-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Scientists Resume Efforts To Create Deadly Flu Virus, With US Government's Blessing
Mar 4, 2019, by Dr. Steven Salzberg
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevens.../#5e2db7475edd
(Perhaps the new flu virus is a result of this experiment.)
"For more than a decade now, two scientists–one in the U.S. and one in the Netherlands–have been trying to create a deadly human pathogen from avian influenza. That's right: they are trying to turn "bird flu," which does not normally infect people, into a human flu.
Not surprisingly, many scientists are vehemently opposed to this. In mid-2014, a group of them formed the Cambridge Working Group and issued a statement warning of the dangers of this research. The statement was signed by hundreds of scientists at virtually every major U.S. and European university. (Full disclosure: I am one of the signatories.)
In response to these and other concerns, in October 2014 the U.S. government called for a "pause" in this dangerous research. NIH Director Francis Collins said that his agency would study the risks and benefits before proceeding further.
Well, four years later, the risks and benefits haven't changed, but the NIH has (quietly) just allowed the research to start again, as we learned last week in an exclusive report from Science's Jocelyn Kaiser.
I can't allow this to go unchallenged. This research is so potentially harmful, and offers such little benefit to society, that I fear that NIH is endangering the trust that Congress places in it. And don't misinterpret me: I'm a huge supporter of NIH, and I've argued before that it's one of the best investments the American public can make. But they got this one really, really wrong.
For those who might not know, the 1918 influenza pandemic, which killed between 50 and 100 million people worldwide (3% of the entire world population at the time), was caused by a strain of avian influenza that made the jump into humans. The 1918 flu was so deadly that it "killed more American soldiers and sailors during World War I than did enemy weapons."
Not surprisingly, then, when other scientists (including me) learned about the efforts to turn bird flu into a human flu, we asked: why the heck would anyone do that? The answers were and still are unsatisfactory: claims such as "we'll learn more about the pandemic potential of the flu" and "we'll be better prepared for an avian flu pandemic if one occurs." These are hand-waving arguments that may sound reasonable, but they promise only vague benefits while ignoring the dangers of this research. If the research succeeds, and one of the newly-designed, highly virulent flu strains escapes, the damage could be horrific.
One of the deadliest strains of avian flu circulating today is H5N1. This strain has occasionally jumped from birds to humans, with a mortality rate approaching 50%, far more deadly than any human flu. Fortunately, the virus has never gained the ability to be transmitted directly between humans.
That is, it didn't have this ability until two scientists, Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin, engineered it to gain this ability. (Actually, their work showed that the virus could be transmitted between ferrets, not humans, for the obvious reason that you can't ethically test this on humans.)
Well, Fouchier and Kawaoka are back at it again. NIH actually lifted the "pause" in December 2017, and invited scientists to submit proposal for this type of research. Fouchier confidently stated at the time that all he had to do was "find and replace" a few terms in his previous proposal and it would likely sail through peer review. It appears he was correct, although according to the Science article, his study has been approved but not yet actually funded. Kawaoka's project is already under way, as anyone can learn by checking the NIH grants database.
And by the way: why the heck is a U.S. funding agency supporting research in the Netherlands anyway? If Fouchier's work is so great (and it isn't), let the Netherlands fund it.
I've said it before, more than once: engineering the flu to be more virulent is a terrible idea. It appears the review process at NIH simply failed, as multiple scientists stated to Vox last week. This research has the potential to cause millions of deaths.
Fouchier, Kawaoka, and their defenders (usually other flu scientists who also benefit from the same funding) like to claim that their project to engineer a deadlier bird flu will somehow help prevent a future pandemic. This argument is, frankly, nonsense: influenza mutates while circulating among millions of birds, and no one has any idea how to predict or control that process. (I should mention that I know a little bit about the flu, having published multiple papers on it, including this paper in Nature and this paper on H5N1 avian flu.)
Fouchier and Kawaoka have also argued that we can use their work to create stockpiles of vaccines in advance. Yeah, right. We don't even stockpile vaccines for the normal seasonal flu, because it mutates too fast, so we have to produce new vaccines each year. And the notion that anyone can predict a future pandemic strain so precisely that we could design a vaccine based on their prediction is laughable.
I can't quite fathom why NIH seems to be so enraptured with the work of these two labs that, rather than simply deny them funding, it has ignored the warnings of hundreds of scientists and now risks creating a new influenza pandemic. Much as I hate to say this, maybe it's time for Congress to intervene.
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.
Steven Salzberg
I'm the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, and Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University. From 2005-2011 I was the Horvitz Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland, College Park. Before joining UMD, I was at The Institute for Genomic Research, where I sequenced the genomes of many bacteria, including those used in the 2001 anthrax attacks. At TIGR I was part of the Human Genome Project and the co-founder of the influenza virus sequencing project (which is when I first learned of the anti-vaccine movement). My research group develops software for DNA sequence analysis, and our (free) software is used by scientific laboratories around the globe. I did my B.A. and M.S. at Yale University, and my Ph.D. at Harvard University, and I have published over 250 scientific papers. Follow me on Facebook or Twitter (@stevensalzberg1), or visit my lab page, http://salzberg-lab.org "
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
The coronavirus is a patented depopulation weapon patented July 23 2015. Patent number 10130701 assigned to the Pirbright Institute. I am sure they will make good money from this. First you patent the virus than the vaccine.
https://www.infowars.com/bill-and-me...-3-months-ago/
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Thank you, everyone, for the excellent posts. As an aside, Anthony William, ak 'Medical Medium' states unequivocally that Alzheimer's is caused 100% by Mercury in the brain, and gives natural methods to pull it, and other toxins/heavy metals out of the body. I am using his methods, along with Chinese Herbs, for 'brain fog,' stress, etc., and having excellent results.
As to my question for the Forum, the ultimate force behind the vaccine agenda, my own best guess is that it is a negative ET/Demonic/Archonic consciousness attacking all humans.
I know this is 'out there' for the hard scientists to consider, but after 20 years looking into this, and other issues, it does appear to be the best answer.
Perhaps it is simply human greed, ignorance, and overall wickedness, but ultimately that does not add up, for me, anyway.
I think we humans must find a 'cure' for that negative force. Garlic, anyone? I am kidding, but, whenever one deals with parasites, criminals, or 'possessing entities' there are methods, modalities, compounds, chemicals, or remedies that will cure the problem. That is what I am looking for. Something that will repel this force from our world, and assist us in ejecting it from it's human hosts, as well.
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Green futures, you said "methods, modalities, compounds, chemicals, or remedies that will cure the problem. That is what I am looking for. Something that will repel this force from our world, and assist us in ejecting it from it's human hosts, as well." I agree with you that I more than ANYTHING want to see this force of evil neutralized.
As usual this 2 hours will make your jaw drop to the floor.
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
NY Times Deceives about the Odds of Dying from Measles in the US
by Jeremy R. Hammond
Jan 23, 2020
(This is a long article, but should lay to rest once and for all any controversy surrounding measles. Many more hyperlinks in the article at):
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2020/...+Measles+Risks
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-co...ez-619x348.jpg
"On January 9, the New York Times published an article written by Dr. Peter J. Hotez titled “You Are Unvaccinated and Got Sick. These Are Your Odds.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/o...hesitancy.html
His purpose in writing is to persuade parents to vaccinate their children according to the routine schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). To that end, he purports to compare “the dangerous effects of three diseases with the minimal side effects of their corresponding vaccines.”
“To state it bluntly,” Hotez writes, “being unvaccinated can result in illness or death. Vaccines, in contrast, are extremely unlikely to lead to side effects, even minor ones like fainting.” He laments that “vaccination rates have fallen”, resulting in a resurgence of measles globally. He cites the example of Samoa, where “almost 5,700 measles cases have been recorded since September, resulting in at least 83 deaths. Almost all of those who died were young children.” In the US, he writes, “vaccine hesitancy is contributing to” measles outbreaks.
Hotez presents data ostensibly to enable parents “to compare the risks of becoming ill with measles . . . to the minute chances of experiencing side effects from their corresponding vaccines.” (He also presents risk analyses for the influenza and human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccines, but due to time constraints and the emphasis placed on it by the media, I’m focusing here just on measles). Here is how he graphically presents the data for his risk analysis:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-co...ez-measles.png
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-co...ez-measles.png
Hotez goes on to assert, “Moreover, new research reveals that, even when patients recover, the measles virus can suppress the immune system, rendering children susceptible to serious infections like pneumonia and the flu.”
The reason parents are choosing not to get their children the measles vaccine, he claims, is because they believe “misinformation spread after an article implying a link between measles vaccinations and autism was published in The Lancet in 1998; it was retracted in 2010 over concerns about the validity of the results and the conduct of the study. Nevertheless, the false claim that vaccines can cause autism continued to circulate on the internet and social media. The truth is that we have overwhelming evidence from at least six studies involving more than one million children that measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations do not cause autism.”
The Times presents Hotez as a scientist and pediatrician at the Baylor College of Medicine, and in recent years he’s become a leading go-to “expert” for the mainstream media on the topic of vaccines. Undisclosed by the Times is that he’s also a Hotez goes on to assert, “Moreover, new research reveals that, even when patients recover, the measles virus can suppress the immune system, rendering children susceptible to serious infections like pneumonia and the flu.”
The reason parents are choosing not to get their children the measles vaccine, he claims, is because they believe “misinformation spread after an article implying a link between measles vaccinations and autism was published in The Lancet in 1998; it was retracted in 2010 over concerns about the validity of the results and the conduct of the study. Nevertheless, the false claim that vaccines can cause autism continued to circulate on the internet and social media. The truth is that we have overwhelming evidence from at least six studies involving more than one million children that measles-mumps-rubella vaccinations do not cause autism.”
The Times presents Hotez as a scientist and pediatrician at the Baylor College of Medicine, and in recent years he’s become a leading go-to “expert” for the mainstream media on the topic of vaccines. Undisclosed by the Times is that he’s also a vaccine developer https://www.bcm.edu/people/view/pete...8-080027880ca6
...who holds several patents https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-hotez
... for vaccines against tropical diseases and co-director of the school’s Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development. https://www.bcm.edu/departments/pedi...ne-development
In 2017, the center entered a partnership with the pharmaceutical giant Merck to advance development of vaccines for tropical diseases. Merck is the manufacturer of the measles vaccine used in the US.
The center’s purpose, in his own words, is to “secure funding and advance the development of drugs, vaccines, and other health tools . . . that currently the pharmaceutical companies are unable to invest in due to inabilities to promise shareholder returns.” Since pharmaceutical companies view certain proposed vaccine products as an unprofitable venture, the costs are subsidized through “product development partnerships” like Baylor’s. As Hotez explains, a key source of funds is the government, meaning that the costs of vaccine development are being subsidized by the taxpayers.
“Fueling investor hesitancy”, he explains in a paper in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, “are the recent shortcomings and public reactions to newly introduced vaccines for malaria and dengue despite billion-dollar investments from Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Sanofi Pasteur, respectively, on top of an accelerating global antivaccine movement.”
He doesn’t illuminate why the public had negative reactions to these vaccines. The reason this was so for GSK’s malaria vaccine was that, while it was shown to be initially effective, the protective effect waned over time and after five years of follow up resulted in children being at an increased risk of infection from malaria parasites. The reason this was so for Sanofi’s dengue vaccine was that, after it was implemented into the childhood schedule the Philippines upon the recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO) and hundreds of thousands of doses were administered under the pretense of a proven “safe” vaccine, it was likewise shown to increase the risk of serious dengue infection among children who had not already experienced a prior infection. The public outrage was all the more pronounced because it was also learned that Sanofi, Philippines health officials, and the WHO had ignored early warnings that the vaccine might cause precisely that outcome.
It is highly instructive that Hotez views the problem not as the proven untrustworthiness of the pharmaceutical companies and government health agencies, but rather the inability of the industry to fund products that are dangerous and cost ineffective. It’s equally instructive that he mindlessly dismisses public opposition as mere “antivaccine” sentiment attributable to some monolithic “movement” rather than reflecting parents’ legitimate concerns, including anger over entire populations being used essentially as subjects of a mass uncontrolled experiment without informed consent. Relevantly, the decline in vaccination rates in the Philippines was a result of this rightful erosion of public trust, which is attributed with causing a major measles outbreak in 2017.
Superficially, the measles risk analysis Hotez presents to New York Times readers is persuasive. The way he presents his data, it’s a no-brainer that parents in the US should vaccinate their children since the risks from measles so obviously outweigh the risks from the vaccine. But Hotez is preying on people’s ignorance by presenting an invalid risk-benefit analysis that is not serious and does not address parents’ legitimate concerns about vaccinating their children strictly according to the CDC’s schedule. Rather, the article is transparently intended to deceive parents about the risks in order to scare them into compliance.
This can be demonstrated by examining some of the major problems with his presented analysis.
Contents
Problem 1: The Measles Vaccination Rate in the US Has Not Fallen
Problem 2: Ignoring the Low Risk of Getting Measles
Problem 3: Ignoring Non-Vaccine Factors of Risk Reduction
Problem 4: Misinforming about the Fatality Rate of Measles in the US
Problem 5: Misinforming about the Risks of Vaccination
Problem 6: Asserting the Measles “Immune Amnesia” Hypothesis as Proven Fact
Problem 7: Misinforming about the Vaccine-Autism Hypothesis
Conclusion
Problem 1: The Measles Vaccination Rate in the US Has Not Fallen
In the context of his claim that “vaccination rates have fallen”, Hotez adds that “vaccine hesitancy is contributing to” measles outbreaks in the US. However, it’s not true that vaccination rates in the US have fallen. In fact, the trend has been an increase in the national vaccination rate over time, according to CDC data. Here’s what the data looks like graphed over time for the percentage of children aged 19 to 35 months who’ve received one or more doses of the measles vaccine, with a linear trendline:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-co...-preschool.png
And here’s what the CDC’s data show for the measles vaccination rate for kindergarten-aged children, again with trendline (this dataset starts at 2009, and no data is available for the 2010-11 school year):
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-co...ndergarten.png
Of course, there is variation in vaccination rates year to year, and vaccination rates certainly vary by community, but Hotez’s suggestion that the trend in the US is a general decline in the vaccination rate is false. The vaccination rate for school-aged children has rather remained steady over time between 94 percent and 95 percent, and if anything has trended upward.
Problem 2: Ignoring the Low Risk of Getting Measles
The most fundamental glaring fallacy of Hotez’s risk analysis is that it is based on the assumption that if the child is not vaccinated, the child will get measles. His title says he’s presenting the odds for a child who doesn’t get the vaccine and got sick. But it isn’t a given that an unvaccinated child will get measles. When he says his analysis is “to compare the risks of becoming ill with measles” with the risks of vaccinating, he is being untruthful since his analysis falsely assumes that the unvaccinated child gets measles.
The fundamental problem with this assumption, of course, is that the chances of a child in the US being exposed to measles, much less becoming permanently injured or killed by the virus, is also very low. Hotez’s failure to take this fact into consideration alone completely invalidates his analysis. Parents living in the US today must consider—and intuitively do consider—the fact that the policy of mass vaccination has succeeded in its goal of reducing measles incidence. The idea that they should place their own child at unnecessary risk of harm from the vaccine for some collectivist concept of a “greater good” is obviously repulsive to many parents, and rightly so.
To do what Hotez fails to do and help quantify the risk of getting measles, according to the CDC, from 2010 through 2019, there were 3,237 reported measles cases, which is an average of about 324 cases per year. The US has a population of about 330 million, so that’s about 1 measles case annually per 1 million population. This compares with the annual odds of being struck by lightning, which is 1 in 1.2 million according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Problem 3: Ignoring Non-Vaccine Factors of Risk Reduction
The third glaring problem with Hotez’s analysis is that, in the text of his article, he cites the high death rate in the recent outbreak in Samoa as though it was relevant for the risk-benefit analysis of the New York Times’s predominantly American audience. (While the Times certainly has a global reach, according to traffic data from SimilarWeb, more than 78 percent of its website’s audience are in the US.)
His graphic shows a fatality rate in Samoa of 146 deaths per 10,000 cases (83 deaths out of 5,697 cases). What he doesn’t explicitly inform his American readers is that measles mortality differs by population. While mortality remains tragically high in developing countries, in developed countries like the US, the mortality rate is very low. His graph does show the Samoan fatality rate as a separate figure from the “10 to 30 child deaths” that he says occur for every 10,000 people who get measles (which is untrue, as we’ll come to), but he offers no comment on why the death rate in Samoa is so much higher.
Hotez also does not inform his readers that most of the decline in measles mortality seen in the US during the twentieth century occurred before the introduction of the first measles vaccine in 1963. During the pre-vaccine era in the US, measles was seen as a mostly benign illness that, yes, could and did sometimes cause death, but which most children’s immune systems handled just fine on their own, resulting in the development of a robust lifelong immunity.
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-co...-mortality.jpg
The obvious question this raises is what factors other than vaccination affect the risk of complications from measles infection. In light of this important question, it’s useful to point out that this dramatic decline in mortality wasn’t true just for measles. In fact, as noted in a paper published in 2000 in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), “nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.” Hence, “vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century.”
The dramatic decline in infectious disease mortality is attributed instead to factors associated with a general increase in the standard of living, including improved nutritional status among children. With measles, for example, Vitamin A deficiency is a known risk factor for potentially deadly complications.
Hotez demonstrates a total lack of curiosity about what the risk factors are for measles complications. This reflects the attitude of public health officials back in the 1960s. Rather than directing resources toward determining the risk factors and developing targeted interventions for children at higher risk, vaccination was selected as a one-size-fits-all solution, and science ever since has been trapped in this myopic and pharmaceutical-centric approach to disease prevention. The narcissistic attitude of public health officials in 1962 in declaring the goal of eradicating measles in the US within a year with just a single dose of the vaccine—despite measles being recognized as a “self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality”—was that this should be done because “it can be done.”
Needless to say, the assumptions underlying that policy were wrong.
Problem 4: Misinforming about the Fatality Rate of Measles in the US
As just noted, Hotez claims that the childhood death rate for measles is 10 to 30 deaths per 10,000 cases, implying that this is true for the US population. He does not specify his source for this claim. (He has a note in the article presenting a broad range of sources, but without identifying which sources were used for which data.)
Presumably, he is just relaying the CDC’s claim on its website that “Nearly 1 to 3 of every 1,000 children who become infected with measles will die from respiratory and neurologic complications.” On another page of its website, the CDC states, “For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.”
But during the pre-vaccine era in the US, according to the CDC’s own data, there were about 500 deaths annually out of an estimated 3 – 4 million cases. That’s not 10 to 30 but 1 to 2 deaths for every 10,000 cases. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) in a 1994 report likewise stated that, in developed countries like the US, “the measles fatality rate is 1 per 10,000 cases”.
The explanation for these contradictory numbers is that the CDC is deceptively using only reported cases in its denominator. Of the estimated 3 – 4 million cases, most were mild infections that did not lead to hospitalization or complications. Only about 500,000 cases were reported annually. The CDC’s statement that one or two children will die for every 1,000 children who get measles either is a bald-faced lie that ignores the fact that most cases weren’t reported or means that the fatality rate today is an order of magnitude higher than it was in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Indeed, mass vaccination has resulted in a shifted risk burden and an increased rate of deaths per reported cases, as we’ll come to. The point for now is that Hotez deceitfully presents a fatality rate for measles at least 10 times greater than that shown by CDC data and accepted by the IOM for the US population in the absence of vaccination.
Problem 5: Misinforming about the Risks of Vaccination
According to Hotez’s graphic, there are only three adverse events associated with the measles vaccine.
He states that only 3 febrile seizures occur for every 10,000 people who get the measles vaccine. He says in a footnote that such seizures “are not associated with long-term effects”. He adds that febrile seizures “also occur overall in 2 percent to 5 percent of all children 6 months to 5 years of age”, but, of course, the US childhood population is highly vaccinated, and Hotez doesn’t provide any data on the rate of febrile seizures among children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule compared with the rate among completely unvaccinated children.
Contrary to Hotez’s claim that febrile seizures are not associated with long-term harm, a recent study in JAMA Pediatrics, a journal of the American Medical Association (AMA), found that recurrent febrile seizures are associated with an increased risk of epilepsy and psychiatric disorders and, for children who later developed epilepsy, an increased risk of death.
Another study published last year in JAMA Network Open found febrile seizures to be associated with an increased risk for “sudden unexplained death in childhood (SUDC)”.
A Lancet study published online in 2018 similarly found an association between febrile seizures and an increased risk of psychiatric disorders later in life.
In a study published in 2018 in the journal Brain & Development, Japanese researchers found febrile seizures to be associated with an overall “18.76-fold” increased risk of developing epilepsy, with higher risk for children who were female, had recurring febrile seizures, or had autism.
A paper published in Cell Reports in 2018 stated that “early-life seizures are associated with language deficits and autism that can result from aberrant development of the auditory cortex.”
A study published in Seizure in 2017 concluded that seizures “tend to recur and increase the risk of development of epilepsy in the patient.”
A 2017 study in Pediatric Neurology found febrile seizures and epilepsy to be associated with an increased risk of being clinically examined for early symptoms of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.
Another study from earlier in 2017 noted that the measles vaccine increases the risk of potentially seizure-inducing fever and suggested “a possible genetic basis for susceptibility to developing fever due to measles vaccines.”
These more recent studies contradict the finding of a study published in JAMA in 2004 that found no association between febrile seizures and the risk of epilepsy. However, that earlier study also admitted that “little is known about the long-term outcome of febrile seizures following vaccination.”
In other words, the science on this, far from being settled, has just begun. More directly to the point, Peter Hotez’s statement that febrile seizures after vaccination “are not associated with long-term effects” is false.
Hotez’s graphic says that abnormal blood clotting occurs in “1 case per 25,000 to 40,000 doses” of measles vaccine. He doesn’t specify his source, but these are the same numbers provided by a 2009 article in Paediatrics & Child Health that noted an “increasing body of evidence” supporting a link between the measles vaccine and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. The authors acknowledged that one of the limitations of their estimate was that it was based on data requiring treating physicians to document receipt of any vaccines within the previous month, whereas another study had found that doctors had only inquired about recent vaccination in 15 percent of cases with vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia. Hence, the figures presented are likely to be underestimated.
Hotez’s graphic also says that 1 to 3.5 allergic reactions occur for every 1 million doses of measles vaccine administered. He specifies no source, but this is the same estimate presented in a 2015 study in Clinical and Translational Medicine that compiled data from prior studies looking at the risk of allergic reaction to the measles vaccine, including a 2008 study in Archives of Disease in Childhood that says the best estimate of the incidence of anaphylaxis for the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in the UK was a study showing a much higher rate of 14 allergic reactions for every 1 million doses administered. Another prior study cited is a 2003 CDC study in Pediatrics looking at data from four health maintenance organizations in the US and estimating 1.1 to 3.5 cases per 1 million doses administered. However, the authors acknowledged this “likely represents an underestimate of the risk”, and for the site “with the most comprehensive data”, the risk for anaphylaxis from the measles vaccine was estimated to be 14.4 cases per 1 million doses. That result was considered an overestimate because of confounding: since children frequently receive multiple vaccines at once, it was impossible for them to know which vaccine caused the allergic reaction (or whether it was the combination itself that caused it). The point is that we really don’t know, and the numbers presented by Hotez are, according to the CDC’s own research, likely underestimated.
Whereas Hotez acknowledges only those three possible adverse reactions to the vaccine, Merck acknowledges numerous others. Under federal regulations, manufacturers are required to warn consumers about “adverse events for which there is some basis to believe there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.” On its product package insert, Merck lists among the possible side effects of its measles vaccine the following: fever, syncope (fainting), headache, dizziness, vasculitis (a condition in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the blood vessels, causing inflammation that can lead to serious problems, including aneurysms), pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas that occurs when the digestive enzymes it produces begin digesting the pancreas itself), diarrhea, vomiting, parotitis (inflammation of the parotid glands), nausea, diabetes mellitus (diabetes), thrombocytopenia (the disorder Hotez mentions in which there is an abnormally low amount of platelets that help blood to clot), anaphylaxis (the life-threatening allergic reaction that Hotez acknowledges), arthritis (joint inflammation), arthralgia (joint pain), myalgia (muscle pain), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain that can cause permanent brain damage or death), Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune disorder in which the immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, which can result in paralysis or death), febrile seizures, afebrile seizures (convulsions without fever), pneumonia, measles-like rash, and death.
This is not to say that the vaccine is known with certainty to cause each of these adverse events. They are just an acknowledgement by Merck of the uncertainty and the biological plausibility that their product might cause any of these outcomes, based on the limited data available from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance.
This brings us to another fact that parents must take into consideration, which is that the clinical trials used by the manufacturers to obtain licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) consider only short-term adverse reactions. They do not consider long-term detrimental effects. They aren’t designed, for example, to determine whether vaccines administered according to the CDC’s schedule can contribute to the development of neurological disorders, autoimmune diseases, cancers, or other chronic illnesses later in life. This is highly concerning given the epidemic of chronic illness among children. A study published in Academic Pediatrics in 2011 estimated that at least 43 percent of children in the US have one or more chronic health conditions.
Essentially, after obtaining licensure, the population becomes the subject of a mass uncontrolled experiment. Once a vaccine is licensed and recommended for routine use, it’s typically considered “unethical” to conduct randomized, placebo-controlled studies on the grounds that it wouldn’t be right to deny the placebo group the benefits of the vaccine—which is, of course, the fallacy of begging the question.
For vaccines already on the market, there is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but it’s recognized that this passive surveillance system suffers the problem of severe underreporting of adverse events.
Researchers also conduct observational studies using population data, such as from private health care networks or government registries, but this type of study design has methodological limitations and tends to suffer from the problem of selection bias, such as the common “healthy user” bias.
As an example of this type of selection bias, a 2015 JAMA study found that children with elder autistic siblings are less likely to get the measles vaccine, presumably because their parents have heightened concerns about the vaccine contributing to the development of autism in the younger sibling and so skip the shot.
This suggests that observational studies comparing the risk of autism between children who received the measles vaccine and children who didn’t are prone to a healthy vaccinee bias wherein children at higher risk of developing autism tend to be pooled within the “unvaccinated” cohort. Consequently, the appropriate conclusion to draw is not that children who are vaccinated have no greater risk for autism but that children at greater risk for autism are less likely to be vaccinated.
(Instructively, that study actually found vaccination to be associated with a decreased risk of autism, which is itself evidence of selection bias since the null hypothesis is that there is no association, meaning that the rate of autism should be the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Despite confirming the existence of a healthy vaccinee selection bias, which had also been identified by prior studies, this study was hailed by both its authors and the media as showing that the measles vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of autism even in genetically susceptible children, which is a useful illustration of the institutionalized cognitive dissonance that exists when it comes to the special class of pharmaceutical products known as vaccines.)
In short, observational studies don’t enable scientists to control for innumerable potentially confounding variables as well as the randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which is why the latter is considered the gold standard for safety studies. A found association from observational data doesn’t necessarily mean a causal relationship, and a finding of no association does not mean that no association exists.
Returning to Hotez’s focus on death as an outcome, he offers no estimate of the risk of death from the vaccine, but from 2010 through 2017, there were 40 deaths reported to VAERS following measles vaccination. This is not to say that the vaccine caused those deaths. Perhaps only a small percentage of reported vaccine-associated deaths are caused by the vaccine. However, it might also be that deaths following vaccination are not reported to VAERS. While there is a higher chance of reporting for more serious adverse events, severe underreporting, again, is a known problem with this passive surveillance system.
By comparison, according to CDC data, during the same period, there were only 4 deaths attributed to measles. None of these deaths were in children. All were adults aged 25 or older.
This is significant due to what’s known in the literature as “secondary vaccine failure”, or waning immunity. Whereas adults during the pre-vaccine era were generally protected from measles by the robust natural immunity they’d gained from experiencing infection during childhood as well as the natural boosting effect of repeated exposures from children, adults today are at higher risk in the event of infection due to secondary vaccine failure. (Primary vaccine failure is when the vaccine fails to stimulate a protective level of antibodies in the first place, which is estimated to occur in anywhere from 2 percent to 10 percent of children.)
Infants, too, are at higher risk today in the event of infection due to mass vaccination since their vaccinated mothers are less well able to confer passive maternal immunity to their babies with antibodies transferred prenatally through the placenta and postnatally through breastmilk.
This brings us to a caveat that must be emphasized with respect to using pre-vaccine era data on measles mortality, which is that the ratio of deaths per reported cases has since increased due to mass vaccination having shifted the risk burden away from school-aged children, in whom it is generally a benign illness, and onto those at higher risk of potentially deadly complications.
As already discussed, during the pre-vaccine era, this rate was about 1 death per 1,000 reported cases. (Not to be confused with the accepted fatality rate of 1 death per 10,000 cases.) But as noted by two leading experts in a 1994 paper in Archives of Internal Medicine, by 1990, the death rate had risen “dramatically” to 3.2 deaths per 1,000 reported cases, “reflecting the increased incidence of measles infection in infants and adults relative to children older than 1 year of age.” A 2004 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases similarly attributed the increased death rate in part to “a higher proportion of cases among preschool-aged children and adults.” Another 2004 study in the same journal likewise attributed the “increased mortality among the younger and older age groups” to “the increased risk and severity” of deadly complications for infants and adults.
According to CDC data, from 1999 through 2017, there were 12 deaths in the US for which the underlying cause was determined to be measles. Two cases were infants under one year of age, two others were children aged one to four, and the remaining two-thirds of cases were adults aged twenty-five or older. During the same period, there were 2,393 reported cases of measles. Hence, more recent data show a still-increasing death rate of about 5 deaths per 1,000 reported cases.
Naturally, Peter Hotez does not inform Times readers that the policy of mass vaccination has resulted in an increased risk of death among infants and adults in the event of infection due to public policy having shifted the risk burden by destroying the natural herd immunity the US population was already well into developing, in which adults were generally protected throughout their lifetimes and infants were protected through strong maternal passive immunity until their immune systems were developed enough to be able to fight off the infection on their own.
Problem 6: Asserting the Measles “Immune Amnesia” Hypothesis as Proven Fact
Whereas Hotez would have his readers believe that the risk of dying as a result of getting the measles vaccine is virtually zero and unquestionably lower than the risk of dying if left unvaccinated, the truth is that we don’t know because clinical trials were never done to determine the vaccine’s effect on overall mortality.
This is a problem with all vaccines. An expert review published in June 2019 expressed the concern that “it is impossible to predict what happens in terms of susceptibility to infections in general, of all types, when the immune system is being stimulated through vaccination”.
There are observational studies that have been done in African countries looking at this question. Studies have found the measles vaccine to be associated with a decreased rate of childhood mortality that cannot be attributed to prevention of measles alone. In fact, this has been observed even in areas with no acute measles mortality.
Hotez alludes to this body of research when he claims that “the measles virus can suppress the immune system, rendering children susceptible to serious infections like pneumonia and the flu.”
He’s referring to the hypothesis of measles “immune amnesia”, which was conceived to try to explain the observation of an association between vaccination and decreased mortality from other diseases. It has been known since the pre-vaccine era that measles can cause a temporary suppression of the immune system that increases the risk of secondary infections. (Hotez’s graphic states that the “most common cause of death” is pneumonia, for example, which in many cases is caused not by the measles virus itself but by some secondary infection.) The “immune amnesia” hypothesis is that measles does not just cause a temporary immunosuppression but a long-term effect that may “wipe out” acquired immunity to other infectious diseases."
continued
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
continued from: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1332894
"One problem with this hypothesis is that it’s based on the additional observation that measles virus infection results in a depletion of antibodies and the B-cells that make them. In the paradigm of vaccination, this would seem to equate to an elimination of immunity. Indeed, for the purposes of vaccine licensure, the production of antibodies is treated as equivalent to immunity. The problem with this framework is that antibodies are neither always sufficient nor even necessary for the development of immunity.
Measles itself happens to provide a perfect example of that. Children with a disorder rendering their immune system incapable of producing a protective level of antibodies are still protected from measles due to another branch of the immune system known as cell-mediated immunity. Children suffering from deficits in cell-mediated immunity, on the other hand, can still die of measles despite producing levels of antibodies considered “protective”.
A study published in BMJ Open in 2016 emphasized another major problem with the “immune amnesia” hypothesis, which is that “all available studies—including the present one—suggest lower mortality rather than excess mortality among those who survive the acute phase of measles infection.”
To repeat: what studies show is that measles infection is associated with a lower risk of dying from other diseases, not a higher risk as assumed under the “immune amnesia” hypothesis.
In other words, while the live virus vaccine seems to train the immune system in ways that provide “non-specific” benefits, so does infection with the wild virus. This should not be too surprising since the vaccine is intended to cause an immune response similar to that caused by infection. As a 2002 study published in the journal Vaccine observed, in populations where measles is a “mild disease”, which certainly includes the US, “measles infection may be associated with better overall survival than no measles infection.” Studies indicate that “lower post-measles mortality compensates for acute measles mortality and as a consequence, measles infection has a lower than expected overall impact on survival.”
In fact, apart from training the immune system to protect the host from other pathogens, measles infection during childhood has been associated with a decreased risk of numerous other diseases later in life, including degenerative bone disease, certain tumors, Parkinson’s disease, allergic disease, chronic lymphoid leukemia, both non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma, and cardiovascular disease.
In another paper published in Expert Review of Vaccines in 2018, top researchers in the field of “non-specific effects” of vaccines once again emphasized that a fundamental problem with the “immune amnesia” hypothesis is that, “in the five published studies which examined whether post-measles infection is associated with long-term excess mortality, there is a trend towards lower subsequent mortality for individuals who survived acute measles infection.”
The authors of that paper also stressed that “vaccines need to be evaluated for their effects on overall health”, which would require a shift from the existing outdated paradigm in which vaccine safety science and the regulatory apparatus of the US government is stuck.
And whereas the live virus measles vaccine seems to train the immune system in beneficial ways similar to measles infection, non-live vaccines have been associated with detrimental non-specific effects. The diphtheria, tetanus, and whole cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine, for instance, which is the most widely used vaccine in the world, has been associated with a significantly increased risk of childhood death. (The DTP vaccine has been replaced in the US with an acellular pertussis vaccine, DTaP, which is also a non-live vaccine.)
In a review published last year, Peter Aaby and Christine Benn, two leading researchers in this field involved in the aforementioned research, once again pointed out that, contrary to the “immune amnesia” hypothesis, studies rather have “suggested that measles infection could have a beneficial effect on survival” and hence have “refuted the hypothesis”.
As Christine Benn has also remarked with respect to that recent review, “No vaccines have been studied for their non-specific effects on overall health, and before we have examined these, we cannot actually determine that the vaccines are safe.”
Problem 7: Misinforming about the Vaccine-Autism Hypothesis
Hotez’s graphic states that there is no risk of autism from the measles vaccine. By his telling, “fears that vaccines can cause autism” originated “in the late 1990s” because of “an article implying a link between measles vaccinations and autism” that was published in The Lancet in 1998 but “retracted in 2010 over concerns about the validity of the results and the conduct of the study.”
But that narrative is demonstrably false. The 1998 Lancet study was not the origin of parental concerns about vaccines causing autism. The claim that the study made “the false claim that vaccines can cause autism” is itself a false claim that’s incessantly circulated by the mainstream media. The truth is that the authors explicitly stated that they did not show a causal relationship between the measles vaccine and autism. Rather, they merely relayed the observation from children’s parents or doctors that developmental regression occurred following vaccination, and they reasonably hypothesized that there might be a link, suggesting that further studies should be done to investigate this possibility.
Apart from routinely lying that the study claimed to have found a causal link, the mainstream media are fond of pointing out that the lead author of the study, Andrew Wakefield, was stripped of his medical license in the United Kingdom for the concerns about the conduct of the study mentioned by Hotez. What the media never inform readers is that one of Wakefield’s coauthors, John Walker-Smith, was also stripped of his license but appealed and was reinstated on the grounds that the accusations against him were spurious and unsupported by the available evidence. The reason Wakefield didn’t also appeal was because, unlike his colleague, his insurance policy wouldn’t cover the costs.
The fact that parental concerns about vaccines causing autism existed long before the 1998 Lancet study is easily demonstrated by the fact that the Institute of Medicine acknowledged this concern in a report published in 1991. Specifically, the IOM found “no evidence” to support a causal relationship between the DTP vaccine, which was unsurprising given the IOM’s observation that no studies had been done to test that hypothesis.
Peter Hotez and the mainstream media in general would have people believe that the only reason parents think that vaccines can cause autism is because they’ve been duped into that belief by a fraudulent study falsely claiming to have found a causal association. The truth is that the belief that vaccines can cause autism originated from parents who witnessed their children developmentally regress after vaccination. This belief existed before the 1998 Lancet study and would persist today had it never been published in the first place.
Hotez also would have his readers believe that studies have since falsified the hypothesis. The CDC itself boldly asserts on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”. To support this claim, the CDC cites several observational studies and a 2004 IOM review that explicitly acknowledged that the hypothesis cannot be excluded by observational studies. In fact, not one of the observational studies reviewed even considered the possibility of genetically susceptible subpopulations.
To say that studies have found no association between vaccines and autism is practically meaningless in light of the fact that no studies have been designed to test the hypothesis that vaccines administered according to the CDC’s routine childhood schedule can contribute to the development of autism in children with a genetic or environmentally caused susceptibility.
As the IOM observed in a 2013 review, “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes . . . between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children”; “existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule”; “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted”.
Going even further in his denialism, days after his New York Times article was published, Hotez claimed on Twitter that “Vaccines do not injure children.”
Yet the federal government administers a program called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which awards compensation to children who suffer any of a list of adverse events acknowledged to be caused by vaccines. These outcomes are listed on what’s known as the Vaccine Injury Table. Children suffering from a table injury after vaccination are presumed to have suffered from a vaccine injury absent some other more likely explanation for the outcome. For injuries not listed on the table, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that vaccination was the most likely cause of the injury. The government can also settle cases, in which case awarded compensation is not deemed to be an acknowledgment that vaccination caused the injury.
One of the adverse events listed for the measles vaccine on the Vaccine Injury Table is encephalopathy, which encompasses any type of brain damage, disorder, or disease. This includes encephalitis, which is brain inflammation. Whereas Hotez flatly denied that any vaccine causes any injury, even the manufacturer of the measles vaccine, Merck, acknowledges in its world-bestselling medical textbook, The Merck Manual, that “Encephalitis can occur as a secondary immunologic complication of certain viral infections or vaccinations.” (Emphasis added.)
In one famous VICP case, the government acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage manifesting as symptoms of autism. The family of a girl named Hannah Poling was awarded compensation for her having suffered a table injury, which was encephalopathy. She regressed into diagnosed autism after receiving nine vaccine doses at once at nineteen months of age. The government conceded that the vaccines she received “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
The head of the CDC at the time, Julie Gerberding, publicly admitted that, in children “predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder”, vaccines can cause brain damage that manifests as “symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”
Hannah also happened to be a patient of a leading expert on autism, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, who served as an expert witness in VICP cases on behalf of the government until he informed the government’s lawyers that vaccines can cause autism in children with mitochondrial dysfunction. His services were then deemed no longer required by the government lawyers, who went on to falsely claim, in order to deny compensation in a later case, that it was Zimmerman’s view that vaccines cannot cause autism. (Dr. Zimmerman testified to this in an affidavit last year.)
Even Dr. Frank DeStefano, the director of the CDC’s own Immunization Safety Office and a top researcher whose name appears on a number of the studies the agency cites to support its claim that vaccines don’t cause autism, has acknowledged that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could cause autism in genetically susceptible children, but that the problem is it’s “hard to predict who those children might be”, and trying to determine the underlying cofactors that might place certain individuals at greater risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.
This is one of the fundamental problems that public vaccine policy apologists like Peter Hotez refuse to acknowledge: it treats vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution despite individual variability in risk for the disease a given vaccine is designed to protect against and individual variability in the risk of the vaccine causing serious harm. Hotez joins public policy officials in unscientifically refusing to recognize that the risk-benefit analysis must be done for each vaccine and each individual child.
The idea that government bureaucrats with none of the specialized knowledge of the individual required to conduct a meaningful risk benefit analysis should dictate to parents what’s in their child’s best interest is both ludicrous and tyrannical.
Yet Hotez is a fierce opponent of the right to informed consent when it comes to vaccination and heavily involved in political activism, using his credentials as a scientist to advocate for the elimination of non-medical exemptions to routine childhood vaccinations. The use of government force to compel parents into compliance with government policy goals is incompatible with the right to make an informed choice about any medical intervention free from force, fraud, deceit, or any other form of coercion.
The VICP, by the way, was established under a 1986 law that also granted broad legal immunity to manufacturers of vaccines recommended for routine use in children by the CDC. The purpose and effect of the law is to shift the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry and onto the taxpaying consumers.
If Hotez were correct that “Vaccines do not injure children”, then obviously there would be no case to be made that the government should continue administering the VICP, and the pharmaceutical companies should have nothing to fear from the revocation of legal immunity.
Conclusion
Peter Hotez’s goal with his New York Times article is to persuade parents that it’s in their best interests to get their children the measles vaccine in compliance with the CDC’s schedule. But to that end, he presents a risk analysis that is fundamentally flawed and deceptive.
His whole analysis depends on the false assumption that to forego vaccination is to accept the risks associated with measles infection, whereas parents living in the US today must also take into consideration the fact that the odds of their child being exposed to measles in the first place—much less being permanently injured or killed by the virus—are very small. He claims vaccination rates have been falling when in fact the trend over time has been an increase in the proportion of children who’ve received the measles vaccine.
Hotez also overstates the risk of death from measles by claiming a fatality rate of 10 to 30 deaths for every 10,000 cases despite the CDC’s own data showing a pre-vaccine era fatality rate in the US of just 1 per 10,000 cases, which is the rate accepted by the authoritative Institute of Medicine. The caveat to this is that the rate of deaths per reported cases has since increased, but this is an unintended albeit foreseeable consequence of having shifted the risk burden away from children and onto infants and adults. Hotez also presents the fatality rate in the recent Samoan outbreak of 146 deaths per 10,000 cases, offering no comment on why the death rate would be so high there compared to the pre-vaccine-era rate in the US and other developed countries of 1 per 10,000—a difference in risk attributable entirely to factors other than vaccination.
Hotez also grossly understates the risks of vaccination, acknowledging only three possible adverse events associated with the measles vaccine and stating on Twitter less than a week after his article was published that “Vaccines do not injure children” despite the government administering the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to indemnify the pharmaceutical industry against lawsuits for serious adverse events acknowledged to be causally associated with vaccines, despite the measles vaccine’s own manufacturer acknowledging that vaccines can cause encephalitis, and despite the government’s acknowledgment that vaccines can cause brain damage manifesting as symptoms of autism in genetically susceptible children. He falsely claims that vaccine-associated febrile seizures are not associated with long-term harm, which is yet another indication either of his dishonesty or, assuming good faith, that he just hasn’t been keeping up with the science.
Hotez claims that the idea “that vaccines can cause autism” is “misinformation” despite no studies ever having been conducted that were actually designed to test the hypothesis that vaccines administered according to the CDC’s schedule can contribute to the development of autism in genetically susceptible children and despite the admission from even the CDC’s own head of vaccine safety that it’s possible that vaccines might cause autism in genetically susceptible children.
The refusal of public policy apologists like Hotez to address parents’ countless legitimate concerns and the insistence on offhandedly dismissing those concerns as though totally unfounded is precisely why they are finding it so hard to persuade “vaccine hesitant” parents to line up their children to get all the shots in strict compliance with the CDC’s recommendations.
As long as people like Hotez continue to take the alternative approach of using fear, deception, and government coercion to compel parents into compliance, an increasing number of parents will continue to raise reasonable questions, express legitimate concerns, and trust their own judgement as to what’s in their children’s best interest rather than placing their faith in untrustworthy government bureaucrats who have none of the knowledge required to be able to conduct a meaningful risk-benefit analysis for the individual. As long as public policy apologists like Hotez continue to threaten our children’s health by insisting upon vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution and continue to threaten our liberty by assaulting the parental right to informed consent, the number of parents who not only question public policy but who stand up and speak out against it will continue to grow."
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
First, thank you for a very in-depth and reasonable analysis onawah!
Quote:
Posted by
onawah
continued from:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1332894
The refusal of public policy apologists like Hotez to address parents’ countless legitimate concerns and the insistence on offhandedly dismissing those concerns as though totally unfounded is precisely why they are finding it so hard to persuade “vaccine hesitant” parents to line up their children to get all the shots in strict compliance with the CDC’s recommendations.
As long as people like Hotez continue to take the alternative approach of using fear, deception, and government coercion to compel parents into compliance,
an increasing number of parents will continue to raise reasonable questions, express legitimate concerns, and trust their own judgement as to what’s in their children’s best interest rather than placing their faith in untrustworthy government bureaucrats who have none of the knowledge required to be able to conduct a meaningful risk-benefit analysis for the individual. As long as public policy apologists like Hotez continue to threaten our children’s health by insisting upon vaccination as a one-size-fits-all solution and continue to threaten our liberty by assaulting the parental right to informed consent, the number of parents who not only question public policy but who stand up and speak out against it will continue to grow."
This has EXACTLY been my experience in talking with other moms about vaccines. Most are clueless to a larger picture. They adamantly oppose anything the might be considered conspiracy theory or a greater agenda. But they have encountered too many doctors "offhandedly dismissing those concerns as though totally unfounded." Don't get me wrong, it's a highly polarizing debate. Many don't want to be labelled "anti-vaxer" (that's practically a slur!!!) but they have concerns and their concerns are not going away. To paraphrase Princess Leia: "the more they tighten their grip, the more people slip through their fingers."
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
While I certainly applaud and encourage anyone who takes the initiative to educate themselves about their health and to make informed choices on a case by case basis... I do find it odd that anyone could be completely opposed to vaccination.
The near-elimination in the West of a plethora of diseases that were killing and maiming thousands as recently as during my parent's childhoods is pretty strong evidence that vaccines are not the enemy.
Any medicine comes with risks. Vaccine "injuries" are no more remarkable than those caused to an unlucky minority by all manner of both allopathic and 'natural' medicines.
I agree that one should not shrug off the risk of life-ruining side effects, work undoubtedly needs to continue to improve and refine vaccine technology.
I also agree that anything mandated by the government should be treated with skepticism and scrutiny. But I do believe that it is genuinely a necessity to make the administration of certain vaccines mandatory. I do think the European vaccine schedule is pretty sensible, but I can understand why people in the USA might balk at the sheer number of shots they are required to get. I don't believe that all of those are either necessary or advisable. The risk vs benefit balance seems quite skewed.
But I would really love to see more of a measured, balanced approach to the issue. It seems that the debate is polarised. All vaccines are not bad, but equally we need to weigh risk vs benefit carefully before deciding to make every available vaccine mandatory just 'because'.
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
If you do enough research, as some of us have who post regularly here, you will find that the whole "science" behind vaccines was flawed in the beginning, and the victories that vaccine proponents attribute to vaccines were actually due to better understanding of hygiene, better sewage, cleaner water, refrigeration, etc. The theory used to create vaccines was based on homeopathy, which is safe and effective, but the theory was incredibly wrong. Bypassing the human body's immune system and injecting foreign and toxic agents directly into tissue is stupid and very dangerous.
Quote:
Posted by
Jenya
While I certainly applaud and encourage anyone who takes the initiative to educate themselves about their health and to make informed choices on a case by case basis... I do find it odd that anyone could be completely opposed to vaccination.
The near-elimination in the West of a plethora of diseases that were killing and maiming thousands as recently as during my parent's childhoods is pretty strong evidence that vaccines are not the enemy.
Any medicine comes with risks. Vaccine "injuries" are no more remarkable than those caused to an unlucky minority by all manner of both allopathic and 'natural' medicines.
I agree that one should not shrug off the risk of life-ruining side effects, work undoubtedly needs to continue to improve and refine vaccine technology.
I also agree that anything mandated by the government should be treated with skepticism and scrutiny. But I do believe that it is genuinely a necessity to make the administration of certain vaccines mandatory. I do think the European vaccine schedule is pretty sensible, but I can understand why people in the USA might balk at the sheer number of shots they are required to get. I don't believe that all of those are either necessary or advisable. The risk vs benefit balance seems quite skewed.
But I would really love to see more of a measured, balanced approach to the issue. It seems that the debate is polarised. All vaccines are not bad, but equally we need to weigh risk vs benefit carefully before deciding to make every available vaccine mandatory just 'because'.
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Quote:
Posted by
onawah
If you do enough research, as some of us have who post regularly here, you will find that the whole "science" behind vaccines was flawed in the beginning, and the victories that vaccine proponents attribute to vaccines were actually due to better understanding of hygiene, better sewage, cleaner water, refrigeration, etc. The theory used to create vaccines was based on homeopathy, which is safe and effective, but the theory was incredibly wrong. Bypassing the human body's immune system and injecting foreign and toxic agents directly into tissue is stupid and very dangerous.
Do you think this Could be real? If so, it is really scary. Such irrational fear becomes open to witch hunting.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPIooxwW...pg&name=medium
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Quote:
Posted by
Joe
As Onawah says, if you do enough research you will realize the truth of what she says. I held conditioned beliefs similar to Jenya, but the more research I did the more my conditioned beliefs broke down. The more I learned and researched, read, and dug into the literature, my beliefs gradually evolved to hold an informed opinion very similar to Onawah. I would encourage anyone on the fence to just keep digging, especially if you are interested in health, and long life, and raising strong healthy children.
Here’s a recommended non-technical book that covers some surprising aspects of vaccine history.
https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monk...0001020&sr=8-1
http://doctormarysmonkey.com/images/...nt%20cover.jpg
Quote:
Posted by
onawah
If you do enough research, as some of us have who post regularly here, you will find that the whole "science" behind vaccines was flawed in the beginning, and the victories that vaccine proponents attribute to vaccines were actually due to better understanding of hygiene, better sewage, cleaner water, refrigeration, etc. The theory used to create vaccines was based on homeopathy, which is safe and effective, but the theory was incredibly wrong. Bypassing the human body's immune system and injecting foreign and toxic agents directly into tissue is stupid and very dangerous.
Quote:
Posted by
Jenya
While I certainly applaud and encourage anyone who takes the initiative to educate themselves about their health and to make informed choices on a case by case basis... I do find it odd that anyone could be completely opposed to vaccination.
The near-elimination in the West of a plethora of diseases that were killing and maiming thousands as recently as during my parent's childhoods is pretty strong evidence that vaccines are not the enemy.
Any medicine comes with risks. Vaccine "injuries" are no more remarkable than those caused to an unlucky minority by all manner of both allopathic and 'natural' medicines.
I agree that one should not shrug off the risk of life-ruining side effects, work undoubtedly needs to continue to improve and refine vaccine technology.
I also agree that anything mandated by the government should be treated with skepticism and scrutiny. But I do believe that it is genuinely a necessity to make the administration of certain vaccines mandatory. I do think the European vaccine schedule is pretty sensible, but I can understand why people in the USA might balk at the sheer number of shots they are required to get. I don't believe that all of those are either necessary or advisable. The risk vs benefit balance seems quite skewed.
But I would really love to see more of a measured, balanced approach to the issue. It seems that the debate is polarised. All vaccines are not bad, but equally we need to weigh risk vs benefit carefully before deciding to make every available vaccine mandatory just 'because'.
I have researched very thoroughly, and my beliefs are as a result of that research. These are not 'conditioned' beliefs. The reason I bothered researching them at all was due to the controversy brought to my attention by discussions such as the one being conducted on this thread. I have found overwhelming evidence against the claim that vaccines are inherently harmful. Mass-refusal to vaccinate is definitely harmful, as has been demonstrated by the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in recent years, occurring concurrently with the rise of the anti-vaccination movement. I wonder, if you were bitten by a rabid dog, would you still hold fast to your views?
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
It sounds to me like the research you have done was primarily from mainstream, industry-funded sources.
(They can be clever about masking their agenda, and make it appear that they are unbiased. )
You will not find a lot of agreement with your views on this thread, or on the other main threads including:
Do-vaccines-contribute-to-autism-Should-we-vaccinate
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ght=homeopathy
Horus-Ra-as-the-Archontic-Alien-Parasite-A-follow-up-interview-with-Maarit&highlight=vaccines
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
The-poisoning-of-America-Glyphosate-Statins-and-Vaccines
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
Biggest-Medical-Scandal-In-History-Breaking--UN-Comes-Clean-Admits-Vaccine-Death-Damage-Coverup
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
Medical-Mafia
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
How-Natural-Medicine--was--Destroyed-in-1910
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
Agenda-21-Vaccines-The-Female-Of-The-Species
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
VAXXED-From-Cover-Up-To-Catastrophe-
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
Vaccinations-Harm-Psychic-Abilities
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
Big-Pharma-as-Organized-Crime
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
Attention-vaccine-fanatics
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...light=vaccines
etc.
Many of these threads go back years and building them has involved a lot of time and painstaking effort by myself and other long-standing members of this forum.
Research which has also involved a lot of dot-connecting and cross-referencing with information about other kinds of toxins such as GMOs, chemtrails, insecticides, microwaves and other unsafe technologies, and how they all are interacting to make us sick.
The agendas behind all these toxins were not designed for the benefit of mankind, but to satisfy the psychotic urges of the elite.
Some inventions may have started out with benign intentions, but were soon enough subverted to fit the population control agenda.
The chemical industry, however, which is responsible for so many of the present day toxins, was murderous from the start, with its' roots in Nazi Germany when Farben created poisonous gas to kill the victims of concentration camps.
If you want to understand the big picture, you have to have an open mind and be able to entertain very unpleasant and frightening possibilities.
It's not for the faint of heart.
(If you look in the General Discussion forum under Alternative Medicine and Health and Wellness you will find reams of information about natural, safe, and effective remedies which have been ignored or suppressed by Big Pharma, allopathic practitioners and the controlled mainstream media. Particularly this thread: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...f+most+disease)
The agenda is clear: traditional and natural remedies and prevention cannot be allowed, much less innovative techniques such as healing through frequencies, techniques such as Tesla and Rife were working on to their peril, must only be available to the elite, and must be kept secret at all costs.
Not only is there no profit in them to the corporations which seek total global control, but they would benefit the masses which the elite wish on the whole to eliminate (Read up on the Anglo Saxon Mission and Agendas 21 and 2030).
My intention is not to bully you or disillusion you, but to make you aware that if you are not willing to look further into this issue than you already have, you will probably find that Avalon will not be a very comfortable fit for you, and if you are looking for agreement, you would probably do better to look elsewhere.
Quote:
Posted by
Jenya
Quote:
Posted by
Joe
As Onawah says, if you do enough research you will realize the truth of what she says. I held conditioned beliefs similar to Jenya, but the more research I did the more my conditioned beliefs broke down. The more I learned and researched, read, and dug into the literature, my beliefs gradually evolved to hold an informed opinion very similar to Onawah. I would encourage anyone on the fence to just keep digging, especially if you are interested in health, and long life, and raising strong healthy children.
Here’s a recommended non-technical book that covers some surprising aspects of vaccine history.
https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monk...0001020&sr=8-1
http://doctormarysmonkey.com/images/...nt%20cover.jpg
Quote:
Posted by
onawah
If you do enough research, as some of us have who post regularly here, you will find that the whole "science" behind vaccines was flawed in the beginning, and the victories that vaccine proponents attribute to vaccines were actually due to better understanding of hygiene, better sewage, cleaner water, refrigeration, etc. The theory used to create vaccines was based on homeopathy, which is safe and effective, but the theory was incredibly wrong. Bypassing the human body's immune system and injecting foreign and toxic agents directly into tissue is stupid and very dangerous.
Quote:
Posted by
Jenya
While I certainly applaud and encourage anyone who takes the initiative to educate themselves about their health and to make informed choices on a case by case basis... I do find it odd that anyone could be completely opposed to vaccination.
The near-elimination in the West of a plethora of diseases that were killing and maiming thousands as recently as during my parent's childhoods is pretty strong evidence that vaccines are not the enemy.
Any medicine comes with risks. Vaccine "injuries" are no more remarkable than those caused to an unlucky minority by all manner of both allopathic and 'natural' medicines.
I agree that one should not shrug off the risk of life-ruining side effects, work undoubtedly needs to continue to improve and refine vaccine technology.
I also agree that anything mandated by the government should be treated with skepticism and scrutiny. But I do believe that it is genuinely a necessity to make the administration of certain vaccines mandatory. I do think the European vaccine schedule is pretty sensible, but I can understand why people in the USA might balk at the sheer number of shots they are required to get. I don't believe that all of those are either necessary or advisable. The risk vs benefit balance seems quite skewed.
But I would really love to see more of a measured, balanced approach to the issue. It seems that the debate is polarised. All vaccines are not bad, but equally we need to weigh risk vs benefit carefully before deciding to make every available vaccine mandatory just 'because'.
I have researched very thoroughly, and my beliefs are as a result of that research. These are not 'conditioned' beliefs. The reason I bothered researching them at all was due to the controversy brought to my attention by discussions such as the one being conducted on this thread. I have found overwhelming evidence against the claim that vaccines are inherently harmful. Mass-refusal to vaccinate is definitely harmful, as has been demonstrated by the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in recent years, occurring concurrently with the rise of the anti-vaccination movement. I wonder, if you were bitten by a rabid dog, would you still hold fast to your views?
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Quote:
Posted by
Jenya
I have researched very thoroughly, and my beliefs are as a result of that research. These are not 'conditioned' beliefs. The reason I bothered researching them at all was due to the controversy brought to my attention by discussions such as the one being conducted on this thread. I have found overwhelming evidence against the claim that vaccines are inherently harmful. Mass-refusal to vaccinate is definitely harmful, as has been demonstrated by the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in recent years, occurring concurrently with the rise of the anti-vaccination movement. I wonder, if you were bitten by a rabid dog, would you still hold fast to your views?
"Mass-refusal to vaccinate is definitely harmful, as has been demonstrated by the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in recent years, occurring concurrently with the rise of the anti-vaccination movement." IS conditioned. I will go out on my limb and say, Sorry dear but this is just plain MISSED INFORMATION.
Let's look at measles again. Measles pops up in cycles. Measles was NEVER ERADICATED. That is a lie.
Measles was horrendous in the early 1900s. By the time vaccines were developed it was a MOST LIKELY harmless infection that was usually experienced in early childhood. Mothers who had measles and breast fed passed immunity for infants. Older people had already had measles. Therefore what is called herd immunity was that MOST of the population was protected from early and late infection.
An interesting BENEFIT was that measles stimulated the body to be protected from cancer (for one thing). This is very interesting to me bcause I think it shows a SYMBIOSIS with these viruses. The lie is that we have to kill everything in nature. NO, we need to LIVE WITH nature.
A few people with measles DO go on to develop a life threatening illness:
Quote:
Children younger than 5 years of age and adults older than 20 years of age are more likely to suffer from complications. Common complications are ear infections and diarrhea. Serious complications include pneumonia and encephalitis.
When the vaccine was first proposed, the promise was that it would eradicate measles. Then NO, need two shots, then NO, more shots and now it is acknowledged that one will always need more boosters. The vaccine is creating a climate where the virus is mutating. The whole plan was a BUST!
Just why you have the settled belief about the necessity for vaccination is clear... BRAIN WASHING we all were subjected to by AUTHORITY. But despite the seeming truth, it is not based on facts. I feel hopeful that none of your lineage is suffering the multiple effects of these vaccines which erode the health of a whole generation, a whole WORLD. But I really doubt you have escaped. You have just accepted chronic disease is a normal life style.
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Quote:
Posted by
Jenya
Quote:
Posted by
Joe
As Onawah says, if you do enough research you will realize the truth of what she says. I held conditioned beliefs similar to Jenya, but the more research I did the more my conditioned beliefs broke down. The more I learned and researched, read, and dug into the literature, my beliefs gradually evolved to hold an informed opinion very similar to Onawah. I would encourage anyone on the fence to just keep digging, especially if you are interested in health, and long life, and raising strong healthy children.
Here’s a recommended non-technical book that covers some surprising aspects of vaccine history.
https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monk...0001020&sr=8-1
http://doctormarysmonkey.com/images/...nt%20cover.jpg
Quote:
Posted by
onawah
If you do enough research, as some of us have who post regularly here, you will find that the whole "science" behind vaccines was flawed in the beginning, and the victories that vaccine proponents attribute to vaccines were actually due to better understanding of hygiene, better sewage, cleaner water, refrigeration, etc. The theory used to create vaccines was based on homeopathy, which is safe and effective, but the theory was incredibly wrong. Bypassing the human body's immune system and injecting foreign and toxic agents directly into tissue is stupid and very dangerous.
Quote:
Posted by
Jenya
While I certainly applaud and encourage anyone who takes the initiative to educate themselves about their health and to make informed choices on a case by case basis... I do find it odd that anyone could be completely opposed to vaccination.
The near-elimination in the West of a plethora of diseases that were killing and maiming thousands as recently as during my parent's childhoods is pretty strong evidence that vaccines are not the enemy.
Any medicine comes with risks. Vaccine "injuries" are no more remarkable than those caused to an unlucky minority by all manner of both allopathic and 'natural' medicines.
I agree that one should not shrug off the risk of life-ruining side effects, work undoubtedly needs to continue to improve and refine vaccine technology.
I also agree that anything mandated by the government should be treated with skepticism and scrutiny. But I do believe that it is genuinely a necessity to make the administration of certain vaccines mandatory. I do think the European vaccine schedule is pretty sensible, but I can understand why people in the USA might balk at the sheer number of shots they are required to get. I don't believe that all of those are either necessary or advisable. The risk vs benefit balance seems quite skewed.
But I would really love to see more of a measured, balanced approach to the issue. It seems that the debate is polarised. All vaccines are not bad, but equally we need to weigh risk vs benefit carefully before deciding to make every available vaccine mandatory just 'because'.
I have researched very thoroughly, and my beliefs are as a result of that research. These are not 'conditioned' beliefs. The reason I bothered researching them at all was due to the controversy brought to my attention by discussions such as the one being conducted on this thread. I have found overwhelming evidence against the claim that vaccines are inherently harmful. Mass-refusal to vaccinate is definitely harmful, as has been demonstrated by the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in recent years, occurring concurrently with the rise of the anti-vaccination movement. I wonder, if you were bitten by a rabid dog, would you still hold fast to your views?
Great, than convince us with the research that convinced you! I would honestly love to see what research has convinced you. I would also be curious to know how you explain the rise in autism?
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Victory in New Jersey!
This guy, as this thread knows, does not mess around. They WON. Let that sink in.
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Quote:
Posted by
Green Futures
Thank you, everyone, for the excellent posts. As an aside, Anthony William, ak 'Medical Medium' states unequivocally that Alzheimer's is caused 100% by Mercury in the brain, and gives natural methods to pull it, and other toxins/heavy metals out of the body. I am using his methods, along with Chinese Herbs, for 'brain fog,' stress, etc., and having excellent results.
As to my question for the Forum, the ultimate force behind the vaccine agenda, my own best guess is that it is a negative ET/Demonic/Archonic consciousness attacking all humans.
I know this is 'out there' for the hard scientists to consider, but after 20 years looking into this, and other issues, it does appear to be the best answer.
Perhaps it is simply human greed, ignorance, and overall wickedness, but ultimately that does not add up, for me, anyway.
I think we humans must find a 'cure' for that negative force. Garlic, anyone? I am kidding, but, whenever one deals with parasites, criminals, or 'possessing entities' there are methods, modalities, compounds, chemicals, or remedies that will cure the problem. That is what I am looking for. Something that will repel this force from our world, and assist us in ejecting it from it's human hosts, as well.
Well, I did not want to get much into this. But sorry I have to correct your statement.
There is NO natural methode to pull mercury completly out of the body again........and defenitlty not out of the brain.....
Do you have any labatory results who show your body is reducing any metalls? I bet not.
If you want to do a correct unpoisoning of metalls you have to check this by labatory, otherwise there is no proof of what your doctor says ......
I know there is a lot of wrong informations written on this. But I also know out of own experiences and contact to someone who did study this all his life..(and his father did also before already)..He did work on war fields also trying to rescue people which got poisend by war chemicals aso.......
It was his education to know all about toxins which could effect a human and how to free effected people from it again.
It is today not possible to eliminate mercury and what is bind to it completly out of a human body again.
There is a lot of BS written about seaweed who could do this. But it is just a big sales propaganda and a big lie. How can people really believe what a plant alive does in the ocean.(..collectin toxins and metalls)..the plant can do they same in a human body after the plant got shreddert and put into a pill???
This is complete nonsense and does not work. It simply can not work. There are done many labatory tests done on this.
In fact you poison yourself even more by eating those seaweeds...because whatever they did collect before in the ocean is still in the plant you swallow. So better think more clearly about this again.
The only stuff which really works partly to reduce mercury out of a human body but only partly or not at all out of the brain is Dimercaptosuccinic acid ......
But as long a person still has silver fillings it is more than dangerous to take any of it.
Sorry, but I had to correct this. People should know the facts......
By the way...Gold is also dangerous for humans to put in the teeth...Gold does bind other metals also. If you have gold fillings, your body can not reduce any metalls out of the body anymore.....
Another thing which is kept hidden from the public......
Sorry for the bad news...but I had to learn this also....:facepalm:
...back to subject...vaccines and thiomersal (mercury).....
.....by the way...I use to have some friends working in the med. field...as far as I been told...there are vaccines without thiomersal...but only for certain people....
I had measles and other children illnesses as a child that was not med. treated then and I am still here .......:blushing:...
but I was forced to take a vaccine in 2018, which is a law to be allowed to stay in a certain country...........:raining:
Here you can see yourself on how dangerous mercury is.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtFsy0rQsak....
this is a video from 1999
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Last note on this from me :
Dont forget : TODAY Medicine and what is hooked on it..... is :
Big business !!!
:closed:
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
Good Health Lawyer Gains TRO in Forced Vaccine Case
FEBRUARY 1, 2020 RALPH FUCETOLA
VACCINE FREEDOM VICTORY!
Medically Fragile NY Child Back In School
WITH NO VACCINES
Thanks to Attorney Patricia Finn!
http://www.opensourcetruth.com/good-...-vaccine-case/
http://www.opensourcetruth.com/wp-co...RO-768x942.jpg
"Counsel Patricia Finn, The Good Health Lawyer [1] has saved a medically fragile child from what his pediatrician says is “certain damage” following vaccination, by arguing successfully that New York State does not have the power to substitute a bureaucrat’s decision for a patient’s physician.
Arguing that a physician, as a “learned intermediary,” has the right to issue a medical exemption for a patient and the State has the obligation to honor that exemption, Counsel Finn has scored a major health freedom victory for the moment.
Several well-known and well-funded law firms have not been able to achieve what Counsel Finn succeeded in establishing in this case.
This victory is the first to validate the important principle of the physician as “Learned Intermediary” and to achieve a Temporary Restraining Order overturning the State’s attempt to force vaccination on this child.
In both California and New York, the largest forced-vaccine states, vaccine freedom of choice has been attacked in two ways. First, the state legislatures have abolished long-standing religious and/or conscientious exemptions and second, the bureaucracies in both states have made obtaining a formal Medical Excuse virtually impossible. We believe they have intentionally tried to make it so difficult that they have undercut the protected relationship between doctor and patient. This violates the universal right of Informed Consent by preventing physicians, as Learned Intermediaries, from uttering their true opinions regarding the safety of vaccines for their patients.
The child in this case was certified vaccine-fragile since his doctor said he could expect serious adverse reactions to further vaccination. It is important to note that the child’s doctor believes in vaccination for the general populace, and vaccinates his own children, yet, exercising his best medical judgment, affirmed that this child should not be vaccinated. Under New York’s new rule the physician’s learned opinion was disregarded and the school system, despite the damage that was likely to result for the child, rejected the exemption. In other words, the state wanted a school bureaucrat to overturn the physician’s protection of his patient.
This flies in the face of settled United States law. For over a century US courts have held they have the power to intervene against forced vaccination “…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Counsel Finn’s successful attempt to protect this child with a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) assures this child access to the free public education guaranteed to him by the laws of New York, without surrendering his right to protection from what US and international courts have repeatedly called “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines.
The efforts of States like New York and California to illegally force parents to choose between their objections to vaccination — their universal right of Informed Consent — or the public education guaranteed to their children is an imposition of what the Federal Courts call an “unconstitutional condition.” No state has power to condition a public benefit on the surrender of a right.
In this case New York is learning that important lesson thanks to Counsel Finn and the determined parents willing to protect their child.
All of us have the right of Informed Consent, if and only if we assert it properly. If you do not assert that right it will be “deemed waived.”
To learn more about how to assert that right for yourself and your loved ones, click here: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard.
Use this link to share this article widely: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/good-...-vaccine-case/
You just might save some lives."
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
What a great victory!
Quote:
Posted by
onawah
All of us have the right of Informed Consent, if and only if we assert it properly. If you do not assert that right it will be “deemed waived.”
And this really struck a chord with me... so applicable on so many levels!
-
Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe
A good idea that we remind ourselves that there is indeed a universal declaration enshrined in international law that recognises the rights of the sovereign individual to be empowered to choose what happens to their body.
-------------------------------------------
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
19 October 2005
Source: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-U...CTION=201.html
Avalon Library: http://avalonlibrary.net/Universal_D..._Page%2074%5d/
UNESDOC - (PDF) English - French - Spanish - Russian - Chinese - Arabic
The General Conference,
Conscious of the unique capacity of human beings to reflect upon their own existence and on their environment, to perceive injustice, to avoid danger, to assume responsibility, to seek cooperation and to exhibit the moral sense that gives expression to ethical principles,
Reflecting on the rapid developments in science and technology, which increasingly affect our understanding of life and life itself, resulting in a strong demand for a global response to the ethical implications of such developments,
Recognizing that ethical issues raised by the rapid advances in science and their technological applications should be examined with due respect to the dignity of the human person and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Resolving that it is necessary and timely for the international community to state universal principles that will provide a foundation for humanity’s response to the ever-increasing dilemmas and controversies that science and technology present for humankind and for the environment,
Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 11 November 1997 and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 October 2003,
Noting the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1993, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers of 20 November 1974, the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice of 27 November 1978, the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations of 12 November 1997, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 2 November 2001, the ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries of 27 June 1989, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which was adopted by the FAO Conference on 3 November 2001 and entered into force on 29 June 2004, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, which entered into force on 1 January 1995, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health of 14 November 2001 and other relevant international instruments adopted by the United Nations and the specialized agencies of the United Nations system, in particular the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO),
Also noting international and regional instruments in the field of bioethics, including the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe, which was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 1999, together with its Additional Protocols, as well as national legislation and regulations in the field of bioethics and the international and regional codes of conduct and guidelines and other texts in the field of bioethics, such as the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted in 1964 and amended in 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996 and 2000 and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, adopted in 1982 and amended in 1993 and 2002,
Recognizing that this Declaration is to be understood in a manner consistent with domestic and international law in conformity with human rights law,
Recalling the Constitution of UNESCO adopted on 16 November 1945,
Considering UNESCO’s role in identifying universal principles based on shared ethical values to guide scientific and technological development and social transformation in order to identify emerging challenges in science and technology taking into account the responsibility of the present generations towards future generations, and that questions of bioethics, which necessarily have an international dimension, should be treated as a whole, drawing on the principles already stated in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data and taking account not only of the current scientific context but also of future developments,
Aware that human beings are an integral part of the biosphere, with an important role in protecting one another and other forms of life, in particular animals,
Recognizing that, based on the freedom of science and research, scientific and technological developments have been, and can be, of great benefit to humankind in increasing, inter alia, life expectancy and improving the quality of life, and emphasizing that such developments should always seek to promote the welfare of individuals, families, groups or communities and humankind as a whole in the recognition of the dignity of the human person and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Recognizing that health does not depend solely on scientific and technological research developments but also on psychosocial and cultural factors,
Also recognizing that decisions regarding ethical issues in medicine, life sciences and associated technologies may have an impact on individuals, families, groups or communities and humankind as a whole,
Bearing in mind that cultural diversity, as a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, is necessary to humankind and, in this sense, is the common heritage of humanity, but emphasizing that it may not be invoked at the expense of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Also bearing in mind that a person’s identity includes biological, psychological, social, cultural and spiritual dimensions,
Recognizing that unethical scientific and technological conduct has had a particular impact on indigenous and local communities,
Convinced that moral sensitivity and ethical reflection should be an integral part of the process of scientific and technological developments and that bioethics should play a predominant role in the choices that need to be made concerning issues arising from such developments,
Considering the desirability of developing new approaches to social responsibility to ensure that progress in science and technology contributes to justice, equity and to the interest of humanity,
Recognizing that an important way to evaluate social realities and achieve equity is to pay attention to the position of women,
Stressing the need to reinforce international cooperation in the field of bioethics, taking into account, in particular, the special needs of developing countries, indigenous communities and vulnerable populations,
Considering that all human beings, without distinction, should benefit from the same high ethical standards in medicine and life science research,
Proclaims the principles that follow and adopts the present Declaration.
General provisions
Article 1 – Scope
1. This Declaration addresses ethical issues related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies as applied to human beings, taking into account their social, legal and environmental dimensions.
2. This Declaration is addressed to States. As appropriate and relevant, it also provides guidance to decisions or practices of individuals, groups, communities, institutions and corporations, public and private.
Article 2 – Aims
The aims of this Declaration are:
(a) to provide a universal framework of principles and procedures to guide States in the formulation of their legislation, policies or other instruments in the field of bioethics;
(b) to guide the actions of individuals, groups, communities, institutions and corporations, public and private;
(c) to promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights, by ensuring respect for the life of human beings, and fundamental freedoms, consistent with international human rights law;
(d) to recognize the importance of freedom of scientific research and the benefits derived from scientific and technological developments, while stressing the need for such research and developments to occur within the framework of ethical principles set out in this Declaration and to respect human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms;
(e) to foster multidisciplinary and pluralistic dialogue about bioethical issues between all stakeholders and within society as a whole;
(f) to promote equitable access to medical, scientific and technological developments as well as the greatest possible flow and the rapid sharing of knowledge concerning those developments and the sharing of benefits, with particular attention to the needs of developing countries;
(g) to safeguard and promote the interests of the present and future generations;
(h) to underline the importance of biodiversity and its conservation as a common concern of humankind.
Principles
Within the scope of this Declaration, in decisions or practices taken or carried out by those to whom it is addressed, the following principles are to be respected.
Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights
1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.
Article 4 – Benefit and harm
In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, direct and indirect benefits to patients, research participants and other affected individuals should be maximized and any possible harm to such individuals should be minimized.
Article 5 – Autonomy and individual responsibility
The autonomy of persons to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy of others, is to be respected. For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests.
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.
Article 7 – Persons without the capacity to consent
In accordance with domestic law, special protection is to be given to persons who do not have the capacity to consent:
(a) authorization for research and medical practice should be obtained in accordance with the best interest of the person concerned and in accordance with domestic law. However, the person concerned should be involved to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process of consent, as well as that of withdrawing consent;
(b) research should only be carried out for his or her direct health benefit, subject to the authorization and the protective conditions prescribed by law, and if there is no research alternative of comparable effectiveness with research participants able to consent. Research which does not have potential direct health benefit should only be undertaken by way of exception, with the utmost restraint, exposing the person only to a minimal risk and minimal burden and, if the research is expected to contribute to the health benefit of other persons in the same category, subject to the conditions prescribed by law and compatible with the protection of the individual’s human rights. Refusal of such persons to take part in research should be respected.
Article 8 – Respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity
In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account. Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.
Article 9 – Privacy and confidentiality
The privacy of the persons concerned and the confidentiality of their personal information should be respected. To the greatest extent possible, such information should not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected or consented to, consistent with international law, in particular international human rights law.
Article 10 – Equality, justice and equity
The fundamental equality of all human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and equitably.
Article 11 – Non-discrimination and non-stigmatization
No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Article 12 – Respect for cultural diversity and pluralism
The importance of cultural diversity and pluralism should be given due regard. However, such considerations are not to be invoked to infringe upon human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, nor upon the principles set out in this Declaration, nor to limit their scope.
Article 13 – Solidarity and cooperation
Solidarity among human beings and international cooperation towards that end are to be encouraged.
Article 14 – Social responsibility and health
1. The promotion of health and social development for their people is a central purpose of governments that all sectors of society share.
2. Taking into account that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition, progress in science and technology should advance:
(a) access to quality health care and essential medicines, especially for the health of women and children, because health is essential to life itself and must be considered to be a social and human good;
(b) access to adequate nutrition and water;
(c) improvement of living conditions and the environment;
(d) elimination of the marginalization and the exclusion of persons on the basis of any grounds;
(e) reduction of poverty and illiteracy.
Article 15 – Sharing of benefits
1. Benefits resulting from any scientific research and its applications should be shared with society as a whole and within the international community, in particular with developing countries. In giving effect to this principle, benefits may take any of the following forms:
(a) special and sustainable assistance to, and acknowledgement of, the persons and groups that have taken part in the research;
(b) access to quality health care;
(c) provision of new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities or products stemming from research;
(d) support for health services;
(e) access to scientific and technological knowledge;
(f) capacity-building facilities for research purposes;
(g) other forms of benefit consistent with the principles set out in this Declaration.
2. Benefits should not constitute improper inducements to participate in research.
Article 16 – Protecting future generations
The impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution, should be given due regard.
Article 17 – Protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity
Due regard is to be given to the interconnection between human beings and other forms of life, to the importance of appropriate access and utilization of biological and genetic resources, to respect for traditional knowledge and to the role of human beings in the protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity.
Application of the principles
Article 18 – Decision-making and addressing bioethical issues
1. Professionalism, honesty, integrity and transparency in decision-making should be promoted, in particular declarations of all conflicts of interest and appropriate sharing of knowledge. Every endeavour should be made to use the best available scientific knowledge and methodology in addressing and periodically reviewing bioethical issues.
2. Persons and professionals concerned and society as a whole should be engaged in dialogue on a regular basis.
3. Opportunities for informed pluralistic public debate, seeking the expression of all relevant opinions, should be promoted.
Article 19 – Ethics committees
Independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees should be established, promoted and supported at the appropriate level in order to:
(a) assess the relevant ethical, legal, scientific and social issues related to research projects involving human beings;
(b) provide advice on ethical problems in clinical settings;
(c) assess scientific and technological developments, formulate recommendations and contribute to the preparation of guidelines on issues within the scope of this Declaration;
(d) foster debate, education and public awareness of, and engagement in, bioethics.
Article 20 – Risk assessment and management
Appropriate assessment and adequate management of risk related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies should be promoted.
Article 21 – Transnational practices
1. States, public and private institutions, and professionals associated with transnational activities should endeavour to ensure that any activity within the scope of this Declaration, undertaken, funded or otherwise pursued in whole or in part in different States, is consistent with the principles set out in this Declaration.
2. When research is undertaken or otherwise pursued in one or more States (the host State(s)) and funded by a source in another State, such research should be the object of an appropriate level of ethical review in the host State(s) and the State in which the funder is located. This review should be based on ethical and legal standards that are consistent with the principles set out in this Declaration.
3. Transnational health research should be responsive to the needs of host countries, and the importance of research contributing to the alleviation of urgent global health problems should be recognized.
4. When negotiating a research agreement, terms for collaboration and agreement on the benefits of research should be established with equal participation by those party to the negotiation.
5. States should take appropriate measures, both at the national and international levels, to combat bioterrorism and illicit traffic in organs, tissues, samples, genetic resources and genetic-related materials.
Promotion of the Declaration
Article 22 – Role of States
1. States should take all appropriate measures, whether of a legislative, administrative or other character, to give effect to the principles set out in this Declaration in accordance with international human rights law. Such measures should be supported by action in the spheres of education, training and public information.
2. States should encourage the establishment of independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees, as set out in Article 19.
Article 23 – Bioethics education, training and information
1. In order to promote the principles set out in this Declaration and to achieve a better understanding of the ethical implications of scientific and technological developments, in particular for young people, States should endeavour to foster bioethics education and training at all levels as well as to encourage information and knowledge dissemination programmes about bioethics.
2. States should encourage the participation of international and regional intergovernmental organizations and international, regional and national non governmental organizations in this endeavour.
Article 24 – International cooperation
1. States should foster international dissemination of scientific information and encourage the free flow and sharing of scientific and technological knowledge.
2. Within the framework of international cooperation, States should promote cultural and scientific cooperation and enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements enabling developing countries to build up their capacity to participate in generating and sharing scientific knowledge, the related know-how and the benefits thereof.
3. States should respect and promote solidarity between and among States, as well as individuals, families, groups and communities, with special regard for those rendered vulnerable by disease or disability or other personal, societal or environmental conditions and those with the most limited resources.
Article 25 – Follow-up action by UNESCO
1. UNESCO shall promote and disseminate the principles set out in this Declaration. In doing so, UNESCO should seek the help and assistance of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) and the International Bioethics Committee (IBC).
2. UNESCO shall reaffirm its commitment to dealing with bioethics and to promoting collaboration between IGBC and IBC.
Final provisions
Article 26 – Interrelation and complementarity of the principles
This Declaration is to be understood as a whole and the principles are to be understood as complementary and interrelated. Each principle is to be considered in the context of the other principles, as appropriate and relevant in the circumstances.
Article 27 – Limitations on the application of the principles
If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.
Article 28 – Denial of acts contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity.
