accountable in a civil court of law. With vaccines, however, this is not the case.
In the U.S., there is a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that Congress created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
The VICP was created 30 years ago as an administrative alternative to a lawsuit when federally licensed vaccines recommended for children cause injury or death. Federal compensation was supposed to be awarded when there was no other biologically plausible explanation for the vaccine-related injury or death, and plaintiffs denied federal compensation or offered too little were supposed to be able to access civil courts.
However, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that federally licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and completely removed liability from the vaccine industry — even if it could be proven that a manufacturer had the ability to make the vaccine less reactive.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington handles vaccine injury and death cases contested by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice in what has become known as “vaccine court.” The federal VICP compensates vaccine victims through a federal trust fund that collects a surcharge on every dose of vaccine purchased and administered, which means that vaccine manufacturers pay nothing into the vaccine injury trust fund even though they have no product liability.
To add insult to injury, government agencies and the U.S. Court of Claims deny federal compensation to the majority of vaccine-injured plaintiffs. As noted by the National Vaccine Information Center’s Barbara Loe Fisher at the Revolution for Truth Rally earlier this year:
“The $3.6 billion in federal vaccine injury compensation that has been awarded to more than 5,000 vaccine victims since 1988 doesn’t begin to pay for the damage done; not when two out of three claims are denied.”
A recent ruling by the highest court of the European Union, however, could change the vaccine injury compensation landscape — in Europe, at least — and the ruling has the vaccine industry up in arms over potentially being held financially accountable in European civil courts for illnesses and injuries caused by government recommended and mandated vaccines.
EU Court Rules Circumstantial Evidence Should Be Considered in Vaccine Injury Cases
In many vaccine injury cases, it can be difficult if not impossible to prove cause and effect and directly link a related injury with the vaccine, in part because such injuries may occur days, weeks or months later and also because the quality and quantity of vaccine safety studies is extremely poor. Vaccine companies and government health agencies have refused to conduct methodologically sound research into how and why vaccines cause harm and who is biologically at greater risk for being harmed.
In 2012, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), recently renamed Health and Medicine Division of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), appointed a physician committee to review over 1,000 vaccine studies on eight vaccines routinely administered to children. For more than 100 adverse health outcomes reported following vaccination, IOM was unable to determine whether or not the vaccines caused a commonly reported brain or immune system disorder.1
In short, the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence related to a wide range of brain and immune system disorders was insufficient to make a conclusion about whether or not a vaccine causes those disorders in a previously healthy person or a person biologically susceptible to vaccine harm.
So the IOM committee was unable to confirm or deny causation for most reported poor health outcomes, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, learning disabilities and autism, following receipt of certain vaccines. This does not exonerate vaccines as being safe, but rather highlights the challenges faced when a person attempts to prove a causative link between a vaccine they’ve received and a related illness or injury.
It makes common sense that the circumstances surrounding a vaccine-related illness — such as how soon reaction symptoms began following vaccine administration, or whether the person had suffered a previous vaccine reaction or was sick at the time of vaccination and so on — would be essential pieces of evidence to consider in determining probable cause. However, few civil courts have taken this kind of clinical and circumstantial evidence seriously in vaccine injury lawsuits.
This was the case with a man living in France, whose vaccine injury case is still ongoing. The man developed multiple sclerosis after receiving three doses of hepatitis B vaccine, and he and his family believe the debilitating chronic disease was caused by the vaccination. Much of the case was based on circumstantial evidence including the timing of the onset of disease in relation to vaccination.
A lower French court ruled that the hepatitis B vaccination was the probable cause of the man’s multiple sclerosis, but that lower court decision was subsequently overturned because of a lack of scientific consensus that hepatitis B vaccine causes multiple sclerosis. Eventually, the courts needed to decide what types of evidence were admissible in the case, which brought it before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).2
EU Court Ruling May Hold More Vaccine Makers Accountable
The ECJ ruled that “serious, specific and consistent” circumstantial evidence may be considered in vaccine injury cases, prompting a barrage of criticism from the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, public health officials and the media that it would “open the floodgates” for frivolous vaccine injury lawsuits. In Nature magazine, however, Alex Stein, a law expert at the Brooklyn Law School in New York says this is not the case:3
“The court emphasized that liability claims for vaccine harm must be considered on a case-by-case basis. It also ruled that the burden of proof remained on plaintiffs (the man’s family, in this case) and that courts must consider relevant evidence from medical research.
These caveats are important, says … Stein … ‘Under this framework, credible medical evidence showing that the vaccine is safe will win the case,’ he says. ‘Those who say that the ECJ decision has opened a floodgate for multiple vaccine liability suits are therefore mistaken.'”
Stein continued that the ruling may, in fact, allow for justice to be fairly served, noting, “If courts were to use scientific methods of proof in all cases in which they must determine disputed facts, they would hardly be able to make decisions and to deliver timely justice to people. Justice is generally best served when courts are free to admit whatever relevant evidence they wish and judge it on its own merits along with the rest.”4
Indeed, the EU ruling will allow for important and pertinent evidence to be considered in vaccine injury cases to conclude “the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation,” including the following:5
•The time between a vaccine’s administration and the onset of a disease
•An individual’s previous state of health
•A lack of any family history of the disease
•A significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following vaccination
Flu Vaccine Falsely Advertised as Good Match Completely Useless for Seniors
It’s incredibly important for vaccine makers to be held accountable for dangerous or ineffective products in civil court. As we continue to see, there are more questions than answers when it comes to vaccine safety and repercussions to human immunity and overall health. The case of federally recommended annual flu shots is one such example in which reactive and often ineffective vaccines continue to be foisted on a vulnerable population, in this case the elderly.
As recently as February 2017, U.S health officials boasted that this season’s influenza vaccine was a “good match,” even though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) described the vaccine as having a 48 percent effectiveness rate, which means the vaccine was effective in preventing disease only 48 percent of the time.
For the past decade, the seasonal influenza vaccine’s effectiveness has been only 50 percent to 60 percent effective.6 The news that this year’s influenza vaccine was a “good match” probably prompted more seniors to get one of the 145 million doses of flu vaccine shipped to doctors’ offices and public health clinics.7
By June 2017, however, the CDC’s tune had changed. The vaccine actually did a poor job of protecting the elderly, with a low 42 percent effectiveness rate overall in preventing illness severe enough to cause someone to visit a doctor. Meanwhile, among the 65 and over crowd — who are at higher risk for influenza complications — as well as those aged 18 to 49, the flu shot “had no clear effect.”8 In other words, it was useless.
Every vaccine carries a risk of injury or death that can be greater for some people, and the potential risk of suffering flu vaccinecomplications that result in a permanent disability such as paralysis from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a risk you need to take into account each time you get a flu shot. While death and complete disability from influenza vaccine complications may be rare, severe complications and death from seasonal influenza itself are also relatively rare, especially for individuals with healthy immune systems.
So it is wise to weigh the risk of suffering a debilitating side effect from a flu shot relative to the more likely potential of spending a week in bed recovering from a bout with influenza. Most of the deaths attributed to influenza are actually due to complications leading to bacterial pneumonia and, unlike in past centuries, bacterial pneumonia today can be effectively treated with advanced medical care.
More Polio Spread by Vaccine
Another issue often disregarded in discussions of vaccine safety is the spread of vaccine-strain virus infections, including polio. Wild type polio was declared eradicated in the US in 1979 and in the western hemisphere in 1994.9 But despite widespread annual polio vaccine campaigns targeting children in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, the wild type poliovirus is still circulating.
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative slated 2018 as the year polio would be eradicated from the Earth, but the virus is proving to be harder to outwit than officials would have you believe. Not only are strains of wild poliovirus still circulating in the world, but mutated vaccine-strain polio viruses also circulate. A large part of the problem is the polio vaccine itself, specifically the live oral polio vaccine (OPV).
In 2017, there have been 21 reported cases of vaccine-derived polio, compared to six cases of wild polio — marking the first time more cases of polio have been caused by vaccine-derived strains than wild or naturally occurring strains. In Syria alone, 15 children have been paralyzed by vaccine-derived polio, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).10 Research published in the journal Cell also revealed that the live virus used in the oral polio vaccine can easily mutate and spread through a community.11 NPR reported:12
“After a child is vaccinated with live polio virus, the virus replicates inside the child’s intestine and eventually is excreted. In places with poor sanitation, fecal matter can enter the drinking water supply and the virus is able to start spreading from person to person.
‘We discovered there’s only a few [mutations] that have to happen and they happen rather quickly in the first month or two post-vaccination,” [lead study author Raul] Andino says. ‘As the virus starts circulating in the community, it acquires further mutations that make it basically indistinguishable from the wild-type virus. It’s polio in terms of virulence and in terms of how the virus spreads.'”
While news that the oral polio vaccine is causing vaccine-strain polio cases may be surprising to you, it is not surprising at all to WHO, whose director of polio eradication Michel Zaffran called the vaccine-derived virus outbreaks an expected “hiccup.” He told NPR:13
“We knew that we were going to have such outbreaks. We’ve had them in the past. We continue to have them now. We know how to find them, and we know how to interrupt them … So it’s hiccup … a very regrettable hiccup for the poor children that have been paralyzed, of course. But with regards to the whole initiative, you know it’s not something that is unexpected.”
Into the Darkness: Most Medical Science Is Fake
Adding to the complexity surrounding the medical decisions you make for yourself and your children is the fact that much scientific research is manipulated or fraudulent. Former New England Journal of Medicine editor-in-chief Dr. Marcia Angell has stated, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical researchthat is published.”14
In the video above, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson interviews Angell on the topic of “fake science.” Angell says, “… [P]hysicians and the public have come to believe that drugs are much better and much safer than they really are.”15 If you can’t trust the scientific data, neither can your physician, but most people make health care decisions based on their physician’s likely misguided advice.
In the case of vaccines, for example, many are not aware that the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule is based on convenience, not on safety. While your physician may tell you that giving your child multiple vaccines simultaneously is safe, think about this logically. According to Neil Z. Miller, a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute:
“The CDC’s immunization schedule requires that children receive eight vaccines at 2 months of age, eight vaccines at 4 months of age and eight vaccines at 6 months of age. I ask parents, ‘When did you ever take eight drugs at the same time?
… If you did take eight drugs at the same time, would you think it was more likely that you would or would not have an adverse reaction?’ Because toxicologists know that the more drugs you take at the same time, the more potential for some kind of a synergistic or additive toxicity …
The CDC has put together a schedule based on convenience. They say ‘[G]ive eight vaccines at 2 months, give eight more vaccines at 4 months and give eight more booster shots at 6 months’ because it’s convenient. They’re afraid that parents will not come to the pediatrician again and again and again if they have to keep coming back for more vaccines, so they get multiple [shots all at once].
They said, ‘We’re going to make this schedule based on convenience.’ Not based on evidence. Not based on science. There’s nothing scientific about the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule.”
It’s therefore crucially important to consider multiple sources of vaccine information and use reason, intuition and common sense when making an educated decision about vaccination. Only when you have all the facts, including those from unbiased, independent sources, and think critically can you make a truly informed decision for yourself or your child that will protect your health.
By Dr. Mercola
The Vaccine Reaction, published by the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), recently highlighted a really disturbing part of the 21st Century Cures Act that has largely escaped below the radar.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which was quickly pushed through Congress and became law back in December 2016, allows the waiving of the requirement of informed consent for participants in clinical trials if researchers believe an experimental medical device, drug or vaccine being tested poses no more than minimal risk to the patient’s health, or if the product being tested is deemed by researchers to be in the best interest of trial participants.
The Act also lowers FDA standards for the quality of evidence that drug companies have to provide to the FDA before drugs and vaccines are licensed and sold in the U.S.
In a nutshell, scientists testing pharmaceutical products like vaccines may now choose to experiment on human beings without obtaining informed consent first.
As noted in the featured video, this really boils down to slavery — you can be experimented on without fully understanding the potential risks of the product you are being given if you are a participant in a clinical trial, which means you do not have the opportunity to exercise informed consent and opt out.
21st Century Cures Act Waives Informed Consent for Low-Risk Medical Testing
Section 3024 of the 21st Century Cures Act refers to Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations, amending some of the wording in section 520(g)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
As noted in the video, subparagraph D in this section received a minor update by removing the words “the investigator,” but the remainder still stands.
Section 3024(a), which covers “medical devices,” basically states that informed consent is required when researchers are testing medical devises in clinical trials “except where, subject to such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.”
Section 3024(b), which covers drugs, states informed consent is required “except where it is not feasible, it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of such human beings.”
How giving informed consent could ever be contrary to your best interest is a question worth pondering.
I cannot conceive of a situation where that could possibly be true but, apparently, people elected to govern on our behalf believe there are situations warranting suppression of the fact that you are participating in a scientific experiment that could harm you or your minor child.
Government Admits Vaccines Are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’
Historically, vaccine trials have always been assumed to involve more than minimal risk. In fact, both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”1
This determination was one reason given by Congress for why vaccine manufacturers were given a civil liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
This “free pass” means that if a FDA licensed and state mandated vaccine ends up injuring or killing you or your child, the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine cannot be sued in civil court.
As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, drug companies are creating hundreds of new vaccines and plan to churn out and fast-track an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.
At the same time, there’s a concerted, nationwide lobbying effort by industry, medical trade groups and public health officials to eliminate the right of parents to make voluntary vaccine choices for their children by removing religious and conscience vaccine exemptions that have been included in state vaccine laws for the past half century.
To top it all off, the 21st Century Cures Act appears to provide a mile-wide loophole for pharmaceutical companies to test their products on human beings without informed consent and fast-track them to market using lowered licensing standards. I don’t know about you, but this strikes me as an absolute nightmare in the making.
While vaccine makers have been granted immunity against lawsuits for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, children injured by vaccines are supposed to be able to receive swift and just compensation from the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP), created by Congress in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
However, this program was gutted by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice within years of the 1986 law’s enactment and has only gotten worse over the years, again protecting vaccine manufacturers’ interests more than anything else.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court.”2
VICP is a “no-fault” alternative to the traditional civil court lawsuit and was established in 1986 after a string of high-profile lawsuits by parents of vaccine injured children had hauled vaccine manufacturers into court to have their cases heard in front of juries.
At the time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers after their children were brain injured or died following federally recommended and state mandated DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccines, or children were left paralyzed by live oral polio vaccinations (OPV).
Several DPT injury lawsuits against the vaccine makers in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in multimillion-dollar jury verdicts.
At that point, vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing DPT, MMR and oral polio (the only childhood vaccines at the time) if civil litigation was allowed to continue.
Common sense would have dictated that such lawsuits were a sign that vaccine manufacturers needed to raise safety standards and produce less toxic vaccines.
Instead, Congress buckled to industry pressure and, declaring that the U.S. vaccine supply must be protected, passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, giving vaccine manufacturers the legal protection they demanded.
As a result, vaccine makers have no incentive to produce the safest vaccines possible, especially when many childhood vaccines are state mandated for school attendance and 2 out of 3 vaccine injured children are turned away from the VICP with no compensation.
Vaccine Court Is No Safeguard for Vaccine Injured Patients
Over the years, it has become quite clear that VICP doesn’t work as Congress intended or promised parents it would work. In a recent article published in The American Conservative, vaccine litigation lawyer Robert Moxley writes:3
“… [VICP] was modeled after workers’ compensation programs. It was to be a ‘no-fault’ program … As one of the earliest ‘vaccine attorneys’ … I know first-hand it didn’t work that way.
I practiced in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for more than 25 years after its inception in 1988, and have been personally involved in over 100 vaccine-injury cases. I represented an entire fragile population in omnibus proceedings … I have seen the injured and their families cruelly oppressed.
From the passing of the legislation in 1986, the process has been rigged … in favor of the vaccine-industrial complex. Policy makers nationwide are yearning, with financial support and lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, for mandatory vaccination. Before further compulsory vaccination legislation passes … the failure of the VICP must be acknowledged and properly addressed.
The VICP creates a classic moral hazard, granting immunity from suit to the vaccine industry while providing insurance against any loss …The vaccine-industrial complex has become a thriving giant … Its lobbying money drives agency denial of the reality of vaccine injury, which in turn permeates policy decisions in a sinister fashion.”
VICP — A Bureaucratic Nightmare That Offers Little Protection
As noted by Moxley, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act states the entire compensation process should take 240 days at most, and since it’s a “no-fault” program, it was designed to compensate patients for “apparent” injuries, meaning injuries that “appear” to be related to a vaccine even if you cannot conclusively prove it.
Congress promised compensation would be awarded “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity,” in order to instill public confidence in the childhood vaccination program. The reality is much different. In his article, Moxley highlights a number of serious problems with the VICP, including the following:
- Lawyers are few, as the program prohibits private attorney’s fees; many who suffer a vaccine injury cannot even meet the filing deadline due to inability to retain legal counsel
- The process is exceedingly slow, with the average case taking over five years to adjudicate — a far cry from the 240-day deadline originally set by Congress for all adjudication decisions; some cases remain pending a decade after they were filed
- Two-thirds of claims received are dismissed4
- Decisions cannot be used as precedents for other cases
- The Department of Health and Human Services has not publicized the program, which was and still is its statutory duty
VICP Protects Vaccine Makers’ Interests
Moreover, as noted by Moxley: “The ‘inquisitorial’ format, with none of the due process safeguards of the civil justice system, serves to protect the secrets of the vaccine industry. The record created in a proceeding is hidden from non-parties.”
Indeed, none of the information that would normally be disclosed during a court trial ever sees the light of day once brought before the VICP. Hence, safety concerns remain shrouded in secrecy.
“A state of symbiosis arose between the agency tribunal and the public health bureaucracy,” Moxley writes. “These sister agencies appeared to regard families of the injured as criminals, trying to steal the government’s money. The vaccine court quickly developed an institutional hostility toward doctors and scientists who dared to challenge the orthodoxy of vaccine medicine …
An unspoken premise is ever-present: [T]o acknowledge vaccine injury is to undermine public acceptance, and to threaten ‘herd immunity.’ The public health agenda is the tribunal agenda and the DOJ agenda as well …
The vaccine court is used by the vaccine program — ostensibly in service of the ‘public health’ — as a forum to prove that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. ‘Confidence’ in the safety net has been subordinated to the promotion of false confidence in the vaccination effort itself.
The moral hazard of the vaccine program reflects failure of the traditional checks and balances … Most of all, the entire system embodies the way that the lack of accountability leads to increased risk. Today, the proponents of compulsory vaccination in state legislatures have the temerity to tell their colleagues that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. This claim emboldens a potential assault on the American family, and against the right of medical choice and informed consent.
The ‘public health’ cannot be served to allow government officials to make the risk-benefit calculation for their most vulnerable constituents when those decisions are corrupted by the fiction that their decision has no potential for negative consequences.”
Who Pays for Vaccine Injuries?
VICP compensates vaccine victims from a federal trust fund that collects a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine given. What this means is that not only are drug companies profiting from selling federally recommended and state mandated vaccines to government for administration in public health clinics and to private doctor’s offices, pharmacies and HMO providers, vaccine manufacturers are also held legally blameless for vaccine injuries and deaths — and they don’t have to pay a cent to those injured by their vaccines.
Adult patients and children being given vaccines take all the risk, and themselves pay for the damages awarded to those injured or killed by government licensed and mandated vaccines. Many Americans do not even realize this vaccine court exists because DHHS does not publicize the existence of a federal vaccine injury compensation program and few VICP claims are ever disclosed, let alone publicized. The desire for secrecy on the part of public health officials is understandable.
If Americans were routinely informed of the vaccine injury and death claims being processed through the VICP, concern about the safety of vaccines would undoubtedly rise exponentially. Even without publicity, VICP claims are rapidly rising. As noted by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson in December 2015:5
“Since January of 2014, the number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government is more than double the previous eight years combined … Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has ‘conceded:’ up 55 percent in a little over one year.”
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Should Be Repealed
Two years ago, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) called for the repeal of civil liability protection provided to drug companies under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act6 and a return to full product liability for vaccine manufacturers. At the time, NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher said:7
“The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is a failed experiment in tort reform and should be repealed so vaccine manufacturers are accountable and liable in a civil court of law for product safety. The federal vaccine injury compensation program Congress created under that law has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.”
Nothing has changed in the two years since. The VICP remains irreparably broken. A vast majority of the injury compensation claims paid out by the vaccine court today are not even for children suffering lifelong injuries or death from childhood vaccines that they are mandated to get to attend daycare or school — they’re for adults (often health care workers) suffering serious side effects from the influenza vaccine.
On March 31, 2017, vaccine safety and choice advocates, including the NVIC, Moms Across America, Organic Consumers Association, Focus for Health, Vaccine Injury Awareness League and other grassroots consumer groups, who are protesting the too-cozy relationship between the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and government, gathered for a “Revolution for Truth” rally8 in Washington D.C.
The groups are urging President Trump to examine the VICP’s many problems, and create an independent agency to monitor and evaluate vaccine safety.
Forced Vaccinations Are Unethical and Dangerous
Last year, Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director for Alliance for Natural Health USA, wrote:9
“When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients, and the CDC schedule to be completely safe. The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done.
Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.
Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body’s immune system into action. Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down’s syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done.”
Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. Most of these parents have children who had serious reactions to vaccination or know someone who became chronically ill after vaccination. That experience prompted them to do independent research and not just get their children vaccinated without fully understanding the risks.
But rather than conducting the necessary methodologically sound scientific research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to join with medical trade associations funded by pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies and simply push for forced vaccination laws that eliminate vaccine exemptions instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.
Aside from the lack of long-term safety studies of vaccines that take into account real-world usage parameters such as giving multiple vaccinations on the same day, there’s yet another safety issue that is routinely swept under the rug — that of vaccine recalls. In fact, vaccines have the highest number of recalls of any drug!
According to a 2012 report by business intelligence experts GBI Research,10 vaccines “fail to meet safety standards.” Between 2007 and 2010, 14 recalls for vaccines were made, for reasons such as:
- Serious adverse events
- Labeling errors
- Quality defects (reduced levels of potency, presence of contaminants, such as glass particles)
- Manufacturing defects
Coincidence Claims Falter as Vaccine Damage Becomes Commonplace
As time goes on and vaccine injuries multiply, claims of “coincidence” are getting increasingly more preposterous and harder to swallow. Today, vaccine injuries are becoming like cancer — the prevalence is so high, most people know someone who has suffered a serious side effect from a vaccine. Statistics revealing compelling parallels between vaccination rates and disease rates add to the mounting skepticism.
As noted in a January 2017 report by WJTV12 News,11 Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates. Coincidence? No one knows, but in the absence of firm proof either way, many parents are renewing their call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given.
The same scenario is playing out in other states across the nation. The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing. As a result, first-hand experience with vaccine reactions now include many physicians, celebrities and politicians, as well.
Academy award-winning actor Robert De Niro, for example, has recently gone on the public record questioning vaccine safety and the reported link between vaccines and autism.
He has a child who developed autism following vaccination. Rick Rollens, former Secretary of the California State Senate, as well as retired U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are two examples of individuals who worked for government and publicly shared their personal experiences of family members who had serious vaccine reactions and developed autism.
President Trump has also made public statements in which he questioned the potential connection between vaccination and autism and the safety of one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.
All of them have been strongly criticized for attempting to open up discussions about vaccine risk issues, which just goes to show that no one is above ridicule should they dare to question the safety of vaccines. The trend cannot hold forever, though. At a certain point, the coincidence theory collapses, and that’s what we’re starting to see now.
Unfortunately, many people don’t wake up and get involved until it’s personal and, in recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of influential people describe their personal experiences with vaccine reactions. The question is, how bad does it have to get before public concerns about vaccine safety get a fair hearing?
by Jon Rappoport – July 29, 2016
In his recent speech in Pennsylvania, Trump clarified and intensified his anti-Globalist position. The Associated Press reports:
“‘This wave of globalization has wiped out totally, totally our middle class,’ said Trump.”
“Trump…criticized [Hillary Clinton’s] past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP trade deal], which he described as ‘the deathblow for American manufacturing.'”
“He vowed to renegotiate North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] to get a better deal ‘by a lot, not just a little,’ for American workers – and threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the deal if his proposals aren’t agreed [to].”
“Trump has vowed to bring back [US] manufacturing jobs, in part, by slapping tariffs on goods produced by [American] companies that move manufacturing jobs offshore.”
“He said the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by Bill Clinton, was a ‘disaster’…”
Trump didn’t leave much room for doubt on his anti-Globalist stance.
There are many people who have yearned to hear this rhetoric from a major Presidential candidate…but absolutely don’t want to hear it (or anything else) from Trump.
To them, he’s a fast-talking cowboy, a hustler, a bullshitter of the first order, a rank egotist, a narcissist, a racist.
Well, we had another candidate who was a mad dog for attacking Globalism, although he didn’t go quite as far. We had Bernie Sanders. He’s gone. He’s voting for Hillary.
Too little, too late, Bernie just wrote an editorial in the New York Times. His subject: Globalism. Here’s an excerpt:
“In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous [Globalist] trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries…”
“We need to fundamentally reject our ‘free trade’ policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP].”
Sounds pretty much like Trump.
Of course, Bernie points out that this new revolution must NOT be headed by Donald Trump. It must be led by Hillary Clinton. Bernie doesn’t actually mention Hillary by name. He uses the phrase, “a new Democratic President.”
That’s because, as he well knows, the idea that Hillary will overturn free trade treaties and slam back the force of Globalism is so absurd it’s laughable. Bernie knows Hillary is the last person in America who would try to torpedo these trade deals. So he just bites his lip and writes “a new Democratic president.”
But Bernie is a straight shooter. He’s not a bullshitter. Heavens, no.
I wonder which new Democratic President Bernie has in mind? Perhaps it’s Moses coming down from the mountain with ten strategies to create jobs in America.
In past months and years, we’ve had other candidates who’ve come out strongly against Globalism—Rand Paul (didn’t have the intensity); Ron Paul (lacked intensity of delivery, and the media/GOP cut him out of debates and withdrew coverage); Ralph Nader (never had a prayer).
So, for all those people who can admit Trump is saying the right things about Globalism and making all the right promises—but hate him for various reasons—we obviously need someone else who will say what Trump is saying, get it across, attract huge crowds, and garner widespread support. Who is that? Where is he? Where is she?
Therefore, let’s all vote for Hillary, right? Because at least she isn’t a bullshitter or a wild cowboy, and she can maintain stability here at home while US forces launch a few dozen wars under her guidance. No? No good? Hillary’s a…what? A demented vulture? Really?
Is it possible to perform some kind of surgery on Trump’s brain, so he emerges saying the same things about Globalism, but actually means them, minus the ego and the narcissism? Could his brain be shifted over from that of a hustler to a man of the people? No? No such surgery exists?
Too bad, eh? Because this real estate gunslinger is actually talking about canceling NAFTA and refusing to ratify the TPP, two cornerstones of the Globalist agenda. He’s talking about punishing US companies who shift manufacturing jobs overseas, by laying on tariffs when they export their products back to US customers.
Maybe brain-dead indoctrinated college students don’t understand what all this means, but US workers who’ve been thrown out of their jobs sure as hell do.
Trump actually makes a distinction between Globalism and what’s good for America. He doesn’t pull back from doing that. Because, after all, if you bring the lost US jobs home from the clutches of Globalists, that is, in fact, good for the people of the US, right? And therefore, it’s good for America.
But of course Trump is completely insane and he’s a major league liar, so he’s out.
How about this? A mind-control experiment in which everything Trump has been saying about Globalism is automatically transferred into the brain of LeBron James. Then LeBron shows up at the Democratic National Convention, announces his candidacy, throws down a few thundering dunks, and steals the nomination from Hillary.
Can we pull that off?
Oh well. It’s only 4.8 million lost US jobs (and more coming). It’s only 60,000 US factories closed down (and more coming).
So where are we? Let’s look at the leaderboard.
On one side, we have Hillary Clinton. She’s in the pocket of Big Pharma, she’s dedicated to the advance of Globalism on every possible front (“it takes a village”), she can’t sleep at night unless US planes are bombing some helpless population.
On the other side, we have Donald Trump, who’s saying all the right things about Globalism’s attack on America, but he just happened on this rhetoric by accident, he doesn’t mean any of it, he’s lying all day and all night, he wants to change the name of the White House to Trump Tower II. We know he’s lying because Bill Maher and John Oliver say so.
I have an idea. Finally. Let’s all pledge our allegiance to HUMANITY without describing what the word means. Let’s just go with the generality. Let’s feel good about it. We’re pledged to The Human Family and The Future. Just leave it hanging out there. No need to get specific. That’s how we’ll ID ourselves. “We’re for humanity, we’re for everybody else.” See, isn’t that better?
Then we can say, “Hillary is also devoted to Humanity. She says so every chance she gets, so it’s a perfect match. Let’s give the political leadership of the country to her. And then, whatever she does, we can assert it’s because she cares. And so do we. We all care. It makes us virtuous.
And that’s all that important: giving the appearance of being virtuous.
All those factories that have closed down and all those people who are out of jobs? Screw them. They’re impediments to a much higher cause.
What are they complaining about? The government will take care of them. Right?
The government will take of everybody. That’s what caring means. Right?
We and Hillary are on the same page.
I knew it would work out.
I knew it would.
It always does.
The Presidency is a character issue. Hillary pretends she has character. Trump doesn’t. That’s all we need to know or ever will need to know.
by Jon Rappoport – June 6, 2016
“In 1957, the FDA burned all the books of dissident physician Wilhelm Reich, M.D., smashed his laboratory equipment with axes, and threw him in jail, where he died.”—Robert Anton Wilson, High Times, March 2001.
Unless you’ve been living in cave on a remote mountain, you know the FDA has been coming down harder on nutritional companies that publish health claims for their products. Such claims trigger investigations and harassment.
But you see, this arrangement is backwards.
The use of the term “FDA” should be the trigger for immediate investigation, whenever it appears. For example, “The FDA has ruled (name of drug) is safe and effective.”
Why? Obviously, the FDA is a rogue criminal organization, which is guilty of massive RICO felonies. That’s why.
A news story mentioning the FDA appears in a major newspaper? The paper, if it has an approximation of ethical concern, should print this:
“Warning: any action attributed to the FDA should be considered criminal. Accepting an FDA opinion on something more serious than ‘H2O=water’ endangers life and limb. This news outlet accepts no responsibility for the health consequences of any FDA decision.“
Now we’d be on the right track.
July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, “Is US health really the best in the world?”: Medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans per year. That’s a million killings per decade.
Every one of the killer drugs is certified as safe and effective by the FDA, the Agency tasked with protecting the health of the American people.
Example: Vioxx was approved for use by the FDA on May 20, 1999. Eventually, it caused 88,000-140,000 cases of heart disease. Conservative death-toll number? 60,000. (An estimated 58,000 American troops died during the Vietnam War.)
“Warning: If you accept the FDA’s advice on a health matter, you’re risking death. In case there is any confusion, death means death.“
“Did you just read a statement from the FDA? Your life is in imminent danger.”
Perhaps you recall the original approval of GMO crops and their associated highly toxic Roundup pesticide? No? Let me summarize it for you.
When you cut through the verbiage, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.
Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998,“Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated:
“Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter:
“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”
The buck-passing, the direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements, is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal the fix was in.
“Warning: The relationship of an FDA certification of safety to actual science is coincidental. Run for the hills.“
In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies (“Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety,” 7/29/2012).
Kavanagh: “…widespread racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”
“I was threatened with prison.”
“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”
Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.
But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.
What was his secret task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.
Veterans of the Armed Forces, take note: Kavanagh remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.
Kavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.
“Warning: the FDA hammers into submission its own employees who are trying to protect your health. These employees submit, resign, or risk their lives and the lives of their families. Have a nice day.“
Of course, the US Department of Justice takes no action against the FDA. Why would they?
In the government lexicon, killer medical drug equals safe and effective, whereas vitamin, mineral, herb equals H-bomb. Didn’t you know that?
“Warning: FDA killers resemble ordinary citizens. They appear entirely normal. Their methods have advanced to the point where they can commit their deeds without brandishing visible weapons.“
“—Hi, I’m from the FDA. Hey, why are you running away? I’m a public servant doing his job. Gosh o gee, I’m just like you.“
Yes, they can affect an entirely average presence. They internally censor remorse for their crimes. They commit those crimes while pretending to believe they’re carrying out important work. I don’t know why the CIA and DARPA keep researching more advanced forms of mind control. They merely need to study the FDA. That Agency has it down.
“Warning: failing to heed warnings about the FDA is a symptom of advanced dementia.“
By Tony Cartalucci – June 3, 2016
Like a mythical sea monster, the true nature of a Wall Street-London centered global corporatocracy is often talked about but rarely seen. However, on rare occasions, a tentacle breaks the surface and affords the public an opportunity to examine and assess its true, gargantuan dimensions.
Just such a moment occurred when leaked diplomatic letters from the Colombian Embassy in Washington D.C. revealed just how far the United States government is willing to go on behalf of the corporate-financier interests that clearly shape the entirety of its foreign policy.
The Intercept would report in its article, “Leaks Show Senate Aide Threatened Colombia Over Cheap Cancer Drug,” that:
Leaked diplomatic letters sent from Colombia’s Embassy in Washington describe how a staffer with the Senate Finance Committee, which is led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, warned of repercussions if Colombia moves forward on approving the cheaper, generic form of a cancer drug.
The drug is called imatinib [Gleevec]. Its manufacturer, Novartis, markets the drug in Colombia as Glivec. The World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines last year suggested it as treatment not only for chronic myeloid leukemia, but also gastrointestinal tumors. Currently, the cost of an annual supply is over $15,000, or about two times the average Colombian’s income.
The repercussions included threats to derail the $450 million “Peace Colombia” initiative aimed at ending decades of fighting in the South American nation that has claimed nearly a quarter of a million lives.
Leveraging peace and stability in Colombia to force Bogotá to capitulate to pharmaceutical giants like Novartis seems extreme, but upon closer examination of other episodes in recent history – including the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the subversion of Libya and Syria, and admitted US ambitions to encircle and contain China, such coercion is a common feature of the Wall Street-London centric “international order” Washington eagerly promotes.
What is perhaps most appalling about this most recent episode is that Novartis’ “patent” is for a drug developed using public funding over several decades through the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Indeed, in 1990, NIH-funded researcher Dr. Brian Druker began developing model systems integral to bringing “Glivec” to market. He would eventually partner directly with Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) before clinical trials began.
The NIH’s own report, “Fighting Cancer: Ushering in a New Era of Molecular Medicine (.pdf),” would proudly admit:
The NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), along with many other public and private organizations, played a vital role in developing Gleevec®.
The nature of pharmaceutical giants building fortunes upon publicly funded research, with Gleevec serving as a primary example, was in even the subject of an entire paper published by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the title, “Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules (.pdf).”
Who Runs Washington?
If corporate-financier interests would jeopardize the peace and stability of an entire nation to maintain a monopoly over a single pharmaceutical – developed not even by them, but by publicly funded research – what would these same sort of corporate-financier interests do if the stakes were infinitely higher – say as high as pushing through a region-wide trade deal that would give such interests monopolies not over a single chemical compound, but over entire industries?
It is clear that elected representatives in Washington, London, and across the rest of the European Union do not represent the interests of those who elected them. Instead, they are clearly subject to and instruments of corporate-financier special interests – not just from across the pharmaceutical industry, but from a variety of industries ranging from finance and banking to big-oil, big-ag, and big-defense.
Understanding this simple truth – demonstrated unequivocally amid Washington’s latest row with its “ally” Colombia – is the first step in formulating a means to rebalance this inequity.
Dealing With Unwarranted Influence
The leaks revealing Washington’s handling of Colombia, however, provide a valuable potential means of confronting and confounding this immense, unwarranted influence in the immediate future.
The leaks take pressure off the Colombian government itself and put the narrative into the hands of third parties who can more credibly pass on the information to the public. Other nations facing behind-the-scenes coercion might likewise use the “leaked communique” method to take pressure off of themselves, and shift it onto the immense corporate-financier interests bearing down on them.
For the pharmaceutical industry specifically – which has attempted to guard its monopolies under the pretext of providing humanity with invaluable, irreplaceable products and services essential for humanity’s well-being – since pharmaceuticals and other medical therapies are indeed essential matters of life and death, they should be nationalized and the “intellectual property” held by these corporations – paid for by public funding – should be rendered as opensource. This arrangement would be not entirely unlike how the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) approaches space exploration.
For corporate-financier special interests in general, it is essential for both individual nations and local communities around the world to create alternatives to these monopolies and begin the process of systematically and permanently boycotting and replacing them. Not only will this redistribute wealth pragmatically rather than politically, it will create a more equitable balance of power geopolitically.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.