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.