Think you know all you need to know, about vaccines? Watch this video!
While I have some major concerns about the safety and ethics involved in modern vaccines, I want to start off by making it clear that when the 2020 pandemic first began and there was so much fear and uncertainty surrounding the virus, I actually said I would get a vaccine, if that was the only way I would be able to see the rest of my family.
This is a pretty eye-opening testimony by Dr. Deisher, which you can read via this PDF. I will paste some highlighted excerpts below.
This is an excellent debate where you can see Dr. Robert F. Kennedy teaching Alan Dershowitz a whole bunch of Vaccine facts he didn't seem to be aware of. Alan Dershowitz actually seemed grateful for the new information!
According to Robert Kennedy, today's vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. And from the research I've done, it seems that he has good reason for saying this.
We used to get 3 vaccines. Nowadays, kids have to get 72 vaccines, just to stay in school.
We started this discussion by talking about how do you avoid the whole discussion about mandating vaccines? The way that you do that is you have a transparent process where people see that the vaccine is going to be tested, they see that it's tested fairly against a placebo, that there's long-term tests that are going to be evidenced by all of these difficulties and and that it's transparent and open and yet, what we've seen from the current group of covet vaccines is none of that's happening. They're skipping keys key parts of the test.
The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether. When they came to human testing, they tested it on 45 people, they had a high-dose group of 15 people, a medium dose group 15 people, and a low dose growth group of people. In the low dose group one of the people got so sick from the vaccine, they had to be hospitalized. That's six percent. In the high dose group three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized. That's twenty percent. They're going ahead and making two billion doses of that vaccine.
And by the way the people that they test them on alan are not typical Americans. They use what they call exclusionary criteria. They are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they're doing to the healthiest people. If you look at their exclusionary idea you cannot be pregnant you cannot be overweight, you must have never smoked a cigarette, you must have never vaped, you must have no respiratory problems in your family, you can't suffer asthma, you can't have diabetes, you can't have rheumatoid arthritis, or any autoimmune disease, there has to be no history of seizure in your family.
These are the people they're testing the vaccine on but that's not who they're going to give them to. What happens if.. these people are like the Avengers! They're like Superman, you can shoot them with a bullet and they won't go down. What happens when they give them to the typical American? You know, Sally six-pack and Joe bag of Donuts who's 50 pounds overweight and has diabetes? What is going to happen then? You're not going to see 20 percent. You're going to see a lot of people dropping dead. These people lost consciousness. They had to go to hospital, they had huge fevers and they're the healthiest people in the world. So any other medicine, Alan, that had that kind of profile in its original phase, one study would be DOA.
The problem is, Anthony Fauci put 500 million dollars of our dollars into that vaccine. He owns half the patent. He has five guys working for him, who are entitled to collect royalties from that. So you have a corrupt system, and now they've got a vaccine that is too big to fail. And instead of saying hey this was a terrible terrible mistake, they're saying: "We are going to order 2 billion doses of this!"
And you've got to understand, Alan, with these COVID vaccines, these companies are playing with house money. They're not spending anything on it, and they have NO liability. So if they kill 20 people or 200 people, 2 000 people in their clinical trials, big deal they have zero liability! And guess what, if wasted money their money because we're giving them the money to play with. People like me and people in our community are looking at this process and we're saying whatever comes out of that process we don't want to take it because we're seeing how the sausage gets made and it's really sickening. No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with the profile that Moderna has.
Calling the Shots:
Immunization Finance Policies and Practices
Institute of Medicine
Public Meeting
June 16, 2000
Talking Points
by
Bernard Guyer
Professor and Chair, Department of Population and Family Health Sciences
Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
and
Chair, Committee on Immunization Finance Policies and Practices
Good morning. David Smith, the committee vice chair, and I are here today to present the findings and recommendations of a new report from the Institute of Medicine. It raises a public health warning that is too risky to ignore. The nation's immunization system is weakening, showing signs of strain, and history has shown that the price of falling vaccination rates too often is an outbreak of disease.
This report, Calling the Shots: Immunization Finance Policies and Practices, was requested by the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations and was sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study represents a comprehensive examination of the ways in which federal and state governments finance their public health efforts in the area of immunization. Our committee met five times within an 18-month period, prepared eight case studies, commissioned a 50-state survey, organized a one-day workshop, and conducted four site visits in the course of our fact-finding and deliberations.
As a result of this effort, our committee concluded that vaccines are a powerful technology to prevent disease, but that the nation's health care system is not fully realizing their potential. There have been cycles of interest in immunization in this country, and the committee is concerned that currently interest is flagging. Our immunization system is a national treasure that we cannot take for granted. It was neglect of this issue that led to the measles outbreaks in 1989-90. Constant vigilance is required to protect populations against vaccine-preventable diseases, and the country must do better. The 11,000 infants that are born every day must be routinely vaccinated, and the needs of special at-risk populations must be addressed.
The immunization system is again showing signs of strain and instability. We still have not achieved the national objective of fully immunizing 90 percent of 2-year-olds. There are disparities in coverage between rich and poor, and the result of these disparities shows up in the large pockets of unvaccinated children in large cities. Immunization coverage is even lower among adults and the elderly. Yet, science continues to create new vaccines, and the vaccination schedule is becoming increasingly complex. Further, the health care system is changing dramatically and now depends more heavily on the private sector to administer publicly purchased vaccines for disadvantaged groups. Meanwhile, federal resources for immunizations have decreased over the last five years.
This report was requested because of the Senate Appropriations Committee's concern about the financing of immunization programs through the 1990s. Federal budgets for these programs experienced dramatic shifts during this period, rising very quickly in the early 1990s and then falling equally as fast over the last five years. These budgets provide funds that support immunization programs in each state. Our committee soon realized that although the United States had achieved record highs in rates of immunization coverage, these shifts in funding had eroded the national immunization system and could not continue without causing serious damage to it.
The committee's overall findings and recommendations present a long-term, strategic approach quite different from the current and uncertain annual budget battles. We concluded that unpredictable funding has created instability and uncertainty in state and local planning efforts. Also, because disease does not recognize geographic boundaries, our report underscores the need for an immunization policy that is national in scope, yet flexible enough to adapt to state and local needs and resources. Implementing this policy, however, takes much more than vaccines, needles, and medical staff. Federal and state governments need to do much more to strengthen the ability of public health officials to monitor the system and shift resources to areas of need. Still, the reality is that vaccinations primarily take place in private settings -- in a doctor's office or a private clinic. Therefore, private health plans can and should do more to implement immunization surveillance and prevention programs, but require assistance, oversight, and incentives from the states to perform this role.
Our committee has recommended a plan including the following strategic elements:
> A long-term finance plan that can provide about $1.5 billion over a five-year period as a stable investment in the immunization infrastructure, totaling $300 million annually from state and federal governments. About $875 million of this total represents new funding.
> A better basis for the federal-state partnership that supports immunization efforts, including a shift to system for allocating federal grants based on a formula that will distribute the money more effectively, as well as a required state contribution to strengthen local involvement.
> Clarification of the system's function as a platform for specific programs.
> A greater public health role for the private sector.
> New measurement tools that improve the surveillance of immunization rates in selected communities, and add a population focus to performance assessment tools.
> A broadened perspective on immunization that would include adults, adolescents, elderly, as well as infants.
To implement these elements of our strategic plan, the committee recommends that federal and state governments and other players in the immunization system undertake a number of steps, including:
1. Congress and state legislatures should sustain current budgets for purchasing children's vaccines, but develop a mechanism that can provide funding for new vaccines, such as the new pneumococcal conjugate for infants.
2. Congress and state legislatures should provide an additional $50 million in federal funds and an additional $11 million in state funds to purchase vaccines for uninsured adults, especially adults who are under age 65 and have chronic health conditions such as diabetes, heart and lung disease, or HIV infections, and who are especially vulnerable to infectious disease.
3. Congress and state legislatures should increase funding for state immunization infrastructure support to $300 million each year. This figure includes an increase of $75 million over current federal awards (for a total of $200 million each year for infrastructure support) and an annual increase of $100 million over current state spending efforts.
4. The federal government should replace discretionary grants with formula-grant legislation that reflects states' need, capacity and performance; introduces a state matching requirement; and provides a small amount of funding for CDC to set aside for outbreaks.
5. Federal agencies, states, and Congress should initiate a dialogue to develop consensus around new legislation that could be introduced during the reauthorization process that begins next year.
6. The immunization system should develop a set of consistent and comparable immunization measures that can monitor immunization status of children and adults in private and public plans; harmonize national immunization survey methods with those used by many managed care plans; achieve fairness in public and private health plan coverage of vaccine services, and clarify the public health role of the private health care delivery systems.
Dr. Smith and I would now be glad to take your questions. We're recording this meeting, so please step to the microphone in the aisle and identify yourself and your organization when you speak.
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19544378/flu-shot-side-effects/
I just think vaccines should be a personal choice, and never something that is forced upon us.
If there is anything good to come out of this pandemic, I hope one of the main things is that it gives us pause to how we treat all other species of animals on the planet. We routinely force other species into receiving injections and dangerous treatments, completely against their will. I hope there are people out there who are able to emphathize with animals on a greater scale, now that we're all being faced with the real threat of the possibility of being forced to get vaccinated with something we know could make us sick.
I'm not saying that no one should get a vaccine. But would anyone disagree that ALL people have the right to know all the facts about something that is being injected into their body? Or their kids' bodies?
Anyone in healthcare who would actually try to say it's better for people to remain uninformed, is, in my opinion, someone who should NOT be practicing medicine at all. And if you're one of those people, I encourage you to take some time to check yourself and remind yourself of why you went to Medical school in the first place. Are you really in this business because you truly care about people, or are you more interested in doing what's better for you and your own business?
A flu shot is well-documented to only be 40% to 60% effective... which honestly leaves me scratching my head. I mean, really? Is this the best method we've been able to come up with, in hundreds of years of scientific study? And a flu shot has been documented to have possible side effects? You've got to be kidding me!
Why is flu vaccine typically less effective against influenza A(H3N2) viruses? ... Flu vaccination has been associated with lower rates of some cardiac ...
Wait.... Fetal tissue?? Really?
I've recently seen some information about vaccines that is downright alarming - and no, these are not "conspiracy theories".... I encourage you to do your own research on vaccines, so you can see this information for yourself.
Did you know that the new COVID vaccine is likely to contain contaminated DNA and cellular debris from aborted fetal tissue?
I recently watched a panel discussion on Bioethics, featuring Dr. Theresa Deisher, who has worked with vaccines for over 30 years. She brings up this topic of aborted fetal tissue in the discussion, which you can see via this link:
ABOUT DR. THERESA DEISHER
From this page: https://www.soundchoice.org/about-us/
Dr. Deisher’s career has focused on discovering and developing new therapies for grievous human illness. Dr. Deisher obtained her Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University and has spent over 30 years in commercial biotechnology. Prior to founding AVM Biotechnology and Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), she worked with leading biotechnology companies, including Genentech, Repligen, ZymoGenetics, Immunex, and Amgen. AVM Biotechnology does not use morally illicit material in any process and develops products that improve outcomes without additional suffering, because side effects from treatments of cancers or infections should never be worse than the diseases themselves. SCPI’s mission is to end human trafficking in biomedical research.
Dr. Deisher is an inventor on 47 issued US/EU/Japan patents and 4 discoveries in clinical trials. She was the first to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells and has been a champion of adult stem cell research. Dr. Deisher was a plaintiff in the US federal lawsuit to prohibit the use of federal tax-payer dollars for embryo-destructive research, which was instrumental in steering science towards adult stem cell research.
She is a frequent lecturer on stem cell issues and the medical and ethical concerns with the use of aborted human fetal DNA in vaccine production. She has appeared on numerous radio and television shows.
When pharmaceutical companies switched from using animal cell lines to using aborted human fetal cells lines to produce these vaccines, in the mid to late 1970s, they assumed, without any evidence, that using aborted fetal cells would result in a more efficient production system. Brief discussions about potential adverse health consequences of using aborted human cell lines for vaccine production were captured in minutes from FDA advisory meetings about this switch. However, no studies have been done to actually measure the extent of those potential adverse consequences.
Vaccines and biologics (engineered proteins as drugs) are too large to make in a test tube, so companies harness the normal machinery used to make these, cells. No final drug is ever completely ‘pure’ and you will find contaminating DNA and cellular debris from the production cell in your final product. When we switch from using animal cells to using human cells we now have human DNA in our vaccines and our drugs.
Shouldn’t parents and grandparents know that when they immunize their children with a particular vaccine they are also injecting their children with DNA from an aborted fetus? Yet there are no laws that require drug manufacturers to inform the public of this. The package insert for the MMR II vaccine (mumps, measles, rubella) states : “MERUVAX* II (Rubella Virus Vaccine Live), the Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung Fibroblasts”, but doesn’t tell you that contaminating DNA from the WI-38 propagation strain is found in the final product. The package insert for Varivax, a chickenpox vaccine, states that the vaccine contains “residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein”, but how many parents or grandparents, let alone pediatricians and pharmacists, would know that MRC-5, or WI-38, is a cell line derived from an aborted fetus, and that the contaminating DNA and protein listed on the package insert is the DNA and protein of an aborted fetus? If we have the legal right to know what is in our Big Macs, don’t we have the right to know what is in our vaccines and medicines? Contaminating human DNA in these vaccines has the potential to trigger auto- immune responses and also the potential to become incorporated into our own genes, a process called homologous recombination.
COVID-19 VACCINES THAT ARE MANUFACTURED USING ABORTED FETAL DNA
SOURCE:
Vaccines that use human fetal cells draw fire
BY MEREDITH WADMAN
SCIENCE12 JUN 2020 : 1170-1171
According to Robert Kennedy, today's vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. And from the research I've done, it seems that he has good reason for saying this.
Transcribed from his debate with Alan Dershowitz, which you can see further down this page:
We used to get 3 vaccines. Nowadays, kids have to get 72 vaccines, just to stay in school.
We started this discussion by talking about how do you avoid the whole discussion about mandating vaccines? The way that you do that is you have a transparent process where people see that the vaccine is going to be tested, they see that it's tested fairly against a placebo, that there's long-term tests that are going to be evidenced by all of these difficulties and and that it's transparent and open and yet, what we've seen from the current group of covet vaccines is none of that's happening. They're skipping keys key parts of the test.
The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether. When they came to human testing, they tested it on 45 people, they had a high-dose group of 15 people, a medium dose group 15 people, and a low dose growth group of people. In the low dose group one of the people got so sick from the vaccine, they had to be hospitalized. That's six percent. In the high dose group three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized. That's twenty percent. They're going ahead and making two billion doses of that vaccine.
And by the way the people that they test them on alan are not typical Americans. They use what they call exclusionary criteria. They are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they're doing to the healthiest people. If you look at their exclusionary idea you cannot be pregnant you cannot be overweight, you must have never smoked a cigarette, you must have never vaped, you must have no respiratory problems in your family, you can't suffer asthma, you can't have diabetes, you can't have rheumatoid arthritis, or any autoimmune disease, there has to be no history of seizure in your family.
These are the people they're testing the vaccine on but that's not who they're going to give them to. What happens if.. these people are like the Avengers! They're like Superman, you can shoot them with a bullet and they won't go down. What happens when they give them to the typical American? You know, Sally six-pack and Joe bag of Donuts who's 50 pounds overweight and has diabetes? What is going to happen then? You're not going to see 20 percent. You're going to see a lot of people dropping dead. These people lost consciousness. They had to go to hospital, they had huge fevers and they're the healthiest people in the world. So any other medicine, Alan, that had that kind of profile in its original phase, one study would be DOA.
The problem is, Anthony Fauci put 500 million dollars of our dollars into that vaccine. He owns half the patent. He has five guys working for him, who are entitled to collect royalties from that. So you have a corrupt system, and now they've got a vaccine that is too big to fail. And instead of saying hey this was a terrible terrible mistake, they're saying: "We are going to order 2 billion doses of this!"
And you've got to understand, Alan, with these COVID vaccines, these companies are playing with house money. They're not spending anything on it, and they have NO liability. So if they kill 20 people or 200 people, 2 000 people in their clinical trials, big deal they have zero liability! And guess what, if wasted money their money because we're giving them the money to play with. People like me and people in our community are looking at this process and we're saying whatever comes out of that process we don't want to take it because we're seeing how the sausage gets made and it's really sickening. No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with the profile that Moderna has.
The problem is with this vaccine is we don't know if the vaccine is going to kill more people. When you start giving it to those people with comorbidities, 54 percent of americans now has diabetes, overweight, rheumatoid arthritis, they're smoking, they have 54 percent of us... i'm not even talking about smokers and vapers. 54 percent of us has chronic disease they're they're testing it on one group and they're going to give it to another and we need to know what the risk factor is and the people that they give it to.
I've sued the EPA for many years and it's captive agency. What would happen if EPA made half of its annual budget selling coal? That's what you got with these regulatory agencies. They're completely corrupt.
you're performing an important function doing this let me ask you another question what if we had a system which said this you have two choices one you can have the vaccine or two you can refuse to take the vaccine but if you refuse to take the vaccine you have to remain in quarantine until such time as the pandemic is basically passed so it's your option the one option you have you don't have the third option that is not taking the vaccine and mingling with the public and risking other people
In a million years i would not take the flu shot and i'll tell you why. Because this is what Cochrane and BMJ have found.
The flu vaccine is very much like the coronavirus vaccine but we've had the flu vaccine for 90 years, so every year it's fine tuned and we and and perfected. And originally they told us the flu vaccine, you'll get one shot you'll have immunity for life. And then it turned out no we we need to get it every year because there are variations of the flu.
Same thing is highly likely to happen with Coronavirus. So, the Cochrane Collaboration, which is the ultimate arbiter for vaccine safety, it is you know it is the highest authority. And the british medical journal have done three giant meta reviews on few on on the flu vaccine literature. So they look at all the literature that exists the peer review literature that is on pubmed i think 127 studies they did it in 2010 2014 and 2017.
Here's what they find. The CDC said the flu vaccine is 35 percent effective, that's what they claim. The Cochrane Collaboration said NO. You have to give 100 flu shots to prevent one case of flu.
Here's what they find. The CDC said the flu vaccine is 35 percent effective, that's what they claim. The Cochrane Collaboration said NO. You have to give 100 flu shots to prevent one case of flu.
Number two, there is zero evidence that the flu shot prevents any hospitalizations or any deaths.
Number three, the flu shot transmits the flu. In fact if you get a flu shot you're six times more likely to give somebody else the flu, than if you didn't get the flu shot, and this is true, Alan, for many many other shots.
For the polio vaccine which you know about, is so good at transmitting giving polio to other people that seventy percent of the polio cases in the world today come from the vaccine.
If you go to the chickenpox manufacturer's insert, it says if you get this chickenpox vaccine you should not go near a pregnant woman for six weeks or anybody who is immuno-compromised. Same with pertussis, you become an asymptomatic carrier.
So you're not guaranteed, and in fact the the Astrazeneca vaccine, the oxford vaccine which is the the other leader, when they gave it to monkeys, the monkeys continued to transmit the disease. And Bill Gates and Fauci have been going on tv saying you know we may get a vaccine that protects you, but you may still be transmitting it. So why are you going to lock that guy up in a house? Look like all the people out who've been who are now asymptomatic carriers because they've got Gates' vaccine.
In a million years i would not take the flu shot and i'll tell you why. Because this is what Cochrane and BMJ have found.
People who take the flu shot are protected against that strain of flu but they're 4.4 times more likely to get a non-flu infection. And you might find a lot of people do that they get the flu shot and then they get sick they're usually not getting the flu. They're getting something that is indistinguishable from the flu because the flu shot gives you something called pathogenic priming. It it injures your immune system so that you're more likely to get a non-flu viral upper respiratory infection. In fact the pentagon published a story and you can cite as it's by wolf w-o-l-f-e, in January of this year in which they said, the flu shot not only primes you for flu, but it primes you for coronavirus. They had a placebo group and they had a vaccine group because they wanted it for many of military readiness to see if the flu shot was prophylactic against Coronavirus
What they found is actually the people who got the flu shot were 36% more likely to get coronavirus, and that's not a that's not a lone study. We found six other major studies that say the same thing, if you get the flu shot you're more likely to get Coronavirus. And this is what the science says and you should not listen to me, nobody should. Just read the science.
The FDA has 50% of its budget from the Vaccine companies, from the industry. The CDC has an 11.5 billion dollar budget, and 4.9 billion of that is buying, selling, and distributing vaccines. The CDC is a vaccine company. It owns 57 Vaccine patents, so it can make money on every sale of a vaccine. The NIH owns hundreds of vaccine patents. The NIH owns half the patents for the Moderna vaccine. There's 5 individuals at NIH and the rules at NIH, if you're a scientist or individual who's worked on a vaccine, you're allowed to collect $150,000 a year in royalties on sales that that vaccine makes. These "regulatory agencies" are actually vaccine companies. The vaccine marketing sales part of those agencies is the tail that is now wagging the regulatory dog. They are not doing their job as regulators.
And in fact, the senior scientist at CDC, today, the Senior vaccine safety scientist, who's still at CDC, he was the senior scientist there for 18 years, he is the author or co-author on all of the major studies that the CDC has produced on vaccine safety, and particularly the studies that shows that vaccine that does not cause autism. His name is Dr. William Thompson. 3 years ago, he came forward and said we have been ordered to fake all the science for the last decade, on Autism. And he said, in fact, we were in the major study which is called Distemino 2004, it's the most latest study on this study subject on Pubmed. He said in that study we found out that black boys who get the MMR vaccine had a 363% greater risk of getting an autism diagnosis than black boys who waited, after 3-6 months. He said he was ordered to come into a conference room with all that data, with his 4 other co-authors, by their CDC boss Frank Destefano, who then ordered them to destroy that data, in front of him, in CDC headquarters, and then publish that study, saying there is no effect.
The vaccine act gave vaccine companies blanket immunity from liability.
Vaccines have another exemption that most people don't know about: They are the only medical product that does not have to be safety tested against a placebo. And that exemption is an artifact of CDC's legacy as the public health service, which was a quasi-military agency which is why people at CDC have military ranks like surgeon general, and they wear uniforms.
The vaccine program was conceived as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country and they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us in the biological age and Anthrax or something like that we could quickly formulate a vaccine and and deploy it to 200 million american civilians without regulatory impediments.
They said if we call it a medicine we're going to have to test it and that takes five years double-blind placebo testing, so let's call it something else. We'll call it a biologic and we'll exempt biologics from safety testing. So not a single one of the vaccines that 72 vaccines now our children have ever been tested against a placebo.
And I in fact sued HHS in 2016 and said show me any placebo studies that you have for any vaccines, and they were unable to do so. None of them have been tested it and you don't have to sue them like I did. Anybody can go on their cell phone and look up manufacturers' inserts. Hepatitis B vaccine, Gardisil vaccine, polio vaccine. You know how many days the current polio vaccine... you know how many days it was safety tested for, Alan? 48 hours.
The hepatitis B vaccine, the Glaxo version was four days. The Merck version was 5 days. That means that if the baby they gave that to had a seizure on day six it never happened, if the baby died on day six, it never happened. If the baby got food allergies that were diagnosed two years later it never happened. If the baby got autism which is not diagnosed till four years of age, 4.2 years of age it never happened. Autoimmune diseases? You cannot see those if you have short-term studies, and you can't see any risk if you don't test against the placebo. And my question is nobody knows because of that nobody knows risk profile or any vaccine that is currently on the schedule and that means nobody can say with any scientific certainty that vaccine is averting more injuries and deaths than it's causing. And my question is how in the heck can we be mandated to children that they take a medical product for which we do not know the risks, and to me that is criminal.
https://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s9836
And in fact, the senior scientist at CDC, today, the Senior vaccine safety scientist, who's still at CDC, he was the senior scientist there for 18 years, he is the author or co-author on all of the major studies that the CDC has produced on vaccine safety, and particularly the studies that shows that vaccine that does not cause autism. His name is Dr. William Thompson. 3 years ago, he came forward and said we have been ordered to fake all the science for the last decade, on Autism. And he said, in fact, we were in the major study which is called Distemino 2004, it's the most latest study on this study subject on Pubmed. He said in that study we found out that black boys who get the MMR vaccine had a 363% greater risk of getting an autism diagnosis than black boys who waited, after 3-6 months. He said he was ordered to come into a conference room with all that data, with his 4 other co-authors, by their CDC boss Frank Destefano, who then ordered them to destroy that data, in front of him, in CDC headquarters, and then publish that study, saying there is no effect.
The vaccine act gave vaccine companies blanket immunity from liability.
Vaccines have another exemption that most people don't know about: They are the only medical product that does not have to be safety tested against a placebo. And that exemption is an artifact of CDC's legacy as the public health service, which was a quasi-military agency which is why people at CDC have military ranks like surgeon general, and they wear uniforms.
The vaccine program was conceived as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country and they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us in the biological age and Anthrax or something like that we could quickly formulate a vaccine and and deploy it to 200 million american civilians without regulatory impediments.
They said if we call it a medicine we're going to have to test it and that takes five years double-blind placebo testing, so let's call it something else. We'll call it a biologic and we'll exempt biologics from safety testing. So not a single one of the vaccines that 72 vaccines now our children have ever been tested against a placebo.
And I in fact sued HHS in 2016 and said show me any placebo studies that you have for any vaccines, and they were unable to do so. None of them have been tested it and you don't have to sue them like I did. Anybody can go on their cell phone and look up manufacturers' inserts. Hepatitis B vaccine, Gardisil vaccine, polio vaccine. You know how many days the current polio vaccine... you know how many days it was safety tested for, Alan? 48 hours.
The hepatitis B vaccine, the Glaxo version was four days. The Merck version was 5 days. That means that if the baby they gave that to had a seizure on day six it never happened, if the baby died on day six, it never happened. If the baby got food allergies that were diagnosed two years later it never happened. If the baby got autism which is not diagnosed till four years of age, 4.2 years of age it never happened. Autoimmune diseases? You cannot see those if you have short-term studies, and you can't see any risk if you don't test against the placebo. And my question is nobody knows because of that nobody knows risk profile or any vaccine that is currently on the schedule and that means nobody can say with any scientific certainty that vaccine is averting more injuries and deaths than it's causing. And my question is how in the heck can we be mandated to children that they take a medical product for which we do not know the risks, and to me that is criminal.
These 4 companies that make all of our vaccines, every one of them is a convicted serial felon. Those companies have paid 35 billion dollars in criminal penalties.
More kids than were killed in the 20 year Vietnam war.
Insys Executives are Sentenced to Prison time, putting Opioid makers on notice.
U.S. pharmaceutical executives have been put on notice that they could be held criminally liable for fueling America’s epidemic of opioid addiction, after the founder of the drugmaker Insys was sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison for masterminding a scheme to bribe doctors to prescribe a dangerous painkiller.
Using laws designed to catch mob bosses, prosecutors secured the conviction of John Kapoor and six other Insys executives and employees last year on charges including racketeering conspiracy. The company funneled money to doctors to boost sales of Subsys, a painkilling spray containing fentanyl, an opioid 50 to 100 times stronger than heroin.
Instead of going to prison, these companies were able to just pay a 7 billion dollar fine.
Acknowledging that he did not have “morals, ethics and values” and that he did his job knowing the scheme orchestrated with Mr Kapoor was illegal, Mr Burlakoff said he still had “no idea that criminally there would be consequences . . . I don’t want to go to jail. Who wants to go to jail?”
He described his thinking: “Not only is the company going to get fined an astronomical amount of money, which I’ve seen a million times, but worse case scenario, which I’ve never seen before, they might actually take my money.”
Subsys was approved for cancer patients already taking opioids who were experiencing the sharp pangs of what is called breakthrough pain. But the vast majority of doctors Insys targeted were not oncologists.
Mr Burlakoff said that no one at the company cared whether the doctors were prescribing it “on-label” for cancer patients or “off-label” for anyone else. If Insys had just stuck to cancer patients, he said, “you never would have heard of the company.”
Mr Kapoor, now 76, is a serial pharma entrepreneur who emigrated to the U.S. from India in his early 20s. He founded Insys in 1990, and the company received regulatory approval for its fentanyl spray in 2012. Since then, hundreds of deaths have been linked to the drug.
As the U.S. reels from an opioid crisis that has turned 2m Americans into addicts, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Insys and Purdue Pharma — a company owned by members of the billionaire Sackler family, which makes OxyContin — have both gone bankrupt under the weight of legal liabilities. Other opioid makers and distributors are trying to negotiate a settlement deal with state and local governments.
https://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s9836
Calling the Shots:
Immunization Finance Policies and Practices
Institute of Medicine
Public Meeting
June 16, 2000
Talking Points
by
Bernard Guyer
Professor and Chair, Department of Population and Family Health Sciences
Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
and
Chair, Committee on Immunization Finance Policies and Practices
Good morning. David Smith, the committee vice chair, and I are here today to present the findings and recommendations of a new report from the Institute of Medicine. It raises a public health warning that is too risky to ignore. The nation's immunization system is weakening, showing signs of strain, and history has shown that the price of falling vaccination rates too often is an outbreak of disease.
This report, Calling the Shots: Immunization Finance Policies and Practices, was requested by the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations and was sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study represents a comprehensive examination of the ways in which federal and state governments finance their public health efforts in the area of immunization. Our committee met five times within an 18-month period, prepared eight case studies, commissioned a 50-state survey, organized a one-day workshop, and conducted four site visits in the course of our fact-finding and deliberations.
As a result of this effort, our committee concluded that vaccines are a powerful technology to prevent disease, but that the nation's health care system is not fully realizing their potential. There have been cycles of interest in immunization in this country, and the committee is concerned that currently interest is flagging. Our immunization system is a national treasure that we cannot take for granted. It was neglect of this issue that led to the measles outbreaks in 1989-90. Constant vigilance is required to protect populations against vaccine-preventable diseases, and the country must do better. The 11,000 infants that are born every day must be routinely vaccinated, and the needs of special at-risk populations must be addressed.
The immunization system is again showing signs of strain and instability. We still have not achieved the national objective of fully immunizing 90 percent of 2-year-olds. There are disparities in coverage between rich and poor, and the result of these disparities shows up in the large pockets of unvaccinated children in large cities. Immunization coverage is even lower among adults and the elderly. Yet, science continues to create new vaccines, and the vaccination schedule is becoming increasingly complex. Further, the health care system is changing dramatically and now depends more heavily on the private sector to administer publicly purchased vaccines for disadvantaged groups. Meanwhile, federal resources for immunizations have decreased over the last five years.
This report was requested because of the Senate Appropriations Committee's concern about the financing of immunization programs through the 1990s. Federal budgets for these programs experienced dramatic shifts during this period, rising very quickly in the early 1990s and then falling equally as fast over the last five years. These budgets provide funds that support immunization programs in each state. Our committee soon realized that although the United States had achieved record highs in rates of immunization coverage, these shifts in funding had eroded the national immunization system and could not continue without causing serious damage to it.
The committee's overall findings and recommendations present a long-term, strategic approach quite different from the current and uncertain annual budget battles. We concluded that unpredictable funding has created instability and uncertainty in state and local planning efforts. Also, because disease does not recognize geographic boundaries, our report underscores the need for an immunization policy that is national in scope, yet flexible enough to adapt to state and local needs and resources. Implementing this policy, however, takes much more than vaccines, needles, and medical staff. Federal and state governments need to do much more to strengthen the ability of public health officials to monitor the system and shift resources to areas of need. Still, the reality is that vaccinations primarily take place in private settings -- in a doctor's office or a private clinic. Therefore, private health plans can and should do more to implement immunization surveillance and prevention programs, but require assistance, oversight, and incentives from the states to perform this role.
Our committee has recommended a plan including the following strategic elements:
> A long-term finance plan that can provide about $1.5 billion over a five-year period as a stable investment in the immunization infrastructure, totaling $300 million annually from state and federal governments. About $875 million of this total represents new funding.
> A better basis for the federal-state partnership that supports immunization efforts, including a shift to system for allocating federal grants based on a formula that will distribute the money more effectively, as well as a required state contribution to strengthen local involvement.
> Clarification of the system's function as a platform for specific programs.
> A greater public health role for the private sector.
> New measurement tools that improve the surveillance of immunization rates in selected communities, and add a population focus to performance assessment tools.
> A broadened perspective on immunization that would include adults, adolescents, elderly, as well as infants.
To implement these elements of our strategic plan, the committee recommends that federal and state governments and other players in the immunization system undertake a number of steps, including:
1. Congress and state legislatures should sustain current budgets for purchasing children's vaccines, but develop a mechanism that can provide funding for new vaccines, such as the new pneumococcal conjugate for infants.
2. Congress and state legislatures should provide an additional $50 million in federal funds and an additional $11 million in state funds to purchase vaccines for uninsured adults, especially adults who are under age 65 and have chronic health conditions such as diabetes, heart and lung disease, or HIV infections, and who are especially vulnerable to infectious disease.
3. Congress and state legislatures should increase funding for state immunization infrastructure support to $300 million each year. This figure includes an increase of $75 million over current federal awards (for a total of $200 million each year for infrastructure support) and an annual increase of $100 million over current state spending efforts.
4. The federal government should replace discretionary grants with formula-grant legislation that reflects states' need, capacity and performance; introduces a state matching requirement; and provides a small amount of funding for CDC to set aside for outbreaks.
5. Federal agencies, states, and Congress should initiate a dialogue to develop consensus around new legislation that could be introduced during the reauthorization process that begins next year.
6. The immunization system should develop a set of consistent and comparable immunization measures that can monitor immunization status of children and adults in private and public plans; harmonize national immunization survey methods with those used by many managed care plans; achieve fairness in public and private health plan coverage of vaccine services, and clarify the public health role of the private health care delivery systems.
Dr. Smith and I would now be glad to take your questions. We're recording this meeting, so please step to the microphone in the aisle and identify yourself and your organization when you speak.
Web results
He had a severe reaction to Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. He's ...
www.statnews.com › 2020/05/26 › moderna-vaccine-candidate-trial-p...
May 26, 2020 - He has not brought up the side effects previously, he said, out of “an ... In the 45-
by LA Jackson - 2020 - Cited by 92
Jul 14, 2020 - Solicited adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection ...You can see a preview video here:
**********************************************
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19544378/flu-shot-side-effects/
Jul 21, 2020 - 11 Flu Shot Side Effects You Might Mistake for Being Sick · The flu shot will not actually give you the flu, according to the Centers for Disease ...
The flu vaccine, which typically comes as a shot or nasal spray, can reduce your chances of getting the flu by as much as 60 percent. Flu shot side effects don't ...
Sep 10, 2020 - According to the CDC, mild side effects from the flu shot include soreness, redness or swelling at the injection site, low-grade fever and aches.
Some possible downsides to flu shots include:
- only about 40–60% of flu shots are effective in preventing the flu each year.
- they can take up to 2 weeks to start working.
- sometimes, they cause mild side effects, such as pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site.
•
Mar 26, 2020
Common side effects from the flu shot include:
- Soreness, redness, and/or swelling from the shot.
- Headache.
- Fever.
- Nausea.
- Muscle aches.
Thankfully, symptoms don't last long. "Usually these don’t last for more than a day or two,” Pekosz said.
In rare cases, some may experience an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Symptoms include trouble breathing, hives, swelling around the eye or mouth area, weakness or dizziness. Typically, these symptoms occur within a few minutes to hours after the vaccine was given.
If you’re really feeling sick for a sustained amount of time afterwards, well, you probably just caught another virus that the flu vaccine doesn’t protect you against.
"The flu vaccine protects against influenza virus, but there are a number of other viruses that can cause a flu-like disease,” Pekosz said. "Viruses like human parainfluenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and coronaviruses all circulate in fall and early winter, the time that flu vaccination programs are in full-swing." These viruses and their symptoms usually last two to eight days.
Dr Carrie Madej, an Internal Medicine Specialist claims that theCOVID-19 Vaccine Could Be Trojan Horse To Patent Humans as it will change your DNA.
Dr Carrie Madej, DO is a Internal Medicine Specialist in McDonough, GA and has over 19 years of experience in the medical field. She graduated from Kansas City Univ Of Medicine Bioscience College Of Osteopathic Medicine medical school in 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.