One of the podcasts to which I listen (when I can) is Shawn Siegel's "The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust" - broadcast on The Logos Radio Network as a live radio show and available (delayed) as a podcast. This post is raw notes of the May 1, 2016 show.
He begins with a review of the Innate and Adaptive Immune Systems, noting that vaccination bypasses the Innate Immune System which is found in the mucosa. The Innate Immune System is supposed to control the Adaptive Immune System and that our primary defense (immunologically) resides in the mucosa because that is where exposure to disease or pathogens ordinarily takes place (skin, mouth, nose, lungs, eyes, gut, vagina, etc);
During the first half of the show he is interrupted by noise he can hear but the listener cannot - he isn't sure if the show is on air but he handles this relatively well, though there are stretches of silence long enough to make one wonder what happened.
He reads excerpts from three journal articles - it would have been helpful if he had also read the PMID for the articles. This information would have been easier and quicker to jot down rather than having to write out the journal name and article title (he does not name the authors).
He cites "Cell Surface Environment for Pathogen Recognition and Entry" in Clinical and Translational Immunology.
He briefly mentions findings of the Human Microbiome Project - that pathogens were found to be co-existing without disease symptoms ... the Beauchamp vs Pasteur argument about host vs pathogen - personally I doubt it's all one or the other.
Another excerpt was from Immunological Reviews and the last was from International Immunology.
It is worth noting that not all publishers are legit - there is a growing issue with illegitimate journals. https://scholarlyoa.com/ - the home page for Scholarly Open Access where predatory journals are exposed. I am not insinuating that any of the journals he mentioned are predatory or publish junk science - full disclosure, I did not check as I am typing this up late at night. I just mention this as a resource. Verify, then trust - and that applies to me as well - I do not expect my readers to uncritically accept the opinions I express in this blog.
The Retraction Watch blog is another good resource, though they are unabashedly pro-vaccine and bizarrely suspend critical thinking where vaccines are concerned.
He discussed vaccine-induced antibodies and that these seem to be qualitatively and quantitatively different than those produced by natural, spontaneous disease (gives examples: Measles, Pertussis, Chickenpox).
He reviews awards for various vaccine induced injuries - themes of demylinating conditions of various kinds being typical diagnoses and Flu/TDap the most common offenders.
Of note, at 56m30sec he discusses ITP or Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura and describes this (inaccurately) as a problem affecting White Blood Cells. This is incorrect.
ITP is a problem affecting platlets (a blood cell involved in clotting). "Idiopathic" means the cause is unknown. I don't know how he made this mistake as during the discussion of settlements for vaccine injuries he disclosed he was reading from various medical websites to get accurate information about what he was reviewing.
The second hour of the show is devoted to interviewing a mother of a 3 month old baby
who allegedly died as a result of receiving 8 vaccines in one visit. Given the bias in vaccine research stories like this highlight questions that are left begging to be answered. The only way to answer these questions is to do the research - longitudinal (long-term) studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, along with double-blind placebo controlled trials of vaccines with long-term follow up (years, not days) - in other words, epidemiological research and clinical research - preferably done by researchers free of conflicts of interest. We could do this - it is just a matter of will.
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Saturday, May 07, 2016
While waiting to see Vaxxed, watch Suzanne Humphries for free!
Vaxxed is making its way around the country - and that's fabulous - it needs to be screened far and wide. It has an important message regarding vaccination.
But if you are looking for more information I encourage you to read anything written by Suzanne Humphries, MD. Like me, she is a medical professional who used to be totally on-board with vaccination, but now, not so much. Her website can be found at http://drsuzanne.net. She also has a number of pieces at The International Medical Council on Vaccination. The video below is a 10 minute trailer of a lecture in Denmark (Nov 2015) she gave titled "Manufactured Consent". I respect her.
If you get a vaccine you will likely be given a "VIS" or "Vaccine Information Sheet" - this is the official, approved talking points about the vaccine you are receiving that day. Reading or
receiving this is not informed consent. If you watch her lectures you will be far closer to informed consent - basically, you must "do the work" - if you want to be informed do not blindly accept what you are told by "professionals" ... they may not be as well educated as they should be, certainly not about vaccines. I know I wasn't. I'm far closer now than before.
But if you are looking for more information I encourage you to read anything written by Suzanne Humphries, MD. Like me, she is a medical professional who used to be totally on-board with vaccination, but now, not so much. Her website can be found at http://drsuzanne.net. She also has a number of pieces at The International Medical Council on Vaccination. The video below is a 10 minute trailer of a lecture in Denmark (Nov 2015) she gave titled "Manufactured Consent". I respect her.
If you get a vaccine you will likely be given a "VIS" or "Vaccine Information Sheet" - this is the official, approved talking points about the vaccine you are receiving that day. Reading or
receiving this is not informed consent. If you watch her lectures you will be far closer to informed consent - basically, you must "do the work" - if you want to be informed do not blindly accept what you are told by "professionals" ... they may not be as well educated as they should be, certainly not about vaccines. I know I wasn't. I'm far closer now than before.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Vaxxed - Go see it!
http://vaxxedthemovie.com/
Last weekend I saw Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe - while hardly a pleasure (given the topic) it is an important tool for enlightenment regarding some of the issues surrounding vaccines and a variety of scandals associated with their use.
The documentary is directed by Andrew Wakefield, and while he makes an appearance early in the film (to debunk myths regarding his still retracted paper about GI issues associated with measles vaccine) the film itself is not even a little bit about him.
The first half of the film lays the foundation for the second half where the three pieces of evidence supporting allegations of fraud at the CDC are laid out. While a documentary is not a court of law I think the filmmakers have a sound case for what they allege (though I could rightly be accused of bias and would agree I am no longer neutral on this subject) and this should make us all think long and hard about what, if any, vaccines we (or our children) receive.
Woven throughout the film are the stories of families whose children were injured by vaccines. You know, children/people who caught a bad case of "coincidence" (hmm, I wonder when there will be a vaccine for that?!)
This film covers the risk of vaccination that most parents fear - autism (though officially there is no link, of course!) But there are other risks of vaccination - just read the package insert.
But one of the primary problems is that the risks of vaccination (especially the long-term risks) are not even known as we have yet to do a study comparing the long-term health of a vaccinated population against an unvaccinated population (let alone a randomized, double-blind controlled trial - the gold standard for evidence based medicine). So the information on the package inserts (and from any study about vaccine safety) is incomplete at best, and if not fraudulent, it may be inaccurate.
The CDC is a governmental entity - they work for us, the tax-payers. They are entirely capable of legitimate research, even of vaccines, but given the level of conflict of interest embedded in their programs it seems prudent to verify before trusting.
Given what we know and don't know about vaccination the decision should be left to the parents (of minor children) and the individuals who are bearing the risks. Any product that requires coercion, manipulation, or force to be used is likely one that should be avoided at all costs!
Last weekend I saw Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe - while hardly a pleasure (given the topic) it is an important tool for enlightenment regarding some of the issues surrounding vaccines and a variety of scandals associated with their use.
The documentary is directed by Andrew Wakefield, and while he makes an appearance early in the film (to debunk myths regarding his still retracted paper about GI issues associated with measles vaccine) the film itself is not even a little bit about him.
The first half of the film lays the foundation for the second half where the three pieces of evidence supporting allegations of fraud at the CDC are laid out. While a documentary is not a court of law I think the filmmakers have a sound case for what they allege (though I could rightly be accused of bias and would agree I am no longer neutral on this subject) and this should make us all think long and hard about what, if any, vaccines we (or our children) receive.
Woven throughout the film are the stories of families whose children were injured by vaccines. You know, children/people who caught a bad case of "coincidence" (hmm, I wonder when there will be a vaccine for that?!)
This film covers the risk of vaccination that most parents fear - autism (though officially there is no link, of course!) But there are other risks of vaccination - just read the package insert.
But one of the primary problems is that the risks of vaccination (especially the long-term risks) are not even known as we have yet to do a study comparing the long-term health of a vaccinated population against an unvaccinated population (let alone a randomized, double-blind controlled trial - the gold standard for evidence based medicine). So the information on the package inserts (and from any study about vaccine safety) is incomplete at best, and if not fraudulent, it may be inaccurate.
The CDC is a governmental entity - they work for us, the tax-payers. They are entirely capable of legitimate research, even of vaccines, but given the level of conflict of interest embedded in their programs it seems prudent to verify before trusting.
Given what we know and don't know about vaccination the decision should be left to the parents (of minor children) and the individuals who are bearing the risks. Any product that requires coercion, manipulation, or force to be used is likely one that should be avoided at all costs!
Friday, March 25, 2016
The Trouble at Tribeca
The Tribeca Film Festival was founded in 2002. Those who found a film festival generally have input into the films that are chosen to be screened - and Robert DeNiro, along with Jane Rosenthal and Craig Hatkoff founded the TFF. But he is now catching some flack for screening the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe. This is apparently the first time he has invoked the privilege asking to have a film be screened AT A FILM FESTIVAL HE HELPED FOUND.
One would think film festivals celebrate nothing but the most milque-toast of subjects, and deviating into any kind of controversy was odd or out of the ordinary. So here's a short list of subjects also being addressed in the films being screened at the 2016 TFF:
Abortion
Virginity
Refugees
And that's just on the first page! I'll guess that the abortion film has a pro-abort worldview because if it didn't the pro-aborts would be losing their ever lovin' minds (that was deep sarcasm right there) that TFF would dare to show such a thing ... but that is yet another connection or similarity between vaccines and abortion - I have explored other links in previous posts on this blog.
How threatening could the content of this documentary be that Mr. DeNiro's motives would be questioned?
Here is his statement of why he wanted to include this film:
1) he is not "anti-vax"
2) he thinks it is important to discuss the issue ... and apparently is not afraid to have
a multi-dimensional discussion where it is okay to say something more than the ever so nuanced and officially approved talking point "vaccines are safe and effective".
Wow.
He did not even insinuate there is a link between vaccines and anything bad (like autism, let alone anything else). He is, by deductive reasoning, pro-vaccination. He clarifies that screening the film is not the same as endorsing it or its content. He wants to encourage open discussion - what could be more outrageous than that!
From his statement it does seem he would be in favor of more research to determine variables that influence risk of developing autism - like research that isn't tainted by conflict of interest, fraud, deceit, faux placebos (a contradiction in terms to say the least) and poor design, among other issues. Perhaps he might even support research that might lead to some answers - like a study comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated - something that has never.been.done.
Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe will be screened Sunday April 24 at 2:00pm at the SVA Theater in NYC. I hope it is well attended. I am not much of a movie goer myself - but
if I lived in the NYC area I would probably make an exception for this.
Here's the trailer:
Update (Mar 26, 2016 @ 7pm) - apparently the TFF has caved and will no longer screen
the film. Pitiful. It would have been a terrific platform for a "discussion" - those who hold
to vaccine orthodoxy seem to be afraid to talk about the what just may undermine that orthodoxy.
One would think film festivals celebrate nothing but the most milque-toast of subjects, and deviating into any kind of controversy was odd or out of the ordinary. So here's a short list of subjects also being addressed in the films being screened at the 2016 TFF:
Abortion
Virginity
Refugees
And that's just on the first page! I'll guess that the abortion film has a pro-abort worldview because if it didn't the pro-aborts would be losing their ever lovin' minds (that was deep sarcasm right there) that TFF would dare to show such a thing ... but that is yet another connection or similarity between vaccines and abortion - I have explored other links in previous posts on this blog.
How threatening could the content of this documentary be that Mr. DeNiro's motives would be questioned?
Here is his statement of why he wanted to include this film:
“Grace and I have a child with autism and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined. In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening VAXXED. I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue.”There are two pertinent thoughts that he reveals in what he said -
1) he is not "anti-vax"
2) he thinks it is important to discuss the issue ... and apparently is not afraid to have
a multi-dimensional discussion where it is okay to say something more than the ever so nuanced and officially approved talking point "vaccines are safe and effective".
Wow.
He did not even insinuate there is a link between vaccines and anything bad (like autism, let alone anything else). He is, by deductive reasoning, pro-vaccination. He clarifies that screening the film is not the same as endorsing it or its content. He wants to encourage open discussion - what could be more outrageous than that!
From his statement it does seem he would be in favor of more research to determine variables that influence risk of developing autism - like research that isn't tainted by conflict of interest, fraud, deceit, faux placebos (a contradiction in terms to say the least) and poor design, among other issues. Perhaps he might even support research that might lead to some answers - like a study comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated - something that has never.been.done.
Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe will be screened Sunday April 24 at 2:00pm at the SVA Theater in NYC. I hope it is well attended. I am not much of a movie goer myself - but
if I lived in the NYC area I would probably make an exception for this.
Here's the trailer:
Update (Mar 26, 2016 @ 7pm) - apparently the TFF has caved and will no longer screen
the film. Pitiful. It would have been a terrific platform for a "discussion" - those who hold
to vaccine orthodoxy seem to be afraid to talk about the what just may undermine that orthodoxy.
Monday, March 07, 2016
Abortion and vaccines - Part 5
As has been discussed with previous posts discussing the link between vaccines and abortion, there is significant irony in that both procedures are frequently done as a result of coercion and/or manipulation.
Many women report being pressured into getting abortions they do not want. This is also true for health care providers and vaccines - specifically a yearly flu vaccine.
Receipt of flu vaccine by healthcare providers is increasing. But this is likely only because they are forced to get it in order to keep their jobs. Increasingly healthcare providers are not free to decline a yearly flu vaccine - they do not have a choice.
But here is an interesting irony - pediatricians are free to "fire" a patient from their practice for refusing to comply with vaccination (either in whole or in part), yet healthcare providers who work in obstetrics can be censored, or fired for not complying with a pro-abortion worldview. In other words, pediatricians are free to impose their views of vaccination upon patients - practicing according to their conscience. Yet OB/GYN providers (as well as other types of healthcare providers like pharmacists among others) can be pressured to comply with a pro-abortion agenda - to participate in or to refer - or they could lose their jobs.
Declining to refer for abortion or declining to participate in/perform abortion is not a denial of an essential service as abortion is always an elective procedure. And with >1 million abortions/year (in the United States of America alone) it is hard to argue that women have a hard time accessing baby killing services ... not to mention the damage this does to women themselves. Besides - providers of a variety of services have boundaries or limits of what they will or will not do. For example, many restaurants have signs "No shirt, no shoes, no service" - and as previously noted, pediatricians may refuse service/care for children whose parents decline some or all vaccines.
Pro-life providers do not stop women from getting abortions, nor do they stop those who are pro-abortion from practicing or providing this life-ending procedure. Similarly, those who advocate for freedom in personal medical decision-making regarding vaccination do not stop those who want vaccines from getting them, or from providing them as healthcare providers ... so who is truly pro-choice, pro-freedom? Much like those who advocate for vaccines, those who are pro-abortion may advocate forcing OB/GYN providers into violating their conscience - either through soft or hard measures. Medical students may be carefully screened during OB/GYN residency interviews to ensure those who are placed are willing to learn how to do abortions.
For the moment healthcare providers are free not to offer vaccines - though with the use of electronic medical records (EHR's) as well as ICD-10 and claims data practice patterns (including vaccination rates) will no doubt be monitored and "incentives" to change behavior instituted (ie: payments "adjusted" up or down to "encourage" the desired outcome of compliance with the vaccination paradigm - or else).
We are designed to live in freedom - being given a faux choice is no choice. Being injected with a vaccine in order to continue working is not a choice - it is coercion. So long as there are laws or regulations forcing vaccination for any reason even those who are pro-vaccination cannot claim they are freely choosing to receive a vaccination.
Many women report being pressured into getting abortions they do not want. This is also true for health care providers and vaccines - specifically a yearly flu vaccine.
Receipt of flu vaccine by healthcare providers is increasing. But this is likely only because they are forced to get it in order to keep their jobs. Increasingly healthcare providers are not free to decline a yearly flu vaccine - they do not have a choice.
But here is an interesting irony - pediatricians are free to "fire" a patient from their practice for refusing to comply with vaccination (either in whole or in part), yet healthcare providers who work in obstetrics can be censored, or fired for not complying with a pro-abortion worldview. In other words, pediatricians are free to impose their views of vaccination upon patients - practicing according to their conscience. Yet OB/GYN providers (as well as other types of healthcare providers like pharmacists among others) can be pressured to comply with a pro-abortion agenda - to participate in or to refer - or they could lose their jobs.
Declining to refer for abortion or declining to participate in/perform abortion is not a denial of an essential service as abortion is always an elective procedure. And with >1 million abortions/year (in the United States of America alone) it is hard to argue that women have a hard time accessing baby killing services ... not to mention the damage this does to women themselves. Besides - providers of a variety of services have boundaries or limits of what they will or will not do. For example, many restaurants have signs "No shirt, no shoes, no service" - and as previously noted, pediatricians may refuse service/care for children whose parents decline some or all vaccines.
Pro-life providers do not stop women from getting abortions, nor do they stop those who are pro-abortion from practicing or providing this life-ending procedure. Similarly, those who advocate for freedom in personal medical decision-making regarding vaccination do not stop those who want vaccines from getting them, or from providing them as healthcare providers ... so who is truly pro-choice, pro-freedom? Much like those who advocate for vaccines, those who are pro-abortion may advocate forcing OB/GYN providers into violating their conscience - either through soft or hard measures. Medical students may be carefully screened during OB/GYN residency interviews to ensure those who are placed are willing to learn how to do abortions.
For the moment healthcare providers are free not to offer vaccines - though with the use of electronic medical records (EHR's) as well as ICD-10 and claims data practice patterns (including vaccination rates) will no doubt be monitored and "incentives" to change behavior instituted (ie: payments "adjusted" up or down to "encourage" the desired outcome of compliance with the vaccination paradigm - or else).
We are designed to live in freedom - being given a faux choice is no choice. Being injected with a vaccine in order to continue working is not a choice - it is coercion. So long as there are laws or regulations forcing vaccination for any reason even those who are pro-vaccination cannot claim they are freely choosing to receive a vaccination.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
The "wisdom" of a fool ...
I used to give Bill Gates the benefit of the doubt in regards to his statements about vaccines and reducing population growth - no longer.
I used to believe what he implied - that when children don't die because they get vaccinated then couples will have fewer children. Though I think that logic is pretty flimsy because I don't think that is what drives family size regardless of what Bill Gates thinks.
What I find so bizarre about this is his decision to back expensive high-tech healthcare (like vaccines) rather than invest his billions in providing clean water and cheap energy to the poor - as these drive health outcomes far better (in my opinion) than vaccines. If you're going to die from drinking unsanitary water a measles vaccine isn't going to help you. It does not make sense to start at the top of the pyramid of complex interventions - first you need to build the foundation with the basics.
Cheap energy means people don't need to cook over an open fire fueled by dung - breathing the smoke is a driver of respiratory illness. Cheap energy also means people have access to refrigeration so food does not spoil.
Besides - many of the expensive high tech vaccines require a cold-chain in order to be effective. This increases their complexity in delivery to places of the world where doing so is logistically challenging - another reason to start with the basics of clean water and cheap energy.
Part of what is so strange is that BG believes (or at least publically says he believes) in the theory of global warming/climate change being driven by CO2 - hence his desire to reduce world population, 'cause people do nasty things like breathe! How this doesn't apply to him I'll never understand - just to all those poor brown peeps. Go figure. Oddly enough, The Gates Foundation Trust invests in energy companies like BP.
But these high tech vaccines and the cold chain they require also need energy - to produce them and to keep them cold. The same energy that also creates CO2 that he says needs to be reduced to zero. The planes he and his family jet around in likewise produce loads of CO2, but nevermind - the rules for the rich and elite are quite different.
With mandatory vaccination a favorite strategy of vaccine proponents (you know, an idea so good people will only "agree" to it by force) one can only speculate what population controllers might try in an effort to impose controls over who does or does not make a baby.
There have already been worries that some ingredients in vaccines might cause infertility (especially Gardasil - there have been reports of premature ovarian failure following the administration of this vaccine).
There have been multiple vaccine-related scandals where concerns were raised that the vaccine may have also contained beta-HCG, a hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. One of the consistent patterns is that these allegations always involved population groups that were poor and people of color and where consent was non-existent.
The theory of using a vaccine against beta-Hcg (the beta sub-unit of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin) as a means of "birth control" has been around since the early 1990's.
So I can only speculate that perhaps BG would be willing to vaccinate people against giving birth. You see, a vaccine against beta-Hcg would not stop a woman from getting conceiving, but it would interfere with implantation or the continuation of life for a newly conceived person - and as even Horton the Who knows "a person is a person no matter how small". Horton is smarter, and wiser, than Bill Gates.
Since we do not have a long-term study comparing health outcomes (death being a "health outcome" believe it or not!) between vaccinated vs unvaccinated we really do not know if vaccines are truly safe. We do know that conventional medical care, even inadvertently, contributes to the death of those who seek medical help - and vaccines are a cornerstone of conventional medicine, though they consistently get a free pass in regards to any question of involvement in bad outcomes. Yet there is reason to question their safety - it is just that this evidence is simply ignored because it does not fit the approved paradigm.
Smart isn't always wise. Sometimes "smart" people are arrogant - pretending to be wise, yet they are fools (1 Corinthians 1:25 & 1 Corinthians 3:19-20). We all deserve to be free of being controlled by arrogant overlords - we deserve the freedom to determine what medical interventions, including vaccines, we will or will not take.
I used to believe what he implied - that when children don't die because they get vaccinated then couples will have fewer children. Though I think that logic is pretty flimsy because I don't think that is what drives family size regardless of what Bill Gates thinks.
What I find so bizarre about this is his decision to back expensive high-tech healthcare (like vaccines) rather than invest his billions in providing clean water and cheap energy to the poor - as these drive health outcomes far better (in my opinion) than vaccines. If you're going to die from drinking unsanitary water a measles vaccine isn't going to help you. It does not make sense to start at the top of the pyramid of complex interventions - first you need to build the foundation with the basics.
Cheap energy means people don't need to cook over an open fire fueled by dung - breathing the smoke is a driver of respiratory illness. Cheap energy also means people have access to refrigeration so food does not spoil.
Besides - many of the expensive high tech vaccines require a cold-chain in order to be effective. This increases their complexity in delivery to places of the world where doing so is logistically challenging - another reason to start with the basics of clean water and cheap energy.
Part of what is so strange is that BG believes (or at least publically says he believes) in the theory of global warming/climate change being driven by CO2 - hence his desire to reduce world population, 'cause people do nasty things like breathe! How this doesn't apply to him I'll never understand - just to all those poor brown peeps. Go figure. Oddly enough, The Gates Foundation Trust invests in energy companies like BP.
But these high tech vaccines and the cold chain they require also need energy - to produce them and to keep them cold. The same energy that also creates CO2 that he says needs to be reduced to zero. The planes he and his family jet around in likewise produce loads of CO2, but nevermind - the rules for the rich and elite are quite different.
With mandatory vaccination a favorite strategy of vaccine proponents (you know, an idea so good people will only "agree" to it by force) one can only speculate what population controllers might try in an effort to impose controls over who does or does not make a baby.
There have already been worries that some ingredients in vaccines might cause infertility (especially Gardasil - there have been reports of premature ovarian failure following the administration of this vaccine).
There have been multiple vaccine-related scandals where concerns were raised that the vaccine may have also contained beta-HCG, a hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. One of the consistent patterns is that these allegations always involved population groups that were poor and people of color and where consent was non-existent.
The theory of using a vaccine against beta-Hcg (the beta sub-unit of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin) as a means of "birth control" has been around since the early 1990's.
So I can only speculate that perhaps BG would be willing to vaccinate people against giving birth. You see, a vaccine against beta-Hcg would not stop a woman from getting conceiving, but it would interfere with implantation or the continuation of life for a newly conceived person - and as even Horton the Who knows "a person is a person no matter how small". Horton is smarter, and wiser, than Bill Gates.
Since we do not have a long-term study comparing health outcomes (death being a "health outcome" believe it or not!) between vaccinated vs unvaccinated we really do not know if vaccines are truly safe. We do know that conventional medical care, even inadvertently, contributes to the death of those who seek medical help - and vaccines are a cornerstone of conventional medicine, though they consistently get a free pass in regards to any question of involvement in bad outcomes. Yet there is reason to question their safety - it is just that this evidence is simply ignored because it does not fit the approved paradigm.
Smart isn't always wise. Sometimes "smart" people are arrogant - pretending to be wise, yet they are fools (1 Corinthians 1:25 & 1 Corinthians 3:19-20). We all deserve to be free of being controlled by arrogant overlords - we deserve the freedom to determine what medical interventions, including vaccines, we will or will not take.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
12 links - click and learn
While I aim to provide brief snips of original content there is also no need to reinvent the wheel. Below are links to a 12 part series much of which contains a reasonable summary of some of the issues involved in vaccination and why so many think and believe that there should be far greater freedom in regards to acceptance/declination of this medical procedure (among others).
The links to every part of the series is available at the end of each post (a considerate touch on the part of the creator) I am including all of them here as the primary topic of each article is in the link - you can read one or all and jump around if you want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)