Those Vaccinated With The Pertussis Vaccine Are Spreading Disease

The recent news articles to hit the mainstream media in the past week finally states what public health officials and epidemiologists have known for some time: those vaccinated against pertussis are carrying and spreading the bacteria and are responsible for most of the outbreaks.

This news raises the question:

Should we hold those vaccinated with the pertussis vaccine, legally liable for outbreaks?

And, if you look up scholarly articles about previous outbreaks of measles, you'll find academic papers on an entity termed "the paradox of measles"; a paradox because those vaccinated are the ones contracting the disease whilst the unvaccinated in many communities with outbreaks, are unscathed.

In addition, the rise in shingles over the past decade or so, is due to the chicken pox vaccine. This link is not denied in academic literature and was even predicted by mathematical biologists and epidemiologists, and was confirmed by another study funded by the CDC.

If vaccinated children and adults are capable of spreading disease, shall we hold them and their parents legally liable for outbreaks? Shall we mandate 'unvaccination' as a requirement for public school? Since we can't 'unvaccinate,' shall vaccinated children be kicked out of public school?

While the above statements seem absurd, they are equivalent arguments bioethicist, Art Caplan has and continues to make.

Caplan believes parents of unvaccinated children should be held legally liable for outbreaks of disease.

Mind you, Caplan is no regular academic bioethicist, he is a bioethicist who has made a good deal of money for writing pro-industry speak.

If you read about Art Caplan and his direct financial conflicts of interest, you'll also read Art believes these financial conflicts can be managed while producing unbiased work. He and his previous institution of employment, the University of Pennsylvania Department of Bioethics received mega fees from major pharmaceutical companies and the department of vaccine bioethics at U Penn was massively funded by the big vaccine producers.
In addition to the DTap rendering recipients colonized with pertussis bacteria, consider the following:

a) Recently vaccinated children must be kept away from cancer patients lest they shed vaccine virus.

b) The oral polio vaccine was the cause of all polio cases in the US for several decades until, finally, the vaccine industry had a vaccine to replace it with.

c) The nasal flu vaccine renders the recipient shedding viruses for several days.

d) The rotavirus vaccine is shed in the recipient's stool causing diarrhea in other children.

The above examples are just a few of how the recently vaccinated can shed pathogens and hence spread diseases.

So while the mainstream media is waking up to the realities of vaccination and outbreaks, shall we turn on all those who chose to vaccinate and make them pariahs?

I think the freedom to choose the risks vs benefits of vaccinating should be left to the consumer and not dictated by those with conflicts of interest.

Source: GreenMedInfo

A Shot Never Worth Taking: The Flu Vaccine

Deep into my 6th year of researching and investigating the damning science that condemns vaccine efficacy and safety – yes, all of them – I am beginning to turn my attention more to the societal memes and the individual belief systems that protect and perpetuate tragically flawed and unacceptably dangerous collective behaviors.

The information is OUT THERE, brilliant scientists, physicians, and researchers without financial ties and agendas have weighed in and presented their concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, however, the average citizen resists and clings to a hyper-simplified, seemingly "safe" stance.

"Well, I'm not against vaccines, I mean, they've done a lot. I'm sure there are some risks, but they're extremely rare."

I understand, now, that, my collection of PubMed articles substantiating concerns about inefficacy, neurological, autoimmune, and fatal risks of these poorly conceived and anachronistically relevant immune modulators is not meaningful to someone who is not interested. The questions raised by this information are not provocative to someone who needs, above all, to believe that the government, the CDC, and doctors mean well, are doing their due diligence, and that they are holding themselves to a basic standard of ethical delivery of healthcare. They are not meaningful to someone who needs to outsource their power.

Instead of debating the science, what it may take to change to bring awareness to this egregious misuse of medical authority is, one of two, non-scientific, anecdotal exposures:

1. They see it doesn't work, and may even cause illness
I have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the CDC.

"Oh!" I say, "Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There's THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?"

2.They know someone harmed
It is basic human psychology that what is out over there is irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. What is near and familiar is what is true. Few of us seek to bridge gaps between what we are surrounded by and what may be out there to learn. The difficulty of appreciating the scale of harm brought to the population by vaccination practice is related to the insidious nature of immune and neurologic insult.

The propaganda surrounding this CDC and government-endorsed practice is so thick that doctors treating this young man were blind to even the most obvious of causative insults. If doctors cannot appreciate a documented adverse event that occurs within 24 hours, you cannot expect the system to acknowledge more complex disturbances to the immune system and neuorologic development that will land you and your loved ones on medications and in therapies for life. And, remember, that this family cannot sue the physician who pushed the needle or the pharmaceutical company who created the lethal product.

I think about the Cliff's Notes version, a distillation of why the flu vaccine is evidence that our government and regulatory bodies have forgotten us, and are following an objective that may leave you lying dead on the side of the road. I know that few of you will read the papers that I have read, attend lectures, seminars, and dialogue with concerned experts. If nothing else, digest these important points, and then wait until this issue gets close enough to you to change your mind on it...hopefully before it's too late.

•It's not indicated: I'm sure you don't know a single person who has died of the flu, and if you think you do, I can almost guarantee you that the diagnosis was not confirmed in a way that ruled out the 150-200 infectious pathogens that cause flu-like syndromes, none of which would be "covered" by the vaccine. Despite the astronomical figures the CDC flashes before us of "flu deaths", there were 18 (yes, 1-8) confirmed in 2001, for example. Access to these figures is suspiciously concealed, but in the end, forget the stats, and use some common sense to see the fear mongering and sales marketing for what it is.

•It doesn't work: The Cochrane Database – an objective, gold-standard assessment of available evidence has plainly stated, in TWO STUDIES, that there is no data to support efficacy in children under two, and in adults. Even the former Chief Vaccine Officer at the FDA states: "there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza." Liking the idea of being protected from the flu does not equate to being protected from the flu. That's essentially what your vaccine-promoting doctor (or pharmacist) is engaging in – promoting an idea.

•Should there ever be a medical intervention appropriate for everyone?
It's being pushed on demographics where it is known to be ineffective, or is unstudied and likely unsafe including children, adults, elderly, and pregnant women as reviewed on THIS WEB SITE andGREENMEDINFO. I write about how this offends my sensibilities as a perinatal physician HERE.

•We just don't know what we are doing: The grave possibility of undetectable viral proteins in the chick embryos used to culture vaccines is just an example of how the immune roulette of vaccine development and rampant implementation has resulted in death and lasting injury. C. jejeuni contamination, for example, IS THEORIZED TO PLAY A ROLE in documented risk of Guillain-Barre paralysis after flu vaccine. Producing antibody response to virus and associated toxic preservatives is not immunity. We know that now.

As those of us who shake our heads in pain and frustration watching the sheep get herded off the cliff, we refrain: these agents cannot be considered "safe and effective" and also "unavoidably unsafe" as the government agencies would have us accept. They are avoidably unsafe, in fact, when you don't use them as part of your healthcare.

Source: GreenMedInfo