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?