In 2007, during peaceful protest to the second Iraq War, I somehow found myself, at the end of the protest march, on stage with a Christian priest, a Buddhist monk, and an Imam all calling for an end to the funding for the war in Iraq. Protesters dressed in black had carried coffins throughout the streets of Oakland, all the Flagstaff Hill, and in spite of the huge turn-out, the mood was grim. None of the religious leaders had a positive message to share with the crowd, and no-one seemed to be able to feel anything but despair.
Standing on that stage, my guitar in hand, inspiration on The Mathematics of Hope came to me. When my turn came to address the protesters, I said,
“I look all around me, and all I see is despair. I see no hope. No one here feels that they are entitled to hope for an end to the war.
But there is something ironic about the mathematical relationship between hope and despair. At the depths of despair,” I said, motioning toward the floor “you’re at the very bottom. You think you have no hope. You want to get from here ” I said, reaching low, “to here”, I said, reaching as high as I could reach, “but you’re way down here.”
I raised one hand high, and the other low. “In reality, when you are at the very depths of despair, that’s when you are entitled to the maximum amount of hope possible. To get from here” (shaking my lower hand) “to here” shaking my higher hand) “that’s when the maximum amount of hope theoretically possible can EXIST!”
“Hope”, I said, “is equal to the amount of change necessary to move from despair to happiness. And it’s up to you to decide whether you focus on the the depth of your despair, or on the amount of hope you are entitled to have about how much better things can be.”
A year later, a young Senator from Illinois would announce that his platform in his bid for President of the United States would be to end the war in Iraq. And he won on a platform of Hope.
President Obama received my vote because he voted against continued funding for the war in Iraq, once the world knew about the fraud committed to trick the United States Senate into funding the war. That war cost us not only the largest surplus in the recorded history of nations; it also led to the largest deficit in the history of nations, and yet somehow, we have emerged.
The current war being waged in America is a war on our minds. I do not mean just the misinformation and tawdry crap we pay for in cable television. I mean the chemical warfare that is being waged on our fetuses, our babies, our toddlers, and ourselves. Pharma, medicine, agriculture, and industry seem to think that the toxins that they put into our environment, and into our bodies are necessary for society to enjoy the benefits of living our modern, highly industrialized and technology-driven life.
LAST WEEK was one of the most surreal in my life. And I’ve seen some amazing things. I had been invited to present a the VIAL Health Life Summit in Atlanta, GA. This was a great opportunity, because the annual CDC Rally on Earth Day to protest CDC’s mishandling of vaccine safety research was the day before the Summit. Gracie and I packed up and headed out to GA, not quite knowing what we would find.
Arriving in GA, we stayed at a hotel not too far from downtown. We were to take a bus with other protesters the next morning. When we arrived at the Rally, I was struck by the diversity of people. Many were Autism Moms, both black and white. I did not take the pulse on the faith of those involved, but I found out later in conversations that we had Jewish parents, Christian parents, as well as member of the Nation of Islam.
And there I was, a classically trained Evolutionary Biologist, holding signs and rallying right next to all of them.
As the day progressed, the protesters interviewed each other with live-stream apps. I was interviewed about why I was there. It was live-streamed to viewers and I’m told it was fairly powerful. I, in turn, interviewed a medical doctor who was there to help set the record straight on the adverse events from vaccination. I then interviewed a young man named Nathan who told me his story – that CDC studied a biopsy from a lesion on his skin, and found mercury – and although he was on the spectrum, there was no final answer to what his mother described as a life-long disability -because CDC refuses to admit that vaccines may cause autism in some people.
I like Nathan. In spite of the injustice, he was cheerful, friendly, and engaging.
I spent time discussing politics and policy with Brother Tony Mohammed and other members of the Nation of Islam. I heard their protests, too. Their focus came in part from the fact that CDC omitted results showing increase in risk of autism in African American males who were vaccinated with MMR “on time”, compared to those who were were delayed in their vaccinations. That was part of my focus, too. I asked Brother Tony what he knew about the isolated cases of autism for this results had also been omitted. He knew all about that, too. These were cases that had no other co-morbidity – no other reason other than early vaccination – to have autism.
These results, omitted from the now-famous Destefano et al. study that CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson told Dr. Brian Hooker about, were on EVERYONE’s minds. Brother Tony had other surprises in store for me, too.
During the protest, drivers of cars, trucks and buses honked their horns at us in support.
It rained a little, but the crowd seemed to grow larger – no one left, and the afternoon crowd showed up.
I moved through the crowd, which covered the four corners, listening, and talking, and protesting. “CDC Lied!” “We Want Thompson!” and many other messages were chanted. As we protested, some CDC employees came and went on foot.
One told us that not everyone in the CDC was responsible, that some CDC workers were ethical.
The Case of the Curious Curator
Some of us were gathered on the CDC side of the street. A grandmotherly woman came out to us from the CDC.
“Hello” we said.
“Hello. I am the curator of the museum in the CDC, and we would like to have one of your signs for our collection and display” she said.
A protester promptly went to collect a few sample signs, and returned with them.
She looked them over, and with a scowl on her face, she said “I can’t accept these. Do you have others?”
“Why not?” we asked.
“Well this one has someone’s name on it, and we can’t do that” she replied.
She was pointing at a sign that read “Subpoena Dr. William Thompson”.
“Do you know who he is?” we asked.
“No, I don’t know him” she said.
We began to describe how Thompson had called Hooker after CDC held on to data from the DeStefano study for ten years, refusing Hooker’s FOIA.
“Well, that’s all fine and good. Look, I didn’t come here to debate, can I have a sign without a name on it?”
“Well, I did come here to debate, that Thompson is what the protest is about!” I said.
“How can you sanitize our protest?” said another.
“Well, I just won’t take a sign, then” she said, beginning to walk away.
“Before you go, ma’am, I have something for you” I said, and I handed her a copy of “Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC” by Kevin Barry, Esq, which contains the entire transcript of the phone calls between Thompson and Hooker over four months.
She accepted the book.
“Have a nice day!” we said as she returned into the CDC building.
We also gave copies of the book to members of the Press who showed up. We did not get their call numbers, nor their affiliation. That means no major news media outlet saw fit to cover the protest.
Returning to the hotel, we learned that the secret location of the showing of the movie “Vaxxed” was the hotel itself. It was billed as “Dinner and a Movie”.
We enjoyed a few presentations, and the dinner was fine. The movie was very thought-provoking. There are critical details of the history of the MMR vaccine that I did not know, including that it had been discontinued in the US, re-packaged and re-named and exported to the UK. Other details I did know – that Wakefield and colleagues never said that they believed that MMR causes autism – but that instead, there seemed to be sufficient concern given their results – which are not disputed – to begin to ask the question with larger studies.
The movie is not, as most have reported, Anti-vaccine. It simple tells the story of MMR – the full story – and reviews case studies in which parents report – like hundreds I met at the rally – that their speaking, active, loving child was lost hours or a day after receiving the MMR vaccine. (Studies also support that thimerosal-containing vaccines may increase the risk, but the CDC does not tell you about those studies – ergo our protest).
Any person in America who think they are an objective thinker really must go see “Vaxxed”. Otherwise, you are relying on a biased information from CDC and therefore ignorant about the true set of events involving MMR’s release into the public. All of this over wanting to split the vaccine into three.
The next day was the Summit. We set up tables to offer books, and settled in for a day of learning. Speakers included Keidi Awadu, Curtis Duncan, Dr. Nancy Banks, Allison Folmar, Dana Gorman, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. David L. Lewis, Dr. Judy Mikovits, Marcella Piper-Terry, Dawn Richardson, Minister Tony Muhammad and myself. The presentations were rousing review of what CDC has done, what we know about vaccine safety science, new results from Dr. Hooker’s work, egregious acts of hiding findings of cancer-inducing viruses in certain vaccines, strategies for effective use of social media, a legal view on parent’s rights (especially when CPS takes a child for differences of medical opinion between parents and the state (Folmar)), a look into whether vaccines could ever be made “safe” (Duncan), examination of progress in so-called ‘alternative’ (really ‘holistic’ emphasize ‘safe’) medicine (Awadu), a history of the transition from agencies focused on public health and cures to agencies that are wholly own subsidiaries of Pharma influences (Lewis), exact, precise news on adverse events from vaccines (Piper-Terry). All were excellent; many tears were shed. I held the hand of only lady so hurt – so personally hurt – at the news that CDC knew of the increased risk of autism due to vaccination – she held my hand so hard my own hand hurt – she would not let go. And I understood.
For me, my presentation was a chance to encapsulate part of the strategy of revealing how the CDC has not done their job. Their willful ignorance of the scientific literature, the charade of using IOM to ‘review’ the literature, only to ignore most of the published studies that show how microglial activation is very likely at the root of most of autism – their disregard for animal studies (when FDA requires animal studies before testing any drug on humans, Pharma gets a de facto pass on vaccine safety) – all just a small part of the arsenal of evidence we have accumulated to show willful ignorance and disregard of critical evidence and putting policy before science. People tell me that it was one of the most entertaining presentations they had ever seen – because, after all, if 6/12 vaccines given before the age of 7 have NO SCIENCE showing a link or no link with autism, well, the CDC must be relying on “MAGIC!”
The day was really just getting started. Minister Tony Mohammed spoke of the plague that was set upon Egypt for enslaving the Jews – how the disease took boys before the age of two – unless the door of a house was painted red. The metaphor to autism – DSM-5 requires diagnosis before the age of 2 or 3 – was not lost on the crowd. Mohammed praised Jesus Christ for his call to suffer the children – there were shows of “Amen” and spirits were raised when he said how unlikely it was that he would find himself preaching to a crowd of “White Warrior Moms”. He said this to rousing cheers, and white and black fists raised. Read that again, government: WHITE AND BLACK FISTS RAISED.
We all had a great time at the auction to raise funds for VIALS – they encumbered travel costs. The highlight of the auction for me was the auctioning of the pre-release copy of “Cures vs. Profits” – the very first sale of my baby – but I’m sure the highlight for everyone else was the auctioning of rare #Vaxxed t-shirts, by Del Bigtree, because are truly a piece of history in the making.
Gracie and I begrudgingly skipped the showing of “Vaxxed”, having seen it the night before, and headed to the house of an IPAK board member’s sister and brother-in-law. We were invited to our first Seder – where again we heard the story of the plague taking boys under the age of 2 – unless the door was painted. It was, for Gracie and I, a first-hand celebration of Passover. The parallels to current calls for safer vaccines, for respect for individual rights for informed consent and individual choice, were strong.
After thanking our generous hosts, we then headed North toward NYC toward the United Nations session on Toxins in our Children. Remember, I’m working with Mary Holland and many others on an approach to let the world know about the rest of the science that exists on vaccine safety beyond the ‘dozens’ of studies CDC cites as showing no association. Keep in mind that IOM rejected 17/22 of those studies – including the fraudulent DeStefano study as too flawed in their design to warrant further consideration.
Approaching the UN, we gathered as a group. I met many people whom I knew via their writings, and others with whom I have been working together with for over six months to truly grasp the totality of evidence on vaccine safety science especially with respect to autism.
I knew it would be a special moment. RFK Jr. could not make the event. But Mary Holland was there – and then I saw Kevin Barry on the panel.
Kevin announced that RFK, Jr. could not make the event due to a need to care for his child. And then one of the most significant events in the Vaccine Risk Awareness movement occurred. Kevin Barry told the story, in brief, of Dr. Thompson’s admissions to Dr. Hooker. This has to be second only to Rep. William Posey reading a statement into the US Congressional Record and imploring his colleagues to start an investigation.
I could not believe my ears when I heard Barry tell THE WORLD about Thompson – it was a long time coming – and now nations around the world, many of whom still accept Thimerosal-containing vaccines – have heard that CDC omitted results and over-analyzed data to get the results they wanted (no association).
But the real star of the show that day was Prof. Holland. She reminding the audience, and the nations of the world, that
“In the aftermath of Nazi medical atrocities, the world affirmed the Nuremberg Code which stated that the ‘voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.’ The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further enshrined this prohibition against involuntary experimentation in its 1966 text, stating “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” Such a prohibition is now so universally recognized that some courts and scholars have pronounced the right to informed consent in experiments as a matter of customary international law. In other words, it applies everywhere, whether or not a country has specific laws on its books, as customary norms now prohibit slavery, genocide, torture and piracy.
But what about informed consent in the area of medical treatment, including preventive medical treatment? What about informed consent to vaccination? This is a controversial issue today in many countries, including the United States.
In 2005, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, addressed this issue, adopting the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights on the consensus of 193 countries. The participating countries hoped this Declaration, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before it, would become a set of guiding principles. On the issue of consent, the Declaration states that
any preventive…medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.
It further notes that the “sole interest of science or society” does not prevail.
This pronouncement is an extension of the medical oath, attributed to Hippocrates 2500 years ago, that doctors must work for the good of their patients and never do harm. Abbreviated as the “first do no harm” principle, this credo embodies the precautionary principle in medicine, clearly placing the interests of individual patients above the interests of the collective or the “herd.”
This precautionary principle in medicine leads directly to the view that vaccination policies must be recommended, not coerced. The doctor-patient relationship depends first and foremost on trust, and coercion undermines it. When the doctor-patient relationship is based on coercion, trust is a casualty, and doctors then serve the state, and by extension the society, above their individual patients. This is a slippery slope, where civilized medicine has too often derailed in the past. “
Sorry, America, we cannot say that we are the bastion reserve and liberties and impose vaccines on those who do not wish to take the risk of adverse events. These individuals have a natural right – their bodies are sovereign, the sanctity of which shall not to be trespassed. In other words, hands off our bodies.
Mary Holland, thank goodness, continued:
“Following the medical precautionary principle, the default position for vaccination must be recommendations, not compulsion. Individuals, for themselves and their minor children, should have the right to accept or refuse these preventive medical interventions based on adequate information and without coercion, such as the threat of loss of economic or educational benefits. Informed consent must be the default position because compulsion, on its face, not only undermines trust, but limits the fundamental rights to life, liberty, bodily integrity, informed consent, privacy and to parental decision making.”
“Nonetheless, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights Article 27 permits limitations on fundamental rights, but these limits must be imposed by law and must be ‘for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ Furthermore, ‘any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.’
International courts have developed a test to assess whether restrictions of fundamental rights are legitimate and lawful. The test studies whether the measure is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate to the risk. The State enacting such a restriction bears the burden of proof that the compulsory medical intervention is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate. Generally, the “strict necessity” element must be the least restrictive alternative to achieve the public health objective, and non-coercive approaches must be considered first. Thus, the State must show that a less restrictive alternative is not feasible before adopting a highly restrictive one.
In addition to these criteria, if a State does mandate vaccination, then it has an affirmative obligation to provide an effective remedy for those who may be injured as a result. Like all prescription drugs, vaccines carry the risk of injury and death to some. “
And believe it or not, Mary was just warming up.
The other panelists included scientists who reported that toxins are everywhere, that regulations are not in place to keep industries in check. One panelist gave a video presentation that was very distressing to me – it showed how common toxins are already decreasing the IQ of populations by 2-5 points each – with so many toxins, even before considering interactions, there is a projected deficit of gifted people in America. A country without genius.
Looking at such a bleak future, I am reminded of my own representation of hope as equal to the amount of change necessary to move from despair to happiness. These toxins, however, effect our ability to think. In some cases, our ability to feel. Mary’s discussion started with a question on how many people had, in the past questioned the American government, because, for her, the issue of whether one questioned their government is like asking
“are you alive? Are you awake? Are you a thinking person? Do you care about the world?”
With the increase in toxins, and the ongoing increase in the number of vaccines laden with toxins, the question may well become:
“are you alive? Are you awake? Are you capable of being a thinking person? Are you still capable of caring about the world?”
Also on the panel was Dr. Goldstein, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, who accepted the rather daunting task of representing what “the other side” thinks.
Goldstein and I had met years prior during one of my many presentations around campus while I served as Director of the Bioinformatics Analysis Core sharing how to do… good science.
Goldstein jumped into his presentation with fervor. He asked the crowd whether they would prefer a society in which no one had to suffer, or in which people were free to pursue their rights and liberties in the pursuit of property. He was arguing, in essence, that toxins in the environment and in vaccines are necessary evils, with the trade-off being lower cost, because making food, air, water and medicines less toxic means they be more costly. More costly means less profitable, the thinking goes.
To me, this question struck as a false dichotomy, for surely all four combinations of society might all be contemplated:
If there is a trade-off here, it would appear to be between the depth of understanding and the degree of effort put into thinking things through.
First, the false dichotomy is clear. In Reality, some people will always suffer. But also in reality, not everyone who could suffer needs to suffer. Second, the discretization of the problem is false, too; we exist in a continuum of risk; there are almost never coins that flip yes/no in environmental toxicity (unless it involves a critical threshold). But let’s examine the possible worlds more closely in this somewhat discrete model, for the sake of exploring vaccine risk.
“Reality” (P, S)
In “Reality”, vaccines are considered “unavoidably unsafe”, and the benefit of protection against the scourge of dread diseases is considered worth the small risk. That’s the world we are told we mostly live in now. Some are so dedicated to the perpetuation of this reality they want to make vaccines mandatory, which brings up the question of why, when they are so useful, would anyone ever have to question their benefit? Psychologists tell us that risk assessment is deeply personal, and that our subjective experience has a strong influence on our weighting of factors such as benefits and costs. So perhaps, Pharma and CDC thinks, those concerned about autism and vaccine are just too stupid to accept the risk. So we need to manipulate their perception to make them feel crazy, unethical, because paternalistically, we know better. So we’ll tell you that Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism, even though positive results exist for 6/12 of the vaccines given before age 7, and NO SCIENCE exists one way or the other for the other 6/12 vaccines:
No, CDC, you do not know better. Because you won’t admit that cumulative lifetime risk of neurodegeneration is a function of cumulative lifetime exposure. Because you frame your science – including the questions asked, the data representation (which independent and dependent variables you study) in a manner to reduce the risk of finding a true positive association. Yes, Dr. Coleen Boyle, I mean you.
“Hell” (NP, S)
A vision that comes to mind in “Hell” is the 1980’s version of Soviet Russia, in which private ownership was nil, the cost of bread was sky-high, and people were suffering. But it also brings to mind that some of us live in “Hell” already when it comes to having control over our own bodies, and those of our children, because to participate in the benefits of public education, we must submit ourselves and our children to vaccines, which may be riskier for some than other. Thus, in the same society, at the same time, some people can live in “Reality” and others in “Hell” – especially those who already have one vaccine-injured autistic child, who are told they must vaccinate their second or third child. Remember, in this world, we know there is something of a genetic risk. So your “Reality” can, in fact, be someone else’s “Hell”.
Goldstein never clarified specifically whose property rights would be trampled if our world was made less toxic. I assume in the question of vaccines, it would be the vaccine manufacturers, who might complain that the steps necessary to make vaccines both effective AND more safe (culpability for past disallowed injuries aside for now) would make vaccines prohibitively expensive. It certainly wasn’t concern over the consumer’s loss of property for having to pay more for safer vaccines.
Imagine a conversation between a doctor and a patient:
“Well, Mrs. Smith, you have two options here for this vaccine for your child. This one, for which you pay the standard co-pay, has aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, polysorbate-80, and a bunch of other chemicals and things like human and animal DNA. The epitopes have not been screened for homology to human proteins. But it’s cheap.”
“Your second option, Mrs. Smith, is this vaccine, which contains none of those chemicals, just more antigen. It is delivered via microdermal abrasion, has no human or animal DNA, the epitopes have been screened for molecular mimics, to reduce the chance of autoimmunity. But it will cost you $40 more plus the co-pay”.
Which vaccine do you think most parents would opt for?
Mary Holland said it right in the panel Q/A when she said that we need to “stop acting like all vaccines are perfectly safe for everyone because that”, she said, was “Foolish”.
During that session, I was curious about Dr. Goldstein’s take on whether vaccines might be be made safer, and so I submitted the following question:
To my dismay, rather than jump on the question and wrestle with the issues, Goldstein punted and said that he knew nothing about vaccine manufacturing, and neither, he offered, did anyone else up there.
But earlier he had seen fit, in general terms, to try to bring the entire audience into some abstract sense of shared responsibility for the attendant risks in vaccines, because everyone in the audience who participated in his false dichotomy survey seemed to prefer liberty of ownership of property over no one suffering.
“The Promise” (P, NS)
Let’s look at the other two options. First, the Promise. That’s P, NS. This is an unexplored possibility in vaccines since (1) Americans injured by vaccines cannot sue the manufacturers, and (2) CDC called for an end to science on the “settled question” of a link between vaccines and autism, and (3) the Special Master’s Court (NVCP) has seen fit to try to avoid, at the cost of sane logic, concluding that vaccines have caused autism, even while they have stated clearly that vaccines may indirectly cause autism, the patient just has to experience encephalopathy first. I called that Vaccine Induced, Encephalopathy Mediated Autism (VIEMA).
The Promise is that vaccines can be made to be both safer, and effective. And because the area has not been explored, no one can firmly stand for, or against The Promise. We can hope that vaccines made without aluminum, mercury, etc and with safe epitopes might actually be found to be safer, but there’s a serious problem: no one trusts the CDC anymore to conduct vaccine safety research, and with all the whistleblowing that has been going on in Pharma, few trust Pharma either. So back to the question I asked Goldstein in the Q/A session:
He mentioned the question, but said that he knew nothing about vaccine manufacturing, and pointed out that neither did anyone else on the panel.
But just moments prior, he was willing to tell us that the trade-off exists between risk and benefit, and that we, a typical American audience, were a good example of how we prefer the freedom to pursue property ownership over a world in which no one suffered (his false dichotomy). To his credit, in response to another question, Goldstein did say that on mercury in vaccines, “Perhaps we were wrong, I don’t know”.
We have to keep in mind that the so-called necessary, or in Goldstein’s model, preferred risk is being blamed as the reason why no one has bothered to make vaccines safer. It is convenient, therefore, when CDC cites “dozens” of studies that show no link between vaccines and autism. But let’s look at those against the backdrop of the full scientific literature:
I have noted elsewhere that CDC has shown a remarkable, strike that, deplorable lack of interest in what does cause autism – their inactivity in this area tells us that they believe that the increasing rates of autism is just fine with them. Very important to realize that CDC’s studies rarely, if ever, properly handle covariates. They do not study interaction terms, and try to isolate findings by analyzing subgroups instead. In a properly controlled and randomized prospective trial, one can stratify groups such as race (ethnicity), smoking history, past exposure to treatment type, etc and readily study interactions. In retrospective studies, however, such control is not afforded, and the use of covariates without studying interaction terms between key covariates can hide significant results.
But with CDC, the abuse of data from such studies has been much, much worse. According to Thompson, and according to my own autopsies on their studies, the vaccine research team and external colleagues would spend years re-re-analyzing data once a positive association was found, to make the association go away. Did they publish every stage of the analysis, and report every result from every round of analysis? No. They only reported the results they wanted the public to see. That is not science. That’s cheating. That’s fraud.
This is not merely a matter of being “wrong”. CDC is busted, and they are digging in their heels. This of course only make their culpability worse. Every day that goes by with people heeding information on vaccine science from CDC, more children regress into autism, develop seizures, and suffer other debilitating side effects – so the CDC’s reputation can remain intact. Every individual involved should resign immediately and call for safer vaccines. They should admit what they have done and beg mercy on the courts that will try them. But of course, sadly, they will never do that.
Clearly, the promise of safety cannot be found from any “science” from the CDC vaccine division now, or in the foreseeable future. No results from their efforts in the past, nor in the future, can be trusted. They not only have corrupted themselves – they have corrupted science, and in the process, if we do not reverse the trend of increasing autism, they may well have bankrupted America. The medical and financial burden of autism in the US, the effects on individuals, and on parents and grandparents’ lives cannot yet be measured. But early estimates have the total lifetime cost of care for an person with classic autism at over $1million.
But that does not mean that The Promise can never be realized – safer vaccines, or at least antigen-presentation systems, are possible. They are just more expensive – for now. The market should be opened and proper, objective science conducted on safety and efficacy – following the strictures required of new drugs. To regain the lost public trust, we need a technological revolution in inoculation. As more learn about the CDC fraud, more and more Americans will reject “vaccines”. Unless Pharma gets rids of aluminum, acts on calls to total bans on mercury, cleans up vaccines of toxins and additives, guarantees no trace of animal or human DNA and proteins, and excludes unsafe epitopes, the army of the Vaccine Risk Aware is doomed to grow. Reform is inevitable – so why wait until a million more are injured?
The costs of not acting now will be a thousand-fold seen so far, and will be staggering. I have yet to meet a parent of a child with autism who does not think their child’s well-being (as well as can be) is not worth it. They realize the restrictions on their lives. But they love their kids. Of the hundreds of moms and tens of dads I met in Atlanta, last week, each and every one of them love their children as much as, if not more than, parents of neurotypicals. They celebrate each and every small achievement. So much for the “refrigerator mom” concept.
Dr. Goldstein also mentioned HPV – and stated that he wished that his wife had access to the HPV vaccines, to avoid having suffered cervical cancer. My heart goes out to his wife, and him for their suffering. But what they likely do not know is that the science, including CDC’s own study, is showing that HPV vaccines may eventually be shown to INCREASE HPV-related cancers via Type Replacement. More on that here.
I bet that parents of kids with classic autism would give everything they had – all of their property – for their kids to not have suffered VIEMA, even as they love and accept them with autism.
The Threat (NP, NS)
If, the argument does, you hold us accountable for harm caused by vaccines, we will pull out – and thus we won’t make profit from vaccines, but you also won’t have vaccines. Sure there won’t be any negative side effects from vaccines, so suffering from vaccine side effects will be zero.
But everyone will die from chickenpox. And we will show you pictures of children from less developed countries suffering from measles. And we’ll remind you in headlines that students at Harvard have the mumps. Wait, they don’t count. They were vaccinated. And we’ll blame the measles outbreak at Disneyland on Anti-vaxxers. Wait, most people who got the measles were vaccinated. And sometimes our vaccines cause vaccinated people to shed live viruses. Now that’s handy. Wait. Back to The Threat.
Unless you make it impossible for anyone to recoup any relief from the suffering that our vaccines cause, you’re not getting any protection from the harm of disease from us.
Basically, Pharma told America to take out dirty vaccines, or go screw ourselves.
In an unbelievably stupid move, Congress fell for this threat and passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, after Pharma threatened to stop making vaccines unless they were indemnified from liability. President Reagan signed a bill into law protecting Pharma but ostensibly providing citizens the ability to seek compensation if Federal compensation failed. Then, in 2011, the SCOTUS stupidly sided with Pharma in a case (Russell Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al.) by removing the ability of the citizen to seek compensation from Pharma when the Federal compensation has been denied.
We have been completely duped into a de facto unregulated monopoly without recourse for negligence or malfeasance. We cannot get the Promise from fake CDC science, and Pharma has no incentive to make vaccines safer. They now buy legislators off and try to get mandatory vaccination laws passed. But that is not The Promise. That is Pharma using laws to shove their vaccines down our throats in violation of international and existing Federal laws that guarantee the sanctity of the self. We may own nothing in this world except ourselves, and now Pharma wants that, too.
We need to wrest vaccine safety science away from the CDC, and we need to wrest the industry of inducing immunity away from Pharma. We can never get to The Promise unless and until someone decides to create disruptive technology that makes vaccines obsolete. The good news is that ideas exist, and the ideas are a radical departure from vaccines. Hopefully these options will see the light of day. It may take mass passive resistance – refusal to uptake ANY vaccines. I see this coming, because the more vaccine they add to the schedule, the more American families will learn first-hand the horror of vaccine induced, encephalopathy-mediated autism (VIEMA).
We Live in an Unseen Vaccine Hell
The “Reality” model focuses on an unspecified, completely unenumerated perceived benefit/risk model, where the cost is artificially set to zero, and, in reality, the injured are forced to bear not only the cost of suffering disease – but without proper compensation, they are asked to bear the full cost of our benefits. I have come to understand, after reading 3,000 studies on autism, that VIEMA kids are in fact a genetic minority. They, and their families, have carried the real burden of our benefits. And, as I passionately pointed out in Atlanta, “It’s Not Just Autism”. Each and every type of vaccine injury likely has a component of genetic risk. That is not to say that they are genetic conditions; it is, however, to point out that CDC’s fraud has prevented science from going forward that could have prevented over 1,000,000 cases of autism. They have prevented science from the past fifteen years to develop biomarkers that could have been used to tell us which patients are at risk of autism from specific vaccines. Where is the research to make vaccines safer? We know that exposures to toxins drop our IQ. We know that 1 in 5 Americans suffer from autoimmune disorders. We have the world’s highest infant mortality rate – you have to ask why. CDC ignores their own results showing that Thimerosal-containing flu vaccines cause increases in stillborn births. No, this is not acceptable. If I had been a member of Congress when they cowered under the threat of no vaccines, I would have written a bill that mandated funding for the development of safer vaccines, and I would have excluded Pharma from ever receiving a single dime. I would have unleashed the courts upon Pharma and regulated the hell out of the vaccine industry.
But no, our leaders instead on both sides of the aisle are now funded by Pharma. They live under the threat of being destroyed by Pharma funds to their opponents. And with current campaign funding laws allowing corporations to do as they please, we live in a Fascist state. If you were born in the US before 1986, you do not live in the America in which you were born, and your children do not live in the same America in which you used to live.
That was Last Week in Vaccinated America. I wonder what next week will look like?
Dr. Lyons-Weiler lives in increasingly Vaccine Risk Aware Pennsylvania and is an author, research scientist, CEO and Director (Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge). You can support his research, or IPAK’s “CDC Accountability Project” at ipaknowledge.org
Addendum: On the way out of NYC in our last day in the city, Gracie and I came upon a women, mid-fifties, sitting in a heap against a building on a sidewalk, staring in the distance. Instinctively, I stopped, reached into my pocket for some change, and found some bills. I offered her the money, and she grabbed my hand. Slowly, softly, I went down on my haunches, her still holding my hand, and looking her in the eye, I asked for her name.
“Wyeth” she replied.
“How beautiful a name! This is Gracie, and I’m Jack. How did you come to be here, like this?”
She told us how she had been railroaded out of her hometown in California. She had sued her landlord for damages due to gas leaks, she said, and the courts and the law enforcement forced her out. She told us about being sexually abused by lawyers, government officials, all who promised to help her, but who left her out on the street.
“Did the gas make you very sick?” I asked.
“Look at me!” she said. “I’m not well.” Then said something that sent chills down my spine.
“I used to be a CITIZEN! I worked, paid taxes, paid my rent, you know… I held a job…”
“Wyeth, you’re still a citizen, you know that, don’t you. You have rights!” I said.
Gracie and I chatted with her for about one-half hour. She told us more tales of abuse, of someone putting a wire in her ear, and all the time, I wondered why some medical professionals had not scooped her up and put her in a safe place, in a hospital bed, with proper medical and psychiatric care.
“Wyeth, I have a question for you.”
“Yes?” she replied.
“Did anyone else in your family ever suffer from toxins, like you have?”
“Well, I grew up in PA, and my father worked in a coal mine. He died from the gas. Others working in the mine were fine, my dad used to get so sick.”
I could not believe it. Here, before us, on the ground, in the dirt, was likely one of the canaries I wrote about in “Causes” – the minority of people who are unusually susceptible to toxins in their environment.
“You know, Wyeth, you’re not alone. There are millions like you – families who get sick from toxins, in food, water and medicines. We just came from a session at the United Nations on Toxins in our Children. We’re working to try to let everyone know that people need to be looked after if they happen to have a higher sensitivity.”
“God Bless your work, Jack!” she said. “Thank you so much for talking to me. No one talks to me!”
“No need to thank me, Wyeth. I’m just a scientist, and we are supposed to look at problems like this with an open mind. It’s what we do.”
We hugged, and Gracie and I continued on our way.
“What a beautiful woman” we both said.
