Separating Education from Indoctrination

I don’t know about you, but I did not want this.

I did not devote years of my life to health, science, healing, and wellness to be attacked, ridiculed, judged, and labeled.

I did not spend thousands of hours studying health sciences to graduate at the top of my class THREE TIMES to be discredited for my experiences and knowledge about these topics.

I did not dedicate countless hours of my time reading government websites, pharmaceutical documents, peer-reviewed studies, and systematic reviews to be ignored, silenced, rejected, and censored.

I did not want this, but my conscience will not let me ignore my experiences.

I was once indoctrinated. I was taught the vaccine schedule and what infections were covered in those vaccines. I was briefly shown herd immunity. I was informed that “vaccines [were] safe and effective.” I had no reason to question otherwise, and if others did so, they lacked the capacity to understand “the science.” That is what I was, and many others are, indoctrinated to believe.

I was not taught about vaccine efficacy rates or failure. Vaccines were not a focus in immunology, though some processes signaled theories of their supposed actions. Vaccine-targeted bacteria and viruses were not thoroughly explored in microbiology alike other microbes. Vaccines were not covered in pharmacology, where adverse events were always attached to studied drugs. Vaccines did not come with adverse events. There was no mention of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and I was not familiar with this passive avenue of compiling population data through post-marketing surveillance as clinical trials are of short duration (some only FOUR days… e.g., Hep B vaccine).

As a foundation, colleges require you to learn concepts without challenging the information. As you dive deeper into the sciences, you find that challenging theory is vital to the fluid nature of science. We still discover new things about the evolving biome/virome and what humans have done to help or hinder the health of populations (e.g., the implications of antibiotic overuse, tobacco science, and the low-fat/high sugar “heart health” diet in light of the obesity crisis… just to name a few). We see changes in human health and must consider contributing factors to find solutions. Current research in epigenetics, the gut-brain connection, and functional medicine are challenging long-held theories surrounding health and wellness.

I have made up for gaps in school. I have explored the evidence-based practice, how to read scientific studies, how to check for bias, and have challenged mainstream ideas in the classroom with success. I have pulled the studies from databases and notice a trend. Glowing reports of vaccine efficacy always contain a bias as they are usually funded by vaccine manufacturers and government agencies that promote them. Those researchers that challenge the data and ask the hard questions rarely have a government funding source, are never tied to the pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines, and declare no conflicts of interest. Funny how that works, eh?

That being said, we all have biases that need worked through. Our experiences, including formal education, can create these biases. We can be taught to hold certain entities in high regard, but we must be careful not to be blinded to their failures or misrepresentation of data. We must hold them accountable.

I do not think that there is a conspiracy surrounding the childhood vaccination program. I do not believe vaccine manufacturers intended to injure children. At the same time, we have got to recognize that vaccine manufacturers are the same companies that create other pharmaceuticals. If you know anything about FDA regulation and drug testing, you know that there is a price, harm still occurs after the screening of new drugs, and there are regular recalls. You know that medical journals are filled with shady science promoting new medications that are funded by the companies producing those drugs. The clinical trials involved in the manufacturing of vaccines are lesser than those demanded of the FDA for prescribed medications. Fact-Check this; clinical trials are included in manufacturing inserts for vaccines that are required by law.

My take on these issues is that an unintentional loophole was created with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that freed manufacturers from liability and guaranteed a market for vaccines that are recommended for the U. S. Vaccine Schedule. When your vaccine is approved for the schedule, you have secured revenue. The fiscal incentive for more vaccines is high in a developed country.

In 1983, there were seven total vaccine doses. In 2019, there are over 70 throughout childhood, with 22 doses concentrated in the first 12-15 months of life in the U.S. We also have an embarrassing infant (0-12 month) mortality rate as compared to other developed AND developing nations (we rank in the 50s)!

InfantMortalityCountries
List of countries that have LOWER infant death rates than the U. S.

According to the most recent data, the 4th leading cause of death in the first year is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). SIDS is unexplained death that is not the result of congenital anomalies, maternal/pregnancy complications, or gestation-related causes. If we remove congenital, maternal, pregnancy, gestation from the death table, SIDS will rank #1! Sadly, we spend next to nothing on SIDS research as compared to vaccine spending. On top of that, spending on SIDS research was slashed by almost half from 2017 to 2018! Governments are the largest funding source for R&D, and the largest investment category worldwide is Vaccine Research and Development. The CDC claims vaccines aren’t the cause of SIDS; however, SIDS has no explained cause so that statement is a fallacy. Why would the CDC go against their own vaccine recommendations? They wouldn’t. That is why all their supporting SIDS studies contain glaring conflicts of interest (as they are generated internally), not to mention: outdated.

CDC SIDS Articles

Where your money goes, there lie your interests. Infant mortality in the U.S. is not the result of infectious diseases, yet that is where the money is spent. We have “no idea” why infants suddenly die, yet we aren’t interested in finding out why? Every year, roughly 2,500 babies born in the U.S. die before age one for unknown causes when you remove strangulation/suffocation from the data. Scientific processes allow people to find out the cause of death for a mummy buried over 4,000 years ago, but we cannot do the same for a baby that dies today. Let that sink in.

I do not think there is a conspiracy, but I do believe that these health agencies feel they have gone too far to turn back. They have sold us to their dogma of “vaccines are safe and effective” that is slathered all over government websites. If the childhood vaccine program fails, several people lose trust in government programs that seek to do some good. The challenge is identifying when data is misrepresented due to strong biases. It takes a level of commitment and discomfort (cognitive dissonance) when you seek education and put your biases aside. There is a lot on the line when you challenge the science of vaccines, but without conflict there cannot be progress. We have conflict because we demand progress. Never stop demanding progress.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx
https://www.who.int/research-observatory/monitoring/inputs/neglected_diseases_source/en/
https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm

Vaccine Studies… “the science is settled” and the evidence cannot be denied

There is nothing more important than protecting our population, especially the most vulnerable, from risks. If there is a risk, there must be a choice. Vaccines (lab-created biologics) are not without their risks. The statement “Vaccines are safe and effective” is simply unfounded. Protection of informed consent is essential in a free society, but that is threatened today.

Independent bodies such as the Cochrane Collaboration, which is considered Level I hierarchy of medical evidence, are unable to determine if vaccination prevents primary disease and reports safety issues. This is a lot of information, so it is broken down by the vaccine. I have thoroughly covered measles and chickenpox, so they are not included in this post. You can find those here and here. Quotes below are directly obtained from studies.

 

COMBO VACCINES

In 2012, Bar-On, Goldberg, Hellman, & Leibovici evaluated DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines. Overall, they reported “Data for the primary outcome (prevention of disease) were lacking” and reported increased bias within performed studies. There was a reassessment of this in 2017, and those authors were unable to perform the study.

 

HEPATITIS B

Mathew, El Dib, Mathew, Boxall, & Brok evaluated Hepatitis B in 2009 and stated “Twelve trials were eligible. All had high risk of bias and reporting was inconsistent.” They went on further to state:

“In people not previously exposed to hepatitis B, vaccination has unclear effect on the risk of developing infection, as compared to no vaccination. The risk of lacking protective antibody levels as well as serious and non-serious adverse events appear comparable among recipients and non-recipients of hepatitis B vaccine.”

A review evaluating Hepatitis B booster vaccination conducted in 2016 reported, “There were no eligible randomised clinical trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria of this review.”

In 2017, Eke, Eleje, Eke, Xia, & Liu performed a study evaluating the Hepatitis B vaccine on newborns of seropositive women, and they stated:

“Due to very low to low quality evidence found in this review, we are uncertain of the effect of benefit of antenatal HBIG administration to the HBV-infected mothers on newborn outcomes, such as HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg compared with no intervention. The results of the effects of HBIG on HBsAg and HBeAg are surrogate outcomes (raising risk of indirectness), and we need to be critical while interpreting the findings. We found no data on newborn mortality or maternal mortality or both, or other serious adverse events. Well-designed randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of HBIG versus placebo in prevention of MTCT of HBV.”

 

TETANUS AND PERTUSSIS

In 2014, Zhang, Prietsch, Axelsson, & Halperin reported in a tetanus study that:

“Ethical barriers to the inclusion of a placebo group, combined with the evidence that whole-cell vaccines are not uniformly effective, will create problems for future efficacy studies. Such studies will need to include a self-selected, non-immunised and potentially biased control group, in order to provide an estimate of absolute vaccine efficacy. Further, analyses of the data from existing placebo-controlled studies, with the aim of determining characteristics of participants and their environment which affect vaccine efficacy, will permit future studies to improve these estimates of absolute efficacy by adjusting for such factors.

Finally, the lack of a laboratory correlate of efficacy means that the testing of new acellular pertussis vaccines currently requires prolonged and expensive clinical trials. Research into determining such a laboratory correlate should be a priority.”

In 2015, Demicheli, Barale, & Rivetti evaluated the studies on effects of TDaP vaccines in pregnant women concluding, “For our primary outcomes, there was no high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments.” They went on to elaborate on two chosen trials and said:

“One study (1182 infants) assessed the effectiveness of tetanus toxoid in comparison with influenza vaccine in preventing neonatal tetanus deaths.

Another study, involving 8641 children, assessed the effectiveness of tetanus-diphtheria toxoid in comparison with cholera toxoid in preventing neonatal mortality after one or two doses.”

These two studies qualified to be evaluated, and both studies do not have true saline-placebo controls as the ‘placebo arm’ was administered a vaccine including adjuvanted components.

 

PNEUMOCOCCAL

In 2012, review by Moberley, Holden, Tatham, & Andrews on a Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine (PPV) they report:

“PPV was not associated with substantial reductions in all-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09; random-effects model, I2 statistic = 69%). Vaccine efficacy against primary outcomes appeared poorer in adults with chronic illness. Non-RCTs provided evidence for protection against IPD in populations for whom the vaccine is currently utilised (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61; random-effects model, I2 statistic = 31%). This review did not consider adverse events as it was outside the scope of the review.”

In a 2015 review of evidence for the use of pneumococcal vaccines in pregnancy, Chaithongwongwatthana, Yamasmit, Limpongsanurak, Lumbiganon, & Tolosa reports:

“The overall quality of evidence is low for primary outcomes. Most outcomes had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and most of the included trials had small numbers of participants and few events which led to downgrading evidence for imprecision of findings.

There is insufficient evidence to assess whether pneumococcal vaccination during pregnancy could reduce infant infections.”

 

ROTAVIRUS

In the 2010 review by Soares-Weiser, Goldberg, Tamimi, Leibovici, & Pitan on rotavirus in preventing diarrhea, the study reported:

“Evidence about safety, and about mortality or prevention of severe outcomes, is scarce and inconclusive… Rotavirus vaccines can prevent diarrhoea caused by rotavirus, but we are still not clear about safety and whether they prevent deaths.”

Because the vaccine evaluated in the above study was taken off the market due to intussusception, there was an updated review conducted in 2012. Soares-Weiser, MacLehose, Bergman, Ben-Aharon, Nagpal, Goldberg, Pitan, & Cunliffe conclude:

“Serious adverse events were reported in 4565 out of 99,438 children vaccinated with RV1 and in 1884 out of 78,226 children vaccinated with RV5. Fifty-eight cases of intussusception were reported in 97,246 children after RV1 vaccination, and 34 cases in 81,459 children after RV5 vaccination.

The vaccine efficacy is lower in high-mortality countries; however, due to the higher burden of disease, the absolute benefit is higher in these settings. No increased risk of serious adverse events including intussusception was detected, but post-introduction surveillance studies are required to detect rare events associated with vaccination.

Of the 41 RCTs analysed in this review, 25 (61%) reported an adequate generation of allocation sequence, while the method of assignment was unclear in the remaining studies. The methods used to conceal allocation were considered adequate in 19 trials (46%), and unclear in the remaining studies.

Incomplete outcome data was adequately addressed in 28 studies (68%), unclear in 12 studies, and was not addressed adequately in one study. Sixteen trials were free from selective reporting bias, eight were not, and the remaining trials were unclear. Most trials were sponsored by the industry and it was not possible to assess if they were free of other biases; two recent trials performed in Africa were considered free from other biases.”

 

INFLUENZA

In 2018, Jefferson, Rivetti, Di Pietrantonj, and Demicheli reported in an influenza vaccine study in healthy children that, “Only a few studies were well designed and conducted, and the impact of studies at high risk of bias varied across the outcomes evaluated.”

The 2018 study on influenza vaccination in adults conducted by Demicheli, Jefferson, Ferroni, Rivetti, & Di Pietrantonj, they report:

“We found 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 adults. We were unable to determine the impact of bias on about 70% of the included studies due to insufficient reporting of details. Around 15% of the included studies were well designed and conducted. We focused on reporting of results from 25 studies that looked at inactivated vaccines. Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.

Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).”

In the 2018 study performed by Demicheli, Jefferson, Di Pietrantonj, Ferroni, Thorning, Thomas, & Rivetti regarding influenza vaccination in older adults, they concluded:

“The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.”

 

There you have it! Of the available studies about vaccines, this is the available analysis…

  • Lack of
  • Limited by bias
  • Low-quality
  • Low-certainty
  • Uncertain
  • High-risk of bias
  • Inconclusive
  • Insufficient

Don’t believe me? Go have a look for yourself. These evaluations were made by medical doctors of an independent, non-profit organization that are free from conflicts of interest. This demonstrates that there is no evidence of safety, nor efficacy, of these vaccines. Further, evaluating the use of several vaccines at the same time is absent from the literature. We need to create an independent council that can evaluate the overall safety of the childhood vaccine schedule. We also need the ability to evaluate vaccines for all ages, as mandatory vaccine laws are entertained in legislative houses today.

The good news is that the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group has proposed a systematic review on the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines this year (2019). This is going to be a monumental study that has implications for the entire vaccine schedule as most vaccines contain aluminum adjuvants. I eagerly await the results.

HEAR THIS WELL: Your rights to medical freedom and informed consent are being threatened TODAY. These are current vaccinations that are being tested.

Vaccine Trial Tracker

Maybe you don’t care about the childhood vaccine schedule. Maybe you don’t have children and never plan to do so. Maybe you believe in your heart of hearts that vaccines are for the greater good. That is fine. That is YOUR choice (for now). However, if a mandatory vaccination law is passed, there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines that are authorized to be injected into YOU, an adult.

What happens if it is no longer your choice? What happens when Stage 4 of the clinical trial (use in populations and post-marketing studies) determines that a new vaccine causes harm and you did not have a choice? Well, by that point it does not matter. You have NO CONTROL over your health. You have NO CONTROL over what goes into your body at the discretion of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. Then what? Public health officials can essentially go door-to-door to mass vaccinate communities. Is this what you want? Because if you do not stand up now, this is what you will get. It has been done before and it can be done again.

Your voice must be heard. Informed consent must be protected. A law mandating a medical intervention eliminates informed consent, as you no longer have the choice and therefore do not need to know the risks. Last year (2018), HEPLISAV-B was approved for the adult vaccination schedule. Just look up ACIP vote last year on this issue and how exactly they voted this vaccine through, here is one link. Certainly, that brings you to pause. Still feel like lining up for the future HIV vaccine?

Above all, we need to focus on safety. Even if you are a proponent for mandatory vaccines, you should be able to prove their safety and efficacy. You should be 100% confident in what an unbiased safety council will find when evaluating these biologics. So why not prove it? This easily accessed petition will help squander this debate.

You can find state-specific information on vaccine laws here. But in the meantime, #IDoNotConsent. A society that touts personal liberty should be free from coercion. Informed consent, body autonomy, individualized care, and evidence-based practice are cornerstones to today’s medical practice; without these things, we can expect higher profits for pharmaceutical/medical technology and insurance companies, higher risks, and worsening health outcomes. Stand up for yourself (and future generations), before you’re forced to sit down and blindly accept medical interventions.

Shalom, Light, and Love.

 

Sites To Consider:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/about-cdsr
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/
https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Home.aspx
https://www.nvic.org/
https://www.learntherisk.org/
https://www.who.int/immunization/research/vaccine_pipeline_tracker_spreadsheet/en/
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/presidential-appointment-independent-vaccine-safety-commission

Eke, A. C., Eleje G.U., Eke, U.A., Xia Y., & Liu J. (2017). Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Bar-On, E. S., Goldberg, E., Hellman, S., & Leibovici, L. (2012). Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae B (HIB). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4).

Chaithongwongwatthana, S., Yamasmit, W., Limpongsanurak, S., Lumbiganon, P., Tolosa, J. E. (2015). Pneumococcal vaccination during pregnancy for preventing infant infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Demicheli, V., Barale, A., & Rivetti, A. (2015). Vaccines for women for preventing neonatal tetanus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (7).

Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Ferroni, E., Rivetti, A., & Di Pietrantonj, C. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Di Pietrantonj, C., Ferroni, E., Thorning, S., Thomas, R. E., & Rivetti, A. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Jefferson, T., Rivetti, A., Di Pietrantonj, C., & Demicheli, V. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Mathew, J. L., El Dib, R., Mathew, P.J., Boxall, E.H., & Brok, J. (2009). Hepatitis B immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis B or with unknown exposure status. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Moberley, S., Holden, J., Tatham, D. P., Andrews, R.M. (2012). Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Soares-Weiser, K., Goldberg, E., Tamimi, G., Leibovici, L., & Pitan, F. (2010). Rotavirus vaccine for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).

Soares-Weiser, K., MacLehose, H., Bergman, H., Ben-Aharon, I., Nagpal, S., Goldberg, E., Pitan, F., & Cunliffe, N. (2012). Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11).

Zhang, L., Prietsch, S. O. M., Axelsson, I., & Halperin, S. A. (2014). Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).

Measles Epidemic: This is what the numbers say

With the recent media-driven hysteria over measles, I’ve been asked by friends, co-workers, and family if I was concerned since I am an ex-vaxxer and have likely not vaccinated my littles with MMRV.

Concerned about the measles that lurks in our population? No.
Concerned about my children getting measles? No.
Concerned about how people lack the capacity to research the actual incidence of measles as related to the population density of children? Yes.
Concerned about people regurgitating the propaganda and bashing parental choice? Yes.

Why am I not concerned about the first two? You will have to see my former post here: Your Herd Immunity is a Myth

As for the rest… we have given mainstream media too much credit in our country. Let us look at the numbers. According to the U. S. Census Bureau in 2017, we estimated the total population at 325,719,178. Of this population, 23% were under the age of 18 years; this gives us roughly 39,086,301 children in the U. S. under age 18.

If I take a gross overview of the incidence of measles in the United States over the last ten years (Because that data is readily available to me. Thank you, CDC! See table.) That gives us 2,059 cases of measles across EVERY age group for ten years.

trends-measles-cases

If I were to apply this number to our current population of children alone, that is an incidence of 0.0000527% of those aged <18. A minuscule percentage, even when I apply the total number over the course of a decade to the population of today. Of course, this is an innacurrate calculation as population fluctuates.

If I were to apply the recent numbers (2018 to currently) for a rate of 473 cases… that is 0.0000121% of the entire population of children alone. The incidence of measles is 1.2 in every 100,000 children! That is also known as a 12 IN A MILLION chance that your child got measles last year. What?! Why is this mainstream news?!

UPDATE: number exaggerated by CDC on actual incidence of measles-related deaths, [see image below].

https://www.facebook.com/PICphysicians/photos/pb.669725606516932.-2207520000.1551953075./1246091035547050/?type=3&amp;theater
PIC Measles Memorandum to Senate

Do you want to know what is more critical than measles? The rate of disease in our youth that is 100% preventable by diet and lifestyle choices. The World Health Organization reports that 71% of deaths are caused by NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES worldwide! Measles is communicable. The top two killers are coronary artery disease (heart disease) and stroke; the top two in the U. S. are heart disease and cancer. (I am not going to touch cancer or autoimmune diseases right now, because that could be a blog series of its own.)

The U. S. has a population that touts 1 in 3 obese children. This incidence is tangible. This risk factor leads to early-onset diabetes and hypertension which contribute to coronary artery disease, the leading cause of death! So why aren’t we talking about the unhealthy foods marketed to our children, given to them in school, and promoted by mainstream media and big business? Because: MONEY. These things are lucrative.

There is no profit in growing your GMO-free, water and sunshine fed produce in your backyard and certainly no money in a healthy child. However, there is a lot of money in autoimmune disorders, chronic disease, and frequenting the pediatrician and the plethora of specialists we have created in the medical community for all of your sickcare needs.

Let us look at the numbers again. According to the Diabetes Report Card of 2017, in 2015 there were 193,000 new diagnoses of diabetes in those <20 years old. In one year, 0.005% of children were newly diagnosed with diabetes, not including those already diagnosed; 5 in 1,000 children were diagnosed with diabetes. They also report a 6.6% annual increase of diabetes among those <20 years of age. Diabetes is a risk factor for chronic conditions including… You guessed it! CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE.

According to the CDC, there are 1.3 million children aged 12-19 diagnosed with hypertension. For every 100 children, 3 will be diagnosed with hypertension using the CDC data. Read that again. Hypertension is also a major risk factor for that leading killer!

The U.S. spends almost $10,000 per capita in “health” care. This is double the second-highest spender, Canada. Compared to Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom we rank DEAD LAST in health outcomes. How embarrassing.

While the mainstream media is attacking parental choice and pushing government mandates, we must remind ourselves that our government does not have a track record for success in health matters, but sure spends a lot of money in the meantime. With poor health trends mimicked in our children, it is time that parents take responsibility for the health of their littles… It is time that we question mainstream practices and consult the evidence.  It is time we stand up, recognize what matters most, and identify the histerics.

 

arthurschopenhaur

Informed parents are not concerned about measles. Informed parents are not mainstream. Informed parents are often ridiculed by powerful entities. Do not be mistaken. We are educated, vigilant, and fiercly protective of our own. Ball is in your court.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/measles-scare-tactics-hurt-us-all
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/youth.htm
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/01000us-united-states/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db328.htm
https://interactives.commonwealthfund.org/2017/july/mirror-mirror/

They do not care about your children.

This has been a long time coming… So, let’s get started.

The Department of Health and Human Services neglected to study the vaccination program for safety and efficacy for almost 30 years. Surprised? What’s more is that THIS CAME OUT IN JULY AND IT WAS NOT MAJOR NEWS. Nope, not a sliver surprised about that part, eh?

How can we vehemently protect a program that is not held accountable by anyone? How do we recognize that mainstream media does not hold our best interests and will not call out the government for slipping up yet again (Google “CDC Whistleblower” for the ball dropped there and buried into silence), yet we protect a massive medical program that is instituted, funded, and promoted by that same government?

A little backstory. In the early 1980s, when the vaccine schedule increased for the first time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers for injuries and death of their children after vaccine administration. Vaccination was new and reactions were occurring. These pharmaceutical companies realized the cost of litigation was unsustainable so they approached the federal government with plans to cease making vaccines.

The government decided that vaccines were important and they would solve the problem by taking liability off the manufacturers, absorbing the expenses, and limiting costs of litigation by capping amounts that were paid to families. They also stated that they would task the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create a task force to conduct safety studies. Thus begat the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (H. R. 5546): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220067/

You can also look up full-text of the legislation in the congressional database. Legal jargon is so much fun to read, believe me, I have almost a decade of it under my belt. Much of it is about limiting claims, releasing liability from manufacturers, creating the Vaccine Advisory Committee, and a tidbit at the end about safety studies going forth.

The National Vaccine Advisory Committee and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services were tasked to conduct studies of the entire schedule 2 or 3 years after the passing of this bill in 1986. The failed to do so. How did this come out just recently?

Robert F. Kennedy and a non-profit foundation sued the federal government earlier this year for neglecting to follow the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when they requested the results of the studies conducted by the DHHS starting in 1988/1989 and so forth. The government stated that no FOIA breach was made as there were no studies found. This information was released July 9, 2018. The document is here with a synopsis: http://icandecide.org/government/ICAN-HHS-Stipulated-Order-July-2018.pdf

There you have it, folks! The current vaccine schedule is touted as “safe and effective” yet this is unproven. Untested, highly-recommended, and government-approved.

Do you still wonder why parents are concerned about the changes witnessed in their children? Don’t patients know their bodies best? Wouldn’t you think there is some truth to the parent knowing their child? Why distrust the patient? What do we, parents, have to gain for declining medical interventions? Do we err on the side of do no harm anymore?

America is reactive. We are calling for studies after all these things have happened. Health should never be reactive. It is time enough that longitudinal studies be conducted to see what has resulted in our population of vaccinated people. Since the schedule was pushed on parents in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we have enough people to do a mass study. More recently, what health effects have resulted in the last 10 years after the volume of vaccines tripled? Is there a positive (or negative) correlation?

We absolutely need a study conducted by the department of HHS before another child is injured by these biologics. Remember, you had a fraction of what is mandated on the infant schedule today. A fraction of this untested medication “recommendation.”

Saving the babies is a great, altruistic cause, but this is clearly not important enough to ensure safety first. The government bodies no not care, but we do. We hear you. We stand with you.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
https://vaers.hhs.gov/
https://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/index.html
https://www.nvic.org/