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.
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Monday, November 14, 2016
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
raise.
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:
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
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
raise.
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:
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"?!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 http://www.nofructose.com/introduction/senate-inquiry-into-medical-complaints-process-in-australia/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 goingThe web page isand the Facebook one is off Belinda Fettke No FructoseThe 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.Cheers.GaryGary 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. @thegaryscienceIf you think this is all completely ridiculous, then please circulate widely, and make as much noise as possible.
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.
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.
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.
All of us deserve better than vaccine mandates.
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 Thompson...one 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!!
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 Thompson...one 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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)