IMAGINE YOU LIVE IN A COUNTRY in which a minority of people are taken in the middle of the night, and beaten, kicked, poisoned, half-drowned… they are crippled for life, maimed, and they are expected to accept a doctor’s or a judge’s view that “It wasn’t the Gestapo” or “It’s not even an injury”.

Imagine that minority amounted to tens of millions of people.

Now imagine that these victims are lured into traps by their own doctors with promises of medicine that will prevent illness – but in reality the doctors are paid for every patient they manage to convince to show up – and the doctors determine which injuries they caused and which were just “coincidences”.

Now imagine the media is primed to tell the world that no such injuries ever occur.  Now your neighbors are denying it, calling you crazy for thinking there is a link…

Vaccination itself is a great idea.  But the paradigm is flawed – perhaps fatally so.  They don’t work for everyone, and they are not safe for everyone.  Vaccines are KNOWN to cause autoimmunity in mice, food allergies in mice, and neurological disorders in mice.  They are known to make individuals more, not less susceptible to infections (see this article by Andre Angelantoni).

When doctors like Paul Offit, MD inform the world that aluminum in a nutrient (it isn’t), that “you get more” aluminum from food and water than from vaccines (infants don’t, per body weight, per day), are they defrauding the public and fooling parents into bringing their children into hospitals like Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP)? Is CHOP complicit in this by hosting Offit’s misleading information on their website?

The rules and regulations on informed consent in the US are clear: doctors MUST explain the benefits and risks of any medical procedure, and patients must understand both before they can consent.

So when Senator Pan says that the most dangerous ingredient in vaccines is water, is he not committing fraud? He’s saying everything in the vaccine is less risky than water to the patient, as it is administered.

And when CDC fails to inform patients of all of the adverse events that can occur in the Vaccine Information Sheets, aren’t they abrogating their responsibilities?

And when a doctor tells the media that no vaccines contain aborted fetal cells… is that fraud?

What about the misinformation spread by Every Child By Two, AAP, and other organizations partly funded by both companies that manufacture and sell vaccines, and by government agencies that own patents on vaccines (and also take funds from pharmaceutical companies that make and sell vaccines)?  Are those expressions fraud?

Perhaps speech and communication designed to willfully mislead the public on vaccine risk should be addressed with charges of fraud.

What are your best examples of clearly false misinformation on vaccine risk designed to fool a trusting public into vaccinating themselves and their children?  Post a comment and link to your proof that the statement is false.

 

2 thoughts on “Should Vaccine Risk/Injury Denial Be Prosecutable Offenses?

  1. I believe the Fluad vaccine by GSK with its squalene adjuvant is liable to produce life-threatening autoimmunity in recipients. I base this conclusion on the book “Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First Victims” by Gary Matsumoto (Basic Books, 2004). I was able to find a link to a pdf of the references he used in his book: http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/H1N1_swine_flu/SqualeneReferencesVaccineA.pdf BTW, since it is designed and approved for those 65 and older, I don’t see why lawsuits could not proceed if people are injured or killed and their tissues demonstrate anti-squalene antibodies. GSK touts the vaccine as “adjuvated” (their term) for older people. On line ads for the vaccine almost admit the possibility of an autoimmune response because they make two statements: 1. That the squalene or “squalene based” adjuvant will help provoke a strong immune response and 2. That squalene is a natural substance found throughout the body! In my mind, its not a stretch to wonder if squalene introduced freely into tissues via injection would be likely to provoke a reaction to the squalene itself and indirectly to the squalene found naturally all over the body.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I must correct a couple of errors. The manufacturer is Seqirus not GSK and the term they used is “adjuvanted” not “adjuvated”. Sorry for the mistakes!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s