Thursday, December 15, 2016

Research RN on vaccines

Please watch this compelling video of a nurse who has both personal and professional experience with vaccine reactions. She has a child who is vaccine-injured and she worked as a nurse in clinical trials for vaccines. 4 1/2 min long. 


Here is a link to the video: 

The video starts with her telling the story of her own children's response to vaccination (her first child) and non-vaccination (second child). She did not follow the CDC recommended schedule with her vaccinated child but this child still developed neurological issues. 

At 1:27 she reveals she had access to insider information because of her job (and what she did because of this). 

At 1:57 she states that the study design was to compare the study vaccine to another vaccine (in other words this was pseudo-science, or "fake" science as there was no true, real placebo as a comparison).  

At 2:07 she states that a baby died while in this study. 

At 2:18 she shows that she is a true clinician and genuine researcher - she asked the right and reasonable question (could this baby's death be related to vaccines). She correctly raises this question with other physicians involved in the study who denied any possible link. (they were pseudo-scientists). Of course - the design of the study would never reveal this kind of information but in post-normal science the means (dead babies) justify the ends ("vaccines are safe and effective"). 

At 2:25 she links a variety of illnesses to vaccines. This is, of course, speculation on her part - but I would describe this as informed speculation, given her experience. Informed anecdotal reports are generated by repeated exposure. This is a rich trove of material for research questions that in regards to vaccines are simply left begging. Unless, or until some brave souls develop the stones and spine of Galileo, or Semmelweis we will never have the answers to such questions, regardless of how much we deserve to have them. 

At 2:31 she states it is "the physician's call" as to whether events or symptoms reported subsequent to vaccination are related to vaccination. This is not science - it is voo doo. In science no one person guesses if something is related - hypothesis are tested (X does not happen subsequent to vaccination with Y) and data are collected, then analyzed - and the comparison group receives a true placebo (an inert substance that is not biologically active). What she describes is bias. 

At 2:59 she relates that she reached a point (after further independent reading and research) of telling parents to not vaccinate their children rather than recruit them into her study. This was not good for her employment!

At 3:20 she states she left vaccine research and got a job involved in clinical research in another area - and learned it was just as corrupt. She signed non-disclosure agreements (understandable because she was dealing with proprietary information and private companies, regardless of how full of conflict of interest their relationship with the CDC and/or other institutions might be). 

At 3:40 she goes into greater detail in comparing her partially vaccinated child with her unvaccinated child. She ends with "I will never vaccinate my child again." 

I hope this brave woman gets whistleblower status. Perhaps then she could reveal more. 

Even though what she said was fairly general and non-specific it was incredibly condemning of vaccine research and medical research in general - what she said does not exactly inspire confidence in research. I wish I could say I was surprised.  

We deserve better and we are capable of more. 


Monday, November 14, 2016

Be a Berean/Who "owns" truth?

In my previous post I discussed the phenomenom of academic arrogance and their insistence that they alone have rights to determine what is or is not truth. In this post I am going to dig a bit deeper and be more specific in my analogy by comparing the reaction of the Apostle Paul and modern day "experts" to having their knowledge examined.   

Ultimately all knowledge, and all truth comes from God - The Father, The Son/Jesus, and The Holy Spirit. Truth is far more than mere facts - and this is one reason why we must look to Him, and His word, the Bible. Truth begins and ends with The Lord. 

The Bereans were a group of Jews who lived in the region of Macedonia during the first century. Luke records in Acts 17:11 that they were commended for examining the scriptures to verify if what the Apostle Paul said was accurate. The Apostle Paul had an academic pedigree to be proud of - he was a Pharisee (see Acts 22:3) yet after he met Jesus he considered his credentials (his racial heritage as a Jew, his Roman citizenship, his academic learning, etc) as dung, scat! In spite of his great learning he was not in the least threatened by a group of ordinary people verifying his claims. 

And yet we now have both individuals and groups who claim to be exclusive holders of knowledge (truth) who cannot abide anyone who does not share their academic credentials daring to verify their truth claims. This is a secular form of gnosticism. They claim to have special, secret knowledge - and only those who have been initiated into this club, or group, can claim to have truth or disseminate it. If you do not have the "right" letters after your name you are not considered as having the "special knowledge". If you stray off the reservation (Jesus and Paul, among many others did this big time) after having obtained the "appropriate" knowledge you will be "made to care" as the cult-like groupthink of gnosticism is carefully policed. Dissent of any kind is not tolerated. You are not free to test these ideas or have your own thoughts. 

I think one of the reasons the Apostle Paul was so unthreatened by anyone verifying what he taught is because he was so secure in the fact that it was true. Even if they reached different conclusions it was not going to change what he thought. He welcomed the challenge. His attitude also mirrored that of The Lord's - He designed this world for discovery. He welcomes questions - all questions! Quite the contrast compared to the earthly keepers of knowledge who will not tolerate questions of their views! I think The Lord never says "I told you so" when we discover some new aspect or element of truth - He rejoices when we "get it"! 

What is noticably absent is any rancor in Paul's response - he did not demean them in any way (the exact opposite, actually) - there was no name calling, no belittling of any kind. In other words he did not troll them! This just isn't the case in anyone who challenges the vaccine orthodoxy! Patients are kicked out of pediatric practices, healthcare workers are fired, families are separated. Those who question vaccines are called horrible names and awful assumptions are made about their motivations ("WHAT! You want your baby, or mine, to DIE?!") - and these accusations are cast when there is an abundance of reports of disease outbreaks among populations that are vaccinated according to the "schedule". 

Gnostic cults have their own holy writ - or they use God's word out of context. They are experts at proof-texting. The manipulation of science is a secular version of this. Post-normal science is the eisogesis of today. They come to the study with the outcome pre-determined ("vaccines are safe and effective") and obtain that outcome by any means necessary. In proper exegesis of a text (ie: scientific data) knowledge is drawn from it and conclusions are determined from what the data says, not what the researcher wants it to say. In the case of the #CDCwhistleblower this would mean the team would not break study protocol because the results did not provide the expected conclusion, and the team would not have destroyed evidence (data) that the conclusion was not what was expected (MMR is safe), etc. 

Please be a "Berean" - be of "more noble character". Research vaccines. Draw your own conclusions based on what you learn by examining both published science and other peoples experiences with vaccines. Read the drug inserts. Learn the various components of vaccines, the ingredients, and what they do, why are they there, and what is the safety profile of each of these ingredients. 

And do not limit this to vaccines - apply this to other domains and areas of your life as well. 

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Speak truth ... and you will be made to care!

Speaking the truth, regardless of the issue or domain, will get you in trouble. 

The ultimate example of this is Jesus - The One Who is The Way, The Life, The Truth (John 14:6). He spoke truth to everyone who crossed His path and He was crucified because of it. But death could not hold Him (Acts 2:24), and He rose physically, bodily from the grave three days later (Mark 16:9) and He rules and reigns from heaven even now. He did warn His followers that they would be hated on His account (Matthew 24:9) - and this has been true since He uttered those words and will be true until He returns to reign (from Jerusalem) on this earth. 

One of the lovely things about Truth is that He comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. 

Science should be about the pursuit of knowledge - truth, yet because we are sick with sin (the above paragraph describes the only solution to sin) science is frequently hijacked for other agendas, and those who call this out are, well, "made to care". 

This is very true in vaccines - if you are a parent and you do not want your child vaccinated or you want to deviate in any way from the current schedule of vaccines as recommended by the CDC you just may find it difficult to get any kind of pediatric care. If you work in healthcare you will be required to get a flu shot yearly in order to work or perhaps to get a

The CDC posits itself as the primary repository of knowledge (ie: truth) regarding vaccines, and you dare not oppose them with a differing opinion. This is so well ingrained in medical personnel that the vast majority accept any adverse event following vaccination as "just a co-incidence" (silly mommy, what could you possibly know - you aren't a doctor!) 

The Truth has nothing to fear from the lie. So why would the CDC feel the need to resort to such unscientific tactics as breaking study protocol, or destroying data (Google "#CDCwhistleblower")? If vaccines are safe and effective there should be no need for a law providing anyone associated with them complete legal immunity from any adverse effects. If vaccines were safe and effective there would be no need for mandates as people would be demanding them, not trying to get exemptions! 

At the heart of the issue is who owns truth, who owns knowledge. Academic arrogance serves several functions: it is a mantle wrapped around themselves to function as an armour against accountability toward fellow humans. It is a defense against consideration of any theory that might upset a paradigm that enriches them and with which they are very comfortable. 

It is not just in vaccines that an anointed few determine what is or is not correct. Apparently in Australia the medical "authorities" have gone after one of their own who had the temerity to stray from accepted dogma about diet. The following was cut and pasted from Dr. Malcome Kendrick's blog, (by all means, please follow him) shared with permission of the author (Dr. Gary Fettke) as noted at the end of his letter: 

Hi everyone,
It is with frustration that I write to inform you that I have been ‘silenced’, forever, by the Australian Medical Board, known as AHPRA.
We have a draconian system here in Australia where anonymous notifications can go in and they are investigated for public safety. The accused can only submit material but never have right of reply. It is a star chamber.
I recently got to present that ‘opinion’ of the process and the fabricated evidence at a Senate Inquiry. My evidence on the failings of AHPRA was granted parliamentary privilege which allowed a tell all opportunity. Within a few hours I received an email final determination of the 2 ½ year investigation. Coincidence or just another kick in the guts?
My verbal submission and the whole issue of bullying and harassment in the hospital system is linked from
My first notification in 2014 was from an anonymous dietitian for me advocating cutting back sugar intake to what is now the WHO recommendations. Behind closed doors, with no right of reply or appeal, the goal posts shifted and I was investigated for the whole LCHF concept, for being disrespectful to health professionals (the Dietitians Association of Australia and the Heart Foundation, but never an individual) on social media and for failing to disclose a conflict of interest (COI) in our Nutrition for Life Centre, whilst on social media.
The good news is that AHPRA have decided NOT to argue the LCHF concept. I submitted enough material for a thesis and they have accepted that LCHF may be that the benefits of the LCHF lifestyle become the accepted best medical practice.
The central issue for my silencing has been that my primary medical degree and my further qualifications as an Orthopaedic Surgeon are not satisfactory to give nutritional advice. “The fundamental fact ‘is’ that you are not suitably trained or educated as a medical practitioner to be providing advice or recommendations on this topic as a medical practitioner.”
If it wasn’t so serious it would be farcical. This decision is non-appealable under National Law. The determination is life long and by its wording, does not allow me to even do research in the area or gain further qualification because that would involve me communicating in the area of nutrition. The only thing I have not clarified is if it affects international boundaries.
We have put up the post this morning re the AHPRA decision and the launch of our community fund to keep the LCHF message going
The web page is
and the Facebook one is off Belinda Fettke No Fructose
The other parts of the AHPRA decision I can live with.
I will not force anyone to eat LCHF, not that I ever did or ever could.
I will show respect to the medical profession (doesn’t stop me from thinking otherwise).
The COI allegation is unproven as I do declare my vested interest for all patients that I send to Nutrition for Life. I admit guilt for not doing that in social media but the doctor/patient relationship is not defined in that context. I pointed out to AHPRA that they shouldn’t be applying jurisdiction in an area that is undefined. That went down like a lead balloon.
I also pointed out that AHPRA don’t govern nutritional advice in Australia. Another lead balloon.
I had a recent notification, again from an anonymous dietitian, and have been investigated for ‘inappropriate’ reversal of someone’s Type 2 Diabetes and was also reported for what I was ‘about to say’ at a hospital food national conference. AHPRA actually asked me for a copy of my speech BEFORE I gave the talk. I refused as it was an infringement of the right of free speech.
AHPRA have just this week decided to close that investigation but have warned me that they will be observing me to see if a ‘pattern of behaviour’ continues, presumably in relation to reversing more patients’ diabetes.
I hear rumours that I have ‘attacked’ health professionals at a personal level – that is simply unfounded and I think started by some naysayers. Alas, I am having some sh!t thrown at me at times. If you hear something, then let me know please.
If this sounds like a horror story, it is. I honestly thought that this would just fade away but strange things do happen when you upset the ‘industry’. Just see what’s happening with Tim Noakes. The only thing in Tim’s favour is that it has gone to court. Mine is a closed process with no right of appeal, unless I can continue to have politicians assist.
My next step is to challenge the process via more closed groups and that will be years of tying me up. I am going the public awareness path as the finding lacks the common-sense conclusion. We are liaising with some media channels and politicians. It’s all we can do.
Any support would be appreciated. Happy to liaise. Feel free to forward this email as it is.
Gary Fettke
Orthopaedic Surgeon
M.B.,B.S.(University NSW), F.R.A.C.S.(Orthopaedic Surgery), F.A.Orth.A.
Science evolves by being challenged. Not by being followed. @thegaryscience
If you think this is all completely ridiculous, then please circulate widely, and make as much noise as possible.
So Dr. Fettke is smart enough to obtain an advanced medical degree and specialized surgical skills, but is not intelligent enough to learn information about nutrition?! This is certainly not to diss Dieticians or Nutritionists - but one begins to wonder how any of us manage to wipe our own noses (or arses) without help from an "expert"?! 

As always, read the comments - lots of smart people out there, one of whom included these very relevant quotes in his remarks: 

"In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone." 

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." 

Part of what is so exceedingly ironic about these types of situations is that so many of those who are part of the aparatchnik of orthodoxy also lay claim to the concept of "academic freedom" (Ha!). The hallowed halls of academia are notorious for being socially liberal - one of the dogmas of "progressivism" is "tolerance" (oh, if only!). The hypocrisy of progressives is absolutely breathtaking, as these are the ones who accuse others (Christians specifically, social conservatives more generally) of the crime of holding exclusive claims to the truth -- and yet this is precisely what they have done! (WHAT! You don't agree with me - well, you are wrong ... and you are fired, you are going to jail, your business will be closed - all methods of "being made to care" by those who proudly wear the badge of "tolerance"!) Frequently enough they will also claim that truth is personal - that each person can have "their" own truth - a statement that is logically absurd. 

Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), and he knows his time is short (Rev 12:12), so I am sure we can expect attacks against truth tellers to continue until the end. 

2 Corinthians 3:17 

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Abortion and Vaccines, #8 - Selling our bodies for profit

I really have no intention of making this a blog about nothing but abortion and vaccines, regardless of the trend with recent posts! As the masthead says, the primary purpose is to promote discussion about freedom in decision-making around vaccination. 

But there is yet another similarity between abortion and vaccines: both procedures center around the selling of bodies and lives - as well as their destruction, though of the two abortion is far more effective and efficient. 

In the summer of 2015 David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress released a series of videos documenting Planned Parenthood's practice of selling body parts from aborted children as an adjunctive profit center. 

At least they (theoretically) obtained the consent of the mother's of these children - I doubt they offered them a discount, though!  

In much the same way, our bodies (both our children, and increasingly, adults) are likewise for sale - to the makers of vaccines, as well as to those who advocate for vaccination. The presence of conflicts of interest among those who legislate for vaccine mandates (CA State Senator Dr. Richard Pan, for example) is not hard to find. Click here for an article that discusses his "support" from pharmaceutical companies as well as several other examples of conflict of interest. 

Merck, the maker of Gardasil, was initially very heavily involved in fomenting states to mandate use of Gardasil - a strategy that may have backfired. To be sure, they "lobbied" the end-users with TV commercials as well. But that is just icing on the cake, since those targeted for vaccination increasingly do not have any choice in the matter. 

Physicians make money from vaccinations - both from visits to provide them as well as from bonuses they may be eligible for if a high percentage of their patients are vaccinated. 
Money talks, bonuses work

Flu vaccines are mandated for healthcare workers in hospitals. The hospitals can be docked Medicare payments for failing to report the percentage of staff who have been vaccinated against influenza. 

Whether dead or alive, we are being sold. Either our bodies are the product being pedaled to research companies (fetal tissue) or we are being offered to vaccine makers as a recipient of their product regardless of whether we want it or not - and money is greasing the pockets of others for this priviledge of making a profit off of us. 

Given legitimate questions surrounding vaccine safety and efficacy (detailed on this and many other blogs) - it is reasonable to expect a high degree of freedom regarding the use of vaccination. Even if they were 100% effective and 100% safe there should be a high degree of freedom as human beings are designed to live in freedom, and competent adults are not wards of the state.  

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Back-Alley Vaccines (Vaccines and Abortion, Part 7)

One of the justifications for keeping abortion legal is that doing so makes it safe(r) - at least for women (as the purpose of abortion is to end the unborn baby's life). After all, if abortion were not legal women would resort to coat-hangers in desperate attempts to rid themselves of their unborn children. 

While some women did do this sort of thing prior to the "legalization" of abortion through judicial diktat we can only speculate about how many actually did - or about how many would do such a thing if abortion were ever again made illegal. We do not know how many women were hurt from "back alley butchers" prior to the legalization of abortion - and, in fact, those who advocated for the legalization fo abortion made up numbers (they lied) in order to persuade law-makers and others about the "need" for legalization. 

Even though abortion was illegal, doctors committed abortion - they were just quiet about it. 
Any competent OB/GYN can do a 1rst trimester abortion - this is just a D&C on a baby that is still alive and would remain so if he/she was left undisturbed. These abortions took place in doctors offices and hospitals - places that were clean and where the care was competant - in other words, not the "back-alley". 

Fast forward to today, where Gosnell is not an anomalie. Those who love abortion do not want any accountability - a situation where Gosnells flourish. The only way anyone would know about this sort of thing is because someone looks. One would think that with all their concern for "women's health" the pro-aborts would be all over every abortionist to hold them to high standards - alas this is not the case. It is the pro-lifers who are alerting us to problems as they stand outside of clinics and watch the ambulances come to scoop up the dead, dying, or damaged women. And since there are not pro-lifers outside of every clinic it would be safe to say the count is under-reported (kind of like vaccine adverse reactions). 

There is no compulsion to report abortion complications, and what abortionist would admit their procedure hurt someone (well, other than the baby)? Why, that would be bad for business! 

Yet we really do not know that legal abortion is safer than the "illegal" abortions that were happening prior to Roe v Wade. 

While there is, in theory, a "compulsion" to report vaccine adverse events or injuries, the reality is that reporting such things is voluntary, and widely believed to be very under-reported (like complications of abortions). 

While you would expect those who are pro-vaccine to be all about making vaccines safer, the fact of the matter is that there is virtually no incentive to do so since the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which created total immunity against any adverse effects from vaccines for anyone associated with them - companies, healthcare providers, etc. So they are about as pro-vaccine safety as abortionists are pro-women's (and unborn persons) health. Since there is no accountability for either group there is no incentive for safety. 

Women (and our unborn babies) deserve better than abortion. 

All of us deserve better than vaccine mandates. 

I have written a variety of blog posts regarding vaccines and abortion - here are the links to previous posts (they are not sequential): 

Part 1 - The irony of "choice" 

Part 2 - DNA from aborted babies

Part 3 - Vaccines as abortifacients 

Part 4 - "My body, my choice"? 

Part 5 - Coercion/manipulation, abortion/vaccines
Part 6 - Secret recordings, abortion/vaccines 

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Live Blog: #cdcTRUTH2016 Summit/Dr. Brian Hooker

Dr. Hooker is the father of a vaccine injured son and captured Dr. Thompson's confession of fraud in the 2004 study that presumably refutes the "vaccines cause autism" issue. 
Like many, he was totally pro-vaccine, and like many, he has changed his views. 

NAS/IOM - client based scientists for hire. They do post-normal science where outcome is pre-determined. 

Over 100 papers linking vaccines and autism. 

He links vaccination and eugenics. 

He acknowledges he was not necessarily gracious in his initial dealings with Dr Thompson 
(2002?) who was assigned to handle him. (Remember, this is a daddy looking for answers for his hurt child). 

CDC - culture of fear and intimidation per Dr unnamed scientist was put on two year suspension, demoted etc for not towing the party line. 

Good news: recognition that vaccine injury is far more than autism is growing. 

Dr. Bill Thompson needs to man up! He does not need a subpoena!!

Live Blog: #cdcTRUTH2016 Summit/Meryl Dorey

Ms. Dorey's talk is titled - Medical Tyranny: Vaccination Policy in Australia. It is a preview of what is coming in the USA. 

She was relieved to come here to discuss this as freedom of speech is not guaranteed by the Australian constitution. 

There is a vaccine registry. This will be used to track and punish anyone who does not comply with vaccination policy (cradle to grave). Vaccination may be linked to employment as well as drivers license among other issues. 

The vaccine adverse reaction registry does exist but it is not easily accessible nor transparent. 

Look up journalist Natasha Bita and her coverage of flu vaccine scandal. 

She shared info showing a rise in pertussis AFTER there was a significant increase in vaccination for pertussis (no doubt all the fault of unvac'd even though they had achieved "herd immunity") 

Bio-Security Act of 2015 - the recent CDC rule is no different. 

I like how she ended her remarks - while govt officials try to scare us that an epidemic is only a plane ride away, support for human rights is only an email or phone call or website away! 

Live Blog: #cdcTRUTH2016/Forrest Mauraudy

Forest Mauraudy is now speaking - he is the man behind a series of fabulous You Tube vids - I encourage you to consider his "incredible opinion"!

I apologize for mis-spellings ... I will correct them later, I am doing this from my phone.

He rightly notes that we need a medical freedom and liberty amendment.

Go to:

Live Blog: #cdcTRUTH2016 Summit/Marcella Piper-Terry

The title of Marcella's talk is:
Pro Life? You can't be pro-vaccine.

But she is covering a wider-range of topics (no surprise)! Her points are always referenced and I expect she'll be tying it together shortly. 

She stated at the beginning of her presentation that she will make her slides available. I will post a link here as soon as I can (updated Oct 18, 2016 - see below). 

The legislator in this slide needs to be respectfully and loving educated.

Here is a You Tube vid of this presentation (updated Oct 18, 2016):

Live Blog: cdcTRUTH2016 Summit/Dr. Judy Mikovits

Dr. Judy Mikovits: 

Monday, October 10, 2016

Viva Italia!

In 2015 a group of Italian physicians sent an open letter to their Ministry of Health voicing the opinion that unvaccinated children are healthier and asking for further study and discussion. They asked for a study comparing the health of vaccinated children with unvaccinated children, stating they believed the result would demonstrate that unvaccinated children are healthier in several domains. They asked for open discussion and review of studies and facts unhindered by conflict of interest. Here is a link to the letter in English via Google Translate. 

At this time I do not know if anything came of this. But it is encouraging to know there are other medical professionals over the entire world who are willing to acknowledge that the paradigm of vaccination may not be all sunshine and roses - and that it needs to be put to a rigorous test. 

The "studies" we have now are absolutes shams. They utilize no-cebos (frequently enough another vaccine) rather than placebos (biologically inert substances). There has never been a study designed to suss out if it is safe to use the current vaccine schedule. Such a study would compare children vaccinated according to the schedule with children who do not receive any vaccines and would compare both short and long-term outcomes, minor and major sequelae, including death. To say that vaccines are safe and effective when the studies used to support this statement are fatally flawed in their design is nothing more than a lie - and the individuals conducting these studies and making this statement either know this or the ought to (by virtue of their education, training, and experience - specficially the CDC, but many others as well).  

We deserve better - and our health officials are capable of so much more. It is criminal that they have been allowed to get away with this. If the allegations of the #CDCWhistleblower are proven true what has been allowed to happen is magnitudes worse than the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiement. 

Please do your own investigation and research into vaccines - go to my "Vaccine Links" page as a place to start. Go to YouTube and watch every Suzanne Humphries video. Read her book, "Dissolving Illusions" (as of the date this entry was posted my affiliate link is not working). If you do decide to use vaccines, do so with as much information as possible. The "Vaccine Information Sheet" is not sufficient for informed consent. You can always vaccinate, but once a vaccine is given it can never be "ungiven" or removed.  

Saturday, October 08, 2016

Video, with commentary

This 3 minute vid splices together a few clips detailing some important issues

in vaccines: 




The first 25 seconds sketches out a conspiracy theory regarding 

corporate control - I am not going to comment on this as I have done

very little research about it, though I think it detracts from this video as

it is not clearly linked to the remaining content. 

00:25sec - 00:35sec: Brief review of the basic theory of vaccination. 

In a perfect world it would be this simple. In reality, it is not. The next

clip gives a glimpse of why. 

00:36sec - 01:21min: Dr Suzanne Humphries discusses a study that looked 

at what genes were affected (specifically upregulated) as a result

of DTaP vaccination. There is a 10 second clip that is part of this that is 

really quite important ... she states the obvious question (and critical)

question: We don't know WHY these genes are affected by vaccination, 

because it hasn't been studied. But we are still informed, no matter how 

little we may know about the effects of vaccination, that it is "safe and

effective". Sure. 

Here's a link to the study (PMID: 18336961) 

01:26 - 01:36: Sounds like an (unattributed) news report about deafness and

brain damage (might also be known as encephalitis which is code for autism

but perhaps calling it brain damage is not as scary?!) as a possible sequelae 

to the MMR vaccine. But of course, "it's so rare it's hard to tell if it is caused 

by the vaccine or something else" - whew, that's a relief! Huh? Seems like 

the smart people at the CDC could do a study that might tease that out?! 

Or perhaps the company that makes the vaccine - after all, they keep crowing

about how they want to make them as safe as possible! But when you have

no liability for the product there is not much incentive to do so. How convenient. 

 01:37 - 02:14: Rep Bill Posey (R-FL 8th District) speaking on the house floor about

the #CDCWhistleblower, Dr. Bill Thompson. He is reading Thompson's description

of an incident where CDC vaccine researchers gathered to dispose of data that

gave results they did not want. They were conducting post-normal science where

the outcome was pre-determined. They didn't bother "torturing the data until it

gave the desired result", they just eliminated it. Boom! Problem solved! The study

in question is a 2004 study that was to put to rest concerns about any link between

autism (oops, encephalitis, or brain damage) and vaccines, specifically the MMR

vaccine. Well, mission accomplished! 

02:17 - 03:13 (end) You hear audio of Dr. Bill Thompson confessing his involvement 

in the above referenced study to Dr. Brian Hooker (on a phone call that was taped 

without Dr. Thompson's knowledge). The audio is overlayed with heartrending 

footage of children seizing, or banging their heads or screaming in pain. Oddly

enough, none of them are black - this is important, because when the data was 

re-analyzed (um, not by CDC "researchers" but by Dr. Brian Hooker) it revealed 

that black boys were at significantly higher risk of autism when given the MMR

vaccine before 36 months. It isn't that other people groups were not at risk, just

that compared to one another it was apparent black males had an elevated risk. 

Do your own research - for your own health and/or the health of your minor children.

Do not vaccinate unless or until you are satisfied you have the information to make 

a decision. You can always vaccinate. You can never un-vaccinate. 

Monday, October 03, 2016

Evolutionists and Vaccines

In my estimation anyone who believes in evolution should be extremely laissez faire in regards to vaccination. Either way, it's all good! Let me explain: 

The theory of evolution posits that life arose spontaneously from the primordial soup after the "big bang" happened (conveniently giving no explanation for how the "Big Bang" occurred or from where the substances that blew might have come. But I digress - that's not the nit I pick on this blog). 

Part of the theory of evolution is that beneficial or advantageous genetic or physical mutations lead to improvements in survival allowing the fittest to evolve to higher forms and/or species. 

There's nothing about mandatory vaccines that should fit with an evolutionary world view. 
If you require vaccines to survive or "evolve" just how fit are you? Vaccines are a deliberate intervention but evolution is spontaneous - it just happens. The chemicals in the primordial soup did not "think" to assemble into proteins - it just happened! Besides, proteins can't think. 

If you believe in evolution you should be just fine with people not taking vaccines because those who are "less fit" will be wiped out by the scourge of disease leaving only the fittest to survive and carry on the species and involuntary process of evolution. 

If vaccines cause people problems it's all good because this too weeds out those who are not "fit" and don't deserve to live, let alone breed. So if vaccines result in immediate death or contribute to chronic illness that results in an (earlier) death - so much the better. "Evolution" at work!  

A feature that seems to be common to those who believe in evolution is great personal pride in their genotype and phenotype - they love to thump their chests and extoll the goodness of their "stock". No wonder they believe in the theory of herd immunity as well. 

For the record, I do not believe in evolution. I believe in a literal six-day (as in 24 hours/day) creation as described in the first three chapters of the word of God, the Bible. It is this same God who designed us to live in freedom - so much so that He allowed Adam and Eve to sin. But even this was not plan "B" - it did not catch Him by surprise.  The solution to our sin is the blood Jesus shed on the cross - and that is also foreshadowed in the same chapters that detail The Creator speaking this world into existence

It is because of sin that we have illness, disease, and death. The Creator also provided us with an immune system to protect our bodies and lives. Since our bodies were also affected by sin we die - sometimes our immune systems are overwhelmed and not able to overcome the disease. 

Our Creator also gave us brains to create vaccines. While they likely do provide some amount of risk reduction they are not risk free. 

Some would rather rely only upon the immune system The Lord provided, others want to use vaccines - either using all of them or vaccinating selectively. Disease can and does spread regardless of the use of vaccination (recent outbreaks of mumps and pertussis in highly vaccinated populations make this abundantly clear).  

Some would rather risk getting sick (generally once, generally temporarily, generally resulting in life-long immunity and possibly but seldom resulting in bad long-term consequences). Some would rather accept the risk of vaccination (a risk poorly delineated because it is poorly studied) in order to have the temporary risk reduction (a "benefit" that is just as poorly delineated because it is poorly studied) in getting sick. 

It seems to me there is room for both choices ... we are all in this together. Let's respect and tolerate one another even if we do not agree on the decisions we make. 

Sunday, October 02, 2016

When all else fails, give it to pregnant women ...

Fair warning: the following post is full of sarcasm. If this "triggers" you, it won't be a "safe space", so don't read any further. 

Respiratory Syncitial Virus (RSV) is a common infection. Like any infection it can be more serious, and more dangerous in the very young and very old. 

Novavax is attempting to develop a vaccine for RSV but apparently trials are showing it to be "safe" (come on, all vaccines are safe! Except when they are not) but not "effective". The crazy thing is they released actual data, though I can't imagine the release was full and complete - we can't have transparency ... and besides, if partial data and tortured data (#CDCWhistleblower) is good enough for the CDC, it should be good enough for everyone else, right?! 

Dr. Glenn (Novavax President of R&D) states: 
Gregory Glenn, M.D., said, “The rollover trial demonstrated immunogenicity in all active vaccine recipients. As shown in the table above, there was a 6-fold increase in anti-F IgG in the Placebo-Vaccine arm, consistent with the Phase 2 efficacy trial. There was higher anti-F IgG at baseline in the Vaccine-Vaccine arm compared to the Placebo-Vaccine arm. Further, the Vaccine-Vaccine arm showed a greater than 2-fold increase in anti-F IgG from the higher baseline. We observed similar low attack rates and absence of efficacy of a single immunization in this trial as was observed in Phase 3 Resolve trial, although we did observe that a second season immunization could provide efficacy. The event rate comparisons made to either placebo groups suggested that the second season immunization was protective, even in a year with a very low attack rate. Further understanding of these data may come forth with full evaluation of the immune responses.”
In vaccine-speak, a "suggestion" that a vaccine is "protective" is defined as "safe and effective" regardless of actual results. Those who love vaccines play fast and loose with their definitions of "safe" and "effective" in order to protect the paradigm at all costs. There is usually significant monetary motivation associated with this (but hey, we all know association is not the same as causation, right?!) I am sufficiently jaded to suspect that at some point they will shoe-horn this vaccine into being "safe and effective" regardless of actual performance. 

Please don't be fooled by the presence of the word "placebo" in the boxes showing some of the data. Unless they provide a definition of what "placebo" meant or was used in the actual study you should not assume it was an genuine placebo (defined as a biologically inert substance, like normal saline - well, even that, in large enough quantities, is not biologically inert but it is far more inert than vaccine excipients!)

As big as the market in pediatric vaccination may be the big kahuna is adult vaccines (Healthy People 2020, anyone?) - in general, and specifically, pregnant women. 

Apparently this vaccine is being tested in pregnant women - and there are no plans to stop these trials in spite of current evidence that it has not worked in adults! Why let facts and data stop anything, especially when it comes to vaccines! The end point will not be whether it is safe and effective - that is pre-determined. In today's reality of post-normal science the only thing that matters is motive - they want to "protect" "vulnerable" infants. 

Yet we have so many parental reports of children dying or being damaged following routine vaccination - and these were children who were assessed to be strong, healthy, and developing normally prior to vaccination. But because of the paradigm that vaccines are "safe and effective" no one believes them. Or they are (for all intents and purposes) told to "shut up and go away" - the paradigm must be protected at all costs, including the health and well-being of your or your child! You must take the risk of vaccinating so others may receive some perceived benefit of "herd immunity". Besides, this product is sooooo effective it does not work unless it is used >100% of the time (because all must be vaccinated multiple times). 

If there are any stillbirths or miscarriages among those who receive the RSV vaccine will these be explained away as being "no more than what would be expected anyway"? I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the grieving parents. 

But since vaccines are "safe and effective" the sky is the limit!! Why stop there? Of course, let's add the RSV vaccine! Why not start the whole pediatric schedule prior to birth?! And of course, continue it afterward! Our overlords successfully added a vaccine for a disease transmitted by sex and IV drug use for those who are at low risk - Hepatitis B is given at birth to all newborns even when their mother has tested negative for Hep B in pregnancy. There are now trials of HPV vaccine in infants as well. 

We are all vulnerable in a variety of ways, pregnant women all the more so. There is a very necessary movement to stop the manipulation of pregnant women. But will pregnant women, let alone any of us, be "allowed" to decline a vaccination? With laws like SB277 (in California) on the books, it seems unlikely. With employment policies requiring vaccination to keep your job it is even more unlikely. 

Tuesday, September 20, 2016


Bad consequences can come from spontaneous infection.
Good outcomes can happen after spontaneous infection.

Vaccines can provide temporary risk reduction without apparent adverse effect.
Vaccines can cause both short and long-term problems (minor and serious).

All of the above are true - and this is why there should be no mandates. People should be able to choose which risk they are willing to accept. And this would be infinitely easier if we had information we could trust. But alas, we do not. 

I used to believe "safe and effective" - now I am convinced there is far more to this than any of us have been told and I do not believe we have complete or accurate information about vaccines - for either their efficacy or their safety. 

We are entirely capable of doing the kind of research that would provide us with accurate information - but doing so would require breaking paradigms and setting aside agenda$. 

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Abortion and Vaccines, Part 6

Both pro-life and pro-health/medical freedom circles are quite concerned about a bill now before the California legislature (Assembly Bill 1671) as it is aimed at making undercover videos/recordings of healthcare providers illegal. 

Within the last two years undercover videos of Planned Parenthood physicians and audio recordings of confessions of post-normal science (tampering with study protocols in order to get the pre-determined desired result) conducted by the CDC have been released. 

Anyone concerned with truth should be worried about this. So many of our nation's elected officials promise transparency and fail to provide this. Part of what is so very bizarre about this is that our government spies on us quite regularly (Patriot Act/NSA, medical records, and educational records) among others). This legislation posits that it is acceptable for the government to collect data on us and about us while hampering out ability to uncover important information about what others are doing. 

The point of this post is not to advocate for recording individuals without their knowing about it. At best I am ambivalent about that. I would certainly want to know if I were being recorded. Yet I am also grateful for the actions of individuals who have recorded testimony about evil and/or illegal/immoral/unethical actions - Planned Parenthood physicians discussing the sale of body parts of babies they dismembered and of Dr. Thompson confessing breach of study protocol in order to obtain "results" that conformed to an agenda around vaccines rather than the truth about efficacy or safety. It is unlikely these things would have come to light any other way. 

The point of this post is why would government not want accurate, factual information to come to light when such information is uncovering activies that are illegal/immoral/unethical? Private individuals were doing what government is **supposed** to be doing!! 

For an organization that is proud of slaughtering unborn human beings why would they object to recording information about what they are actually doing? Keep in mind that they are subsidized with public funds to the tune of more than $1 million/day. All the more reason to know what exactly they are up to. 

If vaccines are safe and effective why is there not more transparency about how the studies are conducted? Look up Simpsonwood. Look up Poul Thorson (you know, the vaccine researcher who is on the FBI's Most Wanted List for fraud). 

If vaccines are safe and effective why do vaccine researchers refuse to do DB RCTs of vaccines comparing (long-term ... over years) the health of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated? I can no longer be fooled by that tired old canard "it wouldn't be ethical" - what is truely unethical is not doing these types of studies as the information people are using to make health and medical decisions is woefully incomplete and so their "consent" (scare quotes are necessary here since no consent is provided for a product that is mandatory) could not be called informed consent. 

Truth and transparency are the foundation upon which trust is built. Whatever foundation that existed for vaccines is eroding. And those who advocate for vaccines can only blame themselves. 

I used to believe what I was taught about vaccination. That was because I trusted those who were teaching me and believed the information was accurate, truthful. Now I know better and it grieves me. I do not want to be suspicious of the motives of those I should be able to trust - governing officials, medical professionals, and academic researchers.