+ Reply to Thread
Page 30 of 32 FirstFirst 1 20 30 32 LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 628

Thread: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

  1. Link to Post #581
    Avalon Member Hym's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th June 2011
    Location
    Eastern Pacific
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    7,946
    Thanked 3,318 times in 526 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    BUMP! BUMP! BUMP!

    Thank YOU Delight for this important thread and THANK YOU peterpam for the video, a video which offers some clinical, scientific perspectives on healing from aluminum exposure in our blood, our deep tissue, our mitochondria.

    40 YEARS of research by Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt compiled in this very important video.
    It must be very important and vital to our lives. Download the video and send it out.

    I have some problem getting to Dane Wigington's website, which is a problem I have never had before, checking all of my accesses, preferences, etc., even as I now have easy access to every other site on the internet. Hmmmm?

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hym For This Post:

    Delight (17th November 2019), onawah (17th November 2019), peterpam (17th November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  3. Link to Post #582
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    2,740
    Thanks
    5,031
    Thanked 11,922 times in 2,410 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    There are actually fairly simple solutions offered to lessen effects of aluminum nanoparticl
    Thanks.

    I am focusing even more now on mitigation strategies. I know there are millions affected by the toxins and when we know how to stimulate repair, I am certain that because the body has innate healing that no one would be condemned to permanent injury. There are so many hopeful threads of success that people have experienced. The main thing is that as a world wide community of brothers and sisters, we MUST stop the mandatory poisoning as in forced vaccinations, stop polluting the environment and start the remediation.

    I thoroughly remember that in the 70's we just knew we could have a future where there is NO MORE WAR on self and others. The war machine kept us swinging. I am so hopeful that people like Tulsi Gabbard are appearing in politics as I know she represents the hearts and minds of the "peace on..." She is in her 40's and some say she won't win, can't win.... blah blah blah....but I will hold out for the optimism that possibility comes from intention. I am routing for us all to act out our power. We can be brave and strong about the fears and bear the heat of burning up our old paradigm THEN RISE UP like the Phoenix?

    I am really interested today in silica in detox



    Quote Soluble Silica with High Affinity for Aluminum under Physiological and Natural Conditions
    Paul D. TaylorRavin JugdaohsinghJonathan J. Powell

    Abstract
    Soluble silica reduces aluminum availability and ameliorates toxicity in several biological systems. It has therefore been suggested that these two species strongly interact in solution. However, there is only weak affinity between monomeric silicic acid and aluminum with reported log Keff of between 4 and 6 at pH 7.2. We now show the existence of a soluble low molecular weight form of silica that is nonmonomeric but has an affinity for aluminum at least 1 000 000 times greater than the monomeric form (log Keff = 11.70 ± 0.30 at pH 7.2). This was established by competition, for binding of aluminum, between different preparations of soluble silica and the powerful M3+ chelator, 1,2-dimethyl-3-hydroxy-4-pyridinone (DMHP). At pH 7.2, this nonmonomeric silica quantitatively displaced one equiv of DMHP for every 34.42 ± 0.77 equiv of total silica, suggesting that the soluble silica that so avidly binds aluminum is an oligomer containing fewer than 35 silicon atoms. The presence of oligomeric or monomeric silica in solution depends on how the solution is prepared. The oligomer is formed when alkali stock solutions of silica (42 mM in this work) are pH neutralized prior to dilution, to physiological and natural levels of soluble silica (<2.5 mM). The diluted oligomeric silica is at least transiently stable (<1 day or >17 days; absence or presence of aluminum) and would compete effectively with endogenous physiological chelators for aluminum, such as citrate (log Keff aluminum citrate = 7.15 at pH 7.2). Oligomeric silica is probably responsible for the many experimental observations on the amelioration of aluminum availability and toxicity, but whether this silica species occurs naturally in the environment or is formed in vivo, remains to be established.Abstract
    Soluble silica reduces aluminum availability and ameliorates toxicity in several biological systems. It has therefore been suggested that these two species strongly interact in solution. However, there is only weak affinity between monomeric silicic acid and aluminum with reported log Keff of between 4 and 6 at pH 7.2. We now show the existence of a soluble low molecular weight form of silica that is nonmonomeric but has an affinity for aluminum at least 1 000 000 times greater than the monomeric form (log Keff = 11.70 ± 0.30 at pH 7.2). This was established by competition, for binding of aluminum, between different preparations of soluble silica and the powerful M3+ chelator, 1,2-dimethyl-3-hydroxy-4-pyridinone (DMHP). At pH 7.2, this nonmonomeric silica quantitatively displaced one equiv of DMHP for every 34.42 ± 0.77 equiv of total silica, suggesting that the soluble silica that so avidly binds aluminum is an oligomer containing fewer than 35 silicon atoms. The presence of oligomeric or monomeric silica in solution depends on how the solution is prepared. The oligomer is formed when alkali stock solutions of silica (42 mM in this work) are pH neutralized prior to dilution, to physiological and natural levels of soluble silica (<2.5 mM). The diluted oligomeric silica is at least transiently stable (<1 day or >17 days; absence or presence of aluminum) and would compete effectively with endogenous physiological chelators for aluminum, such as citrate (log Keff aluminum citrate = 7.15 at pH 7.2). Oligomeric silica is probably responsible for the many experimental observations on the amelioration of aluminum availability and toxicity, but whether this silica species occurs naturally in the environment or is formed in vivo, remains to be established.







  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Franny (17th November 2019), Hym (17th November 2019), mountain_jim (18th November 2019), peterpam (17th November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  5. Link to Post #583
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Could someone please summarize the info about silica so we don't all have to take the time to watch the videos, etc. ?
    I'm pretty sure I want to take it, but just not sure what kind or how much, if someone could just direct me to that info. Thanks!

    ( But not so sure about Tulsi Gabbard, who is a member of Council on Foreign Relations, a very elitist group.
    See: https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press...efing-honolulu
    https://libertyconservativenews.com/...ign-relations/

    Following from: https://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comme...fr_council_on/
    "CFR aren't a benevolent organisation*

    The CFR isn't a political activist group - they're a Cabal think tank/policy generator, whose members go onto to occupyhighest positions in office and enact into law, the policies created for them by this unelected secretive group.

    The reason that presidential candidates’ promises of “change” go largely unfulfilled once in office: they draw their top personnel from the same establishment groups — of which the Trilateral Commission is only one. Chief among these groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of what some have called the American establishment. Members of the council have dominated the administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level. It does not matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. As we will see, Barack Obama is no exception to CFR influence."
    Quote Posted by Delight (here)
    Quote Posted by peterpam (here)
    There are actually fairly simple solutions offered to lessen effects of aluminum nanoparticles.
    Last edited by onawah; 17th November 2019 at 19:44.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hym (18th November 2019), peterpam (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019), Valerie Villars (18th November 2019)

  7. Link to Post #584
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    2,740
    Thanks
    5,031
    Thanked 11,922 times in 2,410 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    One characteristic of truly dangerous people is their willingness to believe they have the answers and the willingness to impose their beliefs on others. Often this is accompanied by a blind eye to the fact they don't hold themselves to the same "standards", the same processes or feel they need to comply with edicts arising form the system they create. This is exacerbated by Hubris and a lack of empathic ability to discern the feelings of others. They can coldly administer their form of justice without cognitive dissonance. They can be relentless. Messianic Zeal where the belief becomes the ONLY belief acceptable will condone "the ends justify any means", even murder.

    Most of us become simply minions of these characters but that will not let us off the hook.

    Quote Alfred Nobel and the Vaccine Apocalypse
    Neville Raymond
    Greenmedinfo.com
    Fri, 25 Oct 2019


    The plague of vaccines will be eradicated when the truth about vaccines goes viral

    Today we remember Alfred Nobel as the eponymous founder of the Nobel Prize, given to those who excel in various fields of endeavor. Most notably, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those who make the greatest contributions to the brotherhood of man. It may come as a shock to some that Nobel made his fortune with the invention of dynamite, gelignite and other explosives. By the time of his death he had established almost 90 armaments factories. He did not see any contradiction between his profiteering as a successful merchant of death and a fervent desire for peace that would render his business interests worthless. In fact, he justified the manufacture and sale of munitions of mass murder with a blatantly self-serving prophecy. "Perhaps my dynamite plants will put an end to war sooner than your peace congresses. On the day two army corps can annihilate each other in one second all civilized nations will recoil from war in horror."

    Nobel was definitely onto something. Some things are so horrifying that no sane society would put up with them. Nuclear war is one of them. Atom bombs are far more destructive than dynamite, and nothing should lead to the banning of all warfare more than the apocalyptic prospect of the world's capital cities reduced to radioactive rubble. Why hasn't it happened yet?

    The answer is the powers that be would no more give up nuclear weapons than an NRA zealot would turn in his guns. How do they get away with it? Simple. By doing everything in their power to minimize, deny, cover up, and ignore the horror of armageddon. To this end they not only refuse to discuss it. They act like there is nothing to discuss. To cite an example. "Between 1965 and 1980, Parliament did not once debate the nuclear arms race, arguably the most urgent and dangerous issue facing humanity. An almost parallel silence existed in the media."[1]

    This kind of glaring omission is integral to the "culture of lying" described by a Foreign Office technocrat. "It ensured the cover-up of a series of nuclear disasters in Britain spanning 40 years, including nuclear fires, crashes, contamination and dropped and damaged weapons." In 1996, a U.S. nuclear bomber and its weapon actually burnt on the ground in Greenham Common, a former RAF station in Berkshire. The surrounding country was contaminated with fissile material in its deadliest form. Not a single word of this was reported in the media at the time.

    Do you hear that bell ringing in back of your mind? Aren't vaccines treated in the same way? Of the ABC triad of weapons of mass destruction - atomic, biological, chemical - vaccines are the biological/chemical component. The fallout of mass mayhem and murder they leave in their wake is as horrifying in its way as a nuclear holocaust, possibly worse, for its victims are innocent children whose vital organs and immune systems are being fried in every generation.

    Imagine a braintrust of insiders musing over the vaccine dilemma. Vaccines are based on flawed science and falsified data. They have no redeeming value as they are not only worthless at preventing disease, but effective in subverting the balance of the immune system to the point of actually producing disease. Obviously, blowing the whistle on vaccines won't get us far. So why not make them as destructive as possible? What if vaccines blew up the brains of children so that they can't think straight or perform rudimentary tasks? What if vaccines crippled children with a spectrum of learning disabilities? What if vaccines made it difficult for children to breathe and talk and walk? What if vaccines make it impossible for children to eat a bag of peanuts or drink a cup of milk without going into fatal shock? Would all these things make vaccination so horrible that mankind would recoil from it in disgust? What if vaccines laid waste to the reproductive system of entire generations of children, and led to declining birthrates that created a wasteland of sterility? Would that be horrible enough to shock people into calling it quits?

    Vaccines currently do all these things - and more! But millions of parents still roll up their children's sleeves and hold out their arms to be jabbed. Why? The answer is the same as with nukes. Doctors, journalists and public health officials, under the coordinated aegis of pharmaceutical firms, have pretty much succeeded in muting the horror of vaccines. From the NIH director who covered up warnings of a polio vaccine debacle in 1954 to the Simpsonwood cover-up of thimerosal, directors and senior public health officials have engaged in a willful conspiracy to deny and downplay the dangers of vaccines. They layer deceit upon deceit, cover-up upon cover-up, shielding the public's eyes from the vaccine holocaust that is taking place as we speak. People naively speak of the informed consent that is guaranteed by the Nuremberg laws. They don't get it. There can never be informed consent with vaccines, because to be informed of the ghastly truth behind vaccines - to be truly informed of their bogus science, their rogue's gallery of charlatans and criminals from Edward Jenner to Jonas Salk, their doctored data, their sordid history of mass murder - is to recoil from them in horror and banish them from the face of earth.

    The vaccine orthodoxy is well aware of this. They live in mortal fear of the general public discovering the killing fields of the vaccine genocide. They are like the BBC producers who feared for the health of the military industrial complex if they aired a dramatization of London being attacked by a one-megaton nuclear bomb. So they suppressed it because they deemed it "too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting." Like them, vaccine officials know they must pull out all the stops of print and electronic media to stop the public from knowing the magnitude of casualties from their biochemical bombs. But they cannot stop parents of vaccine injured-and-killed children from seeing it with their own eyes. Silence is golden, but my eyes still see. These are the parents who can take bittersweet comfort from knowing that the more children fall victim to this Pharmageddon, the more their numbers will swell, until, in the end, they will grow strong enough to bring the whole towering Wall of Lies crashing down on the heads of the guilty.

    In the end, it may not take parents of vaccine injured kids to accomplish that. Or even armies of vaccine-injured children. All it would take is one child awakened to the horrors of a world of vaccine-injured children. One child awake to the insanity of it all. That may be enough to introduce the first crack in the Wall of Lies and bring it crumbling down like the Berlin Wall.

    Take Chuck Murdock. He's an all-American boy, a little-league pitcher in the 1987 film Amazing Grace and Chuck. On a field trip to a nuclear silo, he is horrified to learn that with the push of a button, entire cities can be incinerated in the flash of an eye. Stricken to the core of his being, the boy decides to give up baseball, his favorite pastime, until the world comes to its senses and disarms nuclear weapons. The local paper picks up the story, Chuck's sacrifice gets widespread publicity, and before long a basketball legend and other famous athletes join in to create a movement. It eventually gets to the point where children all over the world - yes, even in the former Soviet Union - refuse to talk to their parents until leaders scrap their nuclear arsenals.

    At one point in the film, Chuck meets with the United States President (played by Gregory Peck) who admonishes him that he can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire. "But sir," replies Chuck, "what if there is a fire." And there you have it. There is a fire raging in the brains of our children. Neurotoxins from vaccines are setting their brains on fire, causing the inflammation that is responsible for a spectrum of brain disorders, up to and including autism. The numbers of those affected - not just in the US but all over the world - represent a public health emergency of catastrophic dimensions. We should all be up in arms about it, withdrawing our participation from the system, boycotting a medical/political establishment that acts as if there is no calamity to acknowledge, much less to respond to. That's the thing about vaccines. It's not just that the vaccines themselves fail to immunize us against disease. It's that the PR drip that keeps the vaccine program going is so successful in immunizing us to the enormity of its fallout.

    Nobel's prophesy notwithstanding, it's hard to see how we can realize the brotherhood of man when it is dismissed as a utopian pipe dream. It's harder still to see how we can be repelled by the depth of man's inhumanity to man when it is dismissed as a tinfoil-hat fantasy. How are we supposed to be appalled by an evil that is air-brushed out of sight and mind, pooh-poohed as a figment of imagination, sugarcoated out of existence? Rather than seeing the power structure as a touchstone of reality, we have to see it for what it is - a systemic denier of reality, suppressing, distorting, perverting it, especially in terms of the sheer malignancy of the fraud it perpetrates. We shy away from embracing a world organized around love and peace by telling ourselves that ordinary people can't possibly be that good. And we blow our chances of escaping a world organized around war and crime by telling ourselves that our leaders can't possibly be that evil.

    The idea that the medical-industrial complex cares for humanity - that it labors to free us from disease and suffering - is a heart-warming fable, a warm fuzzy fairy tale. Evil flourishes because towering walls and impenetrable smokescreens are thrown up to hide its existence. Whether it is a nuclear holocaust or a vaccine one, it's all the same. The ideal of a good society forever seems to elude us because the powers that be are past masters at making-believe that the overwhelming reality of evil is all in our heads. Mothers who watch their children deteriorate right in front of their eyes from vaccine injuries are labeled irrational antivaxxers and hysterical fearmongers. Doctors who routinely traumatize children for life are hailed as beacons of science and progress. The vaccine edifice will stand for as long as it is founded on a Disneyfied view of reality. Let us wrap our heads around a situation where public health officials care more for the damage done to the vaccine program than for the damage the vaccine program does to our flesh and blood. Let the millions of horror stories from the vaccine holocaust go viral - let us be gobsmacked on the 6 O'Clock News by the radioactive enormity of the fallout from vaccines - and our sanity, our common sense, our common decency will kick in and boot vaccination into the waste basket of history, along with such grotesque rituals as trephination and leeching. To bring a better world into existence all we have to do is be sensitized to the horrors of the present one.

    Reference

    [1] John Pilger, Hidden Agendas [p. 512]
    Last edited by Delight; 18th November 2019 at 04:01.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    onawah (18th November 2019), Patient (18th November 2019), peterpam (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  9. Link to Post #585
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    2,740
    Thanks
    5,031
    Thanked 11,922 times in 2,410 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    This is a great resource.

    Quote ABOLISHING VACCINES ~ DEFENDING YOUR POSITION
    Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez
    There’s a Patrick Swayze line in the movie Roadhouse which has always stuck with me

    “All you have to do is follow three simple rules. One, never underestimate your opponent, expect the unexpected… Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside the bar unless it’s absolutely necessary… And three, be nice. I want you to be nice until it’s time to not be nice. If somebody gets in your face and calls you a **********, I want you to be nice. Ask him to walk. Be nice. If he won’t walk, walk him. But be nice. If you can’t walk him, one of the others will help you, and you’ll both be nice. I want you to remember that it’s a job. It’s nothing personal.”

    When defending your position the most important thing is being prepared, having resources, and inspiring loyalty, especially in the face of opposition. This requires an active army of allies and resources to take up the fight. It means taking an active defense or even making a counter-attack against challengers.

    To defend a position you must understand both sides of the issue. Defending yourself without being defensive requires practice and sometimes help from pre-fashioned statements or outside sources; if you can explain both sides of an issue it gives you an opportunity to address and proactively engage without losing your cool or stooping down to the often nasty level of those opposing your position.

    DEFENDING YOUR POSITION, HOW IS THIS DONE? BY FOCUSING ON STATISTICAL BASED DATA RATHER THAN QUANTITY AND VOLUME.

    When you face criticism you need to defend yourself without being defensive. The latter opens you to additional criticism because very often defensive people provoke negative behaviors such as lashing out or shutting down. You become caught in the moment and the niceties of polite discourse go out the window. It is fine to be passionate but you want to avoid becoming overly passionate, that is, unwilling and unable to listen to others.

    Maintaining an even keel in the face of skepticism or hostility is a vital attribute, the kind of aura you need to radiate. When people are whaling on your ideas it’s easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment. The challenge is not to overreact and to separate personality from ideology.

    Prepare yourself for objections. Consider who will say what and why. Develop comeback arguments to address concerns. Use arguments either preemptively (before the criticism is raised) or after the objection is voiced.

    Know it will take time and effort to persuade others to adopt your idea. You will hear similar counter-arguments voiced multiple times; expect it. Refine your ideas to reflect you’re listening to others. And remember patience also requires you keep your cool.

    When you encounter criticism, counter with an argument positioning your idea

    1. ARGUE THE POINT, NOT THE PERSON.
    Someone states their opinion and it makes your blood curdle. You immediately want to attach this person. Honestly, do you think this person cares what you think of them? Do you think that others in the line of comments really care what you think of this person? That is not a way to win an argument or even how to defend your position. If you want to score points, you have to hit where it counts and which is against their position. Argue why their point is wrong and your point is right. Anything less and you are actually giving them ammunition to use against you. For example, I had a person start to attack me because of my views on the importance of early childhood education. This person started to attack me personally and was saying what an awful educator I must be if I felt that way and so forth and so on. This took me about two minutes to come up with my response: “You apparently did not learn everything you needed to know in Kindergarten. Thank you for proving my point”. You must always argue the point not the person.

    2. USE DATA AND RESEARCH AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.
    If you read a post and disagree, before you respond, do a little research. Maybe you can find some data supporting your position. Maybe you can find an article you can quote in your response. Again, a debate is about an idea. You can attack the idea with data, statistics and research. Your opinion will be supported by using data which has been confirmed as valid.

    3. DON’T PUT WORDS IN YOUR OPPONENT’S MOUTH.
    When you’re quoting your opponent while using their post use the statement as it was intended to be used. Do not try to fabricate what the meaning of a sentence was or add/subtract words to suit your needs. Again, just leaves the door open for you to be ridiculed. All your opponent has to do is to show your error and people will negate any of the previous good points you may have made. Your opinion will not be trusted if you do not stress accuracy.

    4. DON’T GO OFF ON A TANGENT
    This is actually a strategy which can be reversed and used against your opponent. But be careful because it can backfire very easily. When you present your argument, you want it to be organized and specific to your point. You do not want people to become confused after reading your post. You want to persuade people to take your side, not confuse them and push them away. If you stay focused on your topic and continue to make valid points, it will make it difficult for your opponent to debate your position.

    5. STAY POSITIVE, POLITE, AND PROFESSIONAL
    Everyone who is reading your debate is judging you and your opponent. When people start to rant and go off on tangents or attack the other person, the audience quickly loses interest. No one wants to back the person who turns rude, or becomes mean-spirited. They want to follow the professional because they ARE professional. They want to follow the person who is positive and polite through the entire debate.

    In the end, taking the higher, more professional ground, will always be the better decision.

    a) I’m afraid I didn’t quite catch that.
    b) I’m sorry, could you repeat your question, please? I’m not sure I understood correctly.
    c) What do you mean by … exactly?
    d) Before I answer, could you clarify what you mean by …
    e) So, you mean …?
    f) So, if I’ve understood correctly, you would like to know …
    g) Let me make sure I correctly understood. Are you asking …?
    h) Yes, it has been claimed that … . However, I think that …
    i) I’m not sure that’s a fair criticism, because …
    j) Sorry, but I don’t quite see what that has to do with
    k) That’s a very good point but
    l) Sorry, but I can’t agree with you because …
    m) I see things a little differently.
    n) Sorry, I can’t answer that. I didn’t cover that in my research but I can find out

    There will come a point when these people will gather together harmonizing regurgitated sound-bites just as they’ve been trained to do. Anything you say will be exaggerated, misquoted, twisted and cherry-picked. They’ll deflect in an attempt to divert the subject with Straw Man arguments and nonsensical ranting’s on unrelated or loosely related subject matter, studding their posts with immature insults, calling you a vegetable or conspiracy nut and talking about the illogical theory of herd immunity. That’s when it’s time to bid them adieu, turn off your notifications and let them high five each other.

    Unfortunately, ALL vaccine damaged parents were also pro-vaccine at one time. These pro-vaxxers are stunningly misinformed and probably too far gone at this point; understand fear keeps them grounded in their tracks, keeps them from delving into the realm of discovery or able to comprehend data and statistics. That is, until theirs or someone’s kid close to them gets sick or dies from a vaccine injury. Have no delusion’s that anything you say will change their minds, they’re set in their ways, and extreme in their naiveté and misguided views. SERIOUSLY… JUST WALK AWAY.

    #LetOurVoicesEcho #AntiVaxx

    Explain a safe vaccine
    What are you left with should all dangerous components be removed from a vaccine?
    What’s the difference between your ideals of a safe vaccine vs the government’s ideals of a safe vaccine?
    If the masses demand a safer vaccine, and one is produce based on the ideals of what is considered safe by pharma and government, would YOU want to be forced into using these vaccines?
    What’s the difference between the abolish movement and the green safer vaccine movement?
    Once again, please explain a safe vaccine and what you are left with should all dangerous conponments be removed from a vaccine.
    Q: So you’re an “anti-vaxxer”?
    A: Yes, if you need to call me that. But most “anti-vaxxers” are better described as ex-vaxxers.

    Q: Don’t you worry about your child (or self) getting sick from vaccine-preventable diseases?
    A: No, not really. I actually have less fear of many of those illnesses now that I’ve done my research.

    Q: But what about polio?
    A: Polio is asymptomatic in over 90% of cases. When symptoms do present, they’re usually mild and flu-like.

    Q: But we don’t see iron lungs anymore because of vaccines.
    A: We don’t see iron lungs anymore for the same reason we don’t see computers that are large enough to take up an entire room. Technology has come a long way.

    Q: But even if the risk of getting something serious is small, don’t you want to protect your child/self with vaccines just in case?
    A: I do want to protect my child/self, and that is one reason I say no to vaccines. Because in my risk-benefit analysis, the chances of my child/self being harmed from vaccines is greater than the chances of my child/self being harmed from one of those illnesses.

    Q: But it’s not just about your child/self. It is your responsibility to vaccinate your child/self to protect immune-compromised people through herd immunity.
    A: Herd Immunity! First and foremost, my responsibility is to my child. I will not set my child on fire to keep someone else warm. What parent would knowingly risk their child’s life for the sake of the herd? Would you? My child is not a human shield. Secondly, vaccine herd immunity is a myth. Herd immunity only exists from catching the actual illness. We do not have vaccine-induced herd immunity and never have; and our vaccine program has destroyed natural herd immunity.

    Q: But don’t you think vaccines are a victim of their own success? They eradicated polio and other diseases, so you probably haven’t seen them thanks to vaccines.
    A: Correlation does not equal causation. The history of vaccines is more complex than that, and I no longer believe that vaccines can take the credit for eradicating any diseases. We have never had widespread vaccination for scarlet fever or typhoid, yet, they are no longer a threat. Amazing what sanitation can do. I may not have lived through the “polio” era, but I am living in a time with a different kind of epidemic. Rates of paralysis have increased since the introduction of the polio vaccine- they have been renamed. My child’s generation is the first to have a life expectancy that is less than that of their parents. People are sicker than ever with autoimmune diseases, deadly allergies, neurological problems, and cancer. We can not cling to a controversial problem of the past to make crucial decisions for today. We have to do something about the problems we are currently faced with, and giving more vaccines is not an acceptable solution.

    Q: Do the ingredients in vaccines concern you?
    A: Yes

    Q: You know there’s formaldehyde in pears, right? And mercury in tuna?
    A: When’s the last time you puréed a pear and some tuna, then injected it intramuscularly? We have a digestive system for a reason, and the mucosal tissue is one of the most important components of the human immune system. I don’t think bypassing those functions is without consequence. Ingestion and injection are not the same thing. It’s the same reason you can drink snake venom, but being bitten in the leg with the same venom can kill you.

    Q: But the science is settled and doctors and scientists agree that vaccines are necessary.
    A: Science is never settled. As history has shown, science can be dangerously wrong. It can also be heavily influenced by financial interests. And doctors and scientists do not all agree about vaccines. There are many doctors, nurses, immunologists, and researchers who are aware of the shortcomings of vaccines. And if we want to really discuss vaccine science, we need to demand that there be more of it, because vaccine science is severely lacking. It is the tobacco science of our time. The current vaccine schedule (which has more than tripled since vaccine manufacturers became protected from liability) has never been tested for safety. There hasn’t been a randomized double-blind placebo controlled study comparing the outcomes of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Vaccines are the epitome of quackery. They use neurotoxins as placebos!

    THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF REBUTTALS (not in any particular order) TO GET YOU STARTED. PLEASE READ THROUGH THEM CAREFULLY AND NOTE SOME ARE SNARKY, SO USE YOUR DISCRETION WHEN INCORPORATING THEM INTO YOUR COMMENTS BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SUGGESTIONS.
    (cont. here VERY GOOD)
    Last edited by Delight; 18th November 2019 at 04:13.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Hym (18th November 2019), mountain_jim (19th November 2019), onawah (18th November 2019), peterpam (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  11. Link to Post #586
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Bumping this! What absolutely excellent advice!
    Quote Posted by Delight (here)
    This is a great resource.

    Quote ABOLISHING VACCINES ~ DEFENDING YOUR POSITION
    Kristeen Irigoyen-Hernandez
    There’s a Patrick Swayze line in the movie Roadhouse which has always stuck with me

    “All you have to do is follow three simple rules. One, never underestimate your opponent, expect the unexpected… Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside the bar unless it’s absolutely necessary… And three, be nice. I want you to be nice until it’s time to not be nice. If somebody gets in your face and calls you a **********, I want you to be nice. Ask him to walk. Be nice. If he won’t walk, walk him. But be nice. If you can’t walk him, one of the others will help you, and you’ll both be nice. I want you to remember that it’s a job. It’s nothing personal.”

    When defending your position the most important thing is being prepared, having resources, and inspiring loyalty, especially in the face of opposition. This requires an active army of allies and resources to take up the fight. It means taking an active defense or even making a counter-attack against challengers.

    To defend a position you must understand both sides of the issue. Defending yourself without being defensive requires practice and sometimes help from pre-fashioned statements or outside sources; if you can explain both sides of an issue it gives you an opportunity to address and proactively engage without losing your cool or stooping down to the often nasty level of those opposing your position.

    DEFENDING YOUR POSITION, HOW IS THIS DONE? BY FOCUSING ON STATISTICAL BASED DATA RATHER THAN QUANTITY AND VOLUME.

    When you face criticism you need to defend yourself without being defensive. The latter opens you to additional criticism because very often defensive people provoke negative behaviors such as lashing out or shutting down. You become caught in the moment and the niceties of polite discourse go out the window. It is fine to be passionate but you want to avoid becoming overly passionate, that is, unwilling and unable to listen to others.

    Maintaining an even keel in the face of skepticism or hostility is a vital attribute, the kind of aura you need to radiate. When people are whaling on your ideas it’s easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment. The challenge is not to overreact and to separate personality from ideology.

    Prepare yourself for objections. Consider who will say what and why. Develop comeback arguments to address concerns. Use arguments either preemptively (before the criticism is raised) or after the objection is voiced.

    Know it will take time and effort to persuade others to adopt your idea. You will hear similar counter-arguments voiced multiple times; expect it. Refine your ideas to reflect you’re listening to others. And remember patience also requires you keep your cool.

    When you encounter criticism, counter with an argument positioning your idea

    1. ARGUE THE POINT, NOT THE PERSON.
    Someone states their opinion and it makes your blood curdle. You immediately want to attach this person. Honestly, do you think this person cares what you think of them? Do you think that others in the line of comments really care what you think of this person? That is not a way to win an argument or even how to defend your position. If you want to score points, you have to hit where it counts and which is against their position. Argue why their point is wrong and your point is right. Anything less and you are actually giving them ammunition to use against you. For example, I had a person start to attack me because of my views on the importance of early childhood education. This person started to attack me personally and was saying what an awful educator I must be if I felt that way and so forth and so on. This took me about two minutes to come up with my response: “You apparently did not learn everything you needed to know in Kindergarten. Thank you for proving my point”. You must always argue the point not the person.

    2. USE DATA AND RESEARCH AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.
    If you read a post and disagree, before you respond, do a little research. Maybe you can find some data supporting your position. Maybe you can find an article you can quote in your response. Again, a debate is about an idea. You can attack the idea with data, statistics and research. Your opinion will be supported by using data which has been confirmed as valid.

    3. DON’T PUT WORDS IN YOUR OPPONENT’S MOUTH.
    When you’re quoting your opponent while using their post use the statement as it was intended to be used. Do not try to fabricate what the meaning of a sentence was or add/subtract words to suit your needs. Again, just leaves the door open for you to be ridiculed. All your opponent has to do is to show your error and people will negate any of the previous good points you may have made. Your opinion will not be trusted if you do not stress accuracy.

    4. DON’T GO OFF ON A TANGENT
    This is actually a strategy which can be reversed and used against your opponent. But be careful because it can backfire very easily. When you present your argument, you want it to be organized and specific to your point. You do not want people to become confused after reading your post. You want to persuade people to take your side, not confuse them and push them away. If you stay focused on your topic and continue to make valid points, it will make it difficult for your opponent to debate your position.

    5. STAY POSITIVE, POLITE, AND PROFESSIONAL
    Everyone who is reading your debate is judging you and your opponent. When people start to rant and go off on tangents or attack the other person, the audience quickly loses interest. No one wants to back the person who turns rude, or becomes mean-spirited. They want to follow the professional because they ARE professional. They want to follow the person who is positive and polite through the entire debate.

    In the end, taking the higher, more professional ground, will always be the better decision.

    a) I’m afraid I didn’t quite catch that.
    b) I’m sorry, could you repeat your question, please? I’m not sure I understood correctly.
    c) What do you mean by … exactly?
    d) Before I answer, could you clarify what you mean by …
    e) So, you mean …?
    f) So, if I’ve understood correctly, you would like to know …
    g) Let me make sure I correctly understood. Are you asking …?
    h) Yes, it has been claimed that … . However, I think that …
    i) I’m not sure that’s a fair criticism, because …
    j) Sorry, but I don’t quite see what that has to do with
    k) That’s a very good point but
    l) Sorry, but I can’t agree with you because …
    m) I see things a little differently.
    n) Sorry, I can’t answer that. I didn’t cover that in my research but I can find out

    There will come a point when these people will gather together harmonizing regurgitated sound-bites just as they’ve been trained to do. Anything you say will be exaggerated, misquoted, twisted and cherry-picked. They’ll deflect in an attempt to divert the subject with Straw Man arguments and nonsensical ranting’s on unrelated or loosely related subject matter, studding their posts with immature insults, calling you a vegetable or conspiracy nut and talking about the illogical theory of herd immunity. That’s when it’s time to bid them adieu, turn off your notifications and let them high five each other.

    Unfortunately, ALL vaccine damaged parents were also pro-vaccine at one time. These pro-vaxxers are stunningly misinformed and probably too far gone at this point; understand fear keeps them grounded in their tracks, keeps them from delving into the realm of discovery or able to comprehend data and statistics. That is, until theirs or someone’s kid close to them gets sick or dies from a vaccine injury. Have no delusion’s that anything you say will change their minds, they’re set in their ways, and extreme in their naiveté and misguided views. SERIOUSLY… JUST WALK AWAY.

    #LetOurVoicesEcho #AntiVaxx

    Explain a safe vaccine
    What are you left with should all dangerous components be removed from a vaccine?
    What’s the difference between your ideals of a safe vaccine vs the government’s ideals of a safe vaccine?
    If the masses demand a safer vaccine, and one is produce based on the ideals of what is considered safe by pharma and government, would YOU want to be forced into using these vaccines?
    What’s the difference between the abolish movement and the green safer vaccine movement?
    Once again, please explain a safe vaccine and what you are left with should all dangerous conponments be removed from a vaccine.
    Q: So you’re an “anti-vaxxer”?
    A: Yes, if you need to call me that. But most “anti-vaxxers” are better described as ex-vaxxers.

    Q: Don’t you worry about your child (or self) getting sick from vaccine-preventable diseases?
    A: No, not really. I actually have less fear of many of those illnesses now that I’ve done my research.

    Q: But what about polio?
    A: Polio is asymptomatic in over 90% of cases. When symptoms do present, they’re usually mild and flu-like.

    Q: But we don’t see iron lungs anymore because of vaccines.
    A: We don’t see iron lungs anymore for the same reason we don’t see computers that are large enough to take up an entire room. Technology has come a long way.

    Q: But even if the risk of getting something serious is small, don’t you want to protect your child/self with vaccines just in case?
    A: I do want to protect my child/self, and that is one reason I say no to vaccines. Because in my risk-benefit analysis, the chances of my child/self being harmed from vaccines is greater than the chances of my child/self being harmed from one of those illnesses.

    Q: But it’s not just about your child/self. It is your responsibility to vaccinate your child/self to protect immune-compromised people through herd immunity.
    A: Herd Immunity! First and foremost, my responsibility is to my child. I will not set my child on fire to keep someone else warm. What parent would knowingly risk their child’s life for the sake of the herd? Would you? My child is not a human shield. Secondly, vaccine herd immunity is a myth. Herd immunity only exists from catching the actual illness. We do not have vaccine-induced herd immunity and never have; and our vaccine program has destroyed natural herd immunity.

    Q: But don’t you think vaccines are a victim of their own success? They eradicated polio and other diseases, so you probably haven’t seen them thanks to vaccines.
    A: Correlation does not equal causation. The history of vaccines is more complex than that, and I no longer believe that vaccines can take the credit for eradicating any diseases. We have never had widespread vaccination for scarlet fever or typhoid, yet, they are no longer a threat. Amazing what sanitation can do. I may not have lived through the “polio” era, but I am living in a time with a different kind of epidemic. Rates of paralysis have increased since the introduction of the polio vaccine- they have been renamed. My child’s generation is the first to have a life expectancy that is less than that of their parents. People are sicker than ever with autoimmune diseases, deadly allergies, neurological problems, and cancer. We can not cling to a controversial problem of the past to make crucial decisions for today. We have to do something about the problems we are currently faced with, and giving more vaccines is not an acceptable solution.

    Q: Do the ingredients in vaccines concern you?
    A: Yes

    Q: You know there’s formaldehyde in pears, right? And mercury in tuna?
    A: When’s the last time you puréed a pear and some tuna, then injected it intramuscularly? We have a digestive system for a reason, and the mucosal tissue is one of the most important components of the human immune system. I don’t think bypassing those functions is without consequence. Ingestion and injection are not the same thing. It’s the same reason you can drink snake venom, but being bitten in the leg with the same venom can kill you.

    Q: But the science is settled and doctors and scientists agree that vaccines are necessary.
    A: Science is never settled. As history has shown, science can be dangerously wrong. It can also be heavily influenced by financial interests. And doctors and scientists do not all agree about vaccines. There are many doctors, nurses, immunologists, and researchers who are aware of the shortcomings of vaccines. And if we want to really discuss vaccine science, we need to demand that there be more of it, because vaccine science is severely lacking. It is the tobacco science of our time. The current vaccine schedule (which has more than tripled since vaccine manufacturers became protected from liability) has never been tested for safety. There hasn’t been a randomized double-blind placebo controlled study comparing the outcomes of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Vaccines are the epitome of quackery. They use neurotoxins as placebos!

    THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF REBUTTALS (not in any particular order) TO GET YOU STARTED. PLEASE READ THROUGH THEM CAREFULLY AND NOTE SOME ARE SNARKY, SO USE YOUR DISCRETION WHEN INCORPORATING THEM INTO YOUR COMMENTS BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SUGGESTIONS.
    (cont. here VERY GOOD)
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    peterpam (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  13. Link to Post #587
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Dr. Brownstein Exposes Fake News About Flu Shot in Wall Street Journal
    11/18/19
    https://vaccineimpact.com/2019/dr-br...u-shot-in-wsj/
    "WSJ Article on Flu Shots: Perfect Example of Fake News!
    by David Brownstein, M.D.
    DrBrownstein.com

    "My friend Brad texted me during the Michigan-Michigan State football game yesterday telling me I have to read the flu shot article in the WSJ and write about it.

    Well, I got home from the BIG Michigan victory (Go Blue!) and promptly read the November 16, 2019 article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-pro...s&page=1&pos=1).

    This article must have been supplied to the WSJ writer by Big Pharma as this was nothing more than a promotional spot for why we should be vaccinated against the flu.

    Let me give you my opinion and the true facts behind the flu vaccine then you can make an informed choice on whether to receive the flu vaccination or not.

    When you decide, please write me a note. I love hearing from my readers whether you agree with me or not. I will go through much of the article and comment on what is true and what is fake news.

    The WSJ article starts by stating, “Each year, influenza sickens millions of people. But typically, too few Americans get the flu shot to shield everyone from the contagious disease.”

    The article then states that babies and those who cannot be vaccinated are put at risk when people decide to forgo the flu vaccine.

    True News: Yes, millions do get the flu each year.

    Fake News: The flu shot has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to prevent transmission of the flu. The best it can do is to limit the symptoms in an infected person. That person can still transmit the flu virus to others.

    The flu vaccine is not the only vaccine that fails to stop the spread of disease. Diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio (injectable) and the meningitis vaccines all fail to prevent the spread of the respective illnesses, but that’s another article.

    To claim the flu shot will protect the spread of influenza to those with immune systems that are vulnerable is…FAKE NEWS!

    The article states, “…there are life-threatening conditions that the {influenza virus} can trigger, including inflammation of the heart, brain or spinal cord. A nursing expert stated, “It’s really the complications related to the flu that we should be scared about. That’s what the vaccine helps to prevent or reduce.”

    True News: Influenza can cause serious complications including those mentioned above. The greatest risk of complications from the flu do occur in children and the elderly.

    Fake News: The flu shot has NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO REDUCE SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS SUCH AS PNEUMONIA OR HOSPTILIZATION FROM INFLUENZA INFECTION IN CHILDREN, HEALTHY ADULTS AND THE ELDERLY!

    Cochrane is an independent group of scientists who evaluate evidence from research. They do not take funding from Big Pharm and other commercial interests and therefore their reviews should be carefully weighed.

    A 2018 Cochrane Review on Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children (1) reported that there was “…no data on…hospitalisation{sic}.” The authors further reported limited evidence for the treatment of lower respiratory tract disease (i.e., pneumonia). The Cochrane authors further state, “To date no studies have adequately measured or reported hospitalisation (sic) {benefits of the influenza vaccine}.”

    Another Cochrane review on influenza vaccines in healthy adults found flu shots “…had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.” (2)

    In the elderly, a third Cochrane Review (3) found that there was inadequate data available to assess whether flu shots decrease this risk of pneumonia or hospitalization in the elderly.

    Since the flu shot, at best, provides a one percent benefit for the elderly at preventing the flu, I can assure you that there will never be data that shows the flu vaccine prevents serious complications from influenza infection in this population.

    It is FAKE NEWS to state that the flu shot significantly lowers ones risk for serious complications from the flu.

    The author of the article wrote, “At greatest risk of senior citizens. People age 65 and older accounted for 86% of flu-related death and 69% of hospitalizations in the 2017-2018 flu season. Altogether, an estimated 960,000 people were hospitalized that season and more than 79,000 died.”

    True News: The elderly are at greatest risk of influenza.

    Fake News: As stated above, the flu vaccine has NEVER been shown to protect those aged 65 and older. And, 79,000 dying from the flu last year?

    No way. The CDC annually gins up the number of deaths from the flu by reporting pneumonia and flu deaths as one number. Then, the CDC reports this number as the total dying from the flu.

    However, the yearly number who actually die from the flu are tens of thousands lower than who die from influenza.

    I have written about this shifty practice many times–see this blog post for more information: https://www.drbrownstein.com/the-tru...e-flu-vaccine/.

    The number who die from the flu range from a few hundred to a few thousand per year. Since the flu vaccine does not prevent pneumonia, and pneumonia deaths vastly outnumber flu deaths sometimes 20-40x, there is simply no reason to lump the numbers together unless you want to unnecessarily scare the population into getting a flu vaccine. To further confuse us, the CDC has recently stopped reporting the breakdown between who actually died from the flu and who died from [pneumonia].

    I have only covered about one-third of the WSJ article. But, that is enough. The WSJ should research better before reporting Big Pharma talking points.

    The flu shot is not without adverse effects. Many flu shots contain mercury which is the second most toxic substance known to mankind. Mercury should never be injected into any living being. There are other toxins in the flu vaccine.

    The flu vaccine is the most common vaccine compensated by the Federal Government for adverse effects. I could write a lengthy article about the adverse effects from the flu vaccine, but that is for another time.

    Should you get a flu shot? Hopefully you now have the information available to you in order to make an informed decision. If you want to read more about the failures of the flu shot, just search in the blog search box “flu” and a host of articles will pop up.

    References
    (1): https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr...fluenz%7Cchild

    (2) https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr...hdrawn%7Cadult

    (3) https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr...lder%7Celderly

    (4) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/n...r68_09-508.pdf "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Delight (18th November 2019), Elixir (20th November 2019), mountain_jim (19th November 2019), peterpam (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  15. Link to Post #588
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    UN Praises Maldives Bill Outlawing Informed Consent for Pharmaceuticals
    11/18/19
    From Jeremy Hammon's email update today:


    "Several days ago, the legislature of the Maldives passed a bill that according to Maldives news reports would outlaw the exercise of the right to informed consent.

    If ratified, the new law would make it illegal for parents to decline certain pharmaceutical products that will be mandated for use in all children.

    This represents a threat not only to the health and liberty of the people of the Maldives, but to the entire world because this totalitarianism is being pushed through under the guise of protecting the "rights of the child".

    The euphemistic language being used is that children have a "right to care". We've seen reported cases of medical kidnapping right here in the US precisely on these grounds, such as with parents refusing the vitamin K shot or hepatitis B vaccine at birth.

    The idea is that parents are violating the child's "right" to receive these products, but of course this senseless propagandistic language simply obfuscates the reality that the government is claiming to have a "right" to force pharmaceutical products on children in violation of the parental right to informed consent.

    Illustrating that the threat is not local to the Indian Ocean nation but global, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) praised the bill for supposedly bringing the Maldives closer in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

    In fact, it violates the CRC, which recognizes that it is the duty of the parents to make such decisions on their children's behalf and clarifies that the only role of the state is to assist parents such as by ensuring accessibility of health care -- not forcing pharmaceutical products on them.

    The threat is grave and immediate. We must stop this march toward absolute medical tyranny if we wish to preserve the health and liberty of our children and future generations of humanity.

    Toward that end, please read and share my latest article for Foreign Policy Journal, "UN Praises Maldives Bill Outlawing Informed Consent for Pharmaceuticals":
    Learn more about this grave threat to humanity.
    Regards,
    Jeremy Hammond


    The United Nations Children’s Fund has dangerously praised the Maldives legislature for passing a bill that fundamentally violates human rights
    11/16/19

    https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...harmaceuticals

    "The parliament of the Republic of Maldives on November 14 passed a bill effectively outlawing the exercise of the right to informed consent, one of the most fundamental ethics in medicine. If ratified, according to multiple Maldives online news sources, the new law would make it illegal for parents to decline certain pharmaceutical products for their children.

    Concerningly, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has praised the Maldives legislature for passing the bill, which has been promoted as bringing the country into closer compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

    The authoritarian bill is being euphemistically called the “Child Rights Protection Bill”. The implicit underlying concept is that children have a “right” to receive certain pharmaceutical products and so parents cannot be allowed to choose for their children not to receive those risk-carrying products.

    This framework overlooks the fact that children do not have enough knowledge and understanding to be able to do their own risk-benefit analysis, which is why such decisions must be made for them by their parents until they reach such age as to be able to reasonably make their own choice.

    Of course, children won’t be given the choice, either, if news reports are accurate and the bill is ratified into law. Government bureaucrats will be the ones making that decision on children’s behalf, despite having none of the specialized knowledge of the individual child that is possessed by the child’s parents working in consultation with the child’s doctor—knowledge required to be able to conduct the necessary risk-benefit analysis for that individual.

    UNICEF is apparently unconcerned with world governments systematically violating the right to informed consent of their citizens. The propagandistic language of children’s rights being used to push this authoritarian agenda serves to mask how the Maldives government is itself claiming to have a “right” to force risk-carrying pharmaceutical products on children against the will of their parents.

    In effect, the government will be subjecting every child member of the population to a mass uncontrolled experiment without their informed consent.

    In a tweet immediately following its passage, UNICEF described the bill as a “celebration-worthy milestone for the Maldives, as we mark the 30th anniversary of the #CRC.”

    The Sun Online, a Maldives media outlet, reported that the bill passed unanimously and “would make it mandatory for parents to vaccinate children and outlaw the option of rejecting vaccinations by the parents.”

    The report self-contradictorily added that “The new legislature on child rights protection is designed to remedy the inconsistencies between the current Child Rights Protection Act—enacted in 1991—and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

    That report was also published in short form by One Online, another Maldives news site.

    The Maldives Independent similarly reported that the parliament had “passed with unanimous consent a new child protection law with provisions to make vaccination mandatory”. Under the law, parents “would not be legally allowed to deny vaccinating their children”. The euphemistic language being used to describe the government’s agenda to forcibly vaccinate children is that they have a “right to care”.

    This aspect of the bill is being passed under cover of other provisions intended to bring the country closer in line with the protections under international law for the rights of the child, such as by prohibiting child marriage and criminalizing failure to report child abuse.

    While enacting protections for children from some forms of child abuse, however, the government itself would be committing child abuse systematically on a massive scale by forcing upon children risk-carrying pharmaceutical products that can and do cause permanent injury or even death to some children.

    “Once ratified,” the Maldives Independent added, “the new law will replace the 1991 child protection law and bring the domestic legal framework in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

    But that is not true. On the contrary, the outlawing of informed consent is a gross violation of fundamental human rights and is inconsistent with international law.

    The Inviolable Right to Informed Consent
    The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes that “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Its aim is to “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”.

    The Convention acknowledges the child’s right to “be cared for by his or her parents.” States are obligated to “respect the rights and duties of the parents”, which certainly includes making decisions affecting the child’s health.

    The Convention explicitly recognizes that “primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child” belongs not to the state but the parents. The role of the state, instead, is merely to “render appropriate assistance to parents”, not to make decisions affecting the child on their behalf and without respect for their parental rights.

    The cheerleading from UNICEF also comes despite the fact that the right to informed consent has been explicitly recognized under international conventions and treaties as one of the most fundamental ethics in medicine—an inviolable human right that no government may legislate away.

    In the wake of World War II and revelations about the Nazis’ medical experimentation upon unwilling human subjects, the very first medical ethic recognized under the Nuremberg Code is that “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” The use of “force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion” is absolutely prohibited as violating the individual’s right “to exercise free power of choice”. Additionally, the subject of any medical intervention “should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

    The 1966 United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights similarly states that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”

    The updated 2002 edition of the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, the guidelines of which are promulgated by the World Health Organization (WHO), explicitly recognizes that the individual subjected to medical intervention must be “capable of giving informed consent”. If the individual isn’t capable of making that choice, the intervention requires “the permission of a legally authorized representative”—which in the case of children means the parents.

    The 2005 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights states that “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.” In no case should decisions by authorities “substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”

    The Convention on the Rights of the Child also says that state parties are responsible, without prejudice to the rights of parents, to take appropriate measures to “diminish infant and child mortality”. The Maldives bill would also violate that clause of the CRC, too, if scientific studies are any indication.

    The DTP Vaccine’s Negative Effect on Childhood Mortality
    Although the popular belief—and the message conveyed by government health officials—is that all vaccines are “safe and effective”, the truth is that there is an egregious lack of properly designed safety studies for these pharmaceutical products.

    One illustrative example is the diphtheria, tetanus, and whole cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine, which is routinely administered to children in the Maldives. The DTP vaccine was never studied for its effect on childhood mortality in clinical trials. Government policy makers always just assumed that by reducing incidence of the target diseases it would reduce childhood mortality. But that’s not what the scientific evidence tells us.

    On the contrary, the best scientific evidence to date strongly indicates that the DTP vaccine increases the risk of death. Numerous studies have found it to be associated with a significantly increased rate of childhood mortality.

    The authors of a study into the DTP vaccine’s effect on childhood mortality published in the journal EBioMedicine in 2017 summarized the situation bluntly: “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infection.”

    The key finding of that study was that “DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated.”

    The authors further commented that, “Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs.”

    “It should be of concern”, the researchers also remarked, “that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials.”

    The term in the literature used to describe such unintended consequences of vaccination is “non-specific effects”.

    Another study published in Frontiers in Public Health similarly pointed out that “All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.” The association is particularly strong for girls. The best studies show “four to five times higher mortality” for DTP-vaccinated children.

    An expert review of the available studies published in June 2019 by the Vaccine Science Foundation 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”.

    Concern was also expressed that the WHO had attempted to dismiss the studies and acted in a manner “inconsistent and biased towards positive effects of vaccines. When a result pleases the WHO, it can be accepted, but not when a result does not please the WHO.”

    Conflicts of interest within the WHO is another area of concern. Of the fourteen experts tasked by the WHO to examine the evidence with respect to the DTP vaccine’s effect on mortality, eight “had relevant conflicts of interest in relation to companies producing vaccines”. Three “even had ties to GlaxoSmithKline”, one of the manufacturers of DTP vaccines.

    While the WHO chose not to see any conflicts of interest, “research has overwhelmingly demonstrated that people become influenced when they have financial ties to drug companies, even when these ties are not directly related to the drugs or vaccines in question.”

    The review observed the commonsense principle that “expert committees that give advice on immunization programs should not be involved with their re-assessment when research has demonstrated that a vaccine might increase total mortality.” Additionally, “no one should be allowed to have financial conflicts of interest in relation to the pharmaceutical industry.” However, “This is not the case for WHO committees.”

    The review further observed:

    It is the duty of a manufacturer of a drug or vaccine to demonstrate in randomized trials that it works and has a positive benefit to harm balance. This has not been done for the DTP vaccine. Not a single randomized trial has been carried out, but the vaccine is nonetheless on the market. This has created the odd situation that the burden of proof has been reversed. The WHO recommends the use of the vaccine and seems to require very convincing evidence that it increases mortality before any action will possibly be taken.

    Given the widespread use of the vaccine around world, the “need for randomized trials” is “an urgent ethical imperative.”

    In conclusion, “the best available evidence . . . tells us that it is likely that the DTP vaccine increases total mortality in low-income countries”, and therefore “no one should be offered this vaccine without full informed consent that includes information that the vaccine is likely to increase total mortality.”

    The Maldives government is engaging in science denialism by ignoring that sound and medically ethical recommendation.

    More Vaccines Doesn’t Equal Better Health
    It’s also worth pointing out that although the United States has the most highly vaccinated childhood population in the world and spends more per capita on health care for children, it also consistently ranks last among developed countries for its rate of infant mortality.

    Far from the highly vaccinated US population being healthy, as a 2013 report from the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine noted, “Americans die sooner and experience more illness than residents in many other countries.” A study published in 2011 estimated that at least 43 percent of the childhood population—32 million children—suffered from at least one chronic health condition.

    According to a report published in 2013 by Save the Children, “In the industrialized world, the United States has by far the most first-day deaths. . . . An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.”

    Relevantly, the CDC also recommends that the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine be routinely administered to all newborn babies in the US on the first day of their lives regardless of the fact that most infants are not at significant risk from this virus, which is mostly transmitted through sex or intravenous injections, and the fact that routine screening is done to determine whether the mother is a carrier.

    This places the majority of children at unnecessary risk of harm from the vaccine, which, like many other vaccines used in children, contains aluminum, a known neurotoxin that accumulates in the brain. While human studies haven’t been done to determine the neurotoxicological effects of the HepB vaccine on infants, rodent studies have found that the vaccine causes neurodevelopmental harm.

    The HepB vaccine is among those that would be forced upon children against their parents’ will­ if the Maldives bill is ratified.

    Another is the live oral polio vaccine (OPV), which now causes more cases of paralysis than the wild virus.

    It would be superfluous to provide other examples.

    A Dangerous Precedent
    All vaccines carry the risk of serious harm or even death. Furthermore, certain children are at greater risk of being harmed by vaccines, and these children are placed on the sacrificial altar in the name of “public health” when vaccines are universally mandated.

    For example, the US government has acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage manifesting as symptoms of autism in children with mitochondrial disorders.

    The US government has also granted legal immunity to manufacturers of vaccines recommended for routine use in children by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The parent agency of the CDC, the Department of Health and Human Services, administers a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that effectively shifts the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry and onto the taxpaying consumers.

    To obtain licensure by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccine manufacturers are not required to conduct long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing health outcomes between an experimental group who receive the vaccine and a control group who are instead given an inert placebo. Since the pharmaceutical companies aren’t required to, they don’t.

    Government policymakers in the US and countries all over the world are essentially subjecting their entire populations to a mass uncontrolled experiment without individuals’ informed consent.

    What government officials in the Maldives evidently hope to do is to take this one step further and ensure that informed parents who judge that the potential benefits of a given vaccine would not outweigh the potential harms are not allowed to choose for their child to not be experimented upon.

    For an agency of the United Nations to endorse a government policy that so egregiously violates the right to informed consent sets a worrying precedent encouraging a trend of increasing totalitarianism that threatens both public health and fundamental human rights. "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Delight (20th November 2019), Elixir (20th November 2019), Franny (19th November 2019), Hym (20th November 2019), mountain_jim (19th November 2019), peterpam (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  17. Link to Post #589
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Are Doctors and Nurses the New Secret Police? The Unholy Alliance with DCS
    Patriot Nurse speaks out (and she's angry!! )
    11/17/19
    "In this video, Patriot Nurse discusses the disturbing trend of politically weaponized healthcare. Recently, evidence was uncovered that exposes the, sadly, not uncommon practice of physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals using the strong arm of the State to foist their wills upon families and patients. Recently, a class action lawsuit was filed against Illinois Child and Family Services on behalf of families whose children were unrighteously taken from them after they make informed choices to opt out of certain newborn procedures."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Delight (20th November 2019), East Sun (20th November 2019), Hym (20th November 2019), mountain_jim (20th November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  19. Link to Post #590
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    CDC Petitioned to Stop Lying About Pharma Funds
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    November 19, 2019
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=753256520

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    The fact that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention accepts millions of dollars from drug companies and vaccine makers may be at the heart of many harmful and nonsensical health recommendations
    The CDC has long fostered the perception of independence by stating it does not accept funding from special interests. In reality, it receives millions of dollars each year from commercial interests through its government-charted foundation, the CDC Foundation, which funnels those contributions to the CDC after deducting a fee
    Several watchdog groups — including the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight — are petitioning the CDC to cease making these false disclaimers and retroactively acknowledge conflicts of interest
    CDC accepted $79.6 million from drug companies and commercial manufacturers between 2014 and 2018 alone. Since its inception in 1995, the CDC Foundation has accepted $161 million from private corporations
    Government-chartered foundations allow corporations to fund and thereby control the work of agencies that are supposed to regulate them
    The fact that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention accepts millions of dollars in funding from drug companies and vaccine makers is no minor problem. It may in fact be at the very heart of why so many harmful and nonsensical health recommendations end up being pushed down our throats.

    The CDC has long fostered the perception of independence by stating it does not accept funding from special interests. In disclaimers peppered throughout the CDC website1 and in its publications, it says the agency “does not accept commercial support” and has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.”

    Several watchdog groups — including the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight — are now petitioning2 the CDC to cease making these false disclaimers.3

    CDC Gets Millions From Corporate Interests
    In reality, the CDC does in fact accept millions of dollars each year from commercial interests through its government-chartered foundation, the CDC Foundation, which funnels those contributions to the CDC after deducting a fee.4

    On the CDC Foundation’s website, you’ll find a long list5 of “corporate partners” that have provided the CDC with funding over the years. The petition also points out that the CDC media office states the agency “has, can and does accept commercial support,” which is a clear contradiction to its printed disclaimers. Furthermore:

    “CDC even accepts earmarked money via the CDC Foundation, allowing manufacturers to fund studies or programs whose results would either expand their profits or reduce their liability exposure,” the petition states.6

    “For example, the BMJ reported that ‘in 2012, Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDC’s efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C’ …

    The CDC Foundation also accepted $1.7 million from the Central American sugar industry for studies on chronic kidney disease which have been criticized for being biased towards the sugar industry, by not asking the best questions.”

    CDC Petitioned to Quit Making False Claims
    According to the petition,7 the CDC accepted $79.6 million from drug companies and commercial manufacturers between 2014 and 2018 alone. Since its inception in 1995, the CDC Foundation has accepted $161 million from private corporations.

    As reported by the Lown Institute,8 which aims to advance “a just and caring system for health to replace the current, failing model rooted in profit-driven, low-value care”:9

    “Many of these contributions could be seen as conflicts of interest — for example, a $193,000 donation from Roche, the maker of antiviral drug Tamiflu, to fund a CDC flu prevention campaign.

    Despite the significant funding the CDC receives from industry via its foundation, few were aware of these conflicts until Jeanne Lenzer called attention to the foundation in The BMJ10 a few years ago.

    Recently, the CDC accepted $3.4 million from Pfizer for the prevention of Cryptococcal disease, $1 million from Merck & Co. pharmaceutical company for a program on preventing maternal mortality, and $750,000 from Biogen for a program on screening newborns for spinal muscular atrophy …”

    The petition asks the CDC to stop publishing the false and misleading disclaimers, remove all previously published disclaimers from the CDC website and its publications, and to issue corrections, retroactively disclosing the agency’s financial relationships with industry.

    “By issuing these false disclaimers, CDC is misleading health professionals, consumers and others both in the United States and around the world,” the petition states.11

    “This deception undermines CDC’s credibility and integrity. But the damage here is not merely to the CDC itself. CDC is a national and global leader on medical and public health matters. It is crucial for the CDC to lead by example on matters of ethics, and, at a minimum, to faithfully and truthfully disclose its conflicts of interest.”

    Government-Chartered Foundations Gives Control to Industry
    In a November 5, 2019, press release, Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group stated:12

    “That the CDC accepts millions from corporations directly impacted by the agency’s public health programs is indefensible. So, the CDC instead has adopted the strategy of repeatedly denying that it accepts such payments.”

    Gary Ruskin, co-director of USRTK added:13

    “It’s time for the CDC to be truthful with health professionals and all Americans, and to stop denying that it takes corporate money. The CDC is violating the public trust by misleading us in this way.”

    The CDC is supposed to be a public health watchdog. It has tremendous credibility within the medical community, and part of this credibility hinges on the idea that it’s free of industry bias and conflicts of interest.

    By accepting money from drug companies and vaccine makers, one has to wonder whether that money might be having an impact on the agency’s health recommendations.

    Again and again, investigations have shown that funding plays an enormous role in decision-making and in research outcomes. As noted by Shannon Brownlee, senior vice president for the Lown Institute, government-chartered foundations:14

    “… exist at least in part because they allow industries to directly fund and thus control the work of agencies that are either supposed to regulate them, or conduct research that can help or hurt their business.”

    Telltale Signs of Impropriety Abound
    When you start to investigate, there’s no shortage of telltale signs suggesting the CDC isn’t nearly as independent as it claims to be. Some have already been noted in the CDC petition, but there are plenty of others as well.

    For example, in 2016, Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, quickly resigned after it was revealed she aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to get World Health Organization officials to relax WHO’s sugar limits.

    I wrote about this in “CDC Executive Resigns After Being Caught Colluding with Coca-Cola to Salvage Soda Market.” Shortly thereafter, CDC director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald was found to have received funding from Coca-Cola for her anti-obesity campaign, which had a near-exclusive focus on exercise, not the impact of soda and sugary junk food. This was reported in “Public Health Agency Sued for Coke Collusion.”

    CDC Promotes Drug Industry Agenda
    In a November 4, 2019, article15 in Eye on Annapolis, Josh Mazer discusses how the CDC is funding state health programs aimed at implementing mandatory HPV vaccinations:

    “The Maryland Prevention and Health Promotion Agency (PHPA) has received millions … as part of an effort to require public schools to force children to get the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination.

    Those funds came in the form of grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC maintains a nonprofit foundation that gets enormous amounts of money from Big Pharma — including Merck, the company that produces Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. At the very least, Maryland’s acceptance of those funds has the appearance of impropriety …

    During a PHPA-hosted ‘HPV symposium’ attended by state pediatric practices and Maryland Department of Health staffers in March 2018 … the featured speaker — Dr. Alix Casler — encouraged attendees to offer free dinners, bottles of wine, and ‘Quality Doctor Incentives $’ sales bonuses to get Maryland physicians on board with the HPV vaccine-pushing program …

    Casler offered a $5,000 cash payment to pediatric practices that achieve targeted HPV vaccine sales goals … Casler is a paid spokesperson for Merck …

    In 2016, the Maryland Partnership for Prevention — which lists the Maryland Department of Health as its top member — accepted $70,000 from the Association of Immunization Managers (AIM).

    AIM’s top ‘Corporate Alliance Members’ are Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus. That same year, legislation was introduced in Maryland to mandate the shot … Despite the deaths and the ongoing health-safety questions related to the HPV vaccine, Maryland PHPA has continued using our schools to push Merck’s product.”

    CDC Front Group Lobbies for Mandatory Vaccinations
    Mazer’s observations are unlikely to be coincidental, as the CDC is a primary contributor to the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), which lobbies for mandatory vaccinations and the elimination of personal belief exemptions to vaccination nationwide.16 As such, the CDC is actively using industry donations to promote a for-profit industry agenda.

    It should be clear by now that the justifications given for why personal belief exemptions need to be abolished are nothing but a ploy to make money off mandatory vaccines.

    In recent times, the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has been the target vaccine used to ban vaccine exemptions, under the pretense that measles is a lethal disease that needs to be eradicated. However, as predicted, it didn’t take long before other, completely unnecessary vaccines were tacked on to the mandated vaccines list.

    As just one egregious example, a bill introduced in New York (S298/A2912) now seeks to require children to receive the HPV vaccine — one of the most dangerous and unnecessary vaccines ever made — in order to attend public school or day care.

    There are hundreds of vaccines in the pipeline for children and adults, and once vaccine exemptions are eliminated in your state, you can expect many more to be mandated.

    At that point, you’ll have no way of opting out of any of them. Measles was really just the Trojan Horse used to eliminate vaccine exemptions and strengthen mandatory vaccination laws. As noted by Children’s Health Defense in a June 6, 2019 article:17

    “ACIP’s industry-beholden membership roster reads like a ‘who’s who’ of the individuals and organizations who spearhead the nation’s vaccine business … The agency’s involvement with vaccine manufacturers also extends to patents, licensing agreements and collaboration on projects to develop new vaccines.

    In fact, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) profit handsomely from their ownership or co-ownership with private sector partners of vaccine-related patents.

    An early 2017 analysis of Google Patents results18 showed that the CDC held 56 patents pertaining to various aspects of vaccine development, manufacturing, delivery and adjuvants.

    By May 2019, the search terms ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccines’ retrieved 143 results in the Google Patents search engine,19 and a separate legal website displayed 10 screens worth of CDC patents,20 both vaccine- and non-vaccine-related.

    The author of the 2017 analysis suggests that the large number of patents held by the CDC ‘deserves an in-depth review to determine exactly what current financial relationships with vaccine makers now exist and what…current impact those revenue streams are likely having on vaccine safety positions’ …

    Some of the key technologies underlying the development of the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix emerged from research patented by the NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), which then licensed the technology to Merck, MedImmune and GlaxoSmithKline. By 2009, HPV licensing had become NIH’s top generator of royalty revenues.”

    Children’s Health Defense goes on to cite an in-depth investigation by Mark Blaxill, published in Age of Autism, in which he notes that:21

    “Gardasil is perhaps the leading example of a new form of unconstrained government self-dealing, in arrangements whereby [HHS] can transfer technology to pharmaceutical partners, [and] simultaneously both approve and protect their partners’ technology licenses while also taking a cut of the profits.”

    Your Help Is Needed!
    To help push for greater transparency, please contact the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services today at scheduling@hhs.gov and let them know that you demand the CDC:

    Cease publication of disclaimers that CDC has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products” and that it “does not accept commercial support.”
    Remove all such disclaimers from the CDC website, including the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
    Add corrections to all MMWR articles bearing these disclaimers, explaining that the disclaimers were incorrect and have been removed.
    Retroactively disclose, in any MMWR article bearing the disclaimers, any corporate contributions to the CDC or CDC Foundation that are relevant to the MMWR article.
    Contact U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
    As noted by Lown Institute, disclosing existing conflicts of interests is an important first step in the creation of a “clearer separation between government agencies meant to serve the public interest and industry companies,” but it shouldn’t end there. We also need to abolish the loophole that allowed this hidden industry influence to take root in the first place — the government-chartered foundations.

    “We need to question why these foundations exist and push for more public funding of these agencies, rather than force public health agencies to rely on industry funding for their programs and compromise their independence,” Lown Institute writes ".22

    + Sources and References:
    1 CDC.gov MMWR Disclosure
    2, 11 USRTK Petition to the CDC, November 5, 2019 (PDF)
    3, 12, 13 USRTK November 5, 2019
    4, 7 USRTK Petition to the CDC, November 5, 2019 (PDF), Page 3
    5 CDC Foundation Our Partners: Corporations
    6 USRTK Petition to the CDC, November 5, 2019 (PDF), Page 4
    8 Lown Institute About Us
    9 Lown Institute November 6, 2019
    10 BMJ 2015;350:h2362
    14, 22 Lown Institute October 25, 2018
    15 Eye on Annapolis November 4, 2019
    16 Sott.net March 6, 2016
    17 Children’s Health Defense June 6, 2019
    18 Google Vaccine Patent Search
    19 Google Patent Search Engine Results
    20 Justia Patents Assigned to CDC
    21 Age of Autism, A License to Kill, Part 1
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Delight (20th November 2019), Hym (21st November 2019), James Newell (20th November 2019), mountain_jim (20th November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  21. Link to Post #591
    United States Avalon Member James Newell's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th July 2016
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    375
    Thanked 1,355 times in 276 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Here is an interesting article from a controversial site. Good proofs re vaccines. Some of their other videos may get you angry.

    https://truthseeker.se/11-golden-rul...ushers-part-1/

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to James Newell For This Post:

    Hym (21st November 2019), mountain_jim (21st November 2019), onawah (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  23. Link to Post #592
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    2,740
    Thanks
    5,031
    Thanked 11,922 times in 2,410 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Quote Posted by James Newell (here)
    Here is an interesting article from a controversial site. Good proofs re vaccines. Some of their other videos may get you angry.

    https://truthseeker.se/11-golden-rul...ushers-part-1/
    Thanks! Really classic article. Here is part 2

    https://globalfreedommovement.org/11...ushers-part-2/

  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Hym (21st November 2019), James Newell (22nd November 2019), mountain_jim (21st November 2019), onawah (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  25. Link to Post #593
    Avalon Member Hym's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th June 2011
    Location
    Eastern Pacific
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    7,946
    Thanked 3,318 times in 526 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Nostradamus was initially well known for his rescue of entire towns of those who suffered from the plague. After the death of his first wife and children he devoted himself to understanding the real causes of the plague. His emphasis upon sanitation and separating the water supply from the contamination of sewage, the disposal of all bedding, clothing and items contaminated with the contagions causing widespread death, along with use of herbal compounds, gained him a strong reputation as a healer.

    Though it is noted often on this forum of inner and outer healing, failing to allow the organic process of natural immune exposure and response is the main cause of disease, disease in all areas of our lives.

    I do love the research and insights this thread provides! Thank You All.
    Last edited by Hym; 21st November 2019 at 02:19.

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hym For This Post:

    Delight (21st November 2019), onawah (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  27. Link to Post #594
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    2,740
    Thanks
    5,031
    Thanked 11,922 times in 2,410 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Another documentary from 2017

    Filmmaker Natalie Beer sets off on a journey around the world to investigate the autism epidemic and whether MMR vaccines have a role to play. And what about environmental factors such as medication and pesticides?

    Man Made Epidemic

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    onawah (21st November 2019), peterpam (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  29. Link to Post #595
    Avalon Member peterpam's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th June 2012
    Posts
    1,665
    Thanks
    15,456
    Thanked 8,836 times in 1,597 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe



    This short video ties in with the Maldive post #588 provided by Onawah. I think it is important to remember the bigger picture and David summarizes it nicely here.

    I am really noticing the huge, huge push to get everyone to take a friggin flu vaccine. My insurance co. is practically begging me to do so. They have made it so their is no deductible, no cost to me ect. I go to the grocery store and you can get free groceries if you get your shot there. The push is so intense, at least here. There is definitely something pushing these folks to push, push, push those vaccines. I suspect strongly it is more than profits.

    I've noticed in Washington State there is a data base that records if your getting your flu shot, how's that for creepy.
    Last edited by peterpam; 21st November 2019 at 15:34.

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peterpam For This Post:

    onawah (21st November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  31. Link to Post #596
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Big Pharma and Corporate Media Finally Admit the Oral Polio Vaccine is a Failure – Causes Polio Instead of Preventing It
    11/21/19
    https://vaccineimpact.com/2019/big-p...preventing-it/
    (Too many live links in the article to copy them all here)


    Comments by Brian Shilhavy
    Editor, Health Impact News

    "In an almost unprecedented admission of vaccine failure, National Public Radio (NPR) recently published a show explaining how the present-day oral polio vaccine is a failure, and is actually contributing to the rise of polio in poor countries.

    In it’s Weekend Edition Saturday show, NPR’s Scott Simon and Jason Beaubien produced a show titled: “How The Oral Polio Vaccine Can Cause Polio.”
    https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/78006...an-cause-polio

    They report that the U.S. CDC is now recognizing that there is a problem with the oral polio vaccine, which as a live-virus vaccine is actually causing polio around the world, a fact reported here at Health Impact News for over 6 years now.

    Of course when we, or any other alternative media source, report this or any other negative news about vaccines, it is labeled as “Fake News,” and it is censored in social media, particularly on Facebook, if the article becomes too popular.

    Apparently, this problem of polio being caused by the oral polio vaccine has become such a problem worldwide, that someone gave NPR the approval to cover the story, probably for “damage control.”

    SIMON: I understand the problem begins with what’s called a live vaccine, which has little bits of weakened polio virus in it, given to children around the world. What seems to have gone wrong?

    BEAUBIEN: Yeah, that is the crux of it – that this – the oral polio vaccine that’s used primarily in low- and middle-income countries – it’s been the workhorse of this global effort to eradicate polio. But it is a live vaccine. It’s cheap. It’s easy to administer.

    However, this live vaccine is continued to be used worldwide. And while you’re doing that, some of that vaccine has gotten out into the world.

    And it’s mutated. It starts circulating again, just like regular polio. But early on, it’s just – it’s still a vaccine. It’s not dangerous. And then slowly, it sort of regains strength. And they’re finding they can actually genetically see this – that scientists can actually trace it back directly to the vaccine. And now these vaccine-linked cases are actually causing more cases of paralysis each year than actual traditional – what scientists call wild polio.

    The reporters on NPR are quick to point out, of course, that this is not a vaccine currently offered in the U.S.

    SIMON: Now, we should underscore, Jason, this is not the version of the vaccine that’s given to youngsters in the United States.

    BEAUBIEN: Right. So in the United States and in Europe and other countries like that, it – we’re using an injectable vaccine, which is a dead vaccine. It is not a live virus, and it cannot cause polio. So that should not at all be a concern. The issue, however, is that it’s an injection that has to be given. It’s given four times between the ages of 2 months and 7 years. So just administering it is difficult.

    And just frankly, there is not enough global stockpile of that vaccine to vaccinate all of the children around the world, you know, four times over the course of their childhood. So there’s some real problems with that. That, ultimately, would be the goal – is to eventually get to the point where you’re not using oral polio vaccine, but it’s not logistically possible at this point.

    Really? The reason the oral polio vaccine is given in poor countries is because there aren’t enough injectable vaccines? With excuses like that, is it any wonder that parents around the world in poor countries are questioning this vaccine which is responsible for crippling probably hundreds of thousands of children worldwide with Accute Flaccid Paralysis or Vaccine-derived Polio?


    Bill Gates giving the oral polio vaccine to a child in India. Bill Gates is not a medical doctor, and does not have a license to practice medicine.

    For the many years that Health Impact News has been covering the oral polio vaccine tragedy around the world, a vaccine that has long been rejected as unsafe and not used in the U.S., Europe, Israel, and other wealthy nations, but is crippling children in poor countries like India, Africa and Pakistan, Big Pharma and their sponsored “mainstream” media have been criticizing parents in these countries as being “uneducated” for refusing the vaccine which is then forced upon them, often at gun point.


    The oral polio vaccine is so easy to give, unlike an injection, that health officials give it to children on the street, not even checking medical records to see if the children might have already been vaccinated. Photograph: Mohammad Sajjad/AP

    This is just another example of the fact that vaccines can never survive in a free market where one has to prove the success of one’s product to survive in the marketplace, but that government intervention, censorship of science and harmful side effects, and physical force is necessary to get people to comply with mandated vaccinations.

    Will future world wars and national revolutions arise from vaccine resistance?

    Polio Vaccination—Still Causing Polio After All These Years
    by the Children’s Health Defense Team

    It is exceedingly rare for the public health community to admit to any problems with vaccination. Every so often, however, circumstances force officials into making just such an acknowledgement.

    The current debacle seeping out into the news—which is actually a long-running tale minted anew—is that oral polio vaccines are “spawning virulent strains” of polioviruses.

    The alarming surge in vaccine-derived polio cases presents vaccine planners with a “quandary” or “conundrum”—because “The very tool you are using for [polio] eradication is causing the problem.”

    The oral polio vaccine (OPV) is in use around the world and constitutes the “workhorse” of global polio eradication efforts due to its low cost and ease of administration. The OPV contains live but weakened polioviruses that match up to wild polioviruses.

    Vaccine researchers have long known that these OPV-derived viruses can themselves cause polio, particularly when they get “loose in the environment.”

    In settings with poor sanitation and iffy hygiene, the vaccine viruses can easily “find their way into water sources, and onto contaminated hands or foods,” where they can then launch a self-perpetuating chain of transmission.

    Researchers concede that an OPV virus “can very rapidly regain its strength if it starts spreading on its own,” acquiring “mutations that make it basically indistinguishable from the wild-type virus.”

    In other words, there is no meaningful difference between a wild and OPV-derived poliovirus “in terms of virulence and in terms of how the virus spreads.”

    The conundrum
    Until recently, the OPV was trivalent, containing three vaccine serotypes corresponding to the three types of wild polioviruses (types 1, 2 and 3).

    In 2015, however, global public health agencies declared wild poliovirus type 2 eradicated and, in 2016, they decided to oversee a closely coordinated 155-country “switch” to a bivalent oral vaccine that includes only types 1 and 3.

    The ostensible rationale for this global maneuver was to take vaccine-derived type 2 virus out of the running; if wild type 2 viruses had disappeared, “the thinking went,” it would be “unethical to expose children to the risk the vaccine viruses posed,” particularly since type 2 had been responsible for close to 90% of the vaccine-derived polioviruses circulating since the year 2000.

    However, in a what-could-possibly-go-wrong scenario, the lingering background presence of the type 2 vaccine virus has prompted a spectacular backfiring of the “switch,” with vaccine-derived polio outbreaks emerging in numerous countries.

    Outbreaks unsquelched
    The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) is a combined effort of the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Rotary International.

    In pre-“switch” computer modeling, the GPEI’s scientific advisors predicted that some vaccine-virus-derived outbreaks would inevitably occur. However, they confidently asserted that they would be able to “quickly squelch” any such outbreaks through—what else?—the “judicious use of a new live vaccine…effective against only type 2.”

    In effect, they advised taking a “gamble” that the monovalent vaccine “would not spawn new outbreaks of its own.”

    In Africa, at least, the gamble has failed. The frequency with which type 2 vaccine-derived outbreaks are occurring has far exceeded projections—and the rush to administer the new monovalent type 2 vaccine appears to be exacerbating rather than stemming the problem.

    In an astonishing admission, a CDC virologist has stated that due to the stop-gap use of the new type-2-only vaccine, “We have now created more new emergences of the virus than we have stopped.”

    Another vaccine expert has remarked, “if you just keep trickling in with a little bit of [monovalent] vaccine every time you think you have a problem all you’re doing is reseeding [more transmission chains].”

    There had been no cases of wild poliovirus on the African continent since September 2016, but by July 2019, the WHO was cautioning that there was a high risk of ongoing type 2 vaccine virus spreading across Africa.

    Outbreak investigators have been documenting an uptick in circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 in both human and environmental samples since mid-2017 (two years after the “switch”), generally obtaining human samples either from children presenting with acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) or from “healthy community contacts.”

    Although the WHO describes polio as just one of AFP’s possible causes, African labs have been isolating type 2 vaccine virus in case after case of AFP.

    To date, surveillance reports have noted the presence of the vaccine-derived type 2 poliovirus in Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, and Somalia. In Nigeria, type 2 has spread from the north of the country to Lagos—Nigeria’s largest and most densely populated city.

    In Ghana, soon after investigators found type 2 vaccine viruses in sewage in the capital of Accra, a toddler 400 miles away was diagnosed with vaccine virus paralysis—representing Ghana’s “first ever” reported outbreak of type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus.

    On September 19, ABC News announced a polio outbreak in the Philippines, caused—as confirmed by WHO and UNICEF—by “vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2.”

    The “outbreak”—which has thus far affected just two children and some sewage samples—is unfolding two decades after the WHO declared the Philippines to be polio-free.

    Blaming the situation on the decline in public acceptance of routine vaccination—following the rollout of a dangerous dengue vaccine that killed as many as 119 children in 2016-2017—the two global health agencies have sternly asserted that the only way to get back on track with polio is to vaccinate at least 95% of children under age 5. The Philippine government is complying, launching an aggressive polio vaccination campaign.

    In other countries ranging from Myanmar to Indonesia to Papua New Guinea, surveillance programs are also reporting cases of paralytic polio resulting from circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 1.

    New and improved = same old, same old
    The presence of type 2 vaccine viruses “over a widening swath of territory” in Africa and elsewhere is apparently disheartening to polio eradication enthusiasts, but not to worry, they have another ace up their sleeve—another new and improved polio vaccine!

    In fact, two new polio vaccines are in the works. One is a “novel” genetically engineered oral vaccine supported by the Gates Foundation; the second is an inactivated vaccine hypothesized to be “powerful enough to end outbreaks.”

    As the WHO’s lead polio researcher has stated, “The race is on” to deploy at least one of the two vaccines under the WHO’s “emergency use protocol” by as soon as mid-2020—even before licensure. Conveniently, the new oral vaccine’s manufacturer, Bio Farma, will soon “have the capacity to make 35 million doses a month.”

    Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation is “pushing hard to get the [new oral] vaccine into the field as soon as possible,” speculating that it will have a lower risk of transmitting vaccine virus—however, the Foundation cautiously notes that “the only way to know for sure will be to use the vaccine.”

    Eventually, the global public health community has set a goal of ending all use of the OPV and switching over to exclusive use of the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) administered via injection, making the assumption that the IPV is incapable of causing vaccine-derived polioviruses to circulate.

    However, as Children’s Health Defense recently described, from the 1950s on, the U.S. has witnessed serious cases of paralytic polio induced by both types of polio vaccine—injected and oral. Similarly, a reporter describing the glitches with the “switch” observed that “Even children who have received IPV…can be infected by and transmit the vaccine viruses” [emphasis added].

    In Pakistan, where wild polioviruses are still on record as circulating, some citizens in poor communities are refusing the oral polio vaccine, questioning a one-trick public health charade that never does anything to address more pressing health threats such as lack of running water and sanitation.

    Rather than respond to these reasonable concerns, the government has taken to jailing uncooperative parents, while the latter resort to “hiding their children or using fake finger markings to pretend they have been vaccinated.”

    Whether in Pakistan, Africa or the U.S., it is time to stop equating public health with vaccination and time to admit that vaccination programs often leave new and worse problems in their wake than those they were intended to solve.

    Read the full article at ChildrensHealthDefense.org: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...l-these-years/



    This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.

    Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support them in their efforts.

    Learn more about the polio vaccine. https://vaccineimpact.com/?find=polio+vaccine "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (21st November 2019), mountain_jim (22nd November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  33. Link to Post #597
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    THE HIGHWIRE IN THE HOLY LAND with Del Bigtree
    11/21/19
    World’s Leading Scholars and Scientists Convene for First Congress on Informed Consent in Israel;
    A Very Special HighWire LIVE From Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Last edited by Franny; 21st November 2019 at 20:22. Reason: Fix video embed
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Delight (22nd November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  35. Link to Post #598
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    California Parents Flood School Board Meeting – Demand Parental Rights Sanctuary Regarding Vaccines and Sex Education
    11/22/19
    by Brian Shilhavy
    Editor, Health Impact News



    "This week the Murrieta Unified School District in Southern California saw hundreds of parents turn out for a school board meeting to protest the loss of parental rights when it comes to the issue of mandatory vaccines and the sexualization in sex education of their children without parental approval.

    They brought a proposal to make their community a “sanctuary city for parental rights,” claiming that if illegal immigration can be protected by a sanctuary status, then so can parental rights.

    Reporter Michelle Mears was present, and published a report at the California Globe.

    Hundreds of residents in a Southern California community swarmed a school board meeting Thursday night to speak out about the loss of parental rights in schools. Anxious parents, many with children in tow, students, pastors and doctors demanded the Murrieta Unified School District become the first sanctuary city for parental rights in California.

    For two hours people waited to speak out on the action item titled, “To consider Proposal by Community Member to Become a Sanctuary School District.” Those in favor of the sanctuary status understood the trustees could not change the laws set by the state. However, their argument is, if illegal immigration can be protected by a sanctuary status then so can parental rights.

    One of the highlights of the night was a reading of an affidavit by a nurse known on Facebook as “Sandra RN.” Police attempted to block her efforts and remove her from the room, but when she stood up for her rights as she was being filmed, police backed down and allowed her to speak:



    Michelle Mears interviewed several of the parents in attendance:

    Megan and Patrick Hill who live in Murrieta and have a two year old daughter are leaving California in January. They are angry their child‘s full medical exemption for vaccinations was reversed when SB 276 by Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) was signed into law this year.

    “The governor has taken away my incredible healthy, beautiful daughter‘s right to attend school when he signed that bill,” said Megan Hill. “The FDA, the CDC, they all state there is risk to vaccines. If there is risk there must a choice.”

    “We are listing our house and escaping California. We are refugees of California we are being kicked out of our home state, away from our family and friends,” said Megan Hill.

    Christian Edwards, a parent who lives in Murrieta said, “I came out to support parents who don’t want to be forced to vaccinate their children and to fight back against the schools allowing minors to leave campus to have abortions or hormone therapy.”

    “So many rights are being violated,” said Patrick Hill. Vaccines are just one, but there is also the issue of children being allowed to leave the campus as minors to have abortions but they can’t go the school nurse and get an aspirin. There is something backwards about this,” added Hill, who is already job searching in states other than California.

    Dr. Todd Donohoe, who has been actively fighting against forced vaccinations since 2015 when SB 277 was passed, spoke to the trustees. Donohoe also helped organize a recall effort against then State Senator Stone who was a co-author to SB 277. The bill removed religious exemptions for vaccines.

    “Children today are getting sometimes more than 51 injections and as many as nine in one day. That is deemed safe and it is not,” said Donohoe. The crowd chanted, “If there is risk there must be choice.”

    Pastor Tim Thompson from 412 Church in Murrieta, asked if school board would stand up for parental rights and declare Murrieta as a sanctuary school district.

    Hunter Erickson, an 18-year old who attends school in Murrieta said he wanted to denounce the education the tax payers are being forced to pay, “California residents are being forced to pay for a product they believe is evil, being forced to pay for an education they are not receiving. How does this episode of history end,” said Erickson.

    “The introduction to sexualization in sex education has stripped children of their value and innocence and parents of their rights. We aren’t not supporting the product you want us to pay for.”

    What happened in this school district this week may be just the beginning of parents nationwide who decide to start doing something about the loss of parental rights. It was very obvious that they were impassioned, knew their rights, and were not going to back down or be intimidated.

    Voicing disapproval from behind a computer or cell phone on social media just doesn’t cut it anymore, especially with social media censoring dissenting voices more and more these days.

    It is time to put boots on the ground and demand Constitutional rights be upheld when it comes to parental rights, and the best place to do that is in one’s own community."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    James Newell (23rd November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  37. Link to Post #599
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,682 times in 9,717 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    How Public Vaccine Policy Apologists Use ‘Firehosing’ to Spread Misinformation
    11/21/19
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...Misinformation

    By Jeremy Hammond, Guest Contributor

    "On November 7, 2019, the Guardian published an article titled “Firehosing: the systemic strategy that anti-vaxxers are using to spread misinformation”. The summary description of the article stated, “Anti-vaxxers keep telling the same obvious lies without shame, despite being debunked and factchecked”. It was written by Lucky Tran, whose author bio describes him as a scientist with a PhD in biochemistry.

    In his article, Dr. Tran attacks talk show host Bill Maher for having hosted a discussion with Dr. Jay Gordon that was critical of public vaccine policy. He states that Gordon is “a controversial doctor who peddles misinformation about vaccines”. He lectures Maher for “giving an anti-vaxxer a high-profile platform to spread lies and cause harm to an audience of millions.” Tran continues:

    The 14-minutes interview on Real Time with Bill Maher doubled down on all the dangerous views we’ve heard before: highlighting discredited work on vaccines and autism, disingenuously labelling measles a benign illness, and questioning a vaccine schedule that has been proven safe and effective by decades of research.

    Implicitly, since Bill Maher and Dr. Gordon were in agreement throughout the interview, Tran is not only accusing Maher giving a platform to a lying “anti-vaxxer” but also of being one himself.

    Continuing, Tran says that “anti-vaxxers” use “systemic strategies” to “spread their misinformation”, including “firehosing”, which “relies on pushing out as many lies as possible as frequently as possible.” The intention is “to rob facts of their power” by inundating us “with so many wild opinions that it becomes exhausting to continually disprove them.”

    It’s a strategy, Tran adds, that “is effective for those trying to hold on to political power” and “for those who gain power from engaging in science denial.”

    This is a bizarre claim given that those with a tight hold on political power are precisely those who continually declare that vaccines are “safe and effective”, which is a meaningless assertion since the potential benefits and risks are different for each vaccine and every individual.

    Beyond that, it’s a remarkable article because, to anyone who’s actually seen the interview and is at least fairly knowledgeable about what the science has to say about vaccines, it is patently obvious that it’s Dr. Tran along with the Guardian and every other major media organization who are systematically engaging in science denial and utilizing the strategy of “firehosing” to misinform the public about vaccines in service to the existing political establishment.

    The first obvious clue that this Guardian piece is itself propaganda is the fact that Tran accuses [Bill Maher and Dr. Gordon] of spreading lies and misinformation but fails to specify even one thing that either of them said during the interview that wasn’t true or reasonable.
    Thou Shalt Not Criticize Vaccines
    Appropriately, the very first point Bill Maher and Dr. Gordon discussed during the interview (which can be viewed here) is how anyone who dares to speak critically about this one particular pharmaceutical product is viciously attacked. The Guardian simply proves their point by publishing an article that attacks them personally without substantively addressing any of their arguments. This is the fallacy of ad hominem argumentation.

    Another fallacy of Tran’s is strawman argumentation, which is falsely attributing arguments to others that they didn’t make and then challenging the fiction instead of the real argument.

    The first obvious clue that this Guardian piece is itself propaganda is the fact that Tran accuses the men of spreading lies and misinformation but fails to specify even one thing that either of them said during the interview that wasn’t true or reasonable. There’s not a single quote provided to support Tran’s characterizations of the interview, nor even a paraphrase. This is a common practice among professional propagandists and a huge red flag for savvy consumers of news media.

    While dismissing the views expressed by Maher as “anti-vaccine”, in fact Maher praised vaccine as a wonderful invention, saying, “Of course vaccines work, and we applaud them for all the great things they’ve done. They’re a great tool in the medical kit.” Maher explicitly stated, “I’m not an ‘anti-vaxxer’.” Neither gentleman denied that vaccination can have benefits; they simply observed the uncontroversial fact that vaccination also entails risks that must be weighed against those benefits on an individual basis.

    This is a fact that increasingly authoritarian public policymakers refuse to acknowledge.

    Evidently Dr. Tran, despite presenting himself a “scientist”, also does not want people to be aware that vaccination entails risk. This helps to explain why he resorts to baselessly attacking the messengers, which is a propaganda technique dubbed “flak” by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their seminal treatise on the subject, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

    The purpose of “flak” is to create an atmosphere of intimidation in which dissent is not tolerated and alternative perspectives are dismissed as extreme for varying from the narrow range of allowable opinion.

    All Gordon and Maher said was that it is plausible that, in rare cases, vaccines might cause autism.
    Thou Shalt Not Propose Biologically Plausible Medical Hypotheses That Vaccines Cause Serious Harm
    According to Tran, Gordon and Maher “highlighted discredited work on vaccines and autism”. Tellingly, though, Tran does not specify what “discredited work” was supposedly “highlighted” during the interview. We could make an educated guess about what work Tran is referring to, but that’s unnecessary since the accusation is a lie. Nowhere during the interview was any discredited work mentioned to support their views. All Gordon and Maher said was that it is plausible that, in rare cases, vaccines might cause autism.

    That is not science denial. On the contrary, it is the very same conclusion arrived at by the Institute of Medicine in a 2004 review falsely cited by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as supportive of its claim that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”. It is true that the IOM in that review stated that the weight of evidence from the retrospective observational studies that had been done favored rejection of the hypothesis. However, as the IOM also pointed out, the hypothesis “cannot be excluded” by observational studies finding no association due to the limitations of this type of study design, which is prone to selection biases that can invalidate findings. The IOM also pointed out that none of the studies that had been done considered the possibility of genetically susceptible subpopulations.

    Since none of the studies have been designed to test the hypothesis that vaccines administered according to the CDC’s schedule can contribute to the development of autism in genetically susceptible individuals, none of them could possibly have falsified that hypothesis. The claim to the contrary is a blatant lie grounded in a fundamental rejection of the standards of evidence adopted by the Institute of Medicine.

    Furthermore, in 2008, CDC Director Julie Gerberding acknowledged that, in children with mitochondrial disorders, vaccines can cause brain damage manifesting as symptoms of autism. She was speaking with reference to a girl named Hannah Poling, who developmentally regressed into diagnosed autism after receiving nine vaccine doses at once at nineteen months of age. Her family was awarded compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which was established under a 1986 law that granted near total legal immunity to manufacturers of vaccines recommended for routine use in children by the CDC. The effect of the law is to shift the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry and onto the taxpaying consumers, which of course includes the victims.

    Young Hannah, whose father is a neurologist, happened also to be a patient of a leading expert on autism, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, who has served as an expert witness on behalf of the government in VICP cases. Referring to Hannah, he wrote in a sworn affidavit last year that he told the government’s lawyers “that in a subset of children with an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic energy reserves could, and in at least one of my patients, did cause regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

    The government lawyers at that point ceased calling him as an expert witness to testify during VICP cases. Furthermore, in a later case, in order to deny compensation to the petitioning family, they falsely claimed that Dr. Zimmerman’s view was that vaccines can’t cause autism.

    In a 2014 interview with journalist Sharyl Attkisson (a rare journalist who writes honestly about vaccines), the director of the CDC’s “Immunization Safety Office”, Dr. Frank DeStefano, acknowledged that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could trigger autism in genetically susceptible individuals, but that the problem is it’s “very hard to predict who those children might be”.

    Neither Bill Maher nor Dr. Gordon cited any “discredited work on vaccines and autism” during their discussion. What they said during the show was no different than what the Institute of Medicine and even the CDC’s head of “Immunization Safety” has admitted, which is that it is biologically plausible that at least in rare cases vaccines can cause autism.

    This fearmongering is propaganda designed to obscure the reality that during the pre-vaccine era, measles was regarded as a benign childhood illness.
    Thou Shalt Not Characterize Measles in a Way That’s Not Scary
    Dr. Tran accuses Maher and Gordon of “disingenuously labelling measles a benign illness”, but this accusation, too, is false, for the simple reason that, in a developed country like the US, measles generally is a benign illness in children.

    Neither Maher nor Gordon denied the fact that the virus can cause serious harm or even death. They simply alluded to the historical fact that, during the pre-vaccine era, most children who were infected with measles had immune systems that handled the virus just fine on their own, without any serious complications.

    These days, because the CDC recommends that every child be vaccinated with two doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, we’re supposed to be afraid of measles. The fear marketing helps to increase demand for the pharmaceutical industry’s vaccine products.

    We’re supposed to perceive measles as a deadly disease rather than a mostly benign infection that confers lifelong immunity that enables mothers, in turn, to protect their babies with antibodies transferred prenatally through the placenta and postnatally through breastmilk. This fearmongering is propaganda designed to obscure the reality that during the pre-vaccine era, measles was regarded as a benign childhood illness.

    This is easily enough demonstrated simply by quoting the description of measles by public health officials in 1967. According the Public Health Service, “For centuries the measles virus has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man. The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare.”

    Mass vaccination has destroyed that natural herd immunity, thereby shifting the risk burden in the event of exposure away from those in whom it is generally a benign illness and onto those who are at higher risk of complications.
    A paper published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1962, one year before the first vaccine was licensed, similarly described measles as a “self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality” that has “maintained a remarkably stable biological balance over the centuries.” The dramatic decline in measles deaths that had occurred before the vaccine was introduced “demonstrates the degree to which we have adapted to this balance” and learned to live with the virus.

    The fact that measles was considered a generally benign illness during the pre-vaccine era is also easily demonstrated by recalling how it was characterized in popular culture. Here is an excellent compilation of clips from television shows demonstrating how measles was perceived among the general public:



    Even today the CDC in its authoritative “Pink Book” describes the clinical course of measles as “usually transient and benign”. So, if we apply Dr. Tran’s logic, the CDC itself is guilty of disingenuously misinforming the public about measles. (The CDC certainly does misinform the public about vaccines, as already shown, but certainly not on this count!)

    Again, this is not to say that there weren’t severe cases of measles resulting in complications or even death before the vaccine. But deaths were rare, occurring at a rate of one to two deaths per 10,000 cases (not one per 1,000 cases as falsely claimed by the CDC and routinely propagated by the media). Only about 400 to 500 deaths occurred each year due to measles, and that rate was on the decline as the US population developed a natural herd immunity in which infants were protected through maternal immunity and elderly adults were protected by the permanent immunity gained from being infected during childhood, along with the natural beneficial boosting effect of repeated exposures to the circulating virus.

    Mass vaccination has destroyed that natural herd immunity, thereby shifting the risk burden in the event of exposure away from those in whom it is generally a benign illness and onto those who are at higher risk of complications. This is acknowledged in the medical literature by leading experts on measles, but the public isn’t supposed to know about it. Hence the reliance on “firehosing” to overwhelm the public with lies about vaccine safety and effectiveness, in which anyone who dares to speak critically about public vaccine policy is treated as a heretic.

    … 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.
    Thou Shalt Not Question the CDC’s Infallibility
    Finally, Tran accuses Maher and Gordon of “questioning a vaccine schedule that has been proven safe and effective by decades of research”.

    The fact that Tran criticizes even the mere “questioning” of the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule is a clear illustration of how he treats vaccination as a matter not of science but religion. To Tran, the CDC’s schedule is sacrosanct, beyond question. To Tran, the CDC is infallible in its vaccine recommendations.

    This is, of course, not serious. It’s ludicrous dogmatism. It is faith, not science.

    Tran’s claim that the CDC’s schedule has been “proven safe and effective by decades of research” is also patently false. Once again, to illustrate what an egregious lie that is and how it’s Tran who’s engaging in science denialism, all we need to do is turn once more to the Institute of Medicine, which acknowledged in a 2013 report that “existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule” and that “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.”

    The Takeaway
    Dr. Tran’s attack on Dr. Gordon and Bill Maher is sheer hypocrisy. He is doing precisely what he accuses them of doing, which is to overwhelm the reader with lies, regardless of how absurd and obvious his lies are.

    He may call himself a “scientist” in his author bio, but with this Guardian piece, he’s not behaving like one. Instead, he is behaving as a propagandist who’s serving the pharmaceutical industry and the government by issuing flak to marginalize dissenting voices and intimidate critics into silence and by otherwise misinforming the public in order to manufacture consent for public vaccine policy.

    Rather than condemning Bill Maher, we should applaud him for having enough integrity and honesty to host a serious discussion about this important topic in which legitimate criticisms of public vaccine policy are made. The idea that we should not be having that discussion is not only absurd but also dangerous.

    Our children’s health and our liberty are on the line. What is truly condemnable and intolerable are the blatant lies told by charlatans like Dr. Tran and the general trend among the mainstream corporate media to do public policy advocacy rather than journalism. "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    earthdreamer (23rd November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

  39. Link to Post #600
    United States Avalon Member James Newell's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th July 2016
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    375
    Thanked 1,355 times in 276 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    California Parents Flood School Board Meeting – Demand Parental Rights Sanctuary Regarding Vaccines and Sex Education
    11/22/19
    by Brian Shilhavy
    Editor, Health Impact News



    "This week the Murrieta Unified School District in Southern California saw hundreds of parents turn out for a school board meeting to protest the loss of parental rights when it comes to the issue of mandatory vaccines and the sexualization in sex education of their children without parental approval.

    They brought a proposal to make their community a “sanctuary city for parental rights,” claiming that if illegal immigration can be protected by a sanctuary status, then so can parental rights.

    Reporter Michelle Mears was present, and published a report at the California Globe.

    Hundreds of residents in a Southern California community swarmed a school board meeting Thursday night to speak out about the loss of parental rights in schools. Anxious parents, many with children in tow, students, pastors and doctors demanded the Murrieta Unified School District become the first sanctuary city for parental rights in California.

    For two hours people waited to speak out on the action item titled, “To consider Proposal by Community Member to Become a Sanctuary School District.” Those in favor of the sanctuary status understood the trustees could not change the laws set by the state. However, their argument is, if illegal immigration can be protected by a sanctuary status then so can parental rights.

    One of the highlights of the night was a reading of an affidavit by a nurse known on Facebook as “Sandra RN.” Police attempted to block her efforts and remove her from the room, but when she stood up for her rights as she was being filmed, police backed down and allowed her to speak:



    Michelle Mears interviewed several of the parents in attendance:

    Megan and Patrick Hill who live in Murrieta and have a two year old daughter are leaving California in January. They are angry their child‘s full medical exemption for vaccinations was reversed when SB 276 by Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) was signed into law this year.

    “The governor has taken away my incredible healthy, beautiful daughter‘s right to attend school when he signed that bill,” said Megan Hill. “The FDA, the CDC, they all state there is risk to vaccines. If there is risk there must a choice.”

    “We are listing our house and escaping California. We are refugees of California we are being kicked out of our home state, away from our family and friends,” said Megan Hill.

    Christian Edwards, a parent who lives in Murrieta said, “I came out to support parents who don’t want to be forced to vaccinate their children and to fight back against the schools allowing minors to leave campus to have abortions or hormone therapy.”

    “So many rights are being violated,” said Patrick Hill. Vaccines are just one, but there is also the issue of children being allowed to leave the campus as minors to have abortions but they can’t go the school nurse and get an aspirin. There is something backwards about this,” added Hill, who is already job searching in states other than California.

    Dr. Todd Donohoe, who has been actively fighting against forced vaccinations since 2015 when SB 277 was passed, spoke to the trustees. Donohoe also helped organize a recall effort against then State Senator Stone who was a co-author to SB 277. The bill removed religious exemptions for vaccines.

    “Children today are getting sometimes more than 51 injections and as many as nine in one day. That is deemed safe and it is not,” said Donohoe. The crowd chanted, “If there is risk there must be choice.”

    Pastor Tim Thompson from 412 Church in Murrieta, asked if school board would stand up for parental rights and declare Murrieta as a sanctuary school district.

    Hunter Erickson, an 18-year old who attends school in Murrieta said he wanted to denounce the education the tax payers are being forced to pay, “California residents are being forced to pay for a product they believe is evil, being forced to pay for an education they are not receiving. How does this episode of history end,” said Erickson.

    “The introduction to sexualization in sex education has stripped children of their value and innocence and parents of their rights. We aren’t not supporting the product you want us to pay for.”

    What happened in this school district this week may be just the beginning of parents nationwide who decide to start doing something about the loss of parental rights. It was very obvious that they were impassioned, knew their rights, and were not going to back down or be intimidated.

    Voicing disapproval from behind a computer or cell phone on social media just doesn’t cut it anymore, especially with social media censoring dissenting voices more and more these days.

    It is time to put boots on the ground and demand Constitutional rights be upheld when it comes to parental rights, and the best place to do that is in one’s own community."
    Well Done California!! I think we will all have to start saying NO and Demanding our Rights. If we don't they simply will take them away.
    If 5% simply stopped paying taxes that would wake the nwo up.

  40. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to James Newell For This Post:

    earthdreamer (23rd November 2019), onawah (23rd November 2019), Sstarss (24th November 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 30 of 32 FirstFirst 1 20 30 32 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts