Sunday, September 17, 2017

Letter to Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald - the reply

I posted an open letter to the CDC's newly appointed director, Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald on July 30th. I sent it via snail mail and through their "contact us" email web-link. I received an email response on Friday Feb 15th from Sandra Cashman, MS (Executive Secretary in the Office of the Chief of Staff, CDC). I have copied and pasted the reply below and my comments follow. 

CDCExecSec (CDC)

Sep 15 (2 days ago)
to me
Dear Ms. Schnedl:

Thank you for your letter to Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), regarding your concerns about vaccine research and safety. Your letter was forwarded to my office for a response.

CDC places a high priority on vaccine safety, is committed to the integrity and credibility of our vaccine safety monitoring and research, and devotes extensive effort to this field. Before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licenses a vaccine for use by the public, FDA studies it extensively to determine its safety and effectiveness, and we have several systems in place to monitor vaccine safety after licensure. One of these systems, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is co-managed by CDC and FDA, serves as an early warning system for adverse events (possible side effects) that people may experience following vaccinations. Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS. In addition, healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events, such as shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, in VAERS, and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention. CDC and FDA scientists regularly analyze VAERS reports to detect new, unusual, or rare health events that might indicate possible safety problems. VAERS data are publicly available at
In addition to VAERS, CDC has other safety monitoring systems in place. These include the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. The VSD uses large electronic health record databases from integrated healthcare organizations to conduct near real-time safety monitoring and research studies. Guidelines for accessing VSD data are available at  The CISA project conducts clinical research and clinical case reviews. You will find information about the VSD and the CISA project
Additional information about the vaccine safety activities at CDC can be found at  
The National Academy of Medicine [formerly known as the Institute of Medicine (IOM)], a non-governmental, nonprofit organization, has also conducted many reviews of vaccine safety. These thorough reviews of medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and vaccine adverse events indicate that vaccines are safe and that serious adverse reactions are rare. You can find the most recent IOM report at     
In your letter, you asked that members of the Vaccine Risk Aware community be invited to meetings of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a federal advisory committee. ACIP meetings occur three times per year to consider new scientific evidence regarding current or possible new vaccine recommendations, and the meetings are open to the public. The next ACIP meeting is October 25-26. A public comment period is held during every meeting. We invite you to register to attend at provide your input during these meetings. You can find requirements for presenting comments CDC posts draft ACIP agendas at six weeks prior to the meeting.
The ACIP reviews many factors when considering potential vaccine recommendations. These factors include disease burden in the general population and in specific risk groups; available scientific information on the safety, immunologic response, efficacy, effectiveness, and acceptability of each vaccine; economic data; clinical trial results and use information provided in the manufacturer's labeling or package insert; recommendations of other professional liaison organizations; and the feasibility of incorporating the vaccine into existing domestic immunization programs. Based on its comprehensive analysis of the available evidence, it is possible that ACIP might not recommend an FDA-licensed vaccine for routine use. However, a physician or other healthcare provider would still be able to administer the FDA- licensed vaccine according to the labeled indications.

Thank you, again, for your letter and your interest in CDC’s public health efforts. We hope this information is helpful to you.


Sandra Cashman, MS
Executive Secretary,
Office of the Chief of Staff, CDC

However gracious and professional/polished the response I am disappointed that several important issues I raised were never addressed - namely the serious and credible allegations of on-going fraud in vaccine research in which the CDC is complicit. 

If the CDC places such a high priority on vaccine safety they would not be using VAERS as a way to monitor for sentinel events as it is widely (and credibly) believed to capture 10% (at most!) of vaccine related adverse events. 

Also not addressed is the fact that vaccine "safety" studies lack two components necessary for "gold standard" research - genuine placebos and non-vaccinated control groups. 

Why are parents who (in the thousands) are reporting to pediatricians the loss of previously gained skills and onset of chronic health conditions following vaccination not being mined for data? 

She relates the types of factors that influence ACIP's decision-making regarding their recommendations about vaccines - one of which is economic ... but conveniently ignores the issue of conflict of interest - how many on this committee advocating for vaccination have ties to the manufacturers and will benefit from their decision to recommend adding yet another vaccine to the bloated schedule. 

She does not say if my letter was ever read by the intended recipient. 

She does not state if Dr. Bill Thompson will be released to testify to Congress, nor does she mention if Dr. Fitzgerald is reaching out to the members of CDC SPIDER to learn more about their concerns. 

My offer to have Dr. Fitzgerald in my home for dinner and a screening of Vaxxed still stands - and I hope she will take me up on it.  

Ignoring the issues I raised will not change them or make them go away. This deflection is deceptive, at best. 

I am indeed, very interested in public health - but this information was not especially helpful. As a concerned citizen I think we all deserve better from the officials who are our employees - and I am convinced they can do better. We are in this situation not from a lack of expertise but because of a willful refusal to do actual science. 

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

It is unethical NOT to do a vaxxed/unvaxxed study

Advocates of vaccines maintain that because vaccines are "safe and effective" it is "unethical" not to "offer" vaccination. It gets slightly bizarro because vaccines are not "offered" - they are mandated. They are required for school, and increasingly, for work. 

But those who hold a different view on vaccination - who wish to actually chose whether they will, or will not receive them keep requesting health researchers do the types of studies that will actually demonstrate the real safety and efficacy of vaccines - namely, randomized double-blind "controlled" studies that use a genuine placebo. 

There are some who wonder if the push to mandate vaccines as a condition of participation in common societal activities (ie: school and/or work) is to eliminate the control group - the unvaccinated so researchers can continue comparing like to like and thus continue getting "results" that presumably, allegedly support vaccination. If research were done like this on virtually any other product it would be rightfully placed in the round file as it does not meet the standard for evidence based medicine. 

Those who advocate for health/medical freedom in the decision to determine what medical procedures you (or your minor child) participates in or receives feel vindicated that the vaccine research community refuses to do randomized double-blind placebo controlled research - the question is left begging, "what are they afraid of"? The refusal to do this kind of research is taken as an indirect validation of their experience of vaccines as agents that cause disease rather than prevent it ... validation that their suspicions and concerns about vaccines are correct. 

It is because of this stand-off between the two positions that I think it is unethical NOT to do multiple studies comparing the health (short and long term) between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated - with the definition of "unvaccinated" being "having received NO vaccinations" not merely "not receiving the vaccine in question." 

We deserve so much better. Our researchers are capable of doing this but they lack the will, the motivation, because the gravy train (money) supports maintaining the status quo.  

But even if gold-standard research were done "proving" that vaccines are safe and effective there would be no reason to force people to use them. It should still be a decision that is made without coercion or manipulation or force. 

Monday, September 11, 2017

Will your daughter be a Sacrificial Virgin?

A group called The Immunity Resource Foundation is speculating that the HPV vaccine may well be this generation's Thalidomide tragedy as there have been a significant number of reports of young women being severely injured by these vaccines. 

Those who love vaccines are quick to appeal to an individual's duty to vaccinate for the benefit of the vulnerable few (ie: the immunocompromised) yet these same people refuse to acknowledge the damage done by vaccines to very real individuals - they are expected to "take one for the team" so to speak. No matter how many are harmed by vaccines the assumption is that the benefit to humanity far outweighs the risk to any one individual so IF you are harmed by vaccination just shut up and go away - your experience does not matter, the cost you paid to hypothetically protect a very few is totally worth it.

The vid below is about 13 minutes long - part 1 of 3 (the other two parts have not yet been released). While relatively short it lays a foundation for the argument that vaccines like Gardasil and/or Cervarix are not necessary. There is a brief segment at the beginning where we meet a young woman who is essentially paralyzed and reports this was a consequence of an HPV vaccine. 

The video is produced by the Immunity Resource Foundation, a UK group. Their primary interest is false positive HIV testing and they have done a documentary exploring this. This post is not an endorsement of them and should not be taken as such. 

The link below is to the study authored (in part) by one of the interviewees (a screenshot is provided in the video - much better than just verbally stating the title or PMID). They make the argument that it has not yet been established (proved) that HPV causes cervical cancer - that it is **associated** with cervical cancer but not causative. 

Individual karyotypes at the origins of cervical carcinomas (McCormack et al. Molecular Cytogenics 2013, 6:44) 

If their theory is correct then the question left begging is the risk/reward ratio involved in use of any HPV vaccine - especially since it seems to be one of the more dangerous vaccines on the market. 

The video is short - I encourage you to watch it ... what do you think? 

Sunday, September 03, 2017

95 Theses of vaccine reformation

2017 is the 500th anniversary of a seminal event in christian history - on Oct 31rst Martin Luther did the world a solid and posted his 95 objections to Roman Catholic doctrine. Some of us are "still protesting" - and not just against un-biblical doctrine (RCC and otherwise) but also against an agenda of pushing vaccines on one and all. This post is inspired by Luther's nailing his list of issues to the Wittenburg church door and I am "nailing" this on the internet to spur debate and discussion in the hopes it will cause many to begin asking important questions and stir them to take action to protect medical freedom. 

This list is not necessarily in order of importance or priority: 

1) Safety of many vaccines is questionable

2) Efficacy of many vaccines is questionable 

3) COI is rampant in the vaccine industry

4) CDC Whistleblower (Dr. William Thompson)

5) Poul Thorson - fugitive from justice, accused of stealing US Taxpayers money while
     conducting a vaccine safety study 

6) Merck whistleblower lawsuit 

7) Vaxxed - please watch this documentary

8) Vaccination can only be maintained by coercion and manipulation 

9) Vaccination for school or work 

10) SIDS and vaccines 

11) Autism and vaccines 

12) Andrew Wakefield - modern day Semmelweis 

13) Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries MD and Roman Bystrianyk - please 
      read this book! (not an affiliate link)

14) 1986 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 

15) NVIC - thank God for this resource 

16) Dr. Suzanne Humphries - listen to her! Her talks are on YouTube, always referenced.

17) Marcella Piper-Terry - listen to her/read her posts/blog (VaxTruth)

18) Forrest Maready - subscribe to his YouTube channel and be blown away (while you               laugh)! 

19) Vaccination skews the immune system (TH1/TH2)

20)  Vaccines receive credit for outcomes caused by other (less expensive) interventions
       (like clean water and sanitation) 

21) Chronic illness is the new norm (and we do not know how much vaccines are 
       influencing this because of #22). 

22) Vax/un-vax study has never been done. Why? 

23) Tetyana Obukhanych - please read what she has written, listen to her talks! 
      Her book: Vaccine Illusion (non-affiliate link)

24) Herd Immunity - a concept that was stolen and twisted and used completely out of the
      context from which it was developed

25) Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and IPAK - one of the good guys ... follow and support his work,       and read his books.
      Ebola: An Evolving Story
       The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism 
      Cures vs Profits: Success in Translational Research 
      (not affiliate links)

26) "The Greater Good" - another documentary about vaccines

27) Polio - how convenient that the definition of a case of polio was changed right after the  
      vaccine was introduced.  

28) Speaking of Polio - SV40 (oops, cancer, so sorry!)

29)  The Wyeth memo - how to "prevent" a cluster of adverse events (ie: death) that might 
        cast a bad light on vaccines. 

30) Aborted babies (fetal dna) and vaccines 

31) Animal DNA and vaccines 

32) Food allergies and vaccines (peanut, milk and more) 

33) Mercury and vaccines 

34) Aluminum and vaccines 

35) So many other ingredients and vaccines (formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 ... )

36) Zoonotic (animal) viruses/bacteria/diseases and vaccines 

37) The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund - why is this necessary for a product
        that is "safe and effective"? 

38) VAERS - pitiful and ineffective because it is passive. Widely believed to capture 
       (at most) 10% of actual vaccine related adverse events - and even that may be an 

39) Blanket immunity from liability for all vaccines and anyone who administers them. 
      For a product that is "safe and effective" why is this necessary? 

40) Polly Tommey - she is doing the vaccine equivalent of The Shoah Project as she 
      interviews families who have been devastated by vaccine injury (aka "coincidence"). 

41) Synergistic toxicity and vaccines - the vaccine "schedule" continues to expand yet has
      not once been subject to the kind of study that would reveal if it is safe. 

What else needs to be added to this list? 

Friday, August 04, 2017

Letter to Dr Brenda Fitzgerald - googledoc version

Valued readers - here is a link to a googledoc version of my previous post "An Open Letter to Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald":  

You can copy/paste to print it and send it after adding your name and contact information. 

Here is the address: 
Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald
Director, Centers for Disease Control
1600 Clifton Avenue
GA 30329 

You can also send this as an email using the CDC's webform here: 
(I will be doing this as well).

The webform will not accept the full text of the letter so I copied/pasted a link to the googledoc version. In the subject line I asked that it please be forwarded to Dr. Fitzgerald. 

Please do not alter the letter and please be polite. Leave a comment to let me know if you send a copy. I'll certainly post an update if I get a response. 

Thank you!

Sunday, July 30, 2017

An open letter to Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald

Dear Dr. Fitzgerald - 

Congratulations on your recent appointment as Director of the Centers for Disease Control. 

As part of your orientation to your new position I am sure you were made aware of the many issues facing the agency you now head. 

One of those challenges is conducting valid research to provide clinicians and the public with "gold standard" evidence-based information on which to base their health decisions.
Sadly, it seems the CDC's committment to this in regards to vaccines is sorely lacking. I have come to that conclusion based on learning of the allegations put forth by Dr. William Thompson (aka: "#CDCwhistleblower") and by learning of a group within the CDC by the name of "SPIDER" (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence, and Ethics in Research). Here is a link to the letter they sent. 

The #CDCwhistleblower alleges that he and his colleagues altered study protocol when the agreed upon protocol yielded disturbing results (namely a significantly increased risk of autism when MMR was given earlier than 3 years of age, especially for black boys). Equally alarming he also alleges that data revealing these conclusions were literally thrown away - they were destroyed (I believe this is a federal crime). It appears he was the only one of his peers involved in this study who did not get rid of the data - though he did keep silent about it for ten years. Here is a link to the 2004 study

But aside from the concerns he raises about one study it is alarming that those charged with vaccine research refuse to do the types of studies that are considered gold-standard - namely, using true placebos (a biologically inert substance like normal saline) rather than the biologically active vaccine excipient (minus the antigen). 

Another problem in vaccine research is the lack of vaccine-free control groups. Currently it is common in vaccine research for control groups to have people who receive other vaccines rather than no vaccines. The control group still receives vaccines - just not the vaccine in question. This makes it far more difficult to tease out the effects of the vaccine in question and does not meet the criteria for gold-standard research - this would be a control group who does not receive the intervention in question, nor any other intervention! 

There is also the issue of whether vaccine research is sufficiently powered to reveal if the conclusions reached are legitimate or genuine.  It is not ethical to use post-marketing research (where numbers are much larger) as defacto clinical research if/when pre-marketing "safety" studies are designed in a way that necessary safety data cannot be generated even if the study design is strong. Have we learned nothing from Vioxx (among many, many others?!) 

Since vaccines are a commonly used product administered to ostensibly healthy people it is all the more important to have confidence that we know their true safety profile. Given the issues I have outlined there is reason to doubt we have accurate information about vaccine safety. A high volume of incorrect data does not change into a solid foundation upon which to base decisions for this medical intervention just because it is high volume. 

However, the significant volume of reports from parents and others ("anecdata") stating they were harmed in various ways subsequent to vaccination (including miscarriage or death) more than suggest we need to do vaccine safety studies differently as their experience contradicts the published research. There is reason to doubt the published vaccine safety research since it does not meet the benchmarks for "gold standard" research. Besides, products that are "safe and effective" do not need laws that shield from liability all who are involved with manufacturing or administering them. 

The experience of those who report adverse events following vaccination underscores the weakness of our current system for capturing safety data (or lack thereof) for vaccination. The VAERS system is passive and widely acknowledged to be severely underused - therefore any use of its data likely inflate any appearance of safety while minimizing or reducing significant risks - in short, it is just as unreliable as is the vaccine safety research that does not meet the gold standard of medical studies. 

I would like to know if you will be requiring Merck to provide updated results (now 50 years old?!) regarding the efficacy of the mumps component of the MMR? Since they have an exclusive contract to provide this vaccine it seems reasonable to ask them to provide an update for this information. Please do not wait until the #MerckWhistleblower lawsuit is concluded to do this. I hope you are aware of the allegations of two Merck scientists who allege tests to prove the efficacy of the mumps portion of the vaccine were spiked with rabbit antibodies. In other words, the basis of Merck's exclusive contract may well be fraudulent. Perhaps that is why there are reports of outbreaks of mumps in fully vaccinated populations. If you do ask for updated results it might be prudent to have them verified through an independent third party - just sayin'! 

As an aside - is it a good idea to mandate vaccination in childhood for diseases that are generally mild and self-limited (and rarely result in long-term adverse sequelae) when doing so simply shifts the period of vulnerability to adulthood? Especially when the immunity aquired through exposure and recovery is generally life-long while any risk reduction through vaccination is time-limited (and the time period of risk-reduction shrinks with each dose of vaccination). 

You would go a long way toward building trust by mandating more transparency in vaccine safety research. 

               - Require sharing of data so studies can be replicated by others 
                 (outside the CDC) to determine if they get the same results. 

               - Communicate with members of CDC SPIDER publicly (for 
                 obvious reasons they will need to remain anonymous) and 
                 address their concerns. The #CDCwhistleblower is not the only 
                 scientist on staff with the CDC who has seen dodgy science   
                 done within the agency's walls. 

               - Invite members of the Vaccine Risk Aware community to 
                 participate in ACIP committee meetings. 

               - Purge from ACIP those who have conflicts of interests 
                 (Dr. Paul Offitt comes to mind but I suspect there are many others). 
                 Disclosing conflict of interest does not eliminate it. 

               - Release the #CDCwhistleblower (Dr. Bill Thompson) to testify 
                 to Congress without fear of retribution. Give him the legal immunity 
                 currently enjoyed by vaccine manufacturers. 

               - If you have not done so already, watch the documentary Vaxxed. 
                 Since I am local to the Atlanta area I would be happy to have you 
                 in my home for a private screening. 

               - Meet with members of the Vaccine Risk Aware community. 
                 Many will be right outside the door of your office on August 24th.  
                   I am hoping you will be more gracious in your response to their
                   concerns than at least one of your employees was last October

I am praying The Lord will bless you with wisdom and discernment for the challenges you will face during your tenure as director.  

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Vaccines and Violence

If you have even a passing interest in vaccine issues you have no doubt heard of that Boston Herald "editorial staff" declared that not vaccinated should be a "hanging offense". This was in response to a small outbreak of measles in a Minnesota Somali community - many of whom have chose to not have their children vaccinated with the MMR due to fears of autism (which is higher than average in this community). 

Our public discourse has reached the point where those who hold certain opinions (or worldviews) feel free to advocate violence against those who do not share their views (see also, The Islamification of Vaccines). 

Here is a Facebook post in response to the Boston Herald editoral that makes some important, and valid points (in particular that there is much ado about an illness that by and large is generally benign).  He points out that the risk of the illness is conflated while the risk of the vaccine is minimized. That is not intellectually honest, nor is it informed consent. 

This progression fits with the four stages of conflict: intellectual, emotional, verbal, and physical. This happens on an individual as well as cultural level - we fight intellectually, move on to include an outright emotional component while the tone of voice and verbal content escalates, ultimately leading to physical violence unless the conflict is resolved. 

There are many parents who are familiar with being emotionally bullied into vaccinating their children even when they had decided it was not in their child's best interests - being told their child would die if they did not vaccinate (stats regarding the infections for which we vaccinate do not back up this assertion), or being informed they are required to sacrifice their child to the risks of vaccination for the good of the wider community (ie: herd immunity, some have compared this to setting yourself on fire to keep someone else warm), or even worse, being threatened with having their children removed from the home by being reported to CPS if they do not vaccinate. 

There are many adults who likewise, are bullied into vaccination under duress in order to keep their jobs. 

Intellectual, emotional, verbal, and physical violence has been the norm since the beginnings of "vaccination" - and we all deserve so much better than this. 

One way to stop the intellectual battery is for vaccine researchers to begin to conduct studies comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated - and to do so repeatedly. Since there is clearly a cohort who are willing to be unvaccinated it is hardly "unethical". What is truely unethical is requiring the use of a medication whose risks are poorly understood because it is not subjected to rigorous "gold standard" research - vaccines are not put to any sort of test that would reveal the kind of information needed to make a genuine informed decision. 

The emotional abuse must stop - many issues are polarizing, and vaccines are one of them. We really can agree to disagree. We live with the results of whatever decisions we each make, vaccines are just one of them. We live with the results of people choosing to smoke, or eat too much or exercise too little. Those who advocate for vaccines must recognize that vaccine injury does happen and that the current system of dealing with this is entirely inadequate - that deciding to forgoe vaccination is a rational choice given this reality. I have yet to hear of anyone who has been affected by vaccine injury who would wish that reality on their worst enemy, or who thinks "justice" is served by receiving a wad of cash (after battling a hostile court). 

Apparently there will be a protest at 11:00am Thursday May 18th in Boston - I suggest there be signs or actual nooses with the following hanging from them: 

Mandatory vaccination (it needs to go) 
Informed consent (currently taking its last breaths, at least in regards to vaccination) 
Conflict of Interest 

I hope the protest is peaceful - that concepts are hanged, not people, not even as images. 

Words matter - history has shown that people generally mean what they say, especially when they are speaking in threatening tones or words. It was especially irresponsible for a newspaper to print such words - it only poured fuel on an already flaming fire. I hope they do the right thing and retract what they've published and offer an apology to the public. They owe this to their readership.