OUTRAGE IN THE MAKING: PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION TO DECIDE: ARE YOUR CHILDREN GUINEA PIGS FOR DANGEROUS EXPERIMENTS?
[Note: On January 14 and 15, 2013 the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues held a meeting regarding the testing of an alleged “anthrax vaccine” on children. Representing the Natural Solutions Foundation, an international NGO dedicated to discovering, developing, documenting, disseminating and distributing natural solutions to pressing social issues, the Foundation President, Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (UA Army, ret.), Medical Director, Rima E. Laibow, MD and Counsel, Ralph Fucetola JD, submitted comments objecting to the proposed “study” on ethical grounds. More about the Commission meeting here: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/obama-administration-seeks-approval-to-test-anthrax-vaccine-on-children/ ]
Statement of the Trustees of the Natural Solutions Foundation in Opposition to “Anthrax Vaccine” Experimentation on Children
To: The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
Dear Director Viers:
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and as the Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, the largest health freedom organization in the world. I am joined in this letter by the President of our Foundation, Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine (US Army, Ret.) and our Counsel and Ethicist, Ralph Fucetola JD. The Commission notice states that the “Commission will continue discussing topics related to the ethical issues associated with the development of medical countermeasures for children.”
We address particularly the proposal to “test” an alleged Anthrax “vaccine” on children. These experiments would be entirely non-therapeutic and pose significant risk of harm to these subjects.
Under US law, research which involves any risk greater than minimal risk, provides no possibility of direct benefit to the child subject and involves healthy children is prohibited. Yet for more than a year, the Commission has been seeking justification for medical experimentation which, had the US signed the Nuremberg Convention, would have been illegal under that document as well. Counsel Fucetola, in the Codicil to this letter further addresses International Law and the Declaration of Helsinki regarding this matter.
We hold that the United States government is bound by US law and by International Law and that individuals acting under color of law conducting unlawful experimentation on children are personally responsible for acts which may constitute Crimes Against Humanity and child abuse.
There are only ethical barriers to such experimentation, while there are no ethical justifications for it.
The proposed exposure of children to toxic material in the total absence of any threat of harm other than the experimentation is, in itself, an unwarranted and unjustified threat of harm to these children. The threat of harm to these children from weaponized anthrax simply does not exist. Even if it did, there is little or no likelihood that the Anthrax vaccine being tested would provide protection against a genetically modified organism, by definition of both a vaccine’s antigen specific antibody procuction and a weaponized organism.
What does exist is the very real threat of harm from this illogical, unjustified and wildly risky vaccine and vaccine “experiment”.
The FDA approved label for this commercial product cites a serious adverse event risk of 6% and notes that Gulf War Syndrome illness, an incurable, life-long, disabling and painful destructive auto-immune disorder, is suspected of resulting from the use of this vaccine. So the question is, fundamentally, whose children will the Commission permit to be exposed to needless – and pointless – suffering and death? The children of the elite, well-educated upper class whose lawyers will be at the ready to defend the rights of their client’s children? Or perhaps, as with the equally unethical pesticide studies by the EPA in Duval County, FL, the poor, the uneducated, the poorly nourished and the legally vulnerable children of the United States will be the target of this unconscionable experiment. Are these children more disposable than yours?
If not, meaning that the members of the Commission would submit their own children to the risks listed on the FDA approved label then I would submit that those members are suffering from MDD, Moral Deficit Disorder, defined as:
“Deindividuation leading to immoral behavior. People will do things when they think they are anonymous or when they are in a group or when they see other people doing it even when they know its wrong or when they can blame someone else.”
If the members of the Commission would not submit their own children to this experimentation, they have made the point clear: there is no ethical justification for this experimentation which would not be carried out on children precious to the Commission but could be carried out on children whose value they hold in less esteem.It is widely recognized that vaccination is an uninsurable risk. That is why the Federal Government’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660)). “Informed consent” for an uninsurable harm is hardly informed!
Biothrax is formulated to contain 1.2 mg/mL aluminum, added as aluminum hydroxide in 0.85% sodium chloride. The final product is formulated to contain 25 mcg/mL benzethonium chloride and 100 mcg/mL formaldehyde. These substances are particularly dangerous to children and providing them to children by themselves would constitute malpractice if not for the exemption from liability provided by PL 99-660. While Congress may have deprived Americans of their legal redress against vaccine harms, it cannot protect physicians and others involved in experimentation on children of the moral approbation of all disinterested individuals.
We say to those who would conduct these experiments: SHAME ON YOU.
Children cannot offer informed consent on their own behalf as to whether they are willing to take the well-established, but uninsurable risk associated with a product whose safety in the pediatric population has not been established but whose dangers have.
On behalf of our hundreds of thousands of supporters, my Co-Trustees and of myself, I cannot urge you strongly enough to abandon this unethical plan before you give your approval to testing, once again, Anthrax Vaccine in children. On behalf of ourselves and the children this experiment would victimize, we petition for redress of grievances and demand an immediate halt to unethical experimentation on children and other children.
What positive ethical considerations can there be for such testing? Our concerned supporters and I ask the Commission:
• Has a single child died of anthrax in the United States within modern scientific memory? Epidemiological evidence makes it clear that the answer is “No.”
• Is the anthrax vaccine safe? Abundant documentation of the chronic degenerative auto immune conditions experienced by veterans and others exposed to this vaccine makes it clear that the answer is “No.”
• Is the anthrax vaccine effective? Clinical results make it clear that the answer is “No”, whether or not an antibody response is produced since scientific studies from the NIH and elsewhere through the entire antibody hypothesis of vaccine protection into serious question.
• Is anthrax a threat to children or others in the United States? The answer is a clearly “No.”
• Does anthrax present a real rather than hypothetical threat worthy of exposing children to a major threat for illusory and illegal scientific inquiry? The answer is “No.”
The Natural Solutions Foundation Trustees, supporters and I personally urge the Commission to decide definitively on behalf of the safety and security of the US population, and particularly its children, that experimentation which exposes healthy people to risk without possibility of discernible gain to them is unethical and, following US law, illegal.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Natural Solutions Foundation
The World Medical Association, an internationally recognized nongovernmental organization (NGO) adopted the Declaration of Helsinki to record existing International Law binding on all nations with regard to Human Experimentation. The Declaration implements the Geneva Conventions with concerning the treatment of civilian populations.
With regard to the question of “testing” the alleged “Anthrax Vaccination” on children, international norms are quite clear. In the circumstances described by the would-be experimenters, and explained by Dr. Laibow above, there are only ethical objections to the experiments; there are no ethical excuses for this experimentation.
Two specific clauses of the Declaration, especially when read in conjunction with the entire Declaration, as required thereby, make it absolutely clear that the proposed experimentation cannot be considered ethical by any disinterested individual
The first relevant clause reads:
“9. Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights. Some research populations are particularly vulnerable and need special protection. These include those who cannot give or refuse consent for themselves and those who may be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence…
The second relevant clause:
“29. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent… may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research population. In such circumstances the physician should seek informed consent from the legally authorized representative… provided … the study has been approved by a research ethics committee…”
It is therefore my considered professional opinion that conductingthe proposed experiments violates ethical norms as well as US and International law. [rf3]
2. 45 CFR 46, subpart D
3. FDA-Approved Label Warning (31 JAN 2002)
ANTHRAX VACCINE ADSORBED (BIOTHRAX™) EXCERPT
“Approximately 6% of the reported events were listed as serious. Serious adverse events include those that result in death, hospitalization, permanent disability or are life-threatening.
The serious adverse events most frequently reported were in the following body system categories: general disorders and administration site conditions, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, and musculoskeletal, connective tissue and bone disorders.
Anaphylaxis and/or other generalized hypersensitivity reactions, as well as serious local reactions, were reported to occur occasionally following administration of BioThrax. None of these hypersensitivity reactions have been fatal.
Other infrequently reported serious adverse events that have occurred in persons who have received BioThrax have included: cellulitis, cysts, pemphigus vulgaris, endocarditis, sepsis, angioedema and other hypersensitivity reactions, asthma, aplastic anemia, neutropenia, idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, lymphoma, leukemia, collagen vascular disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, polyarteritis nodosa, inflammatory arthritis, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, immune deficiency, seizure, mental status changes, psychiatric disorders, tremors, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), facial palsy, hearing and visual disorders, aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, syncope, glomerulonephritis, renal failure, spontaneous abortion and liver abscess. Infrequent reports were also received of multisystem disorders defined as chronic symptoms involving at least two of the following three categories: fatigue, mood-cognition, musculoskeletal system.
Reports of fatalities included sudden cardiac arrest (2), myocardial infarction with polyarteritis nodosa (1), aplastic anemia (1), suicide (1) and central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma (1).
Revised package insert (May 2012) provides additional cause for alarm.
2. The Gulf War Syndrome definition remains a reported adverse event in the most recent version of the package insert: ”Infrequent reports were also received of multisystem disorders defined as chronic symptoms involving at least two of the following three categories: fatigue, mood-cognition, and musculoskeletal system.” page 9
3. The vaccine hurts more than other vaccines. ”Up to 11% of subjects rated the brief pain or burning they experienced immediately after vaccine injection as 8 out of 10 or greater.” page 5
4. The “Information for Patients” page states, on page 16: “What are the possible or reasonably likely side effects of BioThrax?
• Pain, tenderness, redness, bruising, or problems moving the arm in which you got the shot
• Muscle aches • Headaches • Fatigue • Fainting”
This important peer reviewed article says what we all know: exposure to environmental toxins, especially during life in the womb, drives the development of later disease through impact on the genes. Consider, then, those most concentrated of toxins found in vaccines given to pregnant women. REL
Developmental reprogramming of cancer susceptibilityAbstract Excerpt: “Gene–environment interactions have been traditionally understood to promote the acquisition of mutations that drive multistage carcinogenesis, and, in the case of inherited defects in tumor suppressor genes, additional mutations are required for cancer development. However, the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHAD) hypothesis provides an alternative model whereby environmental exposures during development increase susceptibility to cancer in adulthood, not by inducing genetic mutations, but by reprogramming the epigenome. We hypothesize that this epigenetic reprogramming functions as a new type of gene–environment interaction by which environmental exposures target the epigenome to increase cancer susceptibility.”
Cheryl Lyn Walker1 & Shuk-mei Ho
How do we all know it? because there is no mother on the planet who does not know in her bones that healthy food while she is pregnant and nursing will help her baby to thrive.
There is no pregnant woman who does not find herself avoiding noxious odors (even if they did not bother her at all before her pregnancy!)
There is no concerned parent or husband or partner who does not seek out clean options for air, food, water and environment when a child is being formed and birthed.
Tragically, many mothers, father, parents, sisters and brothers do not have the option to avoid chemical and radiological contamination.
Years, and scientific epochs ago, the one gene, one effect dogma held sway and none dared question it lest they be fools or worse, not get grants.
But dogma decays, as it should, and we now understand that genes are fluid actors, impacted by what neighborhood they reside in, what is in the brine they soak in and what expectations the receptors at the cell boundaries are programed by. So chemical exposure, we now begin to understand, changes genetic expression, capability and adaptability. Each changed gene, of course, changes the function of its neighbors.
You have only to think about the impact of foreign, alien, DNA introduced into our bacteria and our cells through the consumption of GMO “PHUDE” to imagine the chaos wrought in the genetic material of every cell through that hideous technology.
But even without invoking the astounding, unstudied and uncontrolled dangers of GMOs in our world, chemical contamination during the susceptible developmental periods of growth has the potential for life long damage, even creating lethal changes in genes.
If vaccines were helpful (which they are not), fought disease (which they do not), protected populations (which they do not) or had any other advantage (which they do not), there would be excellent reason in this article and the rest of the large body of literature which shows the flexibility of genetic expression in the face of toxic inputs to never, never vaccinate pregnant or nursing woman.
That is what this article, and all of the others like it, makes abundantly clear.
Yet, in our mad rush to damage and destroy immunological competence for immediate profit (the vaccine profitability picture) and the after market (cancer, diabetes, immune and auto immune disorders, sterility, infertility, etc., etc.) profits, we target pregnant and nursing women with an exuberance of pseudo-scientific absurdity.
Protect women, children and their fragile immune systems.
Oh, and for the sake of equal protection under the law, how about protecting men, children and adolescents, as well as the elderly.
Natural Solutions Foundation
Your Voice of Global Health & Food Freedom & Justice™
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org – www.GlobalFoodFreedom.org
Dr. Rima Reports: Every Sunday Morning
10 AM – Noon Eastern – Listen, chat, archive:
We are pleased to re-post this excellent article that responds to an article about to be published in the journal, Human Immunology. The article claims to “educate” doctors on what opponents of vaccine use believe. The author of this response deconstructs the propaganda and gives us a good lesson in real scientific method.
The article mentions what was done to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, MD, because he dared questioned the official line on vaccinations with actual scientific study. He was falsely accused of “fraud” by powerful media interests which, it now appears, falsified the record to destroy his career. We expect the libel lawsuit he has initiated against the Murdock interests and the British medical journal to fully vindicate him. I met him earlier this year at the Health Freedom Expo and was very impressed by his compassion and commitment. Learn more here: http://www.drwakefieldjusticefund.org/
May 9, 2012 – Justifying Mandatory Vaccination by HPS
The following is a critique of the article, The Clinician’s Guide to the Anti-Vaccinationists’ Galaxy from the journal, Human Immunology. This article is still in press and has not yet been published though it is ready for publication once the journal has formatted and done their final copy-editing. We give full attribution to Human Immunology and post this article here for research and critiquing purposes only. The author of this critique is HPS and we will be seeing much more of this person on the REAL Australian Sceptics blog in the coming months.
Sceptical Rating for the article reviewed: Four Plungers –
Another day – another attempt by some doctors to justify the mandating of vaccines. They can’t win on arguments so instead, they resort to force. This paper is kind of weird in the sense that it wants to give doctors an easily-referenced guide to combating the concerns of parents. Apparently, the authors seem to feel they will blow all away with their brilliance and irrefutable logic while at the same time, claiming that ultimately, mandating vaccines is the way to go.
Now the first point to note is at the end of the article where we find out that the authors, Poland and Jacobson, are not exactly disinterested observers. They both work for Merck amongst other vaccine-related activities.
Of course, they are entitled to make their case irrespective of whether they have a vested interest or not. Nonetheless, given these interests, one would hope that they wouldn’t make the mistake of filling this piece with smears, insults or attempts to persuade people using themselves as some sort of authority.
First claim: Vaccines saved many millions of lives.
Now as far as I can tell, this cannot be backed up with any evidence. The site, Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics, seems to debunk this notion as well as any other. If vaccines saved lives, it is hard to find evidence for this in the actual data. Most ‘data’ that demonstrates any life-saving ‘miracleness’ is in the form of projections that take assumptions about how many lives a doctor thinks that, for instance, the measles vaccine will save and multiplies that by the number of measles vaccines handed out. Now some might think that was a ridiculous thing to offer up as evidence given that the authors could come up with any number they like, but presumably that must be our ‘anti-vaccinationist’ brains not being able to understand science like these authors can.
Second notion – the eradication of smallpox.
I have to ask. How did the World Health Organisation (WHO) know that the smallpox virus was eradicated? How could they have known something that no mere mortal possibly could? Did they test every human on the planet to make sure that none of them were ‘asymptomatic carriers’? Did they test every rock, tree, piece of dirt, etc to ensure it wasn’t hiding there? How did they know it was gone? Since smallpox was declared to be eradicated, there have been sporadic outbreaks which local doctors have put down to smallpox. Then, when the WHO or similar organisations come in, they simply wave their hands and say “Well it couldn’t have been smallpox, could it? It doesn’t exist anymore.” So it seems to be just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On a related note, did anybody worry about fatal chickenpox 250 years ago? Samuel Johnson’s dictionary suggests that no such condition had ever been reported. It would seem then that the concern for fatal/severe chickenpox is a more modern thing. In particular, and I suspect not coincidentally, after the introduction of the smallpox vaccine. Too many people who had been vaccinated still getting the pox and still dying from it. Some of the reputable medical textbooks at the time actually instructed doctors to use vaccination status when making their diagnosis. Still, that is probably just me not understanding enough about the scientific method and the peer-review process and thinking that there might be an investigator bias in these things. We all know that investigator bias doesn’t exist at all.
So the whole smallpox eradication looks pretty shaky. Of course, Poland and Jacobsen would counter by saying that they are caused by different viruses – but even if that’s true, how could doctors have known which disease was caused by which virus in 1800? I’m pretty sure that electron tunnelling microscopes weren’t in significant use back then. And how often do we test pox victims for the smallpox virus today? Or even in the mid 1970s?
Third point – the efficacy of vaccines
Their next point about the general efficacy of vaccines is similar to the smallpox one. And my retort is the same. In epidemiology the ‘double’ in randomised double blind placebo controlled trial is not there to help the phrase roll off the tongue better. Epidemiological evidence is always subject to bias if the doctors know you have received a particular treatment. This renders it nigh on worthless for trying to prove that the treatment works unless this bias is either quantified retrospectively or controlled for in the original trial (ie with a ‘double’ blinding).
I could list all the so-called vaccine success stories subject to this bias but I will just put polio out as an example. How many cases of crippling/paralysis that had no trauma-related cause in the Western world were under the banner of something other than polio before the vaccine? Virtually none it would seem. Later on, children with crippling/paralysis could have Guillian Barré, non-polio enteroviruses, coxsackie and a plethora of other conditions. Many of these labels didn’t even exist before the vaccine or were thought not to cause paralysis and yet today, they make up virtually all of the acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) cases. (AFP is a sort of ‘basket’ into which all diseases which are clinically indistinguishable from paralytic polio are gathered together.) This would be fine of course if AFP cases as a whole had fallen significantly. Alas, no such luck as the following paragraph will illustrate.
India is slated as soon to be ‘polio-free’. But what does this mean? Well if you look at the World Health Organisation’s website for India, you will see that even though AFP has risen in the past 16 years (since they have been counting), almost all of these cases have been dumped into the non-polio type. Apparently that makes it alright. You see, doctors couldn’t find a particular protein in the stools of these individuals so they declared them not to have polio (there were zero non-polio AFP cases in 1996 and 16 per 100,000 in 2011).
Now you might think that most parents wouldn’t really care too much about proteins in stools when they have a paralysed child to concern themselves with, but again, that is coming from an ‘anti-vaccinationist’ who doesn’t understand the glories of peer-review and the scientific method. If I did understand those things like our great doctors, I would understand that paralysis is no big deal. It’s the little protein in the stool that matters.
Next point – The Super-Bowl effect
The next point the authors make is some anecdotes (I thought ‘real scientists’ didn’t use them?) about some people getting rashes after a Super Bowl game. It seems reasonable that the entire country would be in a blind panic over such serious phenomena. I mean some of those people might have missed a couple of days work. Catastrophic. Not like those lucky souls in India who are paralysed but who have had the incredible stroke of good fortune to have been found not to have had the polio virus in their stools.
The authors acknowledge that there are real side effects to vaccines but of course, they are extremely rare. What do these scientists tell themselves at night? That hundreds of thousands of parents all around the world all got their children vaccinated and then subsequently decided to become part of a vast global conspiracy to bring down vaccinations for no apparent reason?
At least that is what I assume these ‘scientists’ must think. After all, vaccinations are the only product whereby people ignore the stories of those who actually had experiences of them when ascertaining their safety. Imagine if thousands of people walked into the Toyota headquarters and explained that when they pressed the brakes on their Camrys nothing happened and, in response, the Toyota executives came out with a bunch of graphs and ‘experts’ who told them that it was all in their imagination and that they had no intention of recalling and double-checking their cars.
We might also be people who are innumerate (which presumably includes people who think that the double in double blind trial actually means something), or have low cognitive skills. This is quite strange really given that in the Western world, those who question vaccinations are almost invariably among the more educated and better paid, but never mind.
Still we all reject the ‘scientific method’ and the peer-reviewed literature. But what about peer-review literature that calls into question vaccine safety or efficacy? Well all peer-review is equal but some peer-review is more equal than others I guess.
Is there a scientific method to their madness?
And just what is the ‘scientific method’. We hear about this a lot but no one ever really categorically defines what binds say medicine with astrophysics. The randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial (RDBPCT) is considered the gold standard of epidemiology but I can’t imagine how such a technique would be of any use in understanding how stars form. But what do I know? I think peer-review is nothing more than a euphemism for appealing to authority and its main purpose is to protect academic guilds from clandestine thoughts. Now that’s ‘otherworldly and alien’ for you.
And is statistical evidence the best we have in medicine anyway? For those who have studied some economics, you would know that the concept of ‘revealed preference’ has primacy in determining human beliefs. If I say I want to live an ascetic existence in order to win popularity but surround myself with precious jewels and iPods, then fair to say I don’t want an ascetic existence at all. My behaviour is the guide to my true beliefs – not my words. Nothing particularly revolutionary about this and most reasonable people would simply think that was a statement of the bleeding obvious (most sound economics is).
Put your money where your beliefs are
So how about this for true beliefs? Babies are smaller than adults, so their ability to withstand doses of various substances without harm would be significantly less.
Given this, any adult who claims the infant vaccine schedule is extremely safe should, assuming their words matched their true beliefs, have absolutely no qualms about taking a weight-adjusted dose of the infant schedule. And yet to this day, not one doctor, nurse, or any other vaccine-supporting individual has been prepared to put their money where their mouths are and actually do this. Now this simple fact tells us more than a million epidemiological studies. Indeed it simply isn’t possible for any statistical study to trump this fact. If vaccines were safe, its supporters wouldn’t think twice before doing this presumably simple challenge. But they never, ever do.
You see statistical studies are easy to rig. I can rig them to make vaccines look extremely dangerous. Vaccine supporters can rig them to make them look incredibly safe. That is the nature of statistics. An RDBPCT is hardest of all to rig, and yet, they still are. One of the more common methods is to use a non-inert substance instead of a placebo (so the new vaccine is being compared to something that most people wouldn’t assume was safe). Indeed, every single vaccine you have ever been given has been tested in this – what can only be described as fraudulent – manner.
Much harder to rig the results of taking the entire weight adjusted infant schedule.
So I won’t go too much into specifics of the safety aspect because, as I say, ‘scientists’ will come up with a bunch of cherry-picked data and I could do the same. But tellingly, they won’t put their money where their mouths are.
The authors try and make out that vaccines are incredibly safe because the number of antigens are much less than they used to be. Firstly, all that tells us is that in terms of the antigens, newer vaccines are presumably safer than previous vaccines but not necessarily safe. Secondly, last I checked, antigens weren’t the only component of a vaccine. The reason that there are less antigens is because it is cheaper to produce vaccines with less antigen but more aluminium (which increases the immune response). Now, replacing antigens with aluminium may in fact be safer but for the authors not to admit that this is the reason that there is less antigen now illustrates the deception at the heart of this paper.
They mention the pre-licensure studies as proving that everything is fine. Now remember what I said a couple of paragraphs ago about using a non-inert placebo? Well this is where this whole thing comes into play. They will give one cohort the new vaccine and another cohort another substance, be it the old vaccine, a completely different vaccine or, in some cases just aluminium (Merck’s study of Gardasil, for example). So, let us say the previous DTP vaccine resulted in the deaths of 10 out of every 10,000 recipients and the new one results in 9 out of every 10,000 recipients. Based on their definition of safety, the new vaccine will be declared safe! Indeed, the headlines will talk about it reducing mortality compared to a placebo!
Of course, what the newspapers or doctors will never volunteer is that the placebo wasn’t what you thought it was – ie a completely inert injection (such as saline). Instead, it was something that you would never consider to be inert. The information isn’t hidden – you can read the study – but of course only a fraction of people ever do that. They just trust that their doctors will have done so and more importantly to internalise that information in a manner that isn’t self-serving.
It’s there in black and white
What’s interesting though, is that the pharmaceutical company will write up in their package insert every single adverse event that happens in both cohorts. Because the health bureaucrats will approve the vaccine on the basis that it doesn’t do significantly more damage than the ‘placebo’, both they and the doctors will assure you that the chances of any of these adverse events are miniscule because they consider the relative chances to be the difference between the vaccine and the placebo. Since the placebo itself could have caused problems, this is nothing more than speculation – deception, actually. So the package inserts will often look scary for these vaccines but the doctors will assure you that the risks are tiny. They are wrong. The package leaflets written up by the pharmaceutical companies are in fact the only place to get any honest information on the possible side-effects of the vaccine.
Their spiel on Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) can be understood in that light now. If you look at package inserts for vaccines, GBS will crop up regularly. That’s because it happens in the pre-licensure studies. If it happens to both cohorts then it will be dismissed as ‘background’ levels (and won’t affect its approval) but will still be written up in the inserts as a possible contraindication or condition that should prevent you from taking the vaccine.
Now you should be starting to get an idea of the extraordinary deception that vaccine ‘science’ requires. When they say no link has been found, you can rest assured that no link was looked for. More than that, they had to cover their eyes in order not to see all the elephants in the room.
All they had to do was ask the parents for their stories and they would have had hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions of pieces of evidence. But they never do. Remember -many ‘scientists’ only use data that can be easily rigged. Imagine if there was a report written by a government body which detailed thousands of case studies of parents observing their children’s health falling apart after vaccines. If it were any other consumer item, this is exactly what would have been done.
Shonky use of statistics
I note that the paper’s reference on flu deaths caused by A/H1N1 used just the upper range number of 2 million years of life even though the study had a lower range of one sixth that. You would think that lower figures deserve mentioning but I have a sneaking suspicion that the authors don’t put the references there in the hope that everybody will chase them all up. Now you might say that 300,000 person years is still significant, but you have to understand the inconsistent and convenient use of methodologies here.
The authors of the referred study (Viboud et al) did not use actual lab confirmed numbers of A/H1N1 influenza to get their mortality data but an assumption that a certain percentage of pneumonia/influenza mortality must have been due to A/H1N1 (so-called Swine Flu) in the US. The inconsistency arises when you understand what has happened with the polio vs AFP data. Today, you can’t have polio unless it is lab confirmed whereas in the past, the diagnosis was made on clinical grounds (in other words, by using symptoms). This change in criteria makes the vaccine look more effective.
Here, Viboud et al are saying that we should ignore lab confirmed results and just make estimates as to how many people had A/H1N1. Again, this is done to make the vaccine look good – or to show that its implementation was worthwhile. Poland and Jacbosen took this paper’s wild speculation and assumed that the top range must be the correct one and put it out there as though it was an established fact rather than some epidemiologist’s self-serving fantasy.
Again, it is this sort of thing that is pervasive in the pro-vaccination camp. They regularly come up with speculative projections and then try to pass them off as established numbers.
“Public health officials hail routine vaccination as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century , but anti-vaccinationists have successfully campaigned to block legislation for school and day-care mandates and other public health interventions designed to increase vaccination uptake.”
This statement reflects that it is these authors who are on another planet. Firstly, why would ‘anti-vaccinationists’ care about the opinions of public health officials when it came to vaccines? Isn’t questioning public health officials kind of a corollary – desired or not – of questioning vaccines?
Secondly, there are many people who absolutely love vaccines yet who still oppose school and day-care mandates. Or at least they say they do.
It obviously comes as a total surprise to our illustrious authors that there are some people who think they should have the right to decide what gets injected into their bodies.
Anyway, what mandatory vaccine spiel would be complete without hurling abuse at Andrew Wakefield as though most people who question vaccines do so because of him? I can’t speak for others who question vaccines, but I have only a cursory knowledge of what Wakefield did and had never even heard of him before I made up my mind. Indeed, believe it or not, I had never even heard of the connection between vaccines and autism.
But what his story shows me is that when doctors tell me that they would happily admit to their mistakes if, indeed, it turned out that vaccines weren’t as great as they are made out to be, that is a complete lie.
The way Wakefield has been treated for doing no more than raising questions proves that doctors are far more concerned with protecting themselves than protecting patients. That is the moral to his story as far as I am concerned. I am not saying his science is flawed – it wouldn’t take much to be a million times better than an industry that compares its poisons to other poisons and then declares them to be safe – but it had nothing to do with my decisions. It does however demonstrate that vaccines are a sacred cow. A religion – not a scientific process.
“By being informed about the charges brought forward by anti-vaccine proponents, especially those of a quasi-immunological nature, clinicians can assist in providing data-driven information to health providers and the public, assist in research where data gaps are apparent, and provide data for the scientific basis for accepting or refuting claims of vaccine safety and function. The only rational way in which to proceed in devising individual and public health policy in regards to the use of vaccines requires high quality studies and resulting data, interpreted carefully and based on the scientific method.”
I personally would have thought this would require providing data that shows the real world efficacy of vaccines and wasn’t subject to the investigator bias.
It would also require the testing of these vaccines against actual placebos rather than non-inert substances.
But frankly, too much use of statistical mumbo-jumbo is how we got into this position of unyielding sides in the first place. So personally, I would prefer the time-honoured tradition of putting your money where your mouth is.
So some people (and I can think of no better candidates than the authors) need to take a weight adjusted dose of the infant schedule. Better yet, weight-adjust it and then multiply it by 5 times to show that absolutely no child – no matter how fragile – could possibly be harmed by these wonderful concoctions.
Natural Solutions Foundation
Your Voice of Global Health & Food Freedom & Justice™
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org – www.GlobalFoodFreedom.org
Dr. Rima Reports: Every Sunday Morning
10 AM – Noon Eastern – Listen, chat, archive:
THE END OF THE VACCINE MYTH
What I prefer to refer to as the “Advanced Health Care Physicians” — the doctors who went beyond their medical school indoctrination and found their way to become real healers — have warned people about the dangers of vaccination literally since the founding of that branch of pseudo-science.
For too long the voices of the good doctors have been drowned out by the persistent pro-vax propaganda from the drug-pushers and their crony cohorts in the CDC and the rest of the medical mega-biz establishment. Any doctors who courageously told the truth about the foreseeable harm to children from the uninsurable risk of vaccination have been viciously attacked by paid hacks for the biggest of the big biz: the Illness Control Industry.
Before I show you how the Vaccine Myth is now exposed as the bad science it is, you need to understand how desperate the medical establishment has become, when it comes to protecting the cash-cow that vaccine has become, since the days of con-man Jenner and his “Cow Pox” lies.
Witness the persecution of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a well-respected British physician with impeccable credentials. In 1998 he wrote a careful article for the Lancet, the British Medical Association journal, which showed the curious connection between vaccination injury and gastrointestinal disease.
Ten years after publication, Dr. Wakefield was targeted by the illness control system and his career was systematically destroyed. The medial establishment went so far as to withdraw his peer-reviewed, published paper claiming fraud on his part. He lost his license and fled to America, where he found friends to defend him.
I was with Dr. Wakefield at the Health Freedom Expo in Long Beach California at the beginning of March, 2012 and heard the news that the persecution is unraveling. It turns out that powerful media interests, with close “board room” links to Big Pharma, concocted the story of “fraud” in Dr. Wakefield’s original paper and it appears that the paid hack who broke the story of the alleged “fraud” himself falsified the records to persecute Dr. Wakefield. The Lancet cooperated in the persecution and now both the Murdock media interests and the Lancet are being sued for libel. The facts are clear: Dr. Wakefield’s name will be cleared and his reputation and license restored.
If the foreseeable harm that the toxic brew of which vaccines consist was not enough to warn everyone about the risks of vaccination; if the history of thousands of children maimed and killed was not enough to remind us of the first Rule of humane medicine — DO NO HARM! — the scientific evidence is now available that shows the “antibody immunity response” claimed for vaccines cannot be verified by science and the opposite is true: recent studies show “antibodies” have little, if anything, to do with immunity!
This just in from Ethan A. Huff, staff writer for Natural News –
“March 27, 2012 (NaturalNews) Bedrock of vaccination theory crumbles as science reveals antibodies not necessary to fight viruses
While the medical, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries are busy pushing new vaccines for practically every condition under the sun, a new study published in the journal Immunity completely deconstructs the entire vaccination theory. It turns out that the body’s natural immune systems, comprised of both innate and adaptive components, work together to ward off disease without the need for antibody-producing vaccines.
The theory behind vaccines is that they mimic infection by spurring B cells, one of the two major types of white blood cells in the immune system, to produce antibodies as part of the adaptive immune system. It is widely believed that these vaccine-induced antibodies, which are part of the more specific adaptive immune system, teach the immune system how to directly respond to an infection before the body becomes exposed to it.
But the new research highlights the fact that innate immunity plays a significant role in fighting infections, and is perhaps more important than adaptive immunity at preventing or fighting infections. In tests, adaptive immune system antibodies were shown unable to fight infection by themselves, which in essence debunks the theory that vaccine-induced antibodies serve any legitimate function in preventing or fighting off infection.
“Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity,” said Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School. “It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis.” … as explained by Dr. Russell Blaylock in a recent interview with Mike Adams…”
What does this mean? it means the Myth is Busted!
There is no longer any scientific justification for further use of vaccines. Vaccination has been exposed as voodoo-science. From now on, there is no excuse for any physician who continues to push vaccines.
There is a better medicine than Big Biz Illness Control. There is a medicine that seeks Natural Solutions and that acts humanely, harmlessly. It is this medicine which is the future. The Illness Control system that has heretofore based its false promises on vaccination, on toxic drugs, on invasive techniques, is the pseudo-medicine of the crony coropratists and is now fully exposed for the lie it is.
I call upon all physicians, nurses, all health care practitioners, to take a stand today, against the deadly “medicine” pushed by the big lie of vaccination, I urge you to sign the Health Keepers Oath, swearing that your healing talents will never be used to harm the people who trust you with their health! Sign here: www.HealthKeepersOath.org.
For health & food freedom & justice, Dr. Rima www.HealMeDrRima.com
[Watch for live site; coming soon…]
PS – The medicine of the future is based on wholesome food, healthy lifestyles and potent nutritional supplementation. You can find very good sources of wholesome food and good nutrients at the beta site of our new International CSA, Consumer Supported Agriculture, www.FriendlyFoodCoOp.org.
We, the undersigned Health and Food Freedom and Justice advocates gathered together at the Health Freedom Expo held in Long Beach, California, March 2 – 4, 2012, and those adding their names and organizations to this statement thereafter, declare:
Whereas freedom advocates have previously sought redress for grievances, proclaiming to the public and decision makers the need for meaningful protections of the health and food rights of all people,
Whereas in 2000, through the Wilton Declaration we proclaimed,
“The time has come for healers and those they seek to help to… assert our Right to Heal and Be Healed… we declare our independence from bureaucratic restrictions on our fundamental human rights … to defend these basic human rights and the healers, physicians and other practitioners alike, who we freely choose to help us achieve and maintain health. . .”
Whereas in 2007, through the Tiburon Declaration we called upon –
“…the Congress of the United States and legislators of each State to adopt the strongest possible legal protections to ensure health care freedom of choice, including the universal right to vaccination exemptions.”
Whereas we and our children continue to suffer ever higher rates of autism and other -neurological and other environmentally mediated disease, now including the ever-escalating and unstoppable horror of Fukushima radiation which is rendering the entire Northern Hemisphere increasingly hostile to human survival,
Whereas all humans, and, through our stewardship, especially all of our children, have the inalienable right not just to survive, but to thrive,
We, the lawful sovereigns of our bodies and the guardians of our children’s bodies demand redress of grievances, such that the Federal and State authorities finally recognize fully the devastation engendered by their reckless depopulation policies, in violation of the Precautionary Principle.
The genomicidal technologies effectively weaponizing the world against human survival, including GMOs (genetically modified organisms), nuclear power, vaccines and drug toxins and environmental and industrial/agricultural toxins, violate our rights and trespass upon our bodies, making us slaves to the crony corporatists whose false stewardship of this world must finally come to an end.
To redress our grievances,
We demand that all Federal and State authorities cease and desist immediately from imposing bureaucratic restrictions on wholesome foods, including raw milk and local, truly organic production, and the world trade in same.
We demand that all Federal and State authorities take all necessary steps to stop mandated vaccination and the propaganda of vaccination benefit lies, as well as all other forms of forced medical treatment. The unnecessary scourge of autism spectrum disorders will not cease until the evil of vaccination is ended. This must happen now!
In particular, with reference to the State of California where this Declaration was issued, we note with alarm the introduction in the State Legislature last week of AB 2109 which would interfere with religious liberty and philosophical opposition to mandated vaccines by requiring parents to obtain a propaganda letter from physicians as agents of state-mandated medicine that they had been told of the alleged “benefits” of vaccination and the alleged “risks” of not being vaccinated (but not the foreseeable harms caused by vaccination). We call for an end to all such schemes aimed at perpetuating the official lies denying the evident evil of vaccination.
We demand that the uninsurable vaccine and nuclear industries, both legislatively exempted from tort responsibility for the foreseeable harms they inevitably cause, be finally held fully accountable.
We demand a complete and immediate permanent moratorium on the assault on the genome of all animals and plants presented by all GMO technologies unless and until GMO technologies and their deployment are conclusively proven to be safe, harmless and without genomic consequences.
We demand the right to be free and the freedom to seek justice. We are not slaves of the long-threatened New World order and we unconditionally and completely reject any globalist genocidal agenda. There must and will be no mass extinction of humanity for the benefit of the neo-feudalists.
To these ends, and as our US Declaration of Independence concludes: “for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
Done March 4, 2012, Long Beach, CA
Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army ret) President, Natural Solutions Foundation
Dr. Rima E. Laibow MD
Ralph Fucetola JD
[Signatory Information to be added. This Declaration was devised by Expo attendees and others; it is not an ‘official’ statement of the Expo, but rather represents the opinions of some in attendance.]
The preparation of the Declaration and its posting here has generated some interesting discussion. I am posting some of that here, to encourage further discussion. rf
—— Original Message ——
Received: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:02:45 PM EDT
From: Laraine Abbey-Katzev
Subject: Re: Health & Food Freedom & Justice – Petition for Redress of Grievances
You can post it and please with my name. I was going to email this to all on your list but felt that might feel discourteous not to send it to you folks first or only. I do think it would be good to have all way in. Hopefully an even more powerful document can come of it.
Regards, Laraine 8-)
From: Ralph Fucetola JD
Sent: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 9:49 am
Subject: Re: Health & Food Freedom & Justice – Petition for Redress of Grievances
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. One of the problems we’ve been trying to deal with is just the fact that so many assaults are coming at us from different directions.
That’s why General Bert came up with the idea of the four “genomicidal” technologies that are weaponizing the world against human survival, to make sense out of the senseless…
What we’re trying to show is that these technologies, which would not exist if we took the Precautionary Principle seriously, are linked in their intent (“depopulation”) and in their mode of operation (each causes free-radical cascades, damaging at the cellular and molecular levels).
Thus while the foreseeable harms of vaccination are the central focus, the other technologies need to addressed as well. That two of these technologies represent uninsurable risks (vaccines and nuke power) should tell us how seriously the Precautionary Principle is being ignored.
PS – With ID removed (unless you want your name there) I’d like to post this discussion (and others) on the bottom of the blog page where we first published the Declaration. I think people’s questions and qualms are part of our understanding too.
—— Original Message ——
Received: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 01:07:51 AM EDT
From: Laraine Abbey-Katzev >
Subject: Re: Health & Food Freedom & Justice – Petition for Redress of Grievances
Ralph, I would love to be able to sign this but I have problems with some passages herein, such as ‘slaves of the globalist agenda’ and ‘the evils of vaccination’. While I understand your rhetoric, I believe an average person reading it will not understand such phrasing, and will thus see those who are signatories to this, as less than sensible. Further, it is not clear to me who you are petitioning for ‘redress of grievances’ by this document. A petition must have a clearly defined purpose that is directed to a recipient capable of granting the petitioner something which is wanted. I do not see this in this piece.
This piece has excellent elements but is sort of ‘all over the place’ and lacking clear focus in my opinion. Talking just for talking is a waste of energy. The point is to accomplish something by enlightening the reader and securing real change. The point in my mind, would be to create a persuasive document to change the thinking of those outside our insights. I feel this draft will not achieve that, and in failing to achieve that, becomes pointless.
I am wondering how the others in your email list herein have responded and who has (or will) signed this draft.
Best Regards, Laraine
From: Ralph Fucetola JD
Sent: Sun, Mar 11, 2012 8:41 pm
Subject: Health & Food Freedom & Justice – Petition for Redress of Grievances
To: The various liberty and health/food freedom advocates on this list (if you want off this private leaders’ list, please just reply with “delete”)
Some of the people involved in the Health Freedom Expo last weekend issued a declaration and petition for redress of grievances regarding some of the issues raised in and around the event.
That is here: http://tinyurl.com/HealthFreedomDeclaration
PS – Below is a copy of a note from the President of the Natural Solutions Foundation from the Declaration web page.
I want to personally thank every exhibitor and speaker who participated in the Health Freedom Expo held March 2 – 4, 2012. Important connections were made. Powerful information was shared. The Natural Solutions Foundation was a proud sponsor of this event. We all so appreciated the skill and dedication of the Whitman Family and team. They created a wonderful three day event for all of us to enjoy.
People at the event and on the internet discussed many of the same issues and among an ad hoc group that our Foundation Counsel Ralph Fucetola coordinated a general consensus of what seemed to most matter among the important health and food freedom and justice issues brought forward.
The Long Beach Declaration, in the spirit of previous health freedom manifestos, such as the Wilton Declaration of 2000 and the Tiburon Declaration of 2007, is the result. You are invited to “sign on” to the Declaration and we will publicize the growing number of people taking a stand for our Planetary Life Vision, in contradistinction to the Globalists’ Genocidal New World Order Agenda.