Tag: medical care

Posted on

CDC “Delta” Science Contradicts Their Cited References

The CDC published an article about “science” and the Delta variant. It is found here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html.

While the CDC’s strong language suggests that:

  1. The Delta variant is more contagious.
  2. Vaccinations cause lesser illness.
  3. Unvaccinated exhibit greater transmission.
  4. Fully vaccinated have shorter infectious periods, 

Their cited references DO NOT SUPPORT these declarations.

When read beyond the headlines, many of their cited references disagree with the allegations made on the CDC website. Please evaluate them for yourself as only brief highlights are given below.

**And, as an aside, I use the term “vaccine” under duress. I personally consider all the mRNA technology gene therapy/genetic engineering and NOT vaccine technology. The evaluated sources call them “vaccines,” so to avoid confusion I kept the terminology uniform. It’s basically prion disease if you want to get technical.**

Let’s get started.

Reference #1 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891) 

These authors state that vaccines are efficacious at preventing symptomatic disease. This does not mean that it prevents asymptomatic infection or stops transmission. It goes on to state, “…it appears that strains with mutations at that site [one of which is the Delta variant] may have increased replication, which leads to higher viral loads and increased transmission.” While vaccinated people are not always symptomatic, they can still transmit virions. Further, while the CDC claims that vaccines are effective, this study explicitly states, “Data on the effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against clinical outcomes with this variant have been limited.” The CDC asserts that vaccines prevent death or severe disease, and this study also claims, “The numbers of cases and follow-up periods are currently insufficient for the estimation of vaccine effectiveness against severe disease, including hospitalization and death.”

Reference #2 (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891)

This source is fascinating as it is a direct contradiction to the pro-investigational vaccine paradigm. This MMWR was from Barnstable County, Massachusetts, where 74% of the outbreak population was fully vaccinated at least two weeks prior to this gathering. A total of 5 people were hospitalized with symptomatic disease, for which 4 were vaccinated, leaving 1 unvaccinated hospitalization of that remaining 26%, nobody died. Does this not cause concerns for immune escape, vaccine failure, or potentially increased susceptibility in the vaccinated due to non-lethal antigenic pressures? 

Reference #3 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295) 

The author has glaring conflicts of interest in Sanofi and Roche that both provide covid-19 testing or vaccine manufacturing. They cite using up to the 45-cycle threshold for testing when we know that accuracy is diminished after approximately 22-25 cycles. How did they account for false positives? Those that developed symptoms within 14 days of vaccination were excluded from the study. While vaccinated were collected from 5 study sites, the unvaccinated were from a single site uncovering systemic bias as testing methods differed. The study also states that “Vaccine-breakthrough patients were significantly more likely to be asymptomatic… Notably, in contrast to existing studies that showed lower viral load in vaccinated patients, initial viral load indicated by PCR Ct values was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with B.1.617.2.” This statement solidifies the fact that vaccinated cohorts can still transmit covid-19 without outward symptoms, which should be concerning when considering mass vaccination to “protect the vulnerable.” The CDC ignores this fact and publishes that “fully vaccinated people with symptomatic breakthrough infections, can transmit it to others” when this clearly states that vaccine breakthrough patients were asymptomatic. Logically, the asymptomatic person with a high viral load is more of a risk to vulnerable populations than those with symptoms that would typically avoid their daily routines. Illness can prevent people from going to work and infecting others, but asymptomatic illness encourages this.

Reference #4 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050)

This author has a direct competing interest as he sits on advisory boards for covid vaccines with AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Table One excludes the unvaccinated cohort from the dataset. While rates of infection are higher in the unvaccinated, deaths and hospitalizations are unclear. What is deciphered is that Delta is contagious, for which the CDC agrees. However, the CDC further asserts that “Vaccines are playing a crucial role in limiting spread of the virus and minimizing severe disease.” Interesting to note: “The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern has slowed progress against the pandemic in three distinct ways: (i) by increasing transmissibility and the disease’s reproduction number; (ii) by increasing immune escape and diminishing vaccine effectiveness; and (iii) by increasing the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.” This is a direct contraindication of the CDC’s statement of vaccine efficacy.

Reference #5 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.07.21260122) 

This study concludes that the antigenic changes with the Delta variant display “higher viral replication… increased transmissibility or could exhibit an increased propensity for escape from host immunity, and therefore pose an increased risk to global public health.” This agrees with the fact that Delta is more contagious in all populations, including those vaccinated. 

Reference #6 (https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-637724/v1) 

This source relays concerns about transmission between healthcare workers in populations of highly vaccinated. It further explicitly states, “the Delta variant shows 8 fold approximately reduced sensitivity to vaccine-elicited antibodies compared to wild type.” The CDC completely ignores this information yet cites it as a reference? This does not support the push for vaccination programs. 

Reference #7 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.19.21260808) 

This article states, “data are consistent with the potential ability of fully vaccinated individuals to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.” Though this source claims less lethality for vaccinated cohorts, the article does not separate the data from vaccinated versus vaccinated. Further, it shows the death rate and hospitalizations are lower as compared to the variants otherwise specified. The CDC reverses this by publishing, “patients infected with the Delta variant were more likely to be hospitalized than patients infected with Alpha or the original virus strains.” This is false.

Reference #8 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259420)

This study does not have transparent data to review. Further, it considers only symptomatic cases for which the large control group has symptoms but covid negative status. Are these vaccinated more susceptible to other viral illnesses due to immune system modulation by the current vaccines? Why are hospitalization and death in the same category? Where is the information on those with prior illness or unvaccinated? Furthermore, these groups are only monitored for 14 days post-vaccine #1 and 7 days post-vaccine #2. This is a menial period to make sweeping judgments for “highly effective” per the CDC. Is the theoretical 14-day window an advantageous endpoint?

Reference #9 (https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3861566) 

This study has a very small sample. Its data reflects a positive association with comorbidities; increased delta cases in vaccinated compared to other variants (due to the retrospective design); increased supplemental oxygen demands; and lower ICU admission/death rate compared to different variants. It also raises concerns of “mutations particularly in key areas of the immunodominant spike protein… that [has] been associated with increased transmissibility, evasion of immunity from infection and vaccination.” This is contrary to the push for vaccinations at the conclusion of the paper. It is no surprise that they declare conflicts of interest due to personal fees from Sanofi and Roche. 

Reference #10 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387)

This paper starts by saying, “The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and its sublineages (B.1.617.2, AY.1, AY.2, AY.3; [1]) can cause high viral loads, are highly transmissible, and contain mutations that confer partial immune escape.” This statement is unfavorable for current vaccination strategies. The authors further outline “similar viral loads in nasal swabs, irrespective of vaccine status, during a time of high and increasing prevalence of the Delta variant. Infectious SARS-CoV-2 was isolated from 51 of 55 specimens (93%) with Ct <25 from both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons, indicating that most individuals with Ct values in this range (Wilson 95% CI 83%-97%) shed infectious virus regardless of vaccine status.” Ironically, this study closes with, “it is essential for public health policy to encourage vaccination while also planning for contingencies, including diminished long-term protection.” This statement is contradictory to the entire study and an utterly unjustified declaration.

Reference #11 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf) 

This is the most interesting citation as it shows data that concludes increased cases in unvaccinated populations but more deaths in the fully vaccinated population overall. This UK data is alarming as the case-fatality rates make Delta more lethal in the vaccinated population. Vaccinated Delta cases (28,773) with vaccinated deaths within 28 days (224) is a case fatality of 0.78%; however, unvaccinated Delta cases (121,402) with unvaccinated deaths within 28 days (165) is a case fatality rate of 0.14%. This is a five-fold increased risk of death for the vaccinated population. While supportive in claims of contagion, it is contrary to assertions that “Unvaccinated people remain the greatest concern,” as stated by the CDC. Looks like the vaccinated should be priority as they fare worse…?

Reference #12 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01358-1) 

This study asserts, “the effect of vaccination (at least 28 days after first or second dose) was to reduce the risk of hospital admission” and further evaluates “that there was no evidence of a differential vaccine effect on hospital admissions among those first testing positive.” With a disclaimer at the end: “Given the observational nature of these data, estimates of vaccine effectiveness need to be interpreted with caution.”

Reference #13 (https://khub.net/web/phe-national/public-library/-/document_library/v2WsRK3ZlEig/view_file/479607329)

This limited study does not provide raw data to compare the severity of disease and death in different groups based on vaccination status. It also poses a disclaimer stating that it was “not possible to estimate vaccine effectiveness against severe disease.” This is, again, a contradiction to the CDC’s claim that “the vaccine still provides strong protection against serious illness and death.”

Reference #14 (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058) 

This study evaluates healthcare workers, PPE, and viral load with symptoms. It does not consider hospitalizations, deaths, oxygen demands, or “severity” outcomes but illustrates vaccinated populations have less RNA viral load and marginally fewer self-reported sick days. The authors further guess, “The mechanisms by which vaccination attenuates Covid-19 are largely unknown, but the effect is probably due to recall of immunologic memory responses that reduce viral replication and accelerate the elimination of virally infected cells. The biologic plausibility of these benefits is supported by the observation of similar phenomena in studies of other vaccines.” These assumptions seek to compare novel mRNA technology to the traditional vaccine strategies, which are entirely different. How can we draw conclusions of investigational-phase technology from the studies of unrelated products?

Reference #15 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.03.21258293)

These authors state a shift in the dominant variant and increase in the positive cases but do not determine hospitalizations or deaths. An increase in positive cases is consistent with CDC’s statement that Delta is more contagious. 

Again, you are the only person that can make the decision to consent to an investigational product that is heavily promoted by entities indebted to pharmaceutical giants. Beware of the conflicts of interest. The gatekeeper to informed consent is your own ability to draw conclusions from the data. This is easier said than done in the environment of today when “the data” is concealed, buried, and wrongfully interpreted by those in power positions.

I will leave you with some questions to consider:
How are government agencies allowed to make statements that are not grounded in research?
Why aren’t our investigational journalists critically reviewing these agencies?
If EUA products were such a good intervention, why do we need to mandate them?
Who is making the decision to mandate? What are their credentials?
If EUA products were so safe, why is liability from harms completely removed?
If health entities really cared about health, wouldn’t they have already mandated clean drinking water for the entire planet?
Science demands criticism and discourse, why are questions/thoughts labeled “misinformation” if they do not clearly promote “vaccine” uptake?

Do not be coerced and please keep a questioning mind. The only way to grow is through discussion. If something was truly lifesaving do you really think that Big pHARMa would “mandate” every person on the planet access “for free?” Because that’s what they do, right? What’s not to love about violating someone’s bodily autonomy and creating barriers to employment, goods, and services. Totally normal. Nothing to see here, right? I’ve said this since April 2020: the next currency is compliance. We all need to stand up against that. Once your ability to make independent decisions about your body is gone, so is your life. That is not a future I wish upon my children.

Shalom, light, and love…

Posted on

Delta Variant Derangement

Prepare to be triggered.

Could we please do some actual RESEARCH? Let’s step back and review. We have been gaslighting the people injured by Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J products for the better part of the last year while NOT COLLECTING DATA APPROPRIATELY. It is mind boggling that nurses and doctors still do not know VAERS or its use. VAERS is written all over the EUA disclosures for Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J. How have these professions become willfully ignorant to this whole process? How has the medical community allowed such propaganda to permeate their systems?

Since the U.S. cannot collect data and share it openly with the public, let’s look across the pond for those “variant” trends… Though I’d really like to see overall hospital and emergency care admitting diagnoses broken down like this so we can compare severity of illness; however, the death category will do.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

You’re fully capable of making up your own mind.
Cases = contagion. Death = lethality.

By now, most people recognize that Israel is the most vaccinated population due to their early deal with Pfizer. So, how does that data stack up against South Korea with their early treatment strategy and our U.S. floundering? Is there a trend? Or maybe its multifaceted, since contact tracing and isolation were heavily used. We do not quite know what the long-term outcome will be of their early success stories… Some virologists believe that isolated countries painted themselves into a corner and will now be subject to the most lethal variant instead of the first one that did not have a chance to mutate, yet confers broad immunity.

Now let’s review the cases, shall we?

Perhaps, the biologics are not as glamorous as the media touts? The U.S. had a downward trend before the mass campaigns with a little upswing commencing just as the nation’s biggest corporations and health systems are mulling around the idea of mandated medicine. Not so great when you consider man-made antigenic shift.

And, Israel and South Korea’s death data is almost identical regardless of population uptake of these biologics with that little bump right around the time of their jab campaigns. So where is the efficacy? Must all be a coincidence. I am curious to see if we will ever get passed ignoring VAERS data? You can clearly see red flags from the size of the files. Can we please fast-forward to the part when we admit pharmaceutical failure? No, it is not “breakthrough” cases. IT IS FAILURE. Call it like it is and stop with the doublespeak.

Scientists did not know whether these biologics would stop transmission but they concluded that your symptoms would be “less severe” when they deployed it back in November 2020. Wait. Think about that. Making someone’s symptoms LESS SEVERE just breached a huge defense mechanism in humans. When your symptoms are “severe,” you tend to stay home and take extra care of yourself without exposing others to whatever you have… most times. If, now, you don’t feel so bad then you are more likely to go about your day exposing everyone else (plus, not taking extra measures to boost your own health). This biologic, at the very least, just made YOU the oh-so-silent spreader of that virus. Think it through. Do not shift blame to those with a normally functioning immune system in response to this particular illness, if it really is “more severe” for them. Further, most people do not see temporary illness as worst case. You cannot be free of illness as a member of this ecosystem.

If you want your symptoms to be less, be our guest. Let’s just make crystal clear that you are not some virtuous human saver as compared to other humans who chose the precautionary principle. You are not allowed to force your emotions on others or treat them differently because they did not want to subject themselves to these products. That’s called DISCRIMINATION and it has no place in a free society. Health-related passports are a slippery slope, just like mandated medicine. We should ALL be alarmed that any human being has lesser rights based on what governments/institutions say, eh?

If we learned at least one thing from Nazi Medical Experiments (and others!), I hope it was that informed consent is the cornerstone of medicine. You cannot take someone’s free will and bodily autonomy from them and force them into experimentation. Period. There are also consent bounds when it comes to routine procedures and medical care. Where there are risks there must always be freedom of choice.

Shalom, light, and love…

Posted on

In a World of Mandatory Vaccines

At the end of the day, you either have rights to your own body or you don’t.

Hypothetically, let’s explore a world of mandatory vaccines. How would compliance look…?


You send your baby to daycare. Your baby gets their mandated vaccines during their time at daycare. The majority of vaccines are given from birth to two years of age. Baby comes home with several bandaids after their “update” and you aren’t made aware of what was given… why? Because they’re mandatory and your opinion doesn’t matter. Even if you didn’t want them to have the flu shot with the thimerosal, it is not your choice because that is what was available (multidose vials are cheaper) and it was your baby’s shot day.

You send your kids to public/private school and they come home saying they got a shot today. You were never notified nor informed (because they are mandatory, so it doesn’t matter). What shot? Doesn’t matter — mandatory. Flu, HPV, Heplisav-B (with a new adjuvant and myocardial infarction marker), HIV (clinical trials currently), Ebola (created Dec 2019), etc. If it shows up on the schedule, it is mandatory. Maybe it wasn’t tested in this age group, but now it will be because it is on the official schedule. That is how the ACIP approves use… no studies, just data collection after it has been put to market.

In another scenario, a practitioner goes door-to-door for mandatory shots. They can come into your home, because the state says they’re mandatory (you do not have a choice). Homeschool households are brought “up to date” on current govt mandated medicines, despite a risks v. benefit analysis.

Vaccines brought to your workplace, stores, and neighborhoods. Either you get the shots or you are segregated from attending school, work, or public places. Does this not sound a bit familiar?


This. Is. Not. Okay. This is a slippery slope to becoming the object of Big Pharma’s needs. The same people that brought you the opioid epidemic, tobacco science, thalidomide, Vioxx, etc… create vaccines. How can we see the constant lawsuits in the press, yet fully support the same companies on the very products that have never been tested synergistically in our babies and children? How have we given this industry a free ticket to give our children products that have NEVER been subject to rigorous safety testing using an inert placebo for comparision? The “science” is junk.

How did this happen?

If the outcome was obvious (e.g., healthier children, longer lifespan), then parents would line up to get their children innoculated. Parents are witnessing the opposite. We ask for the science and what happens? We are vilified, bullied, and harassed… there is your red flag, folks!

The science is never settled, it evolves. This “science” is reductionist and outdated. The safety science is lacking (see World Health Organization conference Dec 2019). Fund the unbiased study comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations. People will volunteer their kids to be part of the unvaccinated cohort (if your problem is “ethics” of not adminstering the biologics).

If compliance has to be mandated and censorship is enforced, perhaps there is a problem with the product.

At the end of the day, who is in charge of your wellbeing? If they were so concerned about health, lawmakers would mandate clean water and good nutrition. Lawmakers would outlaw non-nutritive snack machines in schools. Yet, those things would not increase any big business profit margins, would they? Health doesn’t create lifelong customers for pharmaceutical giants.


Shalom, light, and love.



Sites to consider:
https://thehighwire.com/ignored-warnings-an-unauthorized-history-of-the-who/
Posted on

Disease is NOT Normal

STOP NORMALIZING asthma, chronic ear infections, eczema, food/seasonal allergies, and neurocognitive delays. What are we doing to our immune systems that is causing these OVER-REACTIONS in our children?

Vaccines contain adjuvants that are designed to create an immune RESPONSE. Perhaps these doses of adjuvants are creating an OVER response? With any pharmaceutical there is a possibility of overt action…

》too much blood pressure medication = low BP
》too much insulin = low sugar
》too much antibiotic = bye-bye biome balance, hello opportunistic virulent and resistant organisms
》too much immune system suppression = no immune response, risk for illness

What about too much immune system stimulation? What happens when your immune system is on high alert and you eat an allergenic food at the same time? What happens when you’re given this stimulation repeatedly as a newborn with an IMMATURE immune system that still prioritizes Th2 (inflammatory) response over a Th1 (antibody) response?

That sounds like chronic inflammation. Alike… asthma, chronic ear infections, eczema, and food/seasonal allergies. The neurologic disorders may be a byproduct of heavy metal exposure (we see this with Alzheimers and aluminum in brain tissues as well as brain disorders with Cobalt hips). There is potential here, too!

Newborn immune systems lack memory and are tolerant of antigens for a reason. Babies are born sterile. They are still learning boundaries and creating the flora in their bowels that will become a major component of their immune system for their lifetime. If their body created a Th1 response to every foreign substance, they wouldn’t survive in this world… as we live in symbiosis with the microbes on our skin, in our airway, and in our bowels. Newborns must be colonized with these organisms and build up those systems. How does chronic stimulation of the immune system fit into this matrix?

It does not make sense. Vaccines are given in several doses to “create antibodies” though we know that more are added because they are ineffective in doing that in the first 2-3 doses… probably due to lack of the Th1 response, eh? So, now we give these tiny bodies several doses of adjuvant along with a fragment of a genetic component or microbe without considering what complexes are made between those simultaneous IM exposures, nor do we even study them.

The ACIP, advisory council for immunization practices, does not perform nor require adequate studies! They STATE that fact in these meetings.

So, if you still think that the voice of several thousand concerned mothers and fathers is horsebalogna, your cognitive dissonance is strong. We don’t do this to create drama. We do this to create safer practices for future generations. Mothers and fathers should not have to prove that these practices are harmful. Robust scientific evidence (not industry jargon) should prove interventions to be SAFE before subjecting our most vulnerable populations to them. Concerns should be addressed with valid studies (again, not industry jargon).

Pharmaceutical studies are done on adult populations and medications are recalled for adverse events… I think it is time for a recall, but “biologics” are not considered ‘medications’ for that exact reason…

Are we trading short-term infection for long-term disease?

Are we damaging immune systems by overstimulating them in their development?

When do we start paying attention to the parents that witness their children’s struggle to breathe, eat, and feel well? A normal child should not battle painful skin, constant stomach disturbances, nor frequent episodes of intense ear infections. This was not our (parents born before 1995) reality of childhood and must be questioned.

Shalom, light, and love.

Posted on

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

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com