Random Ramblings ...

Forced vaccination has been justified in the name of the "greater good" - at best a Machiavellian mindset that the ends justifies the means. Any harm that might be done by vaccination (because those who advocate forced vaccination rarely acknowledge that harm is done by vaccines) is over-ridden by the good of avoiding short-term infectious illness that seldom causes death or long-term adverse sequelae while resulting in long-term immunity (instead of the short-term risk reduction provided by vaccination - resulting in the "need" for repeated vaccination). 

Ultimately the issue of forced vaccination results from a naturalistic man (ie: human) centered worldview. What I find so bizarre about this is this type of thinking justifies abortion for the sake of individual freedom yet will also justify forcibly vaccinating masses of people, thus violating their personal autonomy and bodily integrity (interestingly, abortion does this to the unborn baby, and frequently enough to the woman herself). 

Just as odd is a man-centered worldview generally believes in evolution, not God-caused creation as described in the Bible. If one believes in evolution (where "creation" happened spontaneously from chaotic randomness) why would you want vaccination, forced or otherwise? Any death from an infectious illness would be the result of "natural selection"! 

The theory of herd immunity is also used as a justification for mandatory vaccination, and yet there is reason to question its efficacy. Pertussis is rapidly becoming a case-study for the questionable foundation of herd immunity as it keeps happening in highly vaccinated populations - populations that have achieved "herd immunity"! 

There are many adults who are not "UTD" (Up To Date) on their vaccinations - and yet there are neither frequent, nor severe outbreaks of "vaccine preventable" diseases in groups who are technically "under-vaccinated". 

(Source: https://www.facebook.com/toni.green.771/posts/1214301301918854) 

With vaccines being a source of ginormous growth and profit for the pharmaceutical industry (little risk, lots of reward as they are essentially liability free since 1986) there is tremendous conflict of interest embedded in those who are setting vaccine policy - lawmakers and others who work in or around the vaccine industry whore around in a fascist brothel. They have been pimping out children for years but now are no longer satisfied with the sickening profits that have been reaped with this group and have now moved on to adults. 

To whatever extent vaccines work there is no justification for forcing or manipulating or coercing people to use them. We are designed to live in freedom - including the freedom to decide what vaccines, if any, to receive. 

A little levity ... to make a point

Most are familiar with the phrase "If you didn't laugh, you'd cry" - today's post is sponsored by that thought. While it may provide a chuckle it effectively illustrates the reality that VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is widely believed to underreport vaccine related adverse events - so there is reason to believe that there are far more unintended and undesired effects of vaccines but we don't.really.know. 

Better, more reliable information would require studies comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated over the long term (ie: years) in order to capture an accurate picture of both the desired and undesired consequences of vaccination so people can decide if they want to accept or decline this intervention with a better information about the risk/benefit ratio. 

There is another interesting comparison in the meme - guns don't just take lives, they save them. But this too, is underreported as it does not fit the narrative favored by the MSM (much like the risks of vaccination do not fit the narrative or paradigm of those who favor vaccination so they go unstudied and unreported). 

I wish I had written this ...

The following link will take you to a long post on another site - but it is rich with theories and concepts that are worth considering. 

It deconstructs why vaccination may not be the best strategy for life-long health. The current paradigm of frequent vaccination from birth is based on comparing a newborn's immune system to an adults and deciding it is defective because it is different. The need for repeated frequent exposure to a vaccine is necessary because a baby's immune system is not yet able to respond the way an adult's does. This is not bad or wrong and in fact is evidence of design. 

For far more detail click here: 

http://www.consciencebasedmedicine.com/2015/07/dr-suzanne-humphries-neonatal-immunity.html 

or 

http://www.mothersagainstmedicaltyranny.com/2015/10/dr-suzanne-humphries-neonatal-immunity.html?spref=tw  

As always - you as a parent, or as an adult should determine what medical intervention (vaccination or otherwise) that you will accept or decline - and your freedom to do so should not be influenced by coercion or manipulation. I hope some day we return to an era of greater freedom where this is so. 

ER Nurses - frontlines of vaccine reactions?

A testimonial is not evidence - The language of academia may sometimes use the term "anecdotal evidence". Unusual presentations are written up as case reports for other clinicians to read and learn about a diagnosis or medical events that are sometimes referred to as "zebras", or atypical, not commonly seen but from which practitioners can glean insight. 

What follows was cut and pasted from a post on social media, and the writer is anonymous so none of this can be verified. We can only hope that this is a work of fiction given what the writer alleges. I attempted to locate a link to the source but was not able to do so. I asked the poster (who had cut/paste it from another site) to please provide a link to the source. If I am able to obtain a link to the origination of this quote I will provide it but this was not available at the time I posted this. 

If this is indeed real the phenomenon of adverse reactions to vaccines - reactions serious enough to cause people to seek assessment and care at a hospital - is hardly a "zebra".  

Original post by an ER nurse over at the None/Select/Delayed Vaccinations group over at the BabyCenter forums:

As an E.R. nurse, I have seen the cover up. Where do you think kids go when they have a vaccine reaction? They go to the E.R. They come to me. I cannot even begin to guess how many times over the years I have seen vaccine reactions come through my E.R. Without any exaggeration, it has to be counted in hundreds. Sometimes it seemed like it was one or two cases in a single shift, every shift, for weeks. Then I would get a lull, and I wouldn't catch one for a week or two, then I'd catch another case per night for a couple weeks. This was common.

Once, I was training a nursing student, about to graduate, on their E.R. experience rotation in nursing school. This student and I floated up to triage to cover the triage nurse for a break. I was quizzing them on what to ask and look for as a triage nurse on pediatric kids that came through. I made a point about asking about immunizations right out the gates. The student was puzzled, and asked why, and I told the student because we see vaccine reactions every day and its their job to catch it, alert the doctor and the parents, and report it to VAERS. Some higher power apparently smiled on my attempt to open the eyes of another nurse I guess, because not even ten minutes later, a woman brought her child up to the counter. Sudden onset super high fever and lethargy. I asked if the child was up to date on vaccination. The mother replied he had them just a few hours ago. I glanced at the student, who looked shocked and looked back at me in disbelief. I nodded, told them to remember this, and then took the mom and her child to finish the triage in back. When I was done I came back and sat down with the student, and asked what he learned that night so far. The first response: "What I was told about vaccines wasn't true". I couldn't have said it better. That student is going to go on to be like me, advocating for his patients with his eyes wide open.

The cases almost always presented similarly, and often no one else connected it. The child comes in with either a fever approaching 105, or seizures, or lethargy/can't wake up, or sudden overwhelming sickness, screaming that won't stop, spasms, GI inclusion, etc. And one of the first questions I would ask as triage nurse, was, are they current on their vaccinations? It's a safe question that nobody sees coming, and nobody understands the true impact of. Parents (and co-workers) usually just think I'm trying to rule out the vaccine preventable diseases, when in fact, I am looking to see how recently they were vaccinated to determine if this is a vaccine reaction. Too often I heard a parent say something akin to "Yes they are current, the pediatrician caught up their vaccines this morning during their check up, and the pediatrician said they were in perfect health!" If I had a dollar for every time I'd heard that, I could fly to Europe for free.

But here's the more disturbing part. For all the cases I've seen, I have NEVER seen any medical provider report them to VAERS. I have filed VAERS reports. But I am the ONLY nurse I have EVER met that files VAERS reports. I also have NEVER met a doctor that filed a VAERS report. Mind you, I have served in multiple hospitals across multiple states, alongside probably well over a hundred doctors and probably 300-400+ nurses. I've worked in big hospitals (San Francisco Bay Area Metro 40 bed ER, Las Vegas NV Metro 44 bed ER) and small hospitals (Rural access 2 bed ER, remote community 4 bed ER) and everything in between. When I say NEVER, I mean NEVER. I have even made a point of sitting in the most prominent spot at the nurses station filling out a VAERS report to make sure as many people saw me doing it as possible to generate the expected "what are you doing" responses to get that dialog going with people. And in every case, if a nurse approached me, their response was "I've never done that" or "i didn't know we could do that" or, worse "What is VAERS?" which was actually the most common response. The response from doctors? Silence. Absolute total refusal to engage in discussion or to even acknowledge what I was doing or what VAERS was.

The big take away from that? VAERS is WOEFULLY under reported. I am PROOF of that. The number one place parents bring their kids in the event of a vaccine reaction is the E.R., and as an E.R. staffer, I have NEVER met anyone who filed one, in spite of seeing hundreds of cases of obvious vaccine associated harm come through. What does that say about reported numbers? The CDC/HHS admits that VAERS is under-reported, and probably only representative of 1/10th the actual number of injuries. I contest that, and from personal experience, I would say the numbers in VAERS are more like 1/1000th the actual numbers, not 1/10th.

And the final part of that, is that I have, first hand, seen blatant cover ups from doctors. I have seen falsification of medical records and documentation via intentional omission. I have challenged doctors who refused to put in the chart that the child was vaccinated 4 hours ago and was in perfect health, and now suddenly they are non-responsive, seizing, febrile at 105, and that labs, LP, and imaging confirms cerebral edema/encephalitis. I reminded the doctor as they are writing their report that the child was vaccinated mere hours before. And at the end, there is total omission of this fact, and the physician pass-off notes state encephalitis of unknown origin. I ask the doctor if they will file a VAERS report, and they argue that this has nothing to do with it, its purely coincidental, and nothing should be filed, they are safe and effective. I remind them that VAERS is a reporting body for ANY symptoms that are contemporaneous to vaccination, whether causation is believed to be associated or not, and I get the dismissal that they are not filing it because it has nothing to do with it. No one brings it up to the parents. Its this giant rug-sweep that happens, and any mention of the vaccination is systematically removed or withheld from the record. A perfect example of this, was an ambulance crew that came in with a pass-off report that included the fact the child had been vaccinated only hours prior to onset of symptoms. The physician made sure this pass-off sheet disappeared mysteriously and could not get filed with the patient medical record. So yes, I have seen the vaccine damage cover up first hand. I know that it is intentional and active in the medical community. I know that it is happening. And on top of total denial of any association, and total cover up, they also refuse to report to VAERS which is supposed to be reported to for ANYTHING that is even in NO WAY SUSPECTED to be associated with the vaccine. This is a systemic suppression of information and statistics.

And yes, in the cases described above, I did approach the parents, and I did tell them about VAERS, and I did start a case for them and file a report. I did force the issue through my charting, although it will most likely be buried and overlooked. I have experienced the corruption and suppression of the truth in the medical community about vaccines first hand from the provider perspective. It does happen. Every day.

Life has risks - risks of not vaccinating, risks of vaccinating - we all must be willing to accept the consequences of the decisions we make and should be comfortable with the level of risk/benefit of whatever decision we make regarding vaccinating/not vaccinating - and our decision to do so should be free of coercion, manipulation, or pressure. 

Choice vs Control

"Those who demand control can't stand competition" (as heard on the Steve Deace radio show/podcast Nov 4, 2015); 

Much hay could be made with these words as they contain a great deal of truth applicable to many domains - though the focus of this blog is vaccines and the lack of personal freedom in medical decision-making regarding vaccination. 

I find the contrast rather stark - most who are labeled "anti-vaccine" are actually rather laissez faire  ... in other words, they do not demand control over others decisions regarding vaccination - and want only the same for themselves. Those who are branded "anti-vaccine" do not seek to prevent those who want to receive vaccinations from getting them - this is hardly an "anti-vaccine" attitude. Many who are characterized as "anti-vaccine" are willing to use vaccines selectively and simply want to decide, with their healthcare provider, which vaccines they (or their children) will, or will not, receive. 

Yet it seems that those who advocate for vaccination are not willing to tolerate anything except total, absolute compliance with any and all vaccines that are approved for use and recommended by a central committee (ACIP - Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) that is far removed from managing any adverse consequences of this medical procedure. 

Those who promote vaccination have been conducting an on-going legal jihad for decades. It began with the formation of a central committee dictating health policy on a national level that set the stage for state and local mandates and now is coming full circle with federal legislation being proposed to mandate vaccination (HR 2232). 

Vaccination - an idea so good people won't demand it of their own free will - or so the overlords fear. 

Such irony - The One Who truly is Lord of Lords and King of Kings (Jesus) is so supremely, and rightly, confident of His sovereignty and power (having proved it by rising physically from the dead) that He does not exert control over our free will (which He built into our design when He created us in the Garden of Eden). It is human rulers who refuse to acknowledge their accountability to The Sovereign God of the universe who grasp all the more tightly at controlling others in regards to vaccination (among many issues).  

Fully vaccinated? Healthy?

What do the terms "fully" or "completed" vaccinated mean? Increasingly, it seems the accurate meaning defining these terms is difficult to pin down, as a vaccinees receipt of a "safe and effective" vaccines does not render them "protected" unless 100% of everyone else receives the same "safe and effective" vaccine - which begs the question, just how effective (safety being an altogether different and separate issue) are vaccines? And if a person is vaccinated, for how long will their risk of that illness be reduced - and how long before they will need to be vaccinated yet again in order to maintain the risk reduction (I won't use the term "protection" as that would not be accurate since there are so many who are vaccinated who are getting ill - flu, pertussis, measles would be contemporary examples of this phenomenon). 

No matter how many times you've received a vaccine, the knee-jerk response to even 1 case of an illness for which a vaccine exists is - vaccinate everyone all over again. The need for new vaccines seems to be created by the fact that they've been invented, regardless of risk for the illness in question - and clearly there is no need to study the effect of repeated vaccination over time, let alone the receipt of multiple vaccines at one time - in either a pediatric or an adult population. 

There are currently more than 200 vaccines in development. The manufacturers of vaccines have no liability for their product and lobby politicians to legislate mandates and professional organizations to craft "guidelines" to further increase their profit. Once someone is vaccinated they will need to be re-vaccinated on a regular basis to maintain even a modest amount of risk reduction. Lots of upside, virtually no downside and built in repeat customers, for life - not a bad business model! 

The United States has the most highly vaccinated population in the world - and we have some of the highest rates of chronic disease as well - yet no one seems willing to consider that perhaps vaccinations (which can stimulate inflammation and chronic auto-immune responses) might be a variable in this. It isn't "science" to give a medical procedure a free pass as a variable in health (or lack thereof). It isn't "science" to define health as narrowly as "absence of episodic, temporary infectious disease from which most people recover without complications". Yet we have defined "health" in this manner while it is quite clear that a great many of us are not healthy! It isn't "science" to refuse to compare the health of the vaccinated with the health of the unvaccinated (defined as those who have never received any vaccines - not just not receiving the vaccine or vaccines in question). It isn't "science" to use another vaccine as a "placebo" rather than using a biologically inert substance (like saline). It isn't "science" to re-define the criteria for a case of a disease (the criteria for polio changed not long after the vaccine was released, and **poof** the incidence/prevalence of polio declined precipitously - what a coincidence)! There may not be much "polio" in places that use the oral polio vaccine, but how odd that there is a significant amount of "Acute Flaccid Paralysis"! 

It is impossible to eliminate all risk in life - including risk of infectious disease. People should be free to decide what risk they want to live with - risk of vaccination or risk of not being vaccinated. 

Will you be there? Oct 23-25, 2015 Rally for Truth, Transparency, and Freedom

The blogosphere is a big place, so while I see the numbers indicating I have visitors and readers of my particular part of it, I rarely interact with you. I'm hoping I may get to meet even 1 reader of VaccineDepot at the Rally for Truth, Transparency, and Freedom the weekend of Oct 23 - 35th in Atlanta, GA. It's being organized by http://www.cdctruth.org/. 

It begins with a Rally on Friday (at the CDC - 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta GA, right next to Emory University), continues with an impressive line-up of speakers on Saturday at Grant Park (840 Cherokee Road SE Atlanta GA), and concludes on Sunday, again in Grant Park with a prayer gathering. 

Truth, transparency, and freedom are reasonable things to expect from our public servants. It's a pity we've reached the place where it is necessary to hold demonstrations supporting these basic concepts - I hope you'll join me, and many others as we do what we can to hold our public servants accountable for the manner in which they have carried out their service to their fellow citizens. 

Fake vaccine data - go to jail!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146788/Ex-Iowa-State-University-scientist-gets-four-years-prison-altering-research-HIV-vaccine-mixing-RABBIT-blood-human-blood.html 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/847589  

In a previous post I opined that we need a Sarbannes-Oaxley law for vaccines. There is, apparently, some form of accountability for fraud when using federal funds for research - the above headlines demonstrate that. Though given the growth of blogs like Retraction Watch  (among other reasons) my inner skeptic suspects this is the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg. 

The Merck whistleblower lawsuit is about efficacy, not safety. But any Sarbannes-Oaxley (SOX) law for vaccines should include provisions to hold corporate heads accountable for fraud in either efficacy or safety. But to prove either allegation would be difficult given the conflicts of interest embedded in so much research, including research in vaccines. 

Safety data on vaccines is incomplete, at best, because they are never tested against a control group of unvaccinated individuals. Not just people who do not receive the vaccine in question - but people who have never been vaccinated, period. In the bizarro world of vaccine research all manner of epidemiological studies are done all concluding that vaccines are "safe and effective" all while violating the important principle of having a comparison group of unvaccinated individuals. It's not like they aren't out there. Well, at least for the time being there are unvaccinated people - but as we continue to lose our freedom to determine what medical treatments we will, or will not accept, it will become harder to find people who have not been vaccinated - and this will obfuscate and confuse any attempt to answer the question of vaccine safety and efficacy. 

In the world of vaccine research it is acceptable to violate another principle of scientific study - the use of a placebo (an inert, not biologically active substance). In vaccine research, the "placebo" may be the diluent of the vaccine, which has multiple ingredients (any of which are biologically active by design) with the antigen in question removed. The point of the placebo is to be biologically **inactive** so a true comparison can be made about the safety and efficacy of the substance in question. 

The current vaccine schedule (for anyone - child or adult) has never been studied in toto. Single vaccines are deemed "safe and effective" by policy makers saddled with conflict of interest and are added to the "schedule" which itself has never been tested for either safety or efficacy. We worry about poly-pharmacy - people being harmed by being on multiple medications simultaneously yet have not a care in the world about injecting people with multiple vaccines multiple times?! Cognitive dissonance and selective reasoning is an amazing thing to behold. And also very frightening. 

This isn't research. It is manipulation. It isn't science. It is assumption. 

We all deserve better. 

Edgy - Yes, Truth - No: Clickbait Warning

http://edgytruth.com/2015/09/04/pregnant-women-pushed-pertussis-vaccine/?utm_source=CCNewsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=PregnantPertussis 

The self-described mission of the Edgy Truth website is to " ... present information in the hopes of sparking discussions and insight". It may be "edgy" but it certainly isn't truthful. It's a good thing that truth is far more than mere facts. 

Some problems: 
1) No date on the post (it is embedded in the url) - this makes it more difficult to know how current is the information they are presenting. Even if a website provides a date it may have code embedded to automatically present the current date rather than the date a post was originally made or written. 
2) The post is not attributed to a specific author - this makes accountability more difficult. 
3) Lots of ads, little content. About half of the content is quotes from other sources. 'nuf said. 
4) Links for references are either non-existent or half-baked, see below. 
5) There is a place for comments but no way to make them. Odd, especially given their stated "mission". I have seen others comment on other Edgy Truth posts but I don't know how they are doing so - whenever I have opened one of their pages I see a place asking for comments but no hyper link to do so. 

Point #4 is really what motivated me to write this post. I was so disgusted by the last link provided as a "reference" - it is, for all intents and purposes, a lie. It claims to be a link to a study, when in point of fact it is a reference to an informational website of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) providing definitions of pregnancy risk categories for drugs. The Edgy Truth article appears to be quoting a study but the link does not take the reader to the study from which they seem to derive the quote but instead links to the NIH website. This particular Edgy Truth opinion piece is based on a BBC article (for which they provide a link) - but the BBC article also makes unsupported claims (ie: that a study shows a 91% decrease in whooping cough in infants following maternal vaccination ... yet there is no link or reference citing this study). Sources should be cited (ie: written out), and links to sources provided whenever possible. 

I expect better from the BBC - an organization that should do far better in meeting basic journalism standards. Edgy Truth is barely rising to the level of clickbait. What's worse is that this came to me from Dr. Sherri Tenpenny - I'm not sure why she chose to associate herself with Edgy Truth but she could do better. I hope whatever revenue she is gaining from this is worth it. In general I respect her analysis regarding vaccine issues and have encouraged others to use her as a resource. Unfortunately I may need to put a qualification 
on that recommendation. 

I sent this email to info@edgytruth.com while writing this post (9.5.2015 @ 1722): 

 Hi - 
Before I post my opinion about your Sept 4 post about
pertussis vaccine in pregnancy I think I should at least
contact you about my concerns.
No specific authorship - makes accountability difficult
No date in the body of the post (only in the url)
Scanty content and at least one of the links as a "source"
is incorrect - the last link does not take the reader to the
study that seems to be quoted but instead to an informational
NIH website giving pregnancy risk category definitions for
drugs.
Lastly, if the point of Edgy Truth is to "spark discussions and
insight" why are there no comments on the website?
Thanks,
Anne
Amor Vincit Omnia 
http://vaccinedepot.blogspot.com/

http://anne-eklektikos.blogspot.com/

Protect your friends identity, use BCCIf forwarding, please delete the forwarding history, which includes my email address.This courtesy helps prevent Spammers from mining addresses and viruses from being propagated!Thank you!

I at least owed them that courtesy.

To date (as of Sept 19, 2015) there has been no response. I'll post an update if I ever get one.

Caveat Emptor is a good principle in general - it would be lovely if we were free to use that in regards to whether we do, or do not, get vaccinated.

Update (on Oct 31, 2015):
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is no longer associated with EdgyTruth (as of Oct 1, 2015).

Here is the statement from a post on her Facebook wall:

**NOTICE: On Oct 1, 2015, DrTenpenny.com severed ALL connections and affiliations with EdgyTruth.com - We have partnered with several other sites to bring you information on vaccines, breast health and general wellness. This is pro-active, protective step to broaden the VaccineInfo page so FB won't view it as "solely anti-vaccine." After a disastrous and difficult web host migration, Dr Tenpenny's 3 other websites will be back up soon, and even better than before. Thank you for your patience. Please share this with your friends and fans.

Given the poor quality of content on EdgyTruth.com I am glad she is no longer associated with them because I think her analysis and critique of vaccine related information is generally excellent and EdgyTruth.com certainly is not in her league.

Sarbanes-Oxley for vaccines

We need a Sarbanes-Oxley type law for vaccines and other pharmaceuticals. 

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was passed by Congress in 2002 following a series of corporate financial scandals (chiefly involving Enron, but there were others as well) in order to hold corporate boards and company officers accountable for how their business was conducted, in order to reduce the risk that they would engage in unethical practices. 

Merck is currently embroiled in a whistleblower lawsuit with two of their scientists alleging that the mumps portion of the MMR is not as efficacious as it has been represented. Merck has a monopoly on the MMR vaccine because of tests presumably demonstrating it has greater efficacy than other vaccines. The scientists are alleging that the tests were spiked to get the desired results. If the fraud is proved in court this may threaten Merck's monopoly of this portion of the vaccine market. 

An HIV vaccine researcher has been sentenced with jail for his fraudulent research. 

Why do we not have a similar requirement (ie: SOX) for the corporate heads and boards of pharmaceutical companies (as well as FDA/CDC/ACIP officials)? Would Vioxx have hurt and/or killed so many if they had been required to sign off on the nature and manner (ie: the quality and soundness) of the research done to justify its development and approval? 

If we had this sort of requirement would we have editorials (Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine) by major researchers decrying (John Ioannidis) the poor quality (Richard Smith, former editor of The British Medical Journal) of studies healthcare providers are using as a basis for care? 

What good are IRBs (Institutional Review Boards) doing given all of the above? If they are doing their job why is it that we cannot trust the research that is being published? In theory the IRBs are the first line of defense against bad research and peer-review prior to publication is the second. Apparently these safeguards are not working or are themselves seriously compromised.  

Even if our Congress were to pass such a law (an event I consider unlikely given the influence of the pharma lobby upon them), and even if research were strengthened so the results were more trustworthy it would still be my position that we deserve freedom in medical decision-making, including receipt or declination of vaccination.  

Data dump, the CDC way ...

Ordinarily a "data dump" means downloading a large batch of data so one can comb through it and examine the contents for meaningful analysis. 

But when it comes to vaccine related study data the term takes on a new and different meaning. It is now alleged (by Dr. William Thompson, aka the "CDC Whistleblower") that he and his colleagues met to destroy (dump in a garbage can) documents linking an increased risk of autism with receipt of an MMR vaccine prior to 36 months (particularly in black males). 

In his statement Dr. Thompson refers to the Verstraten study - a study often cited as "proof" that there is no association between the preservative thimerosal (a form of mercury) and autism - and he refers to it as a "debacle"! Here is one analysis as to why this "study" is rightly called a debacle. 

While Dr. Thompson kept silent until 2014 he at least had enough sense of personal ethics not to destroy his own copies - he didn't dump his data. He also finally responded to the nagging of his conscience about this matter. 

As Congressman Posey has stated, a thorough investigation and congressional hearings are called for. 

What's also called for is a return to greater freedom in medical decision-making ... those who want vaccines should get them, those who decline should not face an retaliation for this decision. Vaccination should not be linked to school participation, employment, nor anything else. 

Vaccination - A Useful Tool ... for genetic alteration

Epigenetics studies how exposures (through diet, chemicals, lifestyle, etc) alters the expression of our genes - turning genes on or off essentially. 

But we are moving into an era of genetic modification - of altering the genome itself (a permanent change that could be passed on to the next generation), not changing whether a gene is or is not expressed (which, in theory, is temporary). 

So many have been trained to accept vaccination without question - and this is one way that vaccination could be so very useful as a tool to alter the genome of a population. 

A concept called "Immunoprophylaxis by Gene Transfer" is being researched - human trials have already begun. It involves inserting synthetic genetic material into the genome of the host by injection into the muscle. There is no way to control where the synthetic genes go - no way to limit which tissue into which they are inserted - so yes, this synthetic genetic material could be transmitted to the next generation. 

But who's to say this hasn't already happened? How do we know it hasn't? Genetic material from substrates used to produce vaccines are a known contaminant - human DNA from cell lines from aborted babies is used in various vaccines (WI-38, MRC-5, PER C6, HEK-293, among others). This is no different for vaccines developed using animal tissues as substrates as well (chicken eggs, monkey kidneys, insects, for starters). SV40 (Simian, or monkey Virus 40) was a horrible scandal in the polio vaccine program. 

While IGT may be initially developed for all the right reasons - to help people - knowing human nature (sinful) there can be no reassurance that it may well be used for more sinister reasons. One blogger is already speculating about how this sort of technology could be used. 

For all that we do know about vaccination there is much that we don't know - and for this reason, no one should be required to be vaccinated. Linking vaccination to employment, or school or anything else is coercive - "soft" force, if there is such a thing. This is one of many areas of life that people must have freedom to determine what they will to do. 

First US measles death - some questions for consideration

Earlier this year a young woman (exact age unknown) died of pneumonia in Clallum County in Washington State, the first official, or documented measles-related death in the USA since 2003. Pneumonia is a known complication of measles. While her death is tragic, as is common in many deaths from secondary complications (well, or even primary causes) she reportedly had other health issues that increased her risk of death from an infection (measles or otherwise). 

Here is what has been reported: 

- She had more than 1 medical conditions 

- She was on multiple medications, including immune suppressing drugs 

- She did not have the rash typical of measles so the presence of measles was not 

  discovered until the autopsy was done. 
- She had Type D9 strain of measles. 

Here is what is unknown: 

- Her vaccination status. She was believed to have been vaccinated at least once per 

  verbal report of her family members, though they did not have written documentation of 

  her vaccination status.  

- In what tissue the measles was found (gut, lung, brain, other). 
- Her nutrition status (Vitamin A, in particular, is important to recovery from measles; Vit D3
  is also an immune-modulator - not showing overt signs of deficiency of a vitamin is not 
  proof of sufficiency, or having enough of the substrate to maximize your body's ability to
  manage an infection). 

She is believed to have been exposed when in the same facility at the same time as a person who later developed a rash and was diagnosed with measles. Were they in the same room? Yes - measles is highly contagious - but how close was their contact? If they were merely in the same facility at the same time (but not in the same room) why did others not also come down with measles - hospitals are filled with people who are immune compromised for a variety of reasons. Certainly she was not the only immune-compromised person who was exposed. Yet she was the only one to become sick ... and she was likely vaccinated as well.

No one died during the Disneyland outbreak, yet there was a great hugh and cry - this woman died from an illness that is presumed to be measles associated yet there was very little chatter. Why? 

If she had had measles as a child (spontaneous, "wild" infection), perhaps she never would have developed this pneumonia at all, as recovery from spontaneous infection from measles is known to provide more robust, and longer-lasting immunity than artificial, man-made, temporary risk-reduction via vaccination. That is why those born before 1957 didn't need to be vaccinated - they were presumed to be protected by having had and recovered from a community acquired infection. 

Because nothing is risk free, and because all decisions have both risks and benefits the writer of Vaccine Depot believes in freedom in healthcare decision-making ... if you want to be vaccinated, you should get whatever vaccines you think you need. Conversely, those who are not convinced the benefit of vaccines is greater than the risk should be free to make that decision as well. 

VE Voodoo

VE is Vaccine Effectiveness - an estimate of how well a vaccine does (or does not) work. 

The VE for the 2014 - 2015 flu vaccine was 18% (with a 95% Confidence Interval of 6-29%); 

Perhaps I could have titled this one "How a Confidence Interval can be a Confidential Informant". 

In statistics, the Confidence Interval (or CI) is interpreted as giving the range within which we can be x certain (in this case, 95%) that the true effect exists. In general, the wider the interval between the two numbers the less certain one can be of the effect. The width of the CI is influenced by the sample size of the study - and in general the larger the study the smaller the width of the CI, providing greater confidence in the precision of the estimation of the effect in question. 

The CI associated with the CDC's VE for flu vaccines in the 2014 - 2015 influenza season is wide. It is unknown how large was the sample size used to generate the VE (this information is not provided). But if the sample size was large a wide CI is all the more concerning.  In their report they do at least acknowledge "reduced protection" and indirectly allude to the fact that even when the vaccine strain is well-matched to the circulating strain VE is about 50% at best. 

But then the last paragraph of the report contains this sentence: "None of the VE estimates by age for this season are statistically significant at this time." A polite way of saying that even the 18% VE may well be meaningless - that there may have been no statistically significant effect from the vaccine at all, or that it didn't work. At all. 

Given this information, how is it rational to demand healthcare workers use this product or risk losing their jobs? How can healthcare providers recommend this to a client? Why is the government and why are health insurers paying for this product? Why accept the risks of using this product when the odds of benefit are so slim (even IF the risk of harm is low)? 

No one should be forced to use a vaccine - nor manipulated, nor coerced in any way, shape, or form. Being threatened with loss of employment is a form of manipulation and/or coercion. Being threatened with not being able to go to school because you have not been vaccinated is likewise manipulative and coercive - it causes people to make a medical decision under an influence other than objective information and it introduces a third party into a relationship (and decision) that should be private. 

We deserve better - especially from people whose salaries we pay (ie: CDC officials). 
 

Podcast Post - raw notes (Siegel/Vaccine Myth May 10, 2015)

One of the benefits of long commutes is having time to listen to podcasts - and I've come to appreciate being able to do this. It's also something I'll do on my days off (when I'm not listening to talk radio). 

This post contains raw notes I jotted down as I listened to the May 10, 2015 episode of Shawn Siegel's show "The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust" - he has a YouTube channel, and you can listen live to his how on the Logos Radio Network as well. I subscribe to the podcast (via iTunes) and listen when I can.  

The guest on this episode was Dr. Suzanne Humphries, and she discusses some interesting tidbits of information she's unearthed in her research. From what I've observed, those who question the paradigm of vaccination are more transparent than those who accept it. At at least two points in the program she acknowledges criticism of her book Dissolving Illusions (co-written with Roman Bystrianyk) and answers the criticisms - without resorting to ad hominem attacks of her critics. 

These notes may serve as a starting off point for further research for myself ... or anyone else (though I encourage you to listen to the show yourself - check against my notes!) 

They focus primarily on the measles vaccine during the discussion. 

Lungs have immune cells with CD150 receptors (only immune cells have this type of receptor); The virus targets these receptors (in the natural/spontaneous infection) and it takes about 1 week before it is in the body - first the lymph, then the reticulo-endothelial system ... at which point you begin to show symptoms (Koplik's spots in the mouth, rash, 
fever, cough, etc ...); 

Nectin 4 receptors? 

"Passaging" described - part of the manufacture of measles vaccine (or perhaps its initial development). Cultured on a variety of tissues - human kidney/chorion, monkey kidney, human diploid cells (from aborted fetuses); Vero cells (from monkey kidneys) have CD 46 receptors to which the wild measles virus does not have an affinity - though that changed as a result of techniques used to develop the vaccine strain used in measles vaccines. CD 46 receptors are present on every nucleated cell (ie: all cells in the body except mature red blood cells); 

Measles virus has "H" protein ... virus mutates over time. 

Discussed research about response of vaccinated vs unvaccinated when exposed to wild measles - vac have inferior response compared to unvac (Poland study?);

Measles without rash - increased risk of chronic disease. 

Low-grade chronic infection circulating throughout vaccinated population that manifests as actual full-blown disease when enough people (vac and/or unvac) are susceptible. 

They also touched on Pertussis/Whooping Cough (WC) - discussed theory that the vaccinated may be the source of the mutated bacteria that do not have pertactin and this may be one facet of why the WC vaccine is less effective. This is due in part to the development of "immunity" via injection rather than through the lung tissue (has implications for measles as well since that is also primarily a respiratory virus) - if/when the vaccinated are exposed to disease and subsequently recover may harbor bacteria longer which has allowed it to mutate so the vaccine is less effective. (not sure if this is related to baboon study showing vaccinated as a reservoir of infection).

Dr. VK Singh - testified before congress regarding MMR and auto-immunity/autism 

Dr. Steven Walker 

Pabst study 1997 

Discussed reluctance and/or difficulty of many researchers to pursue research that is perceived as being "anti-vaccine" as it kills careers and ends funding ... being "Wakefielded" (so the issue is not necessarily truth, let alone facts ... science should not be agenda driven, yet it is, as is any human endeavor). 

T cell key to eliminating measles, cellular immune system key, especially with measles. 

Death is used as a way to "persuade" people to accept vaccine even though death rate had decreased to ~500/year (incidence of 3-4 million/year) prior to implementing vaccine.  

These notes are **very** raw and virtually unedited (I typed them up after the fact - they might have more detail and fewer omissions/errors if I had been typing them as I listened but that's not what happened). The interview touched on more that I have forgotten because I wasn't able to write it down (since I frequently listen as I drive!) so I hope you listen to the show and/or episode as well ... and compare your notes to mine! 

Ultimately, those who want vaccines should get them (hardly the position of someone who is "anti-vaccine"!) ... this writer appreciates that we are designed by our Creator (Jesus) to live in freedom. 

Either way, if you decide to receive a vaccine or have your children vaccinated you should be convinced, satisfied in the amount and veracity/trustworthiness of the information upon which you base your decision - and that your decision should be freely made, not coerced, forced, nor manipulated in any way.  

Not such a happy Mother's Day

All mother's want their children to be healthy, and few things warm a mother's heart than knowing that their child(ren) are safe and thriving. This is universal for all parents, but late last week two 1 month old infants died in Mexico after receiving a variety of vaccinations (39 others are hospitalized). To their credit the Mexican government has suspended all vaccinations while they investigate. They had received 3 vaccinations simultaneously - tuberculosis, rotavirus, and Hepatitis B vaccines. Because they received multiple vaccinations simultaneously it will be all the more difficult to determine if it was one particular vaccine that was the primary cause or if there was a synergy in receiving multiple vaccines at the same time that resulted in the deaths. The practice of giving multiple vaccines at the same time is poorly studied as vaccines are simply added to the schedule once they are approved and deemed "safe and effective".

The last paragraph of the article includes the knee-jerk disclaimer that vaccines are in important public health strategy but all medications have risks, etc ... this politically correct statement has begun to fall rather flat, as it is nothing but a token acknowledgement of reality - yet (at least in the United States) it is increasingly difficult to avoid vaccination - there is little choice in the matter, so there is no way for individuals to avoid the risks and while the "herd" may have a short-term benefit, the collective group bears no responsibility when adverse events (like DEATH) occur.

My heart aches for these families - they were doing what they thought was best for their children (and as many think, fulfilling their "duty" to society), yet the result was tragedy. I pray for their comfort and peace as they grieve.

I don't doubt the motive of the parents, or of public health officials (and others) who fervently believe in the necessity of vaccination. I do wish someone would describe how many deaths as a result of vaccination is acceptable ... how many adverse events (either short or long term) ... and why policy makers refuse to insist upon LOTS of studies comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated (in both short term health and long term health) as that is the kind of information that would help both policy makers and parents and adult individuals decide what level of risk/benefit ratio with which they are willing to live.

Why are those who set vaccine policy permitted to be financially conflicted and connected with vaccine manufacturers when both benefit financially from the decision to use vaccines? Why do we not insist that those who set vaccine policy have no financial relationship with vaccine manufacturers, ever - not before they set policy, not after they set policy (Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Paul Offit among many, many others). 

I hope Mexican public health officials have the backbone, and integrity, to not allow the vaccine makers the cover of the "Wyeth strategy" in response to these tragic outcomes. While Mexico was not included in this study I hope Mexican health policy makers consider its implications - that more vaccines do not necessarily mean better health.

 Because we do not have good data comparing short and long term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals it is difficult for individuals to determine the level of participation in vaccination with which they are comfortable - what vaccines they may want, what they do not want.

Because vaccines have been declared both "safe and effective" by policy makers saddled with conflict of interest and also "unavoidably unsafe" (so says the SCOTUS in Bruesewitz v Wyeth, 2011) people must be able to decide for themselves what vaccines they use and when they use them.


http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/two-infants-dead-after-receiving-vaccinations/

Questions left begging ...

Another blog post inspired by Twitter ... 

Why are vets recommending fewer vaccines to animals in response to higher rates of chronic disease?

Why can't we do at least one study comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children (even a retrospective one, let alone an RCT)?

Is there any company manufacturing or selling vaccines that hasn't been accused or convicted of fraud or deception or unethical actions? In other words - are the products they are making worthy of our trust?

In vaccine studies, why is the "placebo" NOT an inert substance like saline, but rather the vaccine excipient minus the antigen? The excipient is not inert saline and contains many other chemicals that are biologically interactive - this would affect the results of the study.

Why is there so much conflict of interest (COI) embedded in every facet of vaccine policy?

     Lawmakers receive large amounts of cash from pharmaceutical lobbyists
     Scientists and other researchers are beholden to grant-makers for further funding
     Physicians are paid bonuses for vaccinating patients
     Healthcare workers are required to be vaccinated to continue employment
     Members of the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Vaccination Practices) have ties to and/or
          benefit financially from companies that make/sell the vaccines they recommend.
     There is a revolving door between the CDC and many vaccine/pharmaceutical companies

Declaring or making known any conflict of interest does not make it go away. What makes it go away is eliminating the conflict (duh!) - do not receive any kind of payment or gift (either cash or in-kind) from any company involved in making or selling vaccines.

Why is use of a product that has been legally declared "unavoidably unsafe" required for participation in community activities (school, employment, etc);

Why are those who make/sell/administer vaccines legally shielded ("immune") from liability?

Why are vaccines "exempt" from being questioned? The "science was settled" in regards to the helio-centric nature of our solar system ... well, at least by Galileo - but he was "made to care" by many in his day - and it was not until recently that those who opposed him finally acknowledged he was correct.

Similarly - the theory that episiotomy protected the pelvic floor was unquestioned ... until someone actually did the research - low and behold, episiotomy tends to do more harm than good and its use should be restricted. Hmmmm. Vaginal birth after cesarean was considered unsafe - until the research was actually done - low and behold, it was "discovered" that it is actually, in general, a safe route of birth for many, if not most women who have previously given birth by cesarean section. Hmmm. Yet there are many questions about vaccination that are studiously unanswered. The theory of vaccination is just that, a theory. Whatever testing and research that has been done is not sufficient and is little more than the academic equivalent of an echo chamber. Those who have questions about vaccination safety, efficacy, and policy are trying to stop the echo of "safe and effective" - it's a technique called the broken record and it can be effective, but it is hardly appropriate for a topic this important.

Why are there some who think that "Shaken Baby Syndrome" may have the DNA fingerprints of vaccine-associated death all over it ... yet no one will take this seriously. How many may have been falsely accused and jailed because of this?

Similarly, does anyone consider any temporal association between SIDS and receipt of vaccines?

Why are those who question vaccination unafraid of freedom, while those who accept vaccination without question frequently want to impose this on others - in other words, advocate limiting freedom to choose or decline a medical procedure - those who advocate for vaccination advocate for denial of informed consent (one element of which is freedom to accept or decline the course of action).

Why is the heavy hand of the state being used to control the population (in the context of this blog post: in regards to vaccination - but certainly the heavy hand of the state is being used to control citizen in far many other domains as well) when there are so many legitimate questions about vaccination?

Why are substances used in vaccines not safe outside of vaccines (ie: like mercury, formaldehyde among many others) but are safe to be injected into anyone when included in vaccines? Why are EPA limits for these toxins unsafe for human exposure at lower levels in drinking water than in vaccines that are injected into the body?

Why do we vaccinate children for Hep B at birth when their mother's do not have this infection?

What would the vaccine schedule look like today if vaccine makers had not been given immunity (since 1986) - the number of vaccines has grown exponentially since then and there are hundreds more being developed. 

One generation ago the mantra was "question authority" ... now those who do are pariahs.

Transparency welcomes questions, research, information - none of which is valued by those who deny there are legitimate questions regarding vaccination. Transparency and freedom are a natural fit - how lovely it would be to have both in regards to vaccination. Answering the questions posed in this post would be a start.

Do your own research, consider all points of view.

As always - if you want a vaccine you should get it. If you do not want a vaccine you should be free to decline without being penalized in any way, shape, or form.

Islamification of vaccines - Part 2

This post is inspired by a tweet:

https://twitter.com/rblotnicky/status/592786638641717249/photo/1

Pointing out another facet of the Islamification of vaccines ... though in all fairness this one may not have been the deliberate lying of taqqiya, but rather, a "journalist" who did not do sufficient fact-checking prior to writing the editorial (aka: article).

There have been no deaths attributed to the "Disneyland" measles outbreak of 2014 - if there had been we would still be hearing about it.

A number of patients were intentionally unvaccinated ... and have now recovered and as a result will benefit from a lifetime of immunity. The intentionally vaccinated bore the risks of receiving the vaccine yet did not derive any benefit.  43% of cases had an unknown or undocumented vaccination status ... but given vaccination rates for MMR at ~92% it would be fair to suspect that a significant portion of this 43% had at least 1 dose of MMR vaccine which would impact estimates of "efficacy" negatively. The "solution" to this problem is always more vaccination ... a solution drug companies like - and this positive feedback loop has lead to the development of an ever increasing array of vaccines - most of which will no doubt also need to be given in repeated "boosters" in order to maintain "efficacy" - now that's a business model, especially since there is zero liability for any risk and/or failure of said products.

Those who advocate forced vaccination seem to be downright Machiavellian in their pursuit of achieving the vaccination of one and all, so they may not care if the deceit was inadvertent or unintentional.

It's a pity more journalists are not following the example of Sharyl Attkisson and Lawrence Solomon, who have written about vaccines with far greater balance and attention to little details referred to as facts.

The truth has nothing to fear from the lie ... regardless of whether the lie is deliberate or accidental. And the truth does not fear fact checking or the challenging of assumptions - two things that send chills down the spines of advocates of forced vaccination.

Focus - on the truth not fearing the lie

Background: The last week has brought another micro-controversy regarding vaccination, this time (primarily) inside the sub-culture of evangelical Christianity, specifically the niche of those who follow the para-church organization, Focus on the Family (founded by Dr. James Dobson). Thriving Families is one of their publications. In the April/May 2015 edition of their Thriving Families one of their medical advisers answered a question about vaccination.  A blogger, Megan Heimer (http://www.livingwhole.org) published this response, "Dear Focus On the Family, You're On the Wrong Side of the Vaccine Controversy". It has gone viral and has been shared >10,000 times. According to Ms. Heimer, Focus on the Family (FOTF) has been deleting references to her post that have been shared or posted on FOTF's Facebook page - and that is the topic of today's post.

This post was written Sunday April 19, 2015 at 1830 (6:30pm EST) and I was able to find several links (at least 6 as of when this post was written) to Ms. Heimer's blog post - all posted by the same person (Charissa Kelly), each post with ~3-5 "likes", all posted on April 17 at 1435 (2:35pm), so the links have been up for at least 2 days - and all posted under a topic posted by FOTF, and unrelated to vaccination or the Thriving Families column to which Ms. Heimer initially responded. At least one of them was on a FOTF post that pre-dated Ms. Heimer's blog post! For the record - I did not contact either Ms. Heimer or FOTF prior to writing this blog post. I did post a comment in her private group (of which I am a member) in MeWe.com in response to her post reporting her allegations about FOTF's response to her blog post.

I'm entirely willing to give Ms. Heimer the benefit of the doubt in regards to her allegations about FOTF's response to her post (that they deleted references/links/posts to her blog about their column) - and it may be they have not yet scrubbed the links I found as I did some basic research/fact checking to write this post. Or perhaps they (FOTF) have received feedback about this tactic and have decided to abandon it. It's also inappropriate to post a link unrelated to the primary topic - though people might not feel the need to do that if posts were not being deleted.

While FOTF has every right to control the content of their page it is disingenuous to delete comments in response to something they published! I could find no guidelines on their Facebook page regarding any comment policy. Ms. Heimer's post was not disrespectful, nor inflammatory - she was clear and specific in how and why she disagreed with Dr. Hinthorn's column, and she provided links for supportive documentation/back-up for what she wrote.

Jesus did not shy away from any controversy and He does not fear our questions, instead He welcomes them. The truth has nothing to fear from the lie, and resorting to this sort of tactic (if true) reveals an insecurity about their position. He designed us to live in freedom and He respects our decisions even when they cause us pain and grieve Him - even if/when our decisions are sinful.

Christians are increasingly being scrubbed from public discourse (the marketplace of ideas) because positions conforming to a biblical worldview are contrary to the politically correct ideology that is increasingly dominant. It isn't surprising that non-Christians do not want their ideas challenged. It is surprising, and disappointing that a Christian organization is alleged to have resorted to suppression of an opinion challenging their own.

The Islamification of vaccination ...

Taqqiya is the Islamic practice of lying, deceiving, or manipulating in order to advance Islam. Since The Truth has nothing to fear from the lie why do those who advocate vaccination feel the need to lie in order to get people to take vaccines?

A former nursing student has now filed a lawsuit against Baker college in Michigan alleging several of their faculty were teaching nursing students that it was acceptable practice to use similar techniques with parents and/or patients in order to obtain the desired result - acceptance of vaccination. She maintains that she was dismissed from the program because she questioned the ethics of this.

The school has not yet officially responded and it seems Ms. Rolfe has strong opinions about many topics. But if what she reports about the nursing program is accurate it is the faculty who need "re-education" about medical ethics, informed consent, nursing's code of ethics and the Nuremberg Code for starters. If what she is stating is accurate the accreditation of the school needs to be reviewed very carefully.

The use of force, deceit, coercion, and manipulation in medicine is not new ... consider the on-going use of forced abortion in China, the (not to distant) history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, the infamous Tuskegee experiments - among others ... all of course, for the greater good!

Given this history if people can be forced, coerced, and/or manipulated into vaccination, what else might people be required to do or receive, or participate in? The lack of freedom to chose to take, or not take a vaccination leads to health dhimmitude.

The proponents of vaccination would make both Muhammed and Machiavelli proud.

The cracks in trust continue to grow ...

Healthcare providers and patients have placed great trust in researchers (both private and public) to provide data (information) and solutions to health problems based upon good data. Once trust is broken it is not easily regained. 

Over the last decade there have been seminal articles sounding the alarm that the trust we have placed in those providing us with information and products we use to either protect or repair our health may have some growing cracks. 

In 2005 John Ioannidis published an essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in which he reviews problems with published research that lead to a foundation for skepticism toward much of the results and what to do about it.

In 2009, this quote from Marcia Angell, MD, writing in the NY Times Review of Books, "Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption" caught the attention of many: 

"The problems I’ve discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine."

Even with just a cursory read of Dr. Angell's writing one would recognize she has no love for free-market medicine or market-based solutions in healthcare, and here she and I would disagree, as I think this would provide the best solutions for many problems in healthcare.  The brilliance of the free market is that it reflects the collective expression of individual economic choices, and good ideas, good products do well because people demand more of them - the "mandate" grows from a groundswell of consumers requesting more of, and being willing to pay for a product rather than it being forced upon them in an authoritarian fashion. 

In 2010 a qui tam lawsuit was filed against Merck by 2 of their scientists alleging Merck provided fraudulent proof of efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine. A ruling was issued in Sept 2014 allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

In August of 2014, Dr. William Thompson (of the CDC) came forward alleging a major 2004 study reporting no association between vaccines and autism was gerry-rigged to achieve desired results. He is reported to have been granted formal "whistleblower" status, and this story continues to develop.

And today, in 2015, Charles Seife published two articles (concurrently, in lay and professional press) alleging tolerance of fraud at the FDA. 

Not all research is corrupt, but it is prudent to be discerning, and no one should be vilified for asking reasonable questions. Science is seldom settled, and has a long history of reversing itself, whether the domain is medicine or physics or any other aspect science. 

Because science is not settled, and because of disclosures reviewed above, it is reasonable for people to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio with which they are comfortable in regards to vaccines (or any other medical intervention). We don't have all the data regarding vaccine safety, nor efficacy - much of this remains undisclosed, guarded by the companies that make a product that is mandated by the same government that has provided a virtually impenetrable liability shield, whose use is determined by professionals who may have undisclosed personal financial conflicts of interest with these same manufacturers! 

It isn't transparent to stategize management of the crisis of a cluster of infant deaths following vaccination by ensuring no large batches of any one lot of a vaccine go to a particular geographic area (Wyeth 1979) and here for Wyeth's internal memo. 

It is impossible to eliminate all risk of disease, even if there were 100% compliance with all vaccines - and we may well be trading temporary illness for long-term chronic ill health. There are many who would love to have studies looking at that very riddle, and what role, if any, vaccination may play in it. 

None of us is unbiased, and neither is science as it is conducted by humans, who quite clearly, find it difficult to set aside their personal views in pursuing new knowledge. All of us live with the consequences of each others choices ... whether that is smoking, what we eat or whether we exercise, with whom we have sex and how we have sex ... and of course, whether we do or do not choose to be vaccinated (or have our children vaccinated if we are parents). It is wrong to demand people use a product whose safety and efficacy are unknown, in particular when there is so much apparent conflict of interest embedded in the very system making recommendations for said product ... when those who receive the product bear all risk with essentially no recourse when they are injured by the product they were required to use even against their will!