The ethics of arrogance ...

Arthur Caplan wrote an opinion piece that should send shivers down the spines of us all ... regardless of our views on vaccination. 

It's part of the dangerous encroachment into the relationship between healthcare provider and client - a relationship that necessarily should remain private. We all live with choices that others make - for good or for ill, vaccination is just one of them, it isn't the only one. 

Driving providers and patients into an underground relationship is not good for anyone

It's an absolutely stunning display of arrogance to demand conformity or else. Medical "evidence" and science have an amazing way of changing through the years - and the persistent pursuit of truth by "heretics" has benefited us all. 

Consider Semmelweis, who was hounded by his peers for insisting upon the simple task of hand-washing prior to delivering a baby with a resultant plummeting of childbed fever or sepsis, which saved so many women. 

Or consider stomach ulcers and the lengths to which the researcher who discovered H. pylori went before his theory was considered and incorporated into treatment (he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in 2005). 

Decades before research vindicated them midwives knew overuse of episiotomy was bad for women and generally not necessary. Conventional wisdom held that it prevented pelvic floor damage and protected the baby's brain ... and then we actually did the research, which demonstrated episiotomy increased risk of worse damage than spontaneous perineal tears and gasp! the perineum isn't dangerous to a baby's brain!

The bromide "once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section" was mainstream practice ... and then we actually did the research and "discovered" that VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean) is a relatively reasonable risk to take for most women with a history of previous cesarean birth. 

For years it was assumed that saturated fat was bad and caused heart disease. Now that is being challenged and it seems inflammation is implicated in heart disease, and well, many other health problems as well ... oh, wait - what happens after vaccination? Inflammation. 

These are just a few examples of health care providers who were considered "crazy" for not passively accepting the prevailing medical dogma. They held minority positions in the face of unrelenting peer pressure and were ultimately proved right.

It's amazing what we find out when we try to find answers to questions. 

Apparently a significant portion of our population is asking questions about vaccine safety and efficacy - in due time we might all benefit from listening to this minority's concerns ... after all, it's happened before - the precedents are almost too numerous to list, so it would be prudent not to be too arrogant or presumptuous about "settled science".  

Many want more information about a product that has been described as "unavoidably unsafe"  ... a product so "safe" it is legally shielded from any liability - which essentially removes any motivation for a manufacturer or provider of said product to make it any safer ... a product which is incredibly lucrative because its use is mandated by law ... a product which is recommended by experts who have financial conflicts of interest with the manufacturers ... a product embroiled not just in controversy about safety and efficacy, but allegations of fraud (Paul Thorsen, mumps/Merck fraud lawsuit, #CDCwhistleblower). 

Many aspects of medical care are fraught with various degrees of risk vs benefit, and that is no different for vaccines - all should be free to determine which level of risk/benefit with which they are willing to live. Subjecting people to forced medical procedures is something that would make Dr. Mengele proud - he perfected this. Let's not follow his lead. 

Abortion and vaccines ... Part 5

Worthwhile reading:

This piece, "Villany, Virtue, and Vaccination" by Todd Erzen (@DeaceOnline) was posted to http://www.stevedeace.com this morning, and works an angle on vaccination and abortion that I had not considered. Both medical procedures involve coercion, and both involve widely unacknowledged risk (interestingly enough, more to the child than anyone else in both cases, but at least with vaccination the child generally lives, though not always).

As always, do your own research before making a decision to vaccinate. You can always vaccinate. You can never un-vaccinate.

You can always have an abortion (well, until the baby is born), but once you have an abortion you cannot un-do death - only Jesus can do that ... if you have had an abortion, help is available if you are suffering because of it. You can go to http://afterabortion.org/1999/articles-related-to-post-abortion-healing/ for starters. Or contact your local Pregnancy Resource Center, many of them offer post-abortion healing.

What's so dangerous about a doctor?

An osteopath, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, from America was set to go to Australia and give a series of informational talks about vaccination. This tour is now in jeopardy because her views are so threatening to those who promote vaccination.

The Australian government may revoke her visa. If the Aussie government concedes to calls to prevent her from traveling to their country it would be the height of hypocrisy in light of the statements of Tony Abbott following the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Statements lauding the necessity of freedom of expression.

Whether it is religious beliefs or medical opinions, the truth has nothing to fear from the lie, so why are vaccine proponents working overtime to keep Dr. Tenpenny (and her views) from coming to Australia? The strenuous objections might lead someone to suspect that the strength of their evidence may not be all that great, otherwise there would be no problem with the airing of a different analysis of the available data.

It is very telling that those who support vaccination do not simply support vaccination - they insist that everyone else conform to this through coercive, manipulative mandates linking vaccination with participation in common activities (work, school) and now are extending this to requiring conformity of thought regarding vaccination by attempting to censor the marketplace of ideas by ensuring Dr. Tenpenny does not speak in Australia.

A good product does not need to be forced on anyone - people voluntarily, individually demand it by seeking it out and asking for it from multiple vendors or venues - more vendors and/or venues being necessary because of the spontaneous popularity of the good thing (whatever it might be).

Good products do not need to be shielded from legal liability by a fig leaf of a law (1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).

Good products are supported by research not tainted by fraud (Thorsen/mumps/Merck,
#CDCwhistleblower - just for starters) and conflict of interest.

Good ideas are not threatened by free and open and public debate.

It seems vaccines may not be a good product.

I'm really not anti-vaccine so much as I am pro-freedom ... those who believe the benefits of vaccination are more than the risks should get them. Those who have more concern about the risks of vaccination than any benefit derived from them should be free to decline.

Do the research and make up your own mind. If you want to learn more about Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and her views, follow her on Facebook or Twitter. Or not! It's up to you. She also has this website: http://drtenpenny.com/

Click here to go to a Change.org petition supporting her visit to Australia (or don't - it's up to you!)

Tag, you're it! Teachers next target ...

First they came for the healthcare workers, now teachers are the next target - who's next?

A daycare/school in College Station, Texas has now mandated its teachers receive annual flu vaccination as a condition of employment (or wear not just a mask, but also gloves through the flu season). Apparently several other area schools have also jumped on this bandwagon. The board maintains they've done their research, but do not list what this research is other than speaking to unnamed health professionals.

Since vaccination in general is so controversial, and healthcare decisions are personal, it seems this should remain a private decision each parent/person makes for themselves and their families. Especially because there is controversy regarding the risks/benefits of vaccination the decision should remain private - the CDC is not the only source for information about vaccination, and given the conflict of interest within the CDC and ACIP it is not surprising their only response is that it is "safe and effective" regardless of research that implies otherwise (let alone the personal experience of many people and parents).

Parents and adults should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.

Healthcare providers should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.

Teachers should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.

Parents are trained to bring their children in for routine vaccinations even though an infants immune system is not able to respond - this is one reason why the antigen needs to be frequently re-presented (ie: re-vaccinated); Vaccines are big money makers, plenty of incentive for pharmaceutical companies to cash in on continuing the practice of vaccination into adulthood. A mandate, minus liability, is big bucks - high reward/low risk (well, at least for the companies making the vaccine and for policy makers/politicians). The overlords (people who know better how to manage other people's lives than the people themselves) started with healthcare workers to see if they could get away with it - and they did. So now they've moved on to teachers. Any guesses as to who will be the next group vaccinators will target?

Why "mask" the truth?

This blog post was inspired by a discussion on the Dec 10, 2014 "Know Your Rights Hour" podcast of Alan Phillips, JD and Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH - you can subscribe via iTunes. Dr. Eisenstein's website is: http://www.homefirst.com/ and Alan Phillips website is:
http://www.vaccinerights.com/attorneyphillips.html

Healthcare providers are now required to receive influenza vaccine yearly or risk losing their jobs. This in spite of the fact that "evidence" for the efficacy of this policy is sketchy at best. For those who are successful in obtaining a waiver in declining to be vaccinated are required to wear a mask even though they may be completely healthy and free of symptoms. There is no evidence this protects either patient or healthcare provider (in the absence of symptoms); Adding insult to injury is the fact that the CDC is admitting, very early in the season, that this year's vaccine is a poor match to circulating strains of the virus, so any "efficacy" is expected to be low.

One could speculate as to why a mask is required of those who do not get vaccinated - there is no logical reason to believe it would be helpful in risk reduction to either patient or healthcare provider (especially when the healthcare provider is free of symptoms) as bacteria and viruses are so small that only a specialized respirator with an air tight seal could prevent them from entering (or exiting) the respiratory tract.

But in light of the fact that this year's vaccine is expected to provide very little risk reduction (and according to the Cochrane Database this is generally true even when there is a "good match" between vaccine and circulating strains, see above link) it seems that everyone should be wearing a mask! If the policy of requiring the use of a mask for unvaccinated HCW's is about protecting patients from getting ill it makes sense that a mask would be required of everyone in a year where there is higher odds than typical that the vaccine will not reduce risk of becoming ill. If the vaccine does not protect the recipient how could anyone else (ie: patients and/or co-workers) passively benefit, therefore shouldn't all be wearing masks since that is the goal of mandatory vaccination of HCW's?

To add insult to injury there are articles in press (by vaccine proponents no less) that document receiving flu vaccine on a yearly/consecutive basis may actually lower what little risk reduction it provides!  This may be due to an effect called "original antigenic sin" where exposing the immune system to an antigen may make it less able to recognize a similar antigen (like an influenza virus that has mutated ever so slightly).

Neither policy (mandating masks for unvaccinated HCWs and/or mandating receipt of annual influenza vaccine) is based on solid, significant science. This type of heavy-handed approach is paternalistic and condescending. While many enter the healthcare with noble motives no one gives up their personal, civil rights because they go into healthcare, nor should this be expected of them.

The receipt of any medical procedure should be voluntary - vaccines should not be exempt from this. Those who want a vaccine should get it. Those who do not want a vaccine (regardless of their reason or motivation for declining) should not be forced to get a vaccine, nor wear a mask (or any other token) that makes it easy to identify them as a "refuser".

Anti-fertility vaccine?

Since March 2014 a controversy has come up over the tetanus toxoid vaccine (provided by the UN/WHO) in Kenya - specifically targeting reproductive-aged females. Catholic bishops allege the tetanus vaccine may also laced with beta-HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin), a hormone the body produces in pregnancy that is critical in maintaining pregnancy, especially early in pregnancy. The concern is that if true, this could cause a woman to develop antibodies against beta-HCG which could cause her to miscarry. Their worries about the possibility of an abortive vaccine being given without the knowledge let alone consent of the women is not unfounded given the history of drug and vaccine development, especially in the third world/developing countries (why are rich/middle class anglo women not ever recruited for these types of drug trials?!). It would seem the issue had been settled, but apparently it is still in flux.

What seems to be unacknowledged is that women (and their unborn babies) need far more than a vaccine to make childbearing safe! Better than a vaccine would be consistent access/provision of safe childbirth for all pregnant women in Kenya - attended by a midwife with at least basic training in a clean area (whether this is home or hospital) who uses sterile instruments to clamp and cut the umbilical cord, and access to a higher level of care if this become necessary (including access to transportation to a higher level of care). Women and babies everywhere deserve at least this much, though providing this kind of care is more difficult, more complex than giving a vaccine. More's the pity.

There's a real need for transparency - and not just in this situation. Let us hope that if there is a hidden agenda it is uncovered, or that if there is no scandal that is confirmed unequivocally.


http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1993/WHO_HRP_WHO_93.1.pdf

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/kenyas-bishops-are-right-to-fear-a-population-control-agenda-from-the-un

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un-denies-secretly-sterilizing-kenyan-women-more-hard-tests-coming

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kenyan-debate-over-lab-results-shows-need-for-new-tests-on-un-tetanus-vacci?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fe73766186-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-fe73766186-326207018

http://www.fiamc.org/bioethics/statement-on-who-sponsored-vaccination-in-kenya/

Death following flu vaccination?

Flu season has officially begun (Oct - March) and flu vaccination is recommended for everyone from age 6 months and up. While there is much debate about efficacy and safety of vaccinations in general a cluster of deaths soon after vaccination should be very attention getting. There is a report of 5 deaths within 1 week of flu vaccination at an assisted living facility in GA.

This should raise some important questions: 

- Was consent obtained from those individuals who were able to provide their own consent? 

- For those who were not able to provide consent, was their legal guardian contacted and 

  *informed* consent obtained?

- Which flu vaccine was used (brand name/manufacturer/lot number/expiration date)? 

- Has the medical director of the facility made a report to VAERS? 

Let's hope the producer of the vaccine does not resort to the Wyeth method of managing a cluster of bad outcomes following vaccination: 

Vaccines are not a panacea against infectious disease, nor should they be viewed and/or treated as such. 

The only person who bears responsibility for the consequences of vaccination (in particular adverse events) is the person who is vaccinated - neither providers, nor manufacturers bear any liability. This risk-benefit equation is lop-sided, and wrong. 

The primary purpose of this blog is discussing freedom to accept or decline vaccination without being coerced, manipulated, or threatened ... let's hope that no one in this facility felt pressured in any way to be vaccinated (either residents or health care workers).

Update (12.4.2014): the first link above ("report") takes the reader to the Health Impact News story that has updated information contradicting/clarifying the initial report (which was an anonymous allegation of with very little detail).

Here is a report from Italy about deaths in seniors following receipt of flu vaccine ... and the Italian government has taken the step of suspending use of the vaccine until more information is obtained (all the while being very careful to deny a link between the vaccine and the deaths ... the action seemingly contradictory to the statement).