Letter to the [[willfully ignorant]] Mandating Employer

Hello. Regarding the mandate for all employees. I have several questions on behalf of myself and colleagues that I trust you should be able to answer. If you cannot answer, please simply state such. I hold informed consent and education in high regard and strive to be vigilant of industry-biased and corporation funded “science” that has tarnished aspects and the history of western medicine; therefore, I appreciate the opportunity to address some global concerns. I have also attached references to peer-reviewed articles to add the breadth of data to my inquiry.

The below questions are based on the August 23, 2021 Summary Basis for Regulatory Action – Comirnaty (SBRA) found at https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download as well as the Prescribing Information (PI) found at https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download (a) or https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download (b). Additional supporting documents from the FDA are found at: https://www.fda.gov/vacines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna

First and foremost, as [[this employer]] moves into requiring COVID-19 vaccines for staff, is there a plan to explicitly carry Comirnaty once it is in production? There are currently two vaccines produced by Pfizer. The EUA authorization explicitly states that “As the vaccination provider, you must communicate to the recipient or their caregiver, information consistent with the “Vaccine Information Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers” (and provide a copy or direct the individual to the website www.cvdvaccine.com to obtain the Vaccine Information Fact Sheet) prior to the individual receiving each dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, including: FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which is not an FDA-approved vaccine. The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The significant known and potential risks and benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and the extent to which such risks and benefits are unknown (PI(b), p.9-10).”

Next, I’d like to understand your clinical study methodology. It appears that safety and immunogenicity (BNT162-01) was based off a 24-patient sample in Germany (SBRA, p. 15, Table 6). It also states that no control group was used in the same table. Do we believe this methodology was sound and the sample size is adequate in representing our employees? Can you shed some light on how so? I am specifically interested in how a control group doesn’t apply here and how 24 participants from Germany is an adequate sample size for our target population. Again, this was the safety and immunogenicity study, so my concern is that safety took a backseat.

You will also find that study ID C4591001 to evaluate efficacy is ongoing and notes it had a placebo group that was first a dose-finding study, then stratified to include participates at high risk of acquiring COVID-19 for a duration of up to 7 days after the second dose without evidence of prior COVID-19 infection (SBRA, p.16; PI, p.18). I would like some clarity about this 7-day window after the 2nd dose as we have all been told people are not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after the 2nd dose. I struggle to understand why we adopted 14 days when their efficacy study does not extend past 7 days. How does this short efficacy period justify the unknown risks thereafter?

Further, this study (C4591001) is no longer using a gold-standard placebo as it became unblinded December 14, 2020 and placebo groups were offered the EUA vaccine (SBRA, p.17). Does [[this employer]] find this approach worrisome? The PI(a) has a conflicting timeline and states that the participants were unblinded on December 11, 2020 (p.7). Is this study acceptable to validate the concerns of safety in the short-term for all employees? I can only see that it provides up to 6 months of data, nothing more. According to Peter Doshi, the editor of the BMJ, only 7% of the control group was still considered true placebo at the cutoff of the study by March 13, 2021 yet they were still counted in the placebo arm (https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/does-the-fda-think-these-data-justify-the-first-full-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/).

The plan for Comirnaty’s “risk and associated uncertainties” mitigation is through labeling and postmarketing studies (SBRA, p.24). From what I can tell, this means that data is still unclear and mandating this product is an ethical challenge as people in studies should always be provided with fully informed consent free of coercion. I am sure you are aware that long-term safety data will not be known for several years from any of these products and the safety clinical trials are yet to start for COMIRNATY with an end goal for December 2022 based on the registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04815031. Emergency department employees provide individualized care to our patients, should we also be afforded the same treatment based on our individual health status and our willingness to consent to these yet known risks?

Section 13.1 of the PI(a) states that “Comirnaty has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility” (p.15). With the use of a new mRNA technology in humans, one would postulate that genotoxicity and carcinogenicity are important factors to understand or at least evaluate prior to forcing it upon otherwise healthy people? Am I missing something?

My biggest concern is what is looming in the upcoming cold/flu season. We have no data on whether this product will cause antibody-dependent enhancement or “vaccine-associated enhanced disease” or “vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease” (SBRA, p.25) as acknowledged in all previous coronavirus and similar pathogen animal trials:

  1. A Double-Inactivated Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Vaccine Provides Incomplete Protection in Mice and Induces Increased Eosinophilic Proinflammatory Pulmonary Response upon Challenge (https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.06048-11)
  2. Cellular Immune Responses to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) Infection in Senescent BALB/c Mice: CD4+ T Cells Are Important in Control of SARS-CoV Infection (https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01281-09)
  3. Evasion by Stealth: Inefficient Immune Activation Underlies Poor T Cell Response and Severe Disease in SARS-CoV-Infected Mice (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000636)
  4. Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus (https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1177688)
  5. Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets (https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.78.22.12672-12676.2004)
  6. Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035421)
  7. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtauto.2020.100051)
  8. Structural Basis of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV Antibody Interactions (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2020.09.004)
  9. Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies (https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.640093)
  10. Vaccine Efficacy in Senescent Mice Challenged with Recombinant SARS-CoV Bearing Epidemic and Zoonotic Spike Variants (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040080)

Was [[this employer]] aware of the problems in these trials prior to this policy change? I fear this outcome for staffing burdens this winter when challenged with similar respiratory pathogens. When faced with increased rates of infection, is it wise to add selective pressures onto these viruses to mutate around our interventions? Can you explain how these biologics do not contribute to immune escape nor cause an explosion of variants? Several world renown virologists hold these concerns forefront and are trying to sound the alarm. I know that [[this employer]] cares about mitigating risk for their employees, so I am wondering if these concerns were addressed or if you can share your position on these matters.

  1. Antibody-dependent enhancement of coronavirus (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.015)
  2. Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies (https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.640093)
  3. COVID-19 Tragic Pandemic: Concerns over Unintentional “Directed Accelerated Evolution” of Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and Introducing a Modified Treatment Method for ARDS (https://doi.org/10.1002/ctm2.284)
  4. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.06.006)
  5. Antigenic Evolution on a Global Scale Reveals the Potential Natural Selection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 by Pre-existing Cross-Reactive T-Cell Immunity (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.599562)
  6. Structural Basis of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV Antibody Interactions (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2020.09.004)
  7. Health Care Policy Makers’ Response to COVID-19 Pandemic; Pros and Cons of “Flattening the Curve” from the “Selective Pressure” Point of View: A Review (https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v49i6.3356)
  8. Antibody Dependent Enhancement Due to Original Antigenic Sin and the Development of SARS (https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01120)
  9. Review of COVID-19 Variants and COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy: What the Clinician Should Know? (https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4518)
  10. Is COVID-19 receiving ADE from other coronaviruses? (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.02.006)
  11. Vaccine-associated enhanced disease: Case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.055)
  12. Role of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 and its mitigation strategies for the development of vaccines and immunotherapies to counter COVID-19 (https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2020.1796425)
  13. What are the roles of antibodies versus a durable, high quality T-cell response in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2? (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvacx.2020.100076)
  14. The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant is poised to acquire complete resistance to wild-type spike vaccines (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.22.457114)
  15. Epitope profiling reveals binding signatures of SARS-CoV-2 immune response in natural infection and cross-reactivity with endemic human CoVs (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109164)
  16. Vaccine- and natural infection-induced mechanisms that could modulate vaccine safety (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.10.016)
  17. Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV2 spike protein (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250780)

With the clinical trial data cutoff date of March 13, 2021, there was no evaluation of this vaccination against this evolving “Delta” or subsequent variants. We lack supporting evidence to suggest that the biologics modeled off the old mutation has any effect on Delta, as that was not the dominant variant during the study period per the CDC’s own website (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions). Could you provide me with the studies to support a decreased risk of infection for those previously vaccinated in light of the “breakthrough” infections? What is the take on current trends that show vaccinated can contract and spread disease? If this is so, can you clarify how this would be of benefit to [[this employer’s]] staff? We all work with these patients. We have seen the previously vaccinated COVID-positive ICU patient and fear that for ourselves as our risks are greater than the general population. Our risks will always be higher for potential ADE because we work in an environment that is not lacking in respiratory pathogens.

With the initiation of COVID-19 EUA products, have [[this employer’s]] staff had training on the use of VAERS to report adverse events surrounding vaccine administration or “breakthrough” infections that has now shifted to a health department data collection? This is mandated by the CDC and FDA, but I have met several providers and nurses that have never heard the term “VAERS” or Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, much less input any data into it. VAERS has been inundated with data that is unmonitored and ill organized since the use of the COVID-19 EUA products (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html?). If [[this employer]] evaluated these tools prior to the policy change, can this be shared with fellow employees? Since this is a policy mandate, will [[this employer]] accept any responsibility for negative health outcomes of those they mandated to take these products? As this policy seemingly removes personal choice, I was also wondering if there were any arbitration or mediation clauses that would impede a formal litigation process.

As far as efficacy, Comirnaty’s package insert explicitly states in Section 5.5 that it “may not protect all vaccine recipients” (PI(a), p.6) which is also reiterated on the FDA website. Since the US has not provided transparent data, we must use the United Kingdom’s data as it is organized by age, vaccination status, genomic sequencing of variant, and deaths in each group. The most recent is found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012644/Technical_Briefing_21.pdf, though there should be an additional update soon.

The groups suffering the most are above age 50. Delta is shown to be very contagious; however, the case-fatality rate for the Delta variant, of most concern currently, is the most interesting portion (p. 22-23). Fully vaccinated more than 14 days has 679 total deaths in a population of 73,372 total cases. This is a case-fatality rate of 0.93%. Compared to the unvaccinated that have a total death toll of 390 in a population of 183,133 which is a 0.21% case-fatality. So, with this data in mind, who is at more risk of adverse outcome? While unvaccinated have contracted more disease, the severity of the outcome (death) is not as high as those previously vaccinated. Is this data indicating vaccine-associated enhanced disease or am I mistaken? I have not seen any convincing arguments to the contrary and was hoping you held a different perspective on this data because its implications are grave.

Update: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014926/Technical_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf The update follows the same trend with the following:
Vaccinated 14 days post-dose 2: Cases 113,823 with Deaths 1,091 (calculated case-fatality rate of 0.96%)
Unvaccinated: Cases 219,716 with Deaths: 536 (calculated case-fatality rate of 0.24%)

I am concerned that healthcare organizations are rushing to place these policies on their staff without solid scientific evidence, as it is not yet available. Why has mandating become acceptable when, even as nurses and providers, we are to give informed consent to our patients? Is our consent inferior to that of our patients? Can personal responsibility apply to these health choices? The following studies are a warning of the risks outweighing the benefits of vaccination and considerations for natural immunity. The great news is that your employees have spent countless hours in the presence of COVID-19 patients and may already have superior protection.

  1. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy (https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070693)
  2. Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100354)
  3. SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03647-4)
  4. Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2021.108814)
  5. Is a COVID-19 vaccine developed by nature already at work? (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110335)
  6. What are the roles of antibodies versus a durable, high quality T-cell response in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2? (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvacx.2020.100076)
  7. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection after natural infection (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00662-0)

I do not know all the details surrounding or informing this policy, but things are not adding up. Please do your best to support counterpoints with references like I have provided for you here. This is a serious discussion and has major implications for the individual and we need these answers.

Thank you for your time,

“just a nurse”

5 Examples of Slow or Shady Science

If you struggle with new ideas, have you researched cognitive dissonance? Science is pretty funny, let us revisit a few things…

1. Infections in laboring women (puerperal sepsis, “childbed fever”) used to be rampant in hospitals, so much so that women would rather birth in the streets. A doctor researched the differences between birthing in areas of low postpartum infection and high postpartum infection. He discovered handwashing would prevent mothers from dying. This practice, simple handwashing, took OVER TWENTY YEARS to come to light. That doctor (Ignaz Semmelweis) was ridiculed and pushed out of medicine. I am serious. He was also beaten to death in a mental asylum, though the facts surrounding that are suspect.

2. Smoking used to be touted as good for health! Doctors used to promote smoking, a majority smoked themselves. Scientists started to uncover the harms of tobacco and the first study was published in 1939. The tobacco industry struck back by funding fake science to promote their products. It took 26 YEARS for health warnings to be administered by the Surgeon General about the risks of smoking. Funding science from conflicts of interest did not end with tobacco products; other entities now manipulate research and saturate the market with false science.

3a. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, the most respected medical journal, stated that clinical research is steeped in conflicts of interest and people are paid to sway studies for the benefit of large pharmaceutical companies.

3b. Dr. Richard Horton, current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, another highly respected medical journal, states that half of the science is UNTRUE. Half! Studies are falsified, controls are used to influence outcomes, and we can no longer take them at face value as there are heavy conflicts of interests straight from drug manufacturers who fund these studies.

3c. Former Director of National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, constantly dealt with science fraud and even stated that not looking into something because of pressures from industry should throw red flags, yet this is happening. At the very end of this clip, she speaks on a statement from the IOM that discourages research. The Institutes of Medicine have issued warnings of looking into matters because they are afraid of what it will show. These are topics that influence our children!

4. A senior vaccine safety research scientist within the Centers for Disease Control holds whistleblower status. Dr. William Thompson tried to uncover the fraud with the creation and efficacy studies for the MMR vaccine. He has to have permission from the Director of the CDC to testify, he has still not been granted permission. Surprised?

5. ALL infant vaccines state in section 13.1 of the insert that “[vaccine name] has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.” This is not studied. We put these biologics into newborns fresh from the womb and every two-three months up to their first birthday and beyond. These things are not studied, and yet we tout them as “safe and effective.” Infants double their birth weight by six months of age and triple their birth weight by their first birthday. This is a period of rapid growth and development, wouldn’t it be keen to have studies performed on carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials at the VERY least?

Cognitive dissonance is real and Semmelweis reflex happens today. We need to partner with providers within our community to lead and support us to better health practices. It is up to parents to question current practices as they see changes in their children (or their friends/family). Medical professionals are busy, but need to make research a priority. They may need a vaccine insert given to them directly with the plea of a concerned parent. There are physicians that are changing the course of healthcare for our children, they are starting to see problems. Informed consent must be protected and touted as the bare minimum, and we need to keep providers accountable. Healthcare practitioners are charged to give true informed consent, constantly weighing risks versus benefits. Downplaying risks or negating them all together is not true informed consent: it is an agenda.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87
NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/05/19/science-publication-is-hopelessly-compromised-say-journal-editors
List of vaccine inserts: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

Lesson #3.5: Education is Key to Informed Consent, Everything Else is Coercion

Part 2 of 2.

Aside from the “medical neglect” fiasco, the nurse felt like the pediatrician involving the DA, PD, and CPS stemmed from a huge misunderstanding. The pediatrician hadn’t been in to speak with me since she threatened to call the very people who visited the afternoon prior. So, the nurse convened a meeting. The pediatrician, charge nurse, and my primary nurse came in. They spoke their side. I spoke mine. I questioned everything. I got vague answers. She didn’t care to see what I compiled on my laptop. I questioned the dangers, showing her the insert. The nurses downplayed the adverse effects listed, saying the neurological effects were for older populations. One even said the neurological risks were with multiple vaccines and not for this vaccine (though, it is written in its specific insert). Somehow the immature immune system and developing organs of a newborn are more adept to take on this vaccine than an adult with fully functioning immune systems and mature organs? Or, do we ignore presentations in infants? Perhaps, we call these presentations and conditions “idiopathic” and SIDS.

My husband arrived with the kids. We discussed the issues as a group. Well, they discussed. To stop the pediatrician from prying and fear of something happening to take our children from us, we consented. Under duress. I see now that this was not truly informed consent. Consent is an act of freewill. I should have protected him better. I didn’t.

Immediately after the vaccine (over 30 hours into his life), my infant developed horizontal nystagmus every time his gaze drifted. I pointed it out, and the pediatrician did not address it. This persisted for about 2-3 weeks. At his follow-up visit, I mentioned it again and the new pediatrician did not address it. At his one month visit, the nurse and pediatrician asked for clarification about his milestone questionnaire. “He sleeps 20 hours a day?!” “Yep. Including nursing sessions, he only has 4 hours of wakefulness.” That was an overestimate. It was sometime between month 2 and 3 when he started to come around.

I spent months following his birth compiling my research and knowledge. I was not prepared for the day of his birth, and I was going to be prepared for the in-clinic visit. I am prepared today. I even researched the adjuvant ingredients. Adjuvants are substances that the body would identify as foreign and mount a “stronger immune response” toward, at least that is the theory. They’ve used Aluminum in vaccines for so long that it is assumed to be “safe” because vaccines are assumed to be safe. See how that works?

Aluminum (Al) is present in our environment. We consume it. The EPA regulates the “safe” amount of aluminum in our water. Remember, there is a difference between consuming substances that confront your gastrointestinal tract (first line of defense) and bypassing all that and placing it into your muscle for direct absorption (sources calculate absorption within 10 minutes or sustained for weeks). Aluminum is poorly absorbed in the GI tract; this has been studied. Intramuscular (IM) aluminum has not been studied. The DHHS and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that “healthy serum levels of Aluminum are 1-3 mcg per liter.” A healthy adult (upper-end 5.5 liters of blood) would have a maximum serum Al level of 16.5 mcg. A newborn infant would have a max of 0.6 mcg Al for their entire blood volume. A single dose of the Hep B vaccine contains 225-500 mcg of Aluminum. TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE AT THE VERY LEAST. That is 375 times the healthy serum level for an infant! Are. We. Serious?!

The equivalent, 375 times the safety limit, for an adult is a 6,187.5 mcg Al injection. Who volunteers to test the effects of that? No? Does this not pose valid concerns? Health agencies say the amount of Al in vaccines is “extremely low.” By what standards? Why aren’t we questioning this adjuvant? It’s a neurotoxin, yet we give it to babies within minutes of life. A reckless, in my opinion, and clearly unsafe amount of it. What are the consequences of the entire Al quantity being released systemically within 10 minutes? How does that differ from a sustained release over time? Why don’t we study absorption IM of Aluminum? (Side note: I recently reviewed some documents and it looks like 2 doses of Hep B were given to my newborn, one of each type, in one single injection.)

But hey, correlation doesn’t equal causation and my healthy newborn may have coincidentally developed the eye drift and twitches 30 hours into life. My baby was simply categorized as “a sleepy baby.” Extreme drowsiness is a documented symptom of aluminum toxicity, but he was just an infant. How would we know? We have no qualms with too much sleep. If an adult acted that way, we would do a slew of tests because that isn’t normal. That’s what they tell us about anything developing after a vaccine. It is a coincidence that it developed after injection. This was a healthy newborn. That was not a coincidence. The ATSDR even reports “neurological effects” due to toxic levels of Aluminum. Don’t take my word for it, go fact check me on all of this. I’ll provide you some links.

If I only knew then what I know now, I would have demanded more from the pediatrician than a nod in your direction when I pointed out your nystagmus twice. I would have advocated better for you. I would have pressed them to acknowledge the concerns. I would have pointed out all of these facts, but mama was still learning. If I knew then what I know now, I would have stood my ground for you. You depend on me, and I won’t fail you again. Guaranteed.

Shalom, light, and love.

 

Sites to Consider:
Al ToxGuide: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/index.asp&ved=2ahUKEwjhlOiCjabaAhXr6oMKHeF9D-UQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0ubhOoPxYMBL-F3uSckYHf
Al neurotoxic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782734/
Al in drinking water: https://www.wqa.org/Portals/0/Technical/Technical%20Fact%20Sheets/2014_Aluminum.pdf
CDC adjuvant page: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html (you will see their claim to low levels link is broken) Further down the page there is an ingredient list, if you are interested.
Al MSDS: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9922853

Lesson #2: Medical Professionals are Partners in Your Care, Not Dictators

I hesitate to continue to share my experiences, but the truth will set me free… Right?!

When I had my second child, I was already wary of vaccinating because of my firstborn’s reaction. I didn’t understand how something we deem outright “safe” in the medical world would have any downsides. Every single medication I’ve administered comes with risks. I tell my patients the side effects and let them make those choices. Informed consent. My mind thought vaccines didn’t have any side effects… or at least I never looked into it. My pediatrician never talked to me about risks, nor did any nurse who had injected my first child. But WHY?! Isn’t that our job?? We weigh risks and benefits. How are parents not subject to knowing the risks for their children?

I was tormented the months following my second child’s birth. This was cognitive dissonance. I decided that the “combo vaccine” (Pediarix) was too much of a risk to benefit my infant. I would further limit his schedule to DTaP alone. I was most worried about pertussis. Have you seen the videos of those tiny airways struggling for air when a baby has pertussis? It’s frightening.

I searched for a highly-rated pediatrician for his two-month shots. It was an hour drive, but they had great reviews. That day was surprising. We showed up and I declined everything but the DTaP injection. The pediatrician was NOT HAPPY. He was actually pretty pissed off. He wasn’t sad or concerned; he was irate. I didn’t really care about his opinion after he raised his voice and told me my baby “needed them” and he didn’t “understand why A NURSE wouldn’t consent for BASIC medical care.” Uhh… okay. Was that supposed to offend me into consent? All it did was foster more questions.

He definitely didn’t want to understand my reasons. I get it. Medical people are BUSY. They are also pressured by protocols. I do not have time to look up and memorize every risk factor for the medications I administer on an emergent basis. But those are EMERGENT. Those risks are higher than most medication risks, including death or disability. Have you seen drug commercials? Yikes. I worked in a practice that frequently prescribed antibiotics; I knew the indications and risks like the back of my hand. We also gave the same medications over and over. It is easier to educate on treatments and medications you are used to providing, or is it? When I send a patient out with a prescription now, I will give them the indication (and mechanism of action when asked) and advise them to LOOK UP THE RISKS, but common ones included [list of 3-4 symptoms] and maybe how to combat those effects. It is up to them. It’s the patient’s decision to take medications or administer them to their children. We are partners in their health, not dictators. We don’t own their bodies; we simply provide the options. So why was this different with infant vaccine schedules? They are not mandatory (lest we travel back to Hitler era medical practice and war atrocities) they are *recommended* by the CDC.

I went home and did some research and stumbled upon vaccine manufacturer websites and I finally READ THE LABELS of vaccines… They are called “inserts.” No, these are NOT the flyers that are readily available at your doctor’s office. Those pamphlets are basically advertisements; I had a stack from the appointment. I read those flyers and compared them to the manufacturer inserts. Thoughtful omission. I read about DTaP and I was sick with what I had found about pertussis. We still don’t know enough about pertussis to know how to protect from it, and THERE IS NO SEROLOGICAL CORRELATE FOR THE PROTECTION FROM PERTUSSIS. This means that we don’t know how to measure our immunity to pertussis… so, we are giving a medication to do what exactly? We have no idea. What’s more is that it states SIDS can be EXPECTED after a pertussis-containing vaccine. They don’t say it can be expected after diphtheria or tetanus vaccine; they say specifically “pertussis-containing.” This is due to a study that found “more incidence of SIDS” in a small population. They’re calling it a “chance.” That being said, they call these risks rare. Some even say 1 in 100,000… big number (the number is much smaller according to the small study in the insert, see screenshot, you can pull it up yourself direct from the manufacturer’s website, link provided). Maybe it is unlikely, but if my child was that 1… that 1 is my everything. Those risks don’t outweigh the benefits of doing next to nothing. Sorry, not sorry.

00021.jpg0003.jpg

Click to access PEDIARIX.PDF

Correlation doesn’t equal causation with reactions (SIDS), according to the insert. But, somehow, correlation absolutely equals causation when it has to do with the decline of disease during vaccine introduction only. Except for the fact that vaccinated kids today are the largest population of children with confirmed Pertussis. The CDC monitors communicable diseases (See the bottom chart about vaccine status in the screenshot below. They merely OMIT the vaccinated population, but I did the math. Link provided below screenshot).

28828762_1704376989652361_1802140648904487719_o.jpghttps://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html

There are a whole slew of factors aside from vaccines including sanitation, clean drinking water, epidemiological studies on infectious disease processes, living quarters/quarantine, and readily available medications for acute conditions that destroyed childhood illnesses… but that’s none of our business. Sure, maybe vaccination helped at one point and to a degree (to the detriment of some adults and children), but there is so much more to this story as you will soon see… I wish it were simple and clear. I wish the greater good existed despite monetary drives. I wish you health and wellness without bias.

Shalom, light, and love.