article continued…
Epidemiological Obfuscation
Many epidemiological vaccine safety studies make the basic error of declaring “lack of association” because the confidence interval of the odds ratio does not span the null value. (Null value for a risk ratio: The value indicating no difference between the groups.) These conclusions are simply wrong. In fact, epidemiological safety studies are not only the easiest to manipulate (and they have been, by excluding certain population here or diluting down a certain population there, so to speak), they have significant shortcomings because they are utilized routinely by pharma and authorities (working together with conflicts of interest) to count what they want to count rather than answer important safety questions.
For example, there are 16 epidemiological studies most often cited by scientists, public health officials and members of the media when trying to refute any evidence of an association between vaccinations and autism. The flaws in these studies have been pointed out by government officials, other researchers, medical review panels, and even the authors of the studies themselves. Taken together, the limitations of these studies make it impossible to conclude there is no association. In other words, from a risk assessment angle these studies are meaningless and provide no assurance of safety.
In addition, Poul Thorsen, a prominent researcher responsible for a series of epidemiological studies that utilized the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register was indicted by a US federal grand jury on 13 counts of fraud and nine counts of money laundering based on a scheme to steal grant money the CDC had awarded to governmental agencies in Denmark for autism research.
The reason it is so easy to manipulate epidemiological studies is that epidemiology counts numbers without a lot of context—biosemiotics is not part of epidemiology. You can count the number of people having intercourse; but without an understanding of what intercourse does biologically, you can’t casually associate intercourse with pregnancy. So, epidemiological studies allow for a lot of interpretation, but the truth is that they allow for manipulation of statistics to reveal just about whatever someone wants those statistics to reveal, as long as that someone doesn’t have an expert in epidemiology looking over their shoulder. The CDC has had the ability to flood the medical literature with garbage epidemiological studies that help them push policy not public health.
Right now, there is an explosion of allergies to milk, peanuts, eggs to name three; it is a big mystery until you realize that vaccines contain bovine casein, eggs, porcine gelatin, and peanut oil. They also contain glyphosate—the herbicide: “This combination of atopic children and food protein injection along with adjuvants, contributes to millions developing life-threatening food allergies.”60
No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from … medical or scientific experimentation without free consent… and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.61
Medical ethicists have long maintained that a patient who has been coerced to consent to injection of biotechnology or a medical procedure, due to fear of losing access to basic necessities (i.e., food, medical care, education) should not be presumed to have provided lawful informed consent to the injection or medical procedure.62
As with all forms of medical therapy, informed consent must precede vaccination administration. In the informed consent discussion, health care professionals must discuss information central to the decision-making process for vaccination, including the indications, risks, and benefits of the vaccine and available alternatives, as well as possible consequences from nonvaccination…In addition, healthcare professionals should respect patients’ informed refusal of vaccinations. For some patients, receiving vaccines conflicts with personal or cultural beliefs. For others, the perceived uncertainty of scientific research on vaccine safety hinders their acceptance of clinical recommendations for vaccination….63
The above policy is that of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2013), but the duplicity in policies like this is that most of the members are not informed and only rely on the CDC for information. One is not supposed to give a vaccine without informed consent, but can informed consent be obtained when the physician does not have the appropriate information? An OB/GYN physician would most likely be giving an HPV vaccine. Would said physician know that HPV is only associated with cervical cancer, but direct causality has never been proven? That there is no evidence that the vaccine can prevent invasive cancer let alone avoid death by this cancer, or that the clinical trial mortality was 64 times greater (in the US) than getting the disease the vaccine maybe/might prevent? Would an OB/GYN physician know women who have adequate vitamin D levels probably won’t get cervical dysplasia? Or that dysplasia might be treated nutritionally with indole-3-carbinol (I3C)? That the benign drug Isoprinosine could potentially treat this cancer?64 That the clinical trial was run using only half the aluminum adjuvant as the marketed vaccine, and then compared against those who received a faux placebo that also contained aluminum?
How does one obtain informed consent if one is not informed other than what is printed on a sanitized Vaccine Information Sheet from the CDC? Why would a clearly experimental vaccine be made mandatory? Might it have something to do with the fact the US government licensed the technology to make the vaccine to Merck and GSK, and thereby profits from its use?
Vaccine policy in the US is inextricably linked to commercial interests leading to unconstrained government self-dealing in arrangements whereby the HHS can transfer technology to pharmaceutical partners, simultaneously both approve and protect their partners’ technology licenses while also taking a cut of the profits. That is an interesting conflict of interest that, at best, does not get disclosed to the medical community, and at worst this is a situation where the agency in charge of safety is protecting their business partners and granting them a license to cause whatever harm results and with no accountability.
How are impartial vaccine safety recommendations even the least bit possible when the government assumes the vaccine is safer than the disease, approves the vaccine, makes the market for it, shields the vaccine from liability with its recommendations, and then cashes in on the profits? This is a form of racketeering.
Conclusion
“…that bloodletting survived for so long is not an intellectual anomaly—it resulted from the dynamic interaction of social, economic, and intellectual pressures, a process that continues to determine medical practice.”65
Electricity for refrigerating food, plumbing for toilets, and pipes bringing potable water are the interventions that have improved health the most for most of humanity that has had access to them. There is no evidence that vaccines improved on what plumbers, civil engineers and electricians have done for public health. Given a choice between funding a vaccine or a toilet, the priority (based on evidence) is to fund the toilet. On the other hand, it should be abundantly clear that vaccines are no magic bullet; nevertheless, they are bullets and are often fired without any appreciation for the target, the consequences of hitting the target, or even how the gun operates that fired the bullet.
Vaccines may have a place in our medical arsenal, but they are not the silver bullet they’re portrayed to be. Year after year the pharmaceutical industry, looking for lucrative new profit centers, churns out new vaccines. They use pseudo-science to convince the public that these products are safe and effective, and they use public shaming to convince the citizenry that non-compliance is a public health threat.66
In the US, the Pharmaceutical industry is the largest campaign donor to politicians and the largest advertiser in all forms of media, but even that level on influence should still yield to safeguards on human rights and bioethics. For when a medical intervention becomes shielded from liability and is then mandated by governments who are often in an unholy partnership with the corporations responsible for that intervention, then we are all in peril. When coercion becomes part of the equation, a crime against humanity is being perpetrated. The intellectual and social suppression of views, research and information inconvenient to vaccine stakeholders and proponents is no different today than it was for those who opposed the practice of bloodletting and dosing patients with mercury. The difference today are the economic factors, for it is projected that by 2020, global vaccine revenues exceed $60 billion dollars. with that amount of money in play vaccine and public health policies have been made to support the desires of a criminal cabal where informed consent is perhaps the only remaining firewall.
While phlebotomy therapy is now restricted to two or three specific conditions, obviously the obsession with dosing humans with mercury (Thimerosal) has not been retired and is almost the exclusive province of the vaccine industry. As standard-of-care, bloodletting went on for hundreds of years past when physicians began using statistics and pointing out the practice was not efficacious. With hundreds of new vaccines in the pipeline, the human race may not survive a few hundred years more of vaccines as currently employed. Thus, vaccine risk awareness and informed consent are the real protectors of public health at this critical time in history.
