Sunday, November 19, 2017

Letter to the editor of the Toronto Star

Most people in the Vaccine Risk Aware movement came in kicking and screaming - we were formerly "pro-vax" but then something occurred (for many it was observing adverse effects in themselves or a loved one subsequent to vaccination) which made us question the conventional wisdom of "safe and effective". So it was with Ted Kuntz who penned the letter below (it is re-printed with permission). 

Here is a link to the piece Mr. Kuntz was writing in response to (since I did not have explicit permission to re-print it I am providing a link). It is an editorial, and the writer (Maya Goldenberg) overall seems to grasp the skepticism of many about vaccines - though I think her conclusions are bland and mealy-mouthed. Mr. Kuntz response goes into further detail and he provides references supporting his statements. I think his greater passion is fueled by his experience as the parent of a vaccine-injured child.  I do not know if the Toronto Star has published his letter. I have made minor changes in the formatting to make it more readable on this blog, the content is unchanged. 

Letter: Toronto Star Influenza Vaccine 

Claims Not Supported by Evidence

Printable PDF of the letter below here.

November 13, 2017
Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
1 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON
M5E 1E6
To the Attention of:  Maya Goldenberg
Dear Ms. Goldenberg
I am writing in response to your article entitled – 
(Toronto Star, November 9, 2017).
You correctly recognize “lack of trust” as a core component of “vaccine resistance”.
Ironically, your article offers the kind of messaging that fuels this lack of trust.
You make numerous statements about the influenza vaccine, which today’s educated
health consumer knows to be false.
Disseminating false and distorted information undermines trust in both the
medical industry and in mainstream media. You appear to be either uninformed
or misinformed about the “lack of science” behind your stated claims, or are
unable to distinguish between scientific evidence and vaccine industry marketing
The Best Means of Protecting Against the Flu?
Ms. Goldenberg, you make the claim “immunization is our best means for 
diminishing the average 12,200 flu related hospitalizations and 3,500 flu 
deaths across Canada annually reported by Statistics Canada.” What
evidence do you have to support such a claim?
The fact is the influenza vaccine is recognized as the least effective vaccine product
on the market. The vaccine used in the 2012-2013 flu season was only 27% effective.
The 2014-2015 influenza vaccine was only 23% effective.  During the 2016 flu season
the CDC removed FluMist from the US market because it was found to be only 3% effective.
Canada continued to endorse its use in spite of its ineffectiveness.
The Cochrane Collaboration, the world’s foremost group of unbiased researchers,
physicians and scientists, performed a series of meta-analyses on the effectiveness
of the influenza vaccine. In 2014 they found that vaccinating adults against influenza
did not affect the number of people hospitalized nor decrease lost work. [1]
The Cochrane Collaboration’s examination of influenza vaccines in healthy adults, a body of literature spanning 25 studies and involving 59,566 people, found the annual influenza vaccine reduced overall clinical influenza by about six percent. It would reduce absenteeism by only 0.16 days (about four hours) for each influenza episode. According to Dr. Tom Jefferson at the Cochrane Collaboration, it makes little sense to keep vaccinating against seasonal influenza based on the evidence. [2]
A 2005 study carried out by scientists at the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) revealed that the influenza vaccine did nothing to prevent deaths from influenza among seniors. Instead the flu mortality rates increased as a greater percentage of seniors receiving the shot. [3] Despite a 50% increase in seniors’ acceptance of ‘flu shots’ between 1989 and 2000, flu season death rates of seniors increased during that period.
The influenza vaccine has never conclusively been shown to be effective at preventing the flu in anyone, including children 6-24 months of age. In older children, the results show that the vaccine fails nearly all who receive it. [4]
Annual Flu Deaths
The claimed number of annual deaths due to contracting influenza is also not supported by the evidence. Dr. Michael Gardam, director of the Infection Prevention and Control Unit at the University Health Network in Toronto declared that no one knows how many people die after being infected with the influenza virus. [12]
Influenza death estimates are not based on body counts, lab tests or autopsies. “I think people may have the misconception that every person who dies from the flu is somehow counted somewhere, and they’re not.” says Gardam. The “2,000 to 8,000” numbers are based on computer models — a statistical guess. The modeling assumes that every extra death that happens in the winter is a flu death.
According to Dr. Tom Jefferson, a researcher with Cochrane Collaboration –  “Influenza prevention has become an industry fueled by poor science and propelled by conflicted decision makers. This is the significance of the upward creep that you have been witnessing and the chasm that now exists between policy makers and evidence.” [12]
In an analysis of flu deaths by CBC news reporter Kelly Crowe, (Nov. 2012) the total number of official deaths from influenza in 2012 was exactly one. [12]
Safety of Influenza Vaccine
You make the claim that “The influenza vaccine is widely recognized by health professionals to be a safe and effective way of protecting ourselves and our communities”. This statement is not supported by the evidence. There is a substantial body of evidence that the influenza vaccine is not a safe product and does more harm than good.
The FluMist influenza vaccine contributed to more cases of influenza infection than it prevented.  This is the fundamental flaw with all live vaccines, and even killed attenuated ones, that have been shown to “shed” and infect people in contact with the vaccinated persons. The attenuated virus in the live influenza (LAIV) vaccine can shed and infect others for months after vaccination.  Both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated are at risk.  The CDC acknowledges this risk and warns:
“Persons who care for severely immunosuppressed persons who require a protective environment should not receive LAIV, or should avoid contact with such persons for 7 days after receipt, given the theoretical risk for transmission of the live attenuated vaccine virus.” [5]
Increased Risk of H1N1
Evidence is mounting that people who received a seasonal ‘flu shot’ in the previous year are at increased risk of contracting H1N1 pandemic influenza. This phenomenon was initially observed in Canadians in 2009. In 2012 an animal study and international reports corroborated this effect.
A study by Dr. Danuta Skowronski in Canada showed that individuals with a history of receiving consecutive seasonal influenza shots over several years had an increased risk of becoming infected with H1N1 swine flu. [13]
Dr. Geier, formerly of the National Institute of Health declares the influenza vaccine is basically an experimental vaccine every year and that there are no studies showing the safety of giving the influenza vaccine to the same person every single year. [15]
Leading Claim to US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
According to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) in the U.S.:
“As of July 2012, there have been more than 84,000 reports of reactions, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following influenza vaccinations made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), including over 1,000 related deaths and over 1,600 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Adult influenza vaccine injury claims are now the leading claim submitted to the U.S. Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
The Department of Justice regularly releases a report on settlements made for vaccine injuries and deaths. In recent years the influenza vaccine has been the vaccine most often requiring compensation due to injuries and death.
In its quarterly release in June 2016, 85 of the 116 cases, and 2 of the 3 deaths, settled by the “vaccine court” were associated with the influenza vaccine.  The most recent report which covers cases settled for vaccine injuries and deaths from 11/16/16 through 8/15/17 revealed that of the 332 cases receiving compensation 275 were for injuries due to the influenza vaccine. Of the 5 deaths compensated, 4 of them were related to the influenza vaccine. [15]
Adjudicated influenza vaccine injury settlements by the U.S. ‘vaccine court’ increased from $4.9 million in 2014 to $61 million in 2015, an increase of more than 1000%. [6]
The US Department of Justice numbers reporting of vaccine injury information reveals that the flu shot remains the most dangerous vaccine based on injuries and death compensated by the U.S. Government. According to the report, Guillain-Barre Syndrome is the most frequent complication from the flu vaccine. Other complications include fibromyalgia, transverse myelitis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and death.
As you are no doubt aware, Canada is the only G7 Nation without a vaccine injury compensation program and therefore there are no individuals compensated for vaccine injury in Canada. A morally unjust position for a government that actively promotes vaccination.
Toxic Ingredients
Depending on brand, ‘flu shot’ ingredients include:
  • Mercury (thimerosal) in multi-dose vials
  • Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen
  • Triton X-100 (aka octoxynol-10), a pesticide and sterility agent
  • Sodium deoxycholate, an immunotoxin
  • Polysorbate 80
  • Gelatin, known cause of anaphylaxis
  • MSG
  • Synthetic Vitamin E
  • Antibiotics
Multi-dose vials of the influenza vaccine in Canada continue to contain mercury in spite of media claims that mercury has been removed from vaccines. [7] A simple review of the product information inserts will confirm this. Mercury is a known neurotoxin and there is no safe limit established for injected mercury. [14]
Glaxo’s Pandermrix influenza vaccine was associated with a 1400% increase in narcolepsy risk. Pandermrix was pulled from the market and the British government has paid out over 63 million pounds to cover lawsuits to Pandermrix victims.
Increased Risk of Febrile Disorders
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported increased risks of febrile disorders greater than placebo associated with the live influenza vaccine. [8]
Known Effects of FluMist
According to the FDA’s literature on FluMist, the vaccine was not studied for immunocompromised individuals (yet was still administered to them), and has been associated with acute allergic reactions, asthma, Guillian-Barre, and a high rate of hospitalizations among children under 24 months – largely due to upper respiratory tract infections.  Other adverse effects include pericarditis, congenital and genetic disorders, mitochondrial encephalomyopathy or Leigh Syndrome, meningitis, and others. [9]
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated
To date there is only one gold standard clinical trial with the influenza vaccine that compares vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. This Hong Kong funded double-blind placebo controlled study following the health conditions of vaccinated and unvaccinated children between the ages of 6-15 years for 272 days. The trial concluded the influenza vaccine holds ‘no health benefits’.
In fact, those vaccinated with the influenza virus were observed to have a 550% higher risk of contracting non-influenza virus acute respiratory infections. Among the vaccinated children, there were 116 influenza cases compared to 88 among the unvaccinated; there were 487 other non-influenza virus infections, including rhinovirus, coxsackie, echovirus and others, among the vaccinated versus 88 with the unvaccinated.  This single study alone poses a scientifically sound rationale for avoiding the influenza vaccine. [10]
In a 2013 article by Peter Doshi, PhD of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the British Journal of Medicine, Doshi questions the influenza vaccine paradigm stating:
“Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.” [11]
The evidence is compelling that the influenza vaccine is neither as safe nor effective as we have been led to believe, and clearly not “the best means available to protect against the flu”.  Ms. Goldenberg, I suggest a better area of investigation would be  – Could the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on influenza vaccines in Canada be used in more effective ways to promote health?
Dr. Richard Schabas, the former chief medical officer of health for Ontario noted while many illnesses cause influenza-like-illnesses (ILI), actual influenza is quite rare. He said a normal person would contract influenza only once about every 30 years. Much of what is described or assumed to be influenza is not actually influenza.
Year in and year out, the majority of cases of ‘the flu’ are not caused by the influenza virus. There are dozens of pathogens that cause influenza-like-illnesses (ILI).  On average only between 10-15% of seasonal cases of the ‘the flu’ are attributable to the influenza virus. This has been corroborated by Canada’s ‘Fluwatch’ program that tracks influenza and influenza-like-illnesses and international research groups like the Cochrane Collaboration.
Dr. Schabas is of the opinion – “We immunized five million people (in Ontario) at a cost of about $100 million for no net benefit.”
Why The Reluctance?
You ask a very good question – “Why the reluctance to accept the scientific consensus on vaccines?”  I suggest the reason for the failure to accept the scientific consensus on the influenza vaccine is mainstream media and medical industry continue to disseminate deceptive and dishonest statements about the known safety and effectiveness of the influenza vaccine. Independent analysis of the influenza vaccine is that it is an ineffective and dangerous vaccine.
The reason I and other health consumers visit what you inaccurately describe as “vaccine skeptical websites” is because vaccine educated consumers have learned that mainstream media and government health sites are not reliable sources of information about vaccine safety, effectiveness, or necessity. It appears their mission is to promote vaccines, rather than tell the truth about vaccines.
You are correct in stating – “Vaccine skeptics do not reject science per se, but rather challenge the trustworthiness of science governance.” We have discovered that much of what purports to be science is not science. It is marketing propaganda masquerading as science.
Science, like other aspects of our society, has been corrupted by power and politics and is no longer in service to the truth. It is in service to those in positions of power and who have enough money to determine the outcome of science. Consider these two quotes from editors of science/medical journals:
“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 the New England Journal of Medicine.” ~ Dr. Marcia Angell
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn toward darkness.” ~ Richard Horton, Editor in Chief, Lancet
According to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Summer 2016) –
The safety of CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule was never affirmed in clinical studies. Health authorities have no scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants are likely to receive.
National vaccination campaigns must be supported by scientific evidence. No child should be subjected to a health policy that is not based on sound scientific principlesand, in fact, has been shown to be potentially dangerous.”
It is unethical to carry on this large-scale, hype-inducing public health program without scientific evidence that proves that vaccines are doing what they are intended to do and does it safely.
The Toronto Star has a history of producing news articles and opinions about vaccines that are poorly researched and often a simple regurgitation of vaccine industry propaganda.
While there is some valid and valuable information contained in your article, much of it is simply pharmaceutical industry promotional material disguised as investigative journalism. As such it does both the reader and The Toronto Star a disservice by disseminating inaccurate information that undermines the trust in the Toronto Star as an honest purveyor of health information.
Ms. Goldenberg, my expectation is you will review this information I have provided and make the appropriate corrections/retractions in a future posting. I have provided references for your consideration. I look forward to receiving a copy.

Ted Kuntz, Parent of a Vaccine Injured Child
John Boynton, Publisher
Star’s Bureau of Accuracy and Public Editor –
Maya Goldenberg
Vaccine Choice Canada
    1. Jefferson T et al.  Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Adults. Cochrane Database of Systemic Review, 2010. Issue 7. Art No. CD001269
    2. A Whole Industry Is Waiting For A Pandemic, Der Spiegel,,1518,637119-2,00.html
    3. Glezen, W P., and Lone Simonsen. “Commentary: Benefits of Influenza Vaccine in US Elderly–new Studies Raise Questions.” International Journal of Epidemiology 35, no. 2 (2006): 352-53. Accessed December 1, 2015. doi:10.1093/ije/dyi293.
    4. The American Thoracic Society’s 105th International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego. “Viral Infections in Childhood Respiratory Disease
    5. Barbara Loe Fisher, The Emerging Risks of Live Virus and Virus Vectored Vaccines.  National Vaccine Information Center, 2014
    8. JAMA study, 1999 Jul 14;282(2):137-44
    11. Doshi, P. “Influenza: Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease.” BMJ 346 (2013): F3037. Accessed November 30, 2015.
    12.  CBC News: Flu Deaths Reality Check.
    14.  (pages 59-60)

What do you think? 

Thursday, November 16, 2017

A good summary by Anonymous

The following quote was posted by Jack Knight (James Lyons-Weiler) on Facebook. I copied and pasted it here - I wish I can say I wrote/said this as it is a succinct summary of many key issues in vaccination. Presumably the individual who wrote this is a microbiologist, but whoever this anonymous person is, he/she "gets it". May his/her tribe increase! If you are this person or know who wrote it, you can contact me by leaving a comment on this blog. Comments are moderated so it won't be posted until I allow it - if you want to remain anonymous remind me of this in your comment. 

Whoever wrote this pls PM me - your identity will be safe w/me. From a microbiologist:

“I do believe that a vaccine can, under some circumstances, provide temporary ‘immunity’ or protection from an infectious pathogen, however that is where my faith in inoculation ends. Vaccines were never intended to be the first-line of defense against infectious disease nor were they intended to be provided under such an aggressive immunization schedule. As most of you are aware, the development of modern sanitation has contributed far more to limit the spread of disease than the vaccine.

My greatest issue with the current vaccine schedule is that it fuels the fire of viral mutation. Consider the 2015 measles outbreak at Disneyland. It had nothing to do with the un-vaccinated, but rather a very simple process of an accelerated morbillivirus mutation. Why do you think we alter the flu vaccine every year? Viruses mutate naturally, but do so at a greatly accelerated rate when threatened by the antigens provided through the vaccination process. At some point the rate of mutation will surpass our ability to develop a vaccine. If this occurs there will be nothing left to stem the advance of the disease.

And herd immunity is grossly misunderstood. True herd immunity can only result from a healthy, fully functioning immune system. Vaccines cannot confer “herd immunity” because vaccines only stimulate one of the two essential elements of the immune system. In the vaccinated, the body’s natural immune response is impaired, and the antibodies are not as strong as they would have been had the virus passed through the immune system in a ‘natural’ manner, therefore leading to an ever-increasing reliance on developing more vaccinations.

Unfortunately, the immune response mounted by the vaccine is enough to trigger mutation in the attacking virus. I too want herd immunity, but it will never be achieved through vaccination. Why are so many booster shots necessary to bring antibody titers up to serologically acceptable levels? Does this not indicate that our current science does not yet allow us to formulate an injection that mimics naturally acquired and lifelong immunity? The current truth is it is impossible to create permanent immunity through the artificial induction of a vaccine.

Many of the infectious diseases we immunize against are simply a result of poor hygiene and or septic recycling systems, unnatural diets, metabolic congestion (especially liver) and persistent immune suppression via pharmaceuticals. These infections are natural in these environments and in many cases, designed and created by and within the body itself to carry out a janitorial duty by infecting and removing all cells of poor integrity so the body can be revitalized by their new replacements. There is enough evidence to prove that vaccines diminish the integrity of every cell in the body and exacerbate the need for a deeper, more widespread infection at a future time.

Mass vaccination is, in my opinion, bad science at best and will eventually lay waste to any natural immunity of humans at worst. The only way to ensure lasting and permanent immunity is through a truly healthy “herd” which is the complete antithesis of a drug dependent population that find themselves unable to fight any infection naturally. First, we abuse the antibiotic and witness the birth of the super-bug. A mutated strain 100% drug resistant and now through the abuse and overuse of the vaccine we are forcing the antigenic drift and accelerated mutation of the virus.

And for proof? I have compiled much research over the years, but it is not possible to point you to a single study or a ‘smoking gun’. It took me several years to unravel the dogma that I was taught and accepted early in my career.
I don’t know all the answers, but I am certain we are not asking enough of the right questions. I know many doctors, nurses, researchers, chemists and fellow microbiologist who do not “tow the party line” when it comes to the “science” of vaccines. The science is not settled and anyone in the medical community who attempts to convince you otherwise is either willfully deceitful or woefully ignorant. We have chosen to roll the dice and gamble with our health.

What will save us from disease when this Ponzi scheme of mass vaccination and symptom management collapses? I fear we will be left with nothing to defend ourselves against invading pathogens because we all chose to remain ignorant rather than integrate the truth while we still had a chance. Because we chose to consume antibiotics like candy and prescribe them for everything under the sun...we chose to believe that vaccination would magically provide us immunity because many of us were too lazy to learn how to build immunity naturally through diet and lifestyle or to learn the symptoms of environmental poisoning. We chose to numb the pain instead of addressing the cause of the pain. All of these short-sighted decisions will eventually circle back around and bite us all in the collective arse.

I truly hope we all wake up soon.”

What do you think? 

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Letter to Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald - the reply

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

CDCExecSec (CDC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

It is unethical NOT to do a vaxxed/unvaxxed study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, September 11, 2017

Will your daughter be a Sacrificial Virgin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, September 03, 2017

95 Theses of vaccine reformation

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

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

1) Safety of many vaccines is questionable

2) Efficacy of many vaccines is questionable 

3) COI is rampant in the vaccine industry

4) CDC Whistleblower (Dr. William Thompson)

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

6) Merck whistleblower lawsuit 

7) Vaxxed - please watch this documentary

8) Vaccination can only be maintained by coercion and manipulation 

9) Vaccination for school or work 

10) SIDS and vaccines 

11) Autism and vaccines 

12) Andrew Wakefield - modern day Semmelweis 

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

14) 1986 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 

15) NVIC - thank God for this resource 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30) Aborted babies (fetal dna) and vaccines 

31) Animal DNA and vaccines 

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

33) Mercury and vaccines 

34) Aluminum and vaccines 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else needs to be added to this list?