Vaccination: What are a Doctor’s Responsibilities?

We have read hundreds of newspaper reports on vaccines stating the same mantra on vaccines: they are safe, and effective, and that vaccines do not cause autism.   I share, on a weekly basis, dozens of peer-reviewed research articles with colleagues who hold august positions in Universities that say otherwise. The NIH has called for research proposals to make currently licensed vaccines safer. The medical community of professionals has a strong culture, a tradition of healing that goes back thousands of years. They interface directly with the public in private, one:one dialogs.  As a political force, they are strong.  But they are becoming less cohesive, and increasingly less responsive to their fundamental ethos: first, do no harm.

To maintain cohesion, tough discussion, disagreements and compromises are necessary in the exploration and journey from past medical practices and newer medical practices.  For the individual doctor, it is often easier to remain conservative and conduct practice, rather than stay up to date on the development of alternatives or advances.  In vaccination, as much as they may wish to believe the CDC and Pharma’s rhetoric, an increasing number are recognizing that vaccines do not exist in a medical vacuum; that they can be destructive to certain individuals’ health, and that when take in a wider medical view, they do not belong in a comprehensive medical framework for all individuals.  There exists the “silent aware”; I have spoken with them.  This increasingly aware community includes individuals who work in research in neurodevelopmental disorders.  They state that they are unable to come forward, and speak or act as if vaccines cause injuries out of fear of the loss their license to practice medical, or fear of loss of research funding from government agencies.

Fear thus has a divisive effect between the public, who is becoming increasing vaccine risk aware, and the medical community, who has become increasingly vaccine risk denialist.  If we allow this polarizing influence to persist, we will forestall again the protection of the minds and the general health of our youth.

There are now thousands of stories of specific vaccine injuries, each one eerily similar.  Trusting parents, each one hoping to do right by their child, bring their babies to the pediatrician for a vaccination.  Initially, there appears to be no issue.  However, either that night, or the next day or so, their child would begin crying incessantly, a type of scream that moms never want to hear from their child.  If they call the doctor’s office, they are told it is normal. The child might develop a high fever, and the parents, unaware of the studies that show that Acetominophen after MMR is associated with autism, naturally want to help break the fever.  Often they are told by their doctor’s office that the fever is a normal reaction to the vaccine, and to administer Acetominophen.  This is the first example of medical neglect on the part of the doctor’s office. The child may then start head-banging, and/or begin seizures.  If they experience seizures, the parents are often told by their doctor’s office that a perfectly normal reaction to the vaccine.  No CT scans are ordered.  No urinary biomarkers for evidence of ongoing brain damage.  No intervention to stop the seizures.  These are the second example of medical neglect on the part of the doctor’s office.

The child may then go silent.

When confronted with the eventual diagnosis of autism, the doctor’s office then inform the parent that they are certain “it” wasn’t the vaccines.  This is the third example of medical neglect, because the doctors has thereby denied the parents the diagnosis necessary to obtain funds to help tend to their newly injured child: vaccine-induced encephalopathy-mediated autism.

This story has been captured on film thousands of times by Polly Tommey and the VaXxed team, traveling the country in search of the actual events that are disrupting families’ lives.  It is each individual doctor’s personal responsibility to not partake in vaccine risk denialism.  They are indemnified from lawsuits by the The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) anyway.

It is a physician’s responsibility to know the benefits and risks of every medical procedure.  With vaccines, it is doubly the physicians’s responsibility to know the risk because they are, in the US, given the august role of “learned intermediaries”.  To partake in vaccine risk denialism is thus doubly negligent, especially given the invisible but nevertheless brutal assault that occurs on some infants’ brains, every single day, as a result of vaccination.

Our predecessors set in place protections for patients from medical negligence in the form of informed consent.  Patients are entitled also to total disclosure to achieve the ability to make their own mind up to consent, or to not consent, to any medical procedure.  In response to the atrocities that occurred in concentration camps in World War II, individuals are protected by informed consent laws for experimental medical procedures.  Due to events like those at Tuskegee, additional protections exist for against unwarranted and unwanted medical experimentation.  Especially strong protections exist for pregnant women, and children.  It is the duty and the responsibility of each and every member of the medical profession to know these restrictions, and to apply them to their own practice of medicine.  In spite of the rhetoric from government agencies such as the CDC, vaccines are poorly tested by weak correlation science, using short periods of time for outcomes.  The rates of adverse health outcomes due to the entire schedule itself has not been studied using an appropriately designed study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

In most cases, long-term testing occurs as post-market surveillance, so-called “pharmocovigilence”. The vaccine injury databases such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System (VAERS) capture between 1-10% of actual vaccine injuries, and each and every case of vaccine injury denial over the phone, or in person, removes another case of vaccine injury reported.  Thus, parents have been making their own reports to VAERS.  Even then, the data in VAERS is perversely ignored; studies using VAERS are dismissed due to a disclaimer stating that the records cannot be used to infer causality.  An automated system developed to the tune of over $1 million dollars was created, and the CDC simply stopped returning phone calls from its developers.  Long-term safety studies via pharmacovigilence does not qualify as science, and thus, vaccine safety science does not exist in the United States.

We stand at a cross-roads, and the medical community has a choice. Nurse practitioners, nurses and office workers/administrators who are witness and are party to these events can choose to remain complicit by extension, or they can act in a manner causing the doctors to accept the responsibility to protect civilians from medical tyranny. Individual pediatricians – to a person – who continue to vaccinate under the CDC schedule without seeking ways to minimize risk will, one day, be held accountable, if not by society, then by their own conscience.  Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is concerned that mass suicides may occur when the medical community wakes up, and constantly is thinking of what careers the depressed and devastated pediatricians might be able to pursue as they wake up to reality.  My answer is in the medical care of helping the injured recover.

Congress should act collectively in a timely and decisive manner to bring an end to this ongoing wholesale slaughter of infant’s brains out of fear of minor childhood illnesses. If they fail to act, the people will surely take control, in spite of the millions of dollars that Pharma pumps into campaigns on both sides.  The AMA and the AAP are failing to protect civilians, and their legitimacy as authorities in the medical community will soon be severely diminished by their failure to take decisive action in response to the surge in neurodevelopmental and autoimmune disorders.  Will the medical community allow itself to be seen as a clear and present danger to the people of the United States? We live in complex times.  However, nothing has changed that dissolves the moral imperative, the legal imperative, and the medical imperative related to the medical community’s responsibility to act against their leadership, and stand up in a concerted manner, with the full support of a growing law community, and with the resulting adoration and support of parents who will forgive you if you step forward.

The medical community therefore needs to join forces – en masse – with the parents and those of us in the scientific and law communities who are awake. Together, as unified force, we need to take action – the responsibility is there, even though the ability to act is complicated.  Every time we fail to let actions follow awareness, we encourage an increasingly cynical pharmaceutical industry to push for more exemptions for product liability.  Such is the case of the clause in the 21^st Century Cures Act that allows doctors to enroll patients in clinical trials without their consent, as long as an Institutional Review Board has determined that the treatments and procedures confer minimal risk.  This clause, however, does not undo the other regulations that exist for every experimental medical procedure because no IRB can determine minimal risk before the trial has been conducted.

We cannot allow the mighty and wealthy pharmaceutical industry to make a mockery of conventions and commitments put in place to protect patients from harm from well-intended, but mislead and misinformed physicians.

It is now the responsibility of each and every physician to rise up against their corporate masters.  They must take every step necessary to do no harm.  They must insist on a change of culture in their practice. They must screen for vaccine risk using known risk factors.  They must offer medical exemptions as a choice.  They must take one minute and ask their patients’ parents if they know of any medical reason why their child might be at risk (history of RA in the family, previous vaccine adverse event in parents/siblings/patient).  Each vaccine risk aware physician should author and publish a position article and an editorial in their newspaper.  If the establishment won’t publish their views, I have an outlet prepared for their submissions.

They should be informed that if they establish a private practice, patients will come to them in droves.  They should be reassured that their license is threatened, vaccine risk aware lawyers will help them fight and win their right to work.

If they can’t do this out of ethics, they should do it for the survival of their profession.  If the medical community does nothing, they will continue to lose customers.  They will have abdicated their social contract, violated the public trust, and the vaccine risk aware army will help others find alternative means for health care.

And then we will pass state laws banning specific ingredients in vaccines.

Which we are likely to do anyway.