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?
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
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) CDCExecSec@cdc.gov
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 www.vaers.hhs.gov/data.html.
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 www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/ data-sharing-guidelines.html. The CISA project conducts clinical research and clinical case reviews. You will find information about the VSD and the CISA project atwww.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ ensuringsafety/monitoring/ index.html.
Additional information about the vaccine safety activities at CDC can be found at
www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/Activities_index. html.
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 www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/research/iomreports/index.html .
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 www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acipand provide your input during these meetings. You can find requirements for presenting comments atwww.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/public- comment-instructions.pdf. CDC posts draft ACIP agendas at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip 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.
Sincerely,
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.
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?
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
underestimate.
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?
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
underestimate.
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?
Friday, August 04, 2017
Letter to Dr Brenda Fitzgerald - googledoc version
Valued readers - here is a link to a googledoc version of my previous post "An Open Letter to Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald":
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18mABwJgVRzQElRcSaN5zHHJSKjLfPmiXea0fkCmsrYM/edit?usp=sharing
You can copy/paste to print it and send it after adding your name and contact information.
Here is the address:
Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald
Director, Centers for Disease Control
1600 Clifton Avenue
Atlanta
GA 30329
You can also send this as an email using the CDC's webform here:
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/dcs/ContactUs/Form
(I will be doing this as well).
The webform will not accept the full text of the letter so I copied/pasted a link to the googledoc version. In the subject line I asked that it please be forwarded to Dr. Fitzgerald.
Please do not alter the letter and please be polite. Leave a comment to let me know if you send a copy. I'll certainly post an update if I get a response.
Thank you!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18mABwJgVRzQElRcSaN5zHHJSKjLfPmiXea0fkCmsrYM/edit?usp=sharing
You can copy/paste to print it and send it after adding your name and contact information.
Here is the address:
Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald
Director, Centers for Disease Control
1600 Clifton Avenue
Atlanta
GA 30329
You can also send this as an email using the CDC's webform here:
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/dcs/ContactUs/Form
(I will be doing this as well).
The webform will not accept the full text of the letter so I copied/pasted a link to the googledoc version. In the subject line I asked that it please be forwarded to Dr. Fitzgerald.
Please do not alter the letter and please be polite. Leave a comment to let me know if you send a copy. I'll certainly post an update if I get a response.
Thank you!
Sunday, July 30, 2017
An open letter to Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald
Dear Dr. Fitzgerald -
Congratulations on your recent appointment as Director of the Centers for Disease Control.
As part of your orientation to your new position I am sure you were made aware of the many issues facing the agency you now head.
One of those challenges is conducting valid research to provide clinicians and the public with "gold standard" evidence-based information on which to base their health decisions.
Sadly, it seems the CDC's committment to this in regards to vaccines is sorely lacking. I have come to that conclusion based on learning of the allegations put forth by Dr. William Thompson (aka: "#CDCwhistleblower") and by learning of a group within the CDC by the name of "SPIDER" (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence, and Ethics in Research). Here is a link to the letter they sent.
The #CDCwhistleblower alleges that he and his colleagues altered study protocol when the agreed upon protocol yielded disturbing results (namely a significantly increased risk of autism when MMR was given earlier than 3 years of age, especially for black boys). Equally alarming he also alleges that data revealing these conclusions were literally thrown away - they were destroyed (I believe this is a federal crime). It appears he was the only one of his peers involved in this study who did not get rid of the data - though he did keep silent about it for ten years. Here is a link to the 2004 study.
But aside from the concerns he raises about one study it is alarming that those charged with vaccine research refuse to do the types of studies that are considered gold-standard - namely, using true placebos (a biologically inert substance like normal saline) rather than the biologically active vaccine excipient (minus the antigen).
Another problem in vaccine research is the lack of vaccine-free control groups. Currently it is common in vaccine research for control groups to have people who receive other vaccines rather than no vaccines. The control group still receives vaccines - just not the vaccine in question. This makes it far more difficult to tease out the effects of the vaccine in question and does not meet the criteria for gold-standard research - this would be a control group who does not receive the intervention in question, nor any other intervention!
There is also the issue of whether vaccine research is sufficiently powered to reveal if the conclusions reached are legitimate or genuine. It is not ethical to use post-marketing research (where numbers are much larger) as defacto clinical research if/when pre-marketing "safety" studies are designed in a way that necessary safety data cannot be generated even if the study design is strong. Have we learned nothing from Vioxx (among many, many others?!)
Since vaccines are a commonly used product administered to ostensibly healthy people it is all the more important to have confidence that we know their true safety profile. Given the issues I have outlined there is reason to doubt we have accurate information about vaccine safety. A high volume of incorrect data does not change into a solid foundation upon which to base decisions for this medical intervention just because it is high volume.
However, the significant volume of reports from parents and others ("anecdata") stating they were harmed in various ways subsequent to vaccination (including miscarriage or death) more than suggest we need to do vaccine safety studies differently as their experience contradicts the published research. There is reason to doubt the published vaccine safety research since it does not meet the benchmarks for "gold standard" research. Besides, products that are "safe and effective" do not need laws that shield from liability all who are involved with manufacturing or administering them.
The experience of those who report adverse events following vaccination underscores the weakness of our current system for capturing safety data (or lack thereof) for vaccination. The VAERS system is passive and widely acknowledged to be severely underused - therefore any use of its data likely inflate any appearance of safety while minimizing or reducing significant risks - in short, it is just as unreliable as is the vaccine safety research that does not meet the gold standard of medical studies.
I would like to know if you will be requiring Merck to provide updated results (now 50 years old?!) regarding the efficacy of the mumps component of the MMR? Since they have an exclusive contract to provide this vaccine it seems reasonable to ask them to provide an update for this information. Please do not wait until the #MerckWhistleblower lawsuit is concluded to do this. I hope you are aware of the allegations of two Merck scientists who allege tests to prove the efficacy of the mumps portion of the vaccine were spiked with rabbit antibodies. In other words, the basis of Merck's exclusive contract may well be fraudulent. Perhaps that is why there are reports of outbreaks of mumps in fully vaccinated populations. If you do ask for updated results it might be prudent to have them verified through an independent third party - just sayin'!
As an aside - is it a good idea to mandate vaccination in childhood for diseases that are generally mild and self-limited (and rarely result in long-term adverse sequelae) when doing so simply shifts the period of vulnerability to adulthood? Especially when the immunity aquired through exposure and recovery is generally life-long while any risk reduction through vaccination is time-limited (and the time period of risk-reduction shrinks with each dose of vaccination).
You would go a long way toward building trust by mandating more transparency in vaccine safety research.
- Require sharing of data so studies can be replicated by others
(outside the CDC) to determine if they get the same results.
- Communicate with members of CDC SPIDER publicly (for
obvious reasons they will need to remain anonymous) and
address their concerns. The #CDCwhistleblower is not the only
scientist on staff with the CDC who has seen dodgy science
done within the agency's walls.
- Invite members of the Vaccine Risk Aware community to
participate in ACIP committee meetings.
- Purge from ACIP those who have conflicts of interests
(Dr. Paul Offitt comes to mind but I suspect there are many others).
Disclosing conflict of interest does not eliminate it.
- Release the #CDCwhistleblower (Dr. Bill Thompson) to testify
to Congress without fear of retribution. Give him the legal immunity
currently enjoyed by vaccine manufacturers.
- If you have not done so already, watch the documentary Vaxxed.
Since I am local to the Atlanta area I would be happy to have you
in my home for a private screening.
- Meet with members of the Vaccine Risk Aware community.
Many will be right outside the door of your office on August 24th.
I am hoping you will be more gracious in your response to their
concerns than at least one of your employees was last October.
I am praying The Lord will bless you with wisdom and discernment for the challenges you will face during your tenure as director.
Congratulations on your recent appointment as Director of the Centers for Disease Control.
As part of your orientation to your new position I am sure you were made aware of the many issues facing the agency you now head.
One of those challenges is conducting valid research to provide clinicians and the public with "gold standard" evidence-based information on which to base their health decisions.
Sadly, it seems the CDC's committment to this in regards to vaccines is sorely lacking. I have come to that conclusion based on learning of the allegations put forth by Dr. William Thompson (aka: "#CDCwhistleblower") and by learning of a group within the CDC by the name of "SPIDER" (Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence, and Ethics in Research). Here is a link to the letter they sent.
The #CDCwhistleblower alleges that he and his colleagues altered study protocol when the agreed upon protocol yielded disturbing results (namely a significantly increased risk of autism when MMR was given earlier than 3 years of age, especially for black boys). Equally alarming he also alleges that data revealing these conclusions were literally thrown away - they were destroyed (I believe this is a federal crime). It appears he was the only one of his peers involved in this study who did not get rid of the data - though he did keep silent about it for ten years. Here is a link to the 2004 study.
But aside from the concerns he raises about one study it is alarming that those charged with vaccine research refuse to do the types of studies that are considered gold-standard - namely, using true placebos (a biologically inert substance like normal saline) rather than the biologically active vaccine excipient (minus the antigen).
Another problem in vaccine research is the lack of vaccine-free control groups. Currently it is common in vaccine research for control groups to have people who receive other vaccines rather than no vaccines. The control group still receives vaccines - just not the vaccine in question. This makes it far more difficult to tease out the effects of the vaccine in question and does not meet the criteria for gold-standard research - this would be a control group who does not receive the intervention in question, nor any other intervention!
There is also the issue of whether vaccine research is sufficiently powered to reveal if the conclusions reached are legitimate or genuine. It is not ethical to use post-marketing research (where numbers are much larger) as defacto clinical research if/when pre-marketing "safety" studies are designed in a way that necessary safety data cannot be generated even if the study design is strong. Have we learned nothing from Vioxx (among many, many others?!)
Since vaccines are a commonly used product administered to ostensibly healthy people it is all the more important to have confidence that we know their true safety profile. Given the issues I have outlined there is reason to doubt we have accurate information about vaccine safety. A high volume of incorrect data does not change into a solid foundation upon which to base decisions for this medical intervention just because it is high volume.
However, the significant volume of reports from parents and others ("anecdata") stating they were harmed in various ways subsequent to vaccination (including miscarriage or death) more than suggest we need to do vaccine safety studies differently as their experience contradicts the published research. There is reason to doubt the published vaccine safety research since it does not meet the benchmarks for "gold standard" research. Besides, products that are "safe and effective" do not need laws that shield from liability all who are involved with manufacturing or administering them.
The experience of those who report adverse events following vaccination underscores the weakness of our current system for capturing safety data (or lack thereof) for vaccination. The VAERS system is passive and widely acknowledged to be severely underused - therefore any use of its data likely inflate any appearance of safety while minimizing or reducing significant risks - in short, it is just as unreliable as is the vaccine safety research that does not meet the gold standard of medical studies.
I would like to know if you will be requiring Merck to provide updated results (now 50 years old?!) regarding the efficacy of the mumps component of the MMR? Since they have an exclusive contract to provide this vaccine it seems reasonable to ask them to provide an update for this information. Please do not wait until the #MerckWhistleblower lawsuit is concluded to do this. I hope you are aware of the allegations of two Merck scientists who allege tests to prove the efficacy of the mumps portion of the vaccine were spiked with rabbit antibodies. In other words, the basis of Merck's exclusive contract may well be fraudulent. Perhaps that is why there are reports of outbreaks of mumps in fully vaccinated populations. If you do ask for updated results it might be prudent to have them verified through an independent third party - just sayin'!
As an aside - is it a good idea to mandate vaccination in childhood for diseases that are generally mild and self-limited (and rarely result in long-term adverse sequelae) when doing so simply shifts the period of vulnerability to adulthood? Especially when the immunity aquired through exposure and recovery is generally life-long while any risk reduction through vaccination is time-limited (and the time period of risk-reduction shrinks with each dose of vaccination).
You would go a long way toward building trust by mandating more transparency in vaccine safety research.
- Require sharing of data so studies can be replicated by others
(outside the CDC) to determine if they get the same results.
- Communicate with members of CDC SPIDER publicly (for
obvious reasons they will need to remain anonymous) and
address their concerns. The #CDCwhistleblower is not the only
scientist on staff with the CDC who has seen dodgy science
done within the agency's walls.
- Invite members of the Vaccine Risk Aware community to
participate in ACIP committee meetings.
- Purge from ACIP those who have conflicts of interests
(Dr. Paul Offitt comes to mind but I suspect there are many others).
Disclosing conflict of interest does not eliminate it.
- Release the #CDCwhistleblower (Dr. Bill Thompson) to testify
to Congress without fear of retribution. Give him the legal immunity
currently enjoyed by vaccine manufacturers.
- If you have not done so already, watch the documentary Vaxxed.
Since I am local to the Atlanta area I would be happy to have you
in my home for a private screening.
- Meet with members of the Vaccine Risk Aware community.
Many will be right outside the door of your office on August 24th.
I am hoping you will be more gracious in your response to their
concerns than at least one of your employees was last October.
I am praying The Lord will bless you with wisdom and discernment for the challenges you will face during your tenure as director.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)