Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54

Thread: How does Assange's arrest and Mandatory Vaccine Mandates relate?

  1. #1
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,649 Times in 1,264 Posts

    How does Assange's arrest and Mandatory Vaccine Mandates relate?

    Powder kegs and dangerous forces are evident ready to dis-assemble a very obvious need in our society. This is the need to provide checks and balances to protect us. Real journalism uncovers the truth. This enables us to access informed consent. This empowers us to cooperate for the purpose of standing up to corporatocracy which has manifested itself as a megawar machine....

    The arrest of Assange has shown that the media for the most part does NOT act in the interest of truth. The "news" has been vilifying Julian Assange. This shows that the news is NOT synonomous with journalsim. The "news" is simply a mouth piece for the corporatocracy.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw8yf6Luwo4


    There is a war being waged against health. The corporatocracy does not want health. It wants managed disease. It is spear headed by the pharmacy industry which has a massive cash cow in mandatory vaccination.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIm8fHxqUAM


    There is a totally hysterical response evident now concerning measles. Many of us know the truth. The "news" has been demonizing vaccine skeptics. The imbalance of the power of the corporatocracy is also shown in the treatment of the subject of communicable disease in the media.
    We are on the verge of being forced to accept mandatory vaccination. This is from 2018 and is coming to pass now.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R0URP_IwGI


    There is absolutely no time IMO for petty divisions because we are all the fuel for the maw of the machine.

    They came for Dr Andrew Wakefield because he dared to ask questions about vaccines , and I did not speak out because I preferred the cosy pretence that vaccines were completely safe and effective.

    Then they came for the vaccine hesitant , and I did not speak out , because I did not know about vaccine injury and deaths and just believed what the papers said about “crazy anti vaxxers”

    Then they mandated vaccines on everyone , and I did not speak out because I thought personal choice and informed consent was less important than public health agendas.

    Now I am vaccine injured myself because I did not read the label or do my own research and naively. (quote form the comments to the video below)

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sEXWjTyAbA
    Last edited by Maggie, 14th April 2019 at 21:04.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Fred Steeves (14th April 2019), Kathy (16th April 2019), modwiz (14th April 2019), NotAPretender (14th April 2019), WantDisclosure (15th April 2019), Zebowho (15th April 2019)

  3. #2
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    3,564
    Thanks
    14,061
    Thanked 16,001 Times in 3,566 Posts
    Assange's arrest reflects TWO things in my estimation.

    The tendency for MSM to become involved in things they don't really understand but usually stand in favor of ostensible decency.

    AND

    The fact that Assange is a criminal rabble rouser at heart.

    That has long been my belief. Assange might be looking for truth but has no interest in justice.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Aragorn (14th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019)

  5. #3
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    East Tennessee U.S.A.
    Posts
    922
    Thanks
    1,357
    Thanked 5,727 Times in 926 Posts
    Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.
    George Orwell


    Watching "journalists" heralding the arrest of Assange is chilling. It's to be expected with our typical self absorbed and spineless politicians, but by the one's whose very job description is to hold the powers of government accountable for their actions is unconscionable. True journalism is all but dead, except in parts of the new and ever rising independent media. That's the lifeline.

    It's also fascinating to observe who cheers the machine, and who jeers it.

    Last edited by Fred Steeves, 14th April 2019 at 19:55.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Aragorn (14th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019), Maggie (14th April 2019), modwiz (14th April 2019), Wind (14th April 2019)

  7. #4
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    3,564
    Thanks
    14,061
    Thanked 16,001 Times in 3,566 Posts
    Ellsberg is full of poopoo...

    He spent no time in prison AND he was an American Citizen.

    Assange was releasing information regarding secret info about the USA while not a citizen...That's called espionage?

    What is wrong with these people.


    He has to be making money from this...
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Aragorn (14th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019)

  9. #5
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,649 Times in 1,264 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    (Ellsberg) spent no time in prison AND he was an American Citizen.

    Assange was releasing information regarding secret info about the USA while not a citizen...That's called espionage?
    I guess your stand on the 1st amendment is that you don't like it when people talk bad about who and what you like? Yeah, it is inconvenient for people to insist on spreading inconvenient evidence so that a myth cannot just be maintained and we will all be quietly respectful of authority... I wonder who Assange is an inconvenience to in your mind? Is it that you had a dog in that war after 9/11? What is your personal purpose in these many discussions?

    Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    “Throughout American history, our government has excessively restricted public discourse in the name of national security,” University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone told Congress at a hearing in December. Stone said that prosecuting journalists under the Espionage Act would violate the First Amendment. “Over time, we have come to understand that these episodes from our past were grievous errors in judgment in which we allowed fear and anxiety to override our good judgment and our essential commitment to individual liberty and democratic self-governance.”

    Journalists have never been successfully prosecuted
    As it is currently written, the Espionage Act of 1917 makes it a crime to hurt the United States or benefit a foreign country by collecting or communicating information that would harm the national defense. It is also a crime to enter an installation or obtain a document connected to the national defense in order to hurt the United States or benefit a foreign country. Knowingly receiving classified information that has been obtained illegally, as well as passing it on, also runs afoul of the Espionage Act.

    “The Espionage Act is so vague and poorly defined in its terms, that it’s hard to say exactly what it does and does not cover,” said Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

    The U.S. government has never successfully prosecuted anyone other than a government employee for disseminating unlawfully leaked classified information, Stone said in his testimony. Thus, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such a prosecution.

    The closest the Court has come to examining the issue is the famous Pentagon Papers case, New York Times v. United States, when the Court rejected the government’s attempt to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a leaked copy of a top secret study of the Vietnam War.

    The Court’s short, unsigned opinion simply said the government had not met its heavy burden of justifying a prior restraint on publication. Concurring opinions went into more detail, reflecting the justices’ different views on the government’s ability to respond to the leaking of classified information.https://www.rcfp.org/journals/wikile...nage-act-1917/
    Ellsberg was charged with conspiracy and violating the Espionage Act of 1917. He faced a total maximum sentence of 115 years in prison; Russo faced 35. In a trial in Los Angeles that began on January 3, 1973, Ellsberg’s attorneys claimed that the documents were illegally classified, to keep them not from an enemy but rather from the American public. The judge deemed the argument “irrelevant.” Ellsberg later recalled that his “lawyer, exasperated, said he ‘had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.’ The judge responded: well, you’re hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment.”

    But Ellsberg was saved from almost certain prison time when it came out that a secret Nixon White House team dubbed “the plumbers” burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in September 1971. The FBI had also recorded numerous conversations between Ellsberg and former National Security Council member Morton Halperin without a court order. And, further, Ehrlichman had offered the judge the directorship of the FBI in a move that he interpreted as a bribe.

    Citing gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, the judge dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973. In his decision, Byrne said, “The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case.”

    Ellsberg was in the clear.https://timeline.com/pentagon-papers...n-9772ec594f73
    Last edited by Maggie, 14th April 2019 at 21:00.

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019), Kathy (16th April 2019), modwiz (14th April 2019), NotAPretender (14th April 2019), WantDisclosure (15th April 2019), Zebowho (15th April 2019)

  11. #6
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    3,564
    Thanks
    14,061
    Thanked 16,001 Times in 3,566 Posts
    lol...I didn't care...I thought Hussein sucked and I think any blind condemnation of an entire 'culture' based on the action of a few sucks...That was my stake...

    The 1st amendment...I'm not stuck on it...I am stuck on justice, truth, and basic human decency. I don't need laws to guide my conscience.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019)

  13. #7
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,649 Times in 1,264 Posts
    The corporate control of social experience is strongly evident in the US in the 21st century. It is not JUST the military industrial complex (MIC) that now has a hold on each of us but the model is most pronounced in the corporations that manufacture weapons and the establishment of the perpetual outlets which the MIC must create to continue its profitable business.

    Ike's Warning Of Military Expansion, 50 Years Later

    January 17, 2011
    On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.

    Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general, the man who led the allies on D-Day, made the remarks in his farewell speech from the White House. continue herehttps://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/13294...50-years-later

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU


    Another parallel rise in corporate control of social experience is the growth and development of the Pharmaceutical industry's hold on "health care". One of the most egregious examples IMO is the vaccine industry which is neither settled science nor public health obligatory (when one reads the science and evidence of alternative methods of handling communicable disease).

    Mandatory vaccination of children has been countered only by some medical and in some states religious exemption. The pharmaceutical companies are protected by the US government form legal repsonsibility in the case of injury. The CDC actually makes money itself from the production and distribution of vaccines.

    Strangely a quote from ‎Martin Niemöller that I was thinking about shows up in this video also.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEcYQydhY9E


    I do think it may be a profound rallying point of view that corporate control has overwhelmed the power structure and may actually be the one issue that we can all gather to face in soldidarity? All of us will face the same kind of thumb screws when we get in the way. If we get over our petty fears and delusions that from someone and somewhere else lies the "problem", maybe we can see it is simply the benefits to living beings needing paramount emphasis. Corporations breathe no air and have no heart but they do eat money and they excrete toxic waste.


    Free Speech and Shutting Down Vaccine Debate
    Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola

    April 06, 2019

    The U.S. Constitution protects the civil liberties of all Americans, including freedom of thought, speech, conscience, religious belief and the right to dissent and petition the government.1,2,3 Yet, in recent years we've seen a frightening erosion of these civil liberties under the guise of "protecting public health."

    I'm talking about the ongoing effort to shut down all public discussion about vaccine safety, of course — an effort that is now reaching a fever-pitch as online communication platforms have started actively censoring information that questions the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

    The featured video, "Free Speech and Shutting Down the Vaccine Debate" by Truthstream Media, addresses this disturbing turn of events. As noted in the video, all vaccine-related videos on YouTube now carry a "Vaccine controversies" information panel, warning viewers that:

    "Vaccine hesitancy is a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or have one's children vaccinated. Identified by the World Health Organization as one of the top 10 global health threats of 2019,4 it contradicts overwhelming scientific consensus about the safety and efficacy of vaccines."

    What's Driving Growing 'Vaccine Hesitancy'?
    The information panel includes a link to the "vaccine hesitancy" page on Wikipedia, which further states that "Hesitancy results from public debates around the medical, ethical and legal issues related to vaccines," and that "Despite overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and effective, unsubstantiated scares regarding their safety still occur, resulting in outbreaks and deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases." This is propaganda at its most obnoxious, as:

    a. Scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and effective does not in fact exist. On the contrary, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that government licensed and recommended childhood vaccines mandated by states are "unavoidably unsafe."5

    b. Outbreaks of infectious disease often occur in highly-vaccinated populations6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14

    c. Vaccine hesitancy does NOT actually result from exposure to information about vaccine safety (or lack thereof). It's spreading because most people now know someone who was healthy, got vaccinated and became permanently unwell or disabled (or died).15,16

    Widespread personal experience is the real cause behind growing "vaccine hesitancy," and this is why the vaccine industry is pushing so hard to shut down all public conversation about vaccination and eliminate all vaccine exemptions. If they succeed, then the harms can continue to be swept under the rug and their extraordinary profit center can continue to grow unimpeded.

    As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) in "Taking No Prisoners in the Vaccine Culture War":

    "No public health official, professor or legislator in America can explain why millions and millions of children and more than half of all adults are chronically ill or disabled.17

    This is the real public health emergency that mothers and fathers want to talk about, but Congress and medical trade groups do not want to discuss. This is the elephant in the room at every public hearing on bills proposing to take away or expand vaccine informed consent rights being held in state legislatures today."

    Summary of How Free Speech Is Being Dismantled in the US
    The featured video, as well as several of my recent articles, discusses the growing effort to vilify (if not outright criminalize) those who express concerns about vaccine safety and to shut down free speech in the U.S. — but only speech relating to vaccine harms, not the benefits of vaccines. Here's a summary of some of the most prominent examples:

    The World Health Organization lists "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the top 10 global public health threats for 2019.18

    In a January interview with CBS News,19 Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) lied when he flat-out denied the fact that vaccines can cause injury or death. The fact is, the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 has paid out $4 billion in awards for vaccine damages and deaths, and that's just 31 percent of all the injury petitions filed.20,21

    February 27, 2019, Fauci also lied to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations at its "Confronting a Growing Public Health Threat: Measles Outbreaks in the U.S." hearing.22 In his testimony, he claimed childhood vaccines like the MMR are completely safe and do not cause serious reactions, such as encephalitis (brain inflammation).23 The facts are:

    a. The MMR vaccine package insert24 published by Merck states that "Encephalitis and encephalopathy have been reported approximately once for every 3 million doses of M-M-R II or measles-mumps- and rubella-containing vaccine."

    b. The vaccine information statement (VIS), which doctors by federal law (under the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act) are required to give parents before their children receive a CDC recommended vaccine, states that "severe" adverse effects of the MMR25 and MMRV26 vaccines include "deafness; long-term seizures; coma; lowered consciousness; and brain damage."

    One of the "moderate" adverse events listed as associated with the MMRV vaccine is encephalitis.

    c. Studies have shown the MMR vaccine can cause encephalitis and encephalopathy (acute or chronic brain dysfunction).27

    d. As noted in a 2015 paper in the journal Vaccine,28 "We summarize epidemiologic data on deaths following vaccination, including examples where reasonable scientific evidence exists to support that vaccination caused or contributed to deaths.

    Rare cases where a known or plausible theoretical risk of death following vaccination exists include anaphylaxis, vaccine-strain systemic infection after administration of live vaccines to severely immunocompromised persons, intussusception after rotavirus vaccine, Guillain-Barré syndrome after inactivated influenza vaccine, fall-related injuries associated with syncope after vaccination, yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease or associated neurologic disease, serious complications from smallpox vaccine including eczema vaccinatum, progressive vaccinia, postvaccinal encephalitis, myocarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis from oral poliovirus vaccine."

    Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, also misinformed Congress when she stated, "There are rare instances in children with certain very specific underlying problems with their immune system in whom the vaccine is contraindicated."

    She lied when she said the MMR vaccine "does not cause brain swelling and encephalitis" in healthy children, and that parents would know if their child was at risk beforehand, because their child's doctor would tell them if this were the case.29

    In February, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb threatened state legislators with federal government intervention if they do not eliminate vaccine exemptions.30,31,32

    California state Sen. Dr. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, is urging the U.S. Surgeon General to push mandatory vaccinations to the top of the federal public health agenda.33,34 According to Pan, mandating vaccines, as was done for smallpox during the Revolutionary War, would "protect our right as Americans to be free of preventable diseases."

    A bill has been introduced in Washington, D.C., allowing minor children of any age to get vaccines in the city without a parent's knowledge or consent after a doctor says the child is "mature" enough to make the decision.35

    In recent weeks, the media have been flooded with reports of how tech platforms and social media are fueling "anti-vax" fears and spreading misinformation, and doing nothing to prevent sharing of vaccine safety-related material between users.36

    Art Caplan, a bioethics professor and head of the division of medical ethics at New York University School of Medicine, has stated that "companies cannot allow themselves to be 'vehicles for misinformation contagion,'" and must take steps to censor information that might lead people to avoid vaccination.37

    In response, YouTube has demonetized "anti-vaccine" channels, barring them from advertising on the platform.38

    Facebook is "hiding" vaccine critical content and barring "ads that contain misinformation about vaccines."39

    Pinterest is blocking search terms related to vaccines, as well as "memes and pins from sites promoting anti-vaccine propaganda"40

    Amazon has removed films critical of vaccine safety from its Prime Video streaming service,41,42 as well as books discussing vaccine risks and failures and/or biomedical and holistic health treatments for autism.43

    Google is burying content and videos relating to vaccine safety issues.44

    The Case of Dr. Peter Hotez
    The video spends quite some time dissecting the influence of Dr. Peter Hotez, and for good reason. Over the past two years, Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, has called for violent suppression of vaccine safety information, bullying parents of vaccine-injured children45 — calling them "anti-vaxxers" even though these parents are discussing their children's injuries that occurred as a result of vaccination, not because they didn't vaccinate them — classifying vaccine safety and pro-informed consent advocacy groups such as the NVIC as "hate groups" that "hate children,"46 and saying we must "snuff out" (a term typically reserved for gangster style murder) the "anti-vaccine" movement.47 He's also stated that vaccination "is not a choice; it's a responsibility."48

    "Free Speech and Shutting Down the Vaccine Debate" details some of Hotez's professional history, revealing just how strong his ties to the vaccine industry are. He even published a paper last year on how to develop your "personal brand" as a scientist,49 saying he got the idea in 2012, and has been developing his brand as a "vaccinologist and autism dad" ever since, for the express purpose of combating "a well-organized and well-funded pseudoscience anti-vaccine lobby."

    It's not so surprising then that Hotez is calling for nothing short of a scientific dictatorship that will control what can and cannot be said about medical and scientific topics.

    On at least two occasions, including during a recent appearance on the Joe Rogan show, Hotez has suggested Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit, Instagram and other online platforms should hire chief scientific officers to manage, filter and regulate content50,51 — a truly ludicrous proposition by any definition of freedom of speech.

    Are Parents 'Inundated' With Anti-Vaccine Information?
    According to Hotez,52,53 parents are so inundated with anti-vaccine propaganda that they don't have the opportunity to get to the truth. "The anti-vaccine lobby owns the internet right now," he told Rogan, adding there are about 500 anti-vaccine websites, and whenever you do an online search for vaccine information, all you end up with is their misinformation.

    "Free Speech and Shutting Down the Vaccine Debate" demonstrates just how ridiculous that idea is, and you can test it for yourself, using whatever search engine you prefer. Simply type in any vaccine-related search term, and see what kind of results you get, and just how far you have to scroll to actually find any accurate information detailing not just the complications of infectious diseases, but also the complications of vaccines that can cause brain and immune system damage and chronic poor health.

    There are about 200 million active websites today, so clearly, what Hotez labels as the "anti-vaccine lobby," even at 500 websites does not "own" or even dominate the internet by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually less than a fraction of a percent, 0.00025 percent to be exact.

    Citing information from an SEO expert, the video reports that "The average web user won't go past the first five listings on a search engine results page (SERP) … [M]ore than 67 percent of all clicks on SERPs go to the top five listings … Research shows that websites on the first SERP receive almost 95 percent of web traffic, leaving only 5 percent for remaining SERPs."

    What that means for vaccines is that pro-mandatory vaccination sites, mostly government- and industry-funded and operated, receive 95 percent of the web traffic from web searches. Yet vaccine hesitancy continues to grow. It should be obvious that the reason for this is not because people are inundated with "anti-vaccine" information.

    Vaccine "hesitancy" continues to grow because many more people have learned they cannot trust one-sided information about vaccine benefits that basically denies vaccine side effects.

    The public has good reason to have legitimate concerns about vaccine side effects and, now, the forced vaccination lobby is trying to eliminate the ability of people to access and share vaccine information or even discuss it among themselves. This kind of censorship is bound to raise red flags and set off warning bells in most people.

    The headline of Hotez's most recent article even pronounces "Vaccines cannot and do not cause autism — there's no debate."54 Indeed, avoiding debate is a Hotez hallmark. So far, he's refused every invitation to debate other experts on these issues.

    Again, this kind of behavior is what causes "vaccine hesitancy," because if those wanting to shut down the debate have valid science to back their claims, there's no reason to avoid open debate. The refusal to debate the issue means they lack the information required to win.

    The websites of vaccine safety and pro-informed consent organizations like the NVIC, on the other hand, are loaded with referenced scientific studies and government data showing there is rational cause for concern and urgent need to reform public health laws that mandate vaccine use.

    How Many Are Actually Injured by Vaccines?
    According to the most recent vaccine injury compensation data from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA),55 the total compensation paid out since the VICP began operating in 1988 is approximately $4 billion. Since then, more than 20,428 petitions for compensation for vaccine injuries have been filed with the VICP.

    Of those, 17,718 petitions have been adjudicated, meaning a formal decision was pronounced; 6,430 received compensation and 11,288 were dismissed. Interestingly, 4,250 of the petitions that have received compensations were filed between 2006 and 2017, suggesting there's been a significant rise in vaccine-related injury petitions to the VICP in the past decade, although two out of three claims continue to be denied.

    Sadly, today the majority of federal vaccine injury awards go to adults, not children, even thought the 1986 Act was established by Congress specifically to compensate children injured by federally recommended and state mandated vaccines.56

    The Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice have gutted the VICP through rulemaking authority and fight to deny compensation for the majority of claims filed by parents on behalf of their vaccine-injured children, so fewer and fewer attorneys are filing for claims for children because the deck is stacked against them.57

    Clearly, federal agencies responsible for developing, licensing, recommending and promoting vaccines do not want to acknowledge just how many children are being harmed by vaccines mandated by states for children to get a school education.

    Here's another interesting tidbit. According to the HRSA report, based on the number of doses administered between 2006 and 2017 and the number of petitions that received compensation in that time, the HRSA calculates that "for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, one individual was compensated."

    I find it curious that this is the exact same ratio given for vaccine injury. You've probably heard that vaccine injuries occur about once per 1 million doses.58 Could this be a coincidence? Or are they flat-out misrepresenting vaccine injury compensation as a vaccine injury probability statistic? The two are clearly not the same.

    What Does the Science Say About the Potential for Vaccine Injury?
    In the U.S., the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines by the time they're 18 years old, with 50 doses of 14 vaccines given before the age of 6.59 How does this affect their health?

    A study60 published in 2017 reported a disturbing discovery. The researchers examined health outcomes among infants 3 to 5 months old following the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine in Guinea-Bissau, which took place in the early 1980s.

    (In the U.S., the whole cell pertussis vaccine in DPT was replaced in 1996 with a less reactive acellular pertussis vaccine in DTaP). This population offered the rare opportunity to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children due to the way the vaccines were rolled out in the West African country.

    Shockingly, researchers discovered "DTP was associated with fivefold higher mortality than being unvaccinated." According to the authors, "All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis."

    In other words, the researchers concluded that DTP vaccine weakened the children's immune systems, rendering them vulnerable to a whole host of other often deadly diseases and serious health problems.

    Other clinical trials in West Africa revealed that a high titer measles vaccine interacted with the DTP vaccine, resulting in a 33 percent increase in infant mortality.61 In this case, the finding led to the withdrawal of that experimental measles vaccine targeting very young infants, but what would have happened had those studies never been done? Clearly, we need many more like them.

    Eye-Opening Statistics Reveal Dose-Dependent Relationship Between Vaccines and Injuries
    In his book, "Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies," Neil Z. Miller also provides eye-opening information about the potential for vaccine injury. He downloaded the entire vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) database and created a program to extract all reports involving infants. In all, the reports of 38,000 infants who experienced an adverse reaction following the receipt of one or more vaccines were extracted.

    Another program was then created that was able to determine the number of vaccines each infant had received before suffering an adverse reaction. Next, reports were stratified by the number of vaccines (anywhere from one to eight) the infants had received simultaneously before the reaction took place. They specifically homed in on serious adverse reactions requiring hospitalization or that led to death. Here's what he found:

    Infants who received three vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving their vaccines than children who received two vaccines at the same time
    Infants who received four vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who received three or two vaccines, and so on all the way up to eight vaccines
    Children who received eight vaccines simultaneously were "off-the-charts" statistically in that they were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving those vaccines
    Children who received vaccines at an earlier age were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive those vaccines at a later age
    Endgame: Forced Use of All Vaccines by All People
    As noted by Fisher in "Taking No Prisoners in the Vaccine Culture War":62

    "The win that industry is looking for is a complete shutdown of the public conversation about health and vaccination followed by a mandate by every government to force every child and adult to use every vaccine that drug companies develop and sell …

    WHO is encouraging drug companies to fast track more than a dozen new "priority" vaccines to market for children, pregnant women and adults — and you can be sure industry will lobby governments to mandate all of them — respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Streptococcus A and B, HIV, herpes simplex virus, gonorrhea, E-coli, Shigella, Salmonella, tuberculosis, malaria and more.63

    The pharmaceutical industry, which was handed a partial liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits by the U.S. Congress in 1986,64 which was turned into a total liability shield by the Supreme Court in 2011,65,66,67 is fighting to keep an economic stranglehold on a crumbling U.S. health care system.68,69,70,71

    With the government having paid vaccine victims more than $4 billion in federal vaccine injury compensation since 1988 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,72,73 pharmaceutical corporations do not want to give up the no-risk, stable income stream they get from selling mandated vaccines.74

    'No exception' vaccine laws guarantee that good vaccine science will never be done so vaccine casualties can continue to be swept under the rug by denying they exist,75,76,77,78,79 and nobody has to care about the crippled and dead bodies lying on the ground except the mothers and fathers grieving endlessly for what could have been.80"

    If you're like most, you probably know someone who has been injured by a vaccine, and the vaccine industry doesn't want you to share that experience with anyone, not even your closest friends or family on social media. People like Hotez claim the debate is over, yet in truth the debate has been going on for a long, long time and it is not going to stop no matter who tries to shut it down. continue here
    Last edited by Maggie, 14th April 2019 at 22:31.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019), Kathy (16th April 2019), modwiz (14th April 2019), WantDisclosure (15th April 2019), Zebowho (15th April 2019)

  15. #8
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    3,564
    Thanks
    14,061
    Thanked 16,001 Times in 3,566 Posts
    I agree...I despise the corporat...whatever, I don't know how to spell it. The thing is that 'vaccination' is a red herring. Industry doesn't need vaccines to own the world...all they need is the new and improved mobile phone. Vaccines are emblematic of good being done as a byproduct of corporate greed. And therein lies the need for 'decent' members of our government to compromise with the evil dead.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Aragorn (15th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019)

  17. #9
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,649 Times in 1,264 Posts
    I wonder what is factual in this statement. Convince me...

    Vaccines are emblematic of good being done as a byproduct of corporate greed.
    I always watch Del Bigtree's Thursday program. In this one, he uses Joe Rogan's interview to counter some ridiculous evidence of the bankruptcy of the vaccine expert Hotez. This physician has a book that proclaims his daughter (sadly dealing with autism) did not develop it with a vaccine injury. I hope she did not. He received something like 56 million from the pharmaceutical industry for his lab but thinks he has never benefitted form that industry? I gather from his interview here that he is not very sharp so he may not understand how that is a benefit.

    Unfortunately because autism was so relatively unknown until vaccines were stepped up in the 1980's one wonders, how do we explain the dramatic and unprecedentaed rise of this behavioral condition which is also accompanied by a dramatic gastrointestinal disorder in children suspiciously following vaccination?

    Fred is right that we can still go to noncommercial sources for information and despite the trend, we can still watch programs like this one. The truth is laying out and not when one takes the time to listen and to read IMO.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GAmHscgtEs
    Last edited by Maggie, 14th April 2019 at 22:18.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019), modwiz (14th April 2019), NotAPretender (14th April 2019), WantDisclosure (15th April 2019)

  19. #10
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    3,564
    Thanks
    14,061
    Thanked 16,001 Times in 3,566 Posts
    my first thought would be...well, two things.

    all professions...even the medical one, jump on the latest and greatest fad...it is pretty silly but it is human nature to want to make things better with the new and improved. 2nd, diagnostic tools and even more ready access to those that can't afford it, who coincidentally are genetically more likely to be subject to such maladies.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019)

  21. #11
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,649 Times in 1,264 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    my first thought would be...well, two things.

    all professions...even the medical one, jump on the latest and greatest fad...it is pretty silly but it is human nature to want to make things better with the new and improved. 2nd, diagnostic tools and even more ready access to those that can't afford it, who coincidentally are genetically more likely to be subject to such maladies.
    I do appreciate your willingness to engage with this thread. It is certainly true that the medical establiishment has itself agreed to accomodate the pharmaceutical industry. When people present with symptoms, there is a desire to treat these symptoms. There is a significant relationship now in the way illness is defined by way of medication treatment.

    The Pharmaceutical Industry's Role in Defining Illness
    Elizabeth A. Kitsis, MD, MBE

    The pharmaceutical industry develops, manufactures, and sells drugs. Defining illness is not its mission. Generally, the medications produced by drug companies target diseases that have been defined previously by the medical profession. However, there are several indirect ways in which the industry contributes to the definition of illness. Are these contributions beneficial to society and ethically sound, or are they solely aimed at maximizing corporate profit? To address these questions, I analyze some examples of how the pharmaceutical industry has played a role in defining illness.

    No sharp line divides health from disease. Defining an illness is a complex process, and definitions typically evolve over time, facilitated by advances in science and validated by societal recognition. Thus, it is expected that the definition of what constitutes disease will change with time, with additions (e.g., Lyme disease), subtractions (e.g., homosexuality), and modifications (e.g., autoimmune disorders). While some of these modifications are universally accepted, others—particularly those regarding conditions that lack objective signs or laboratory abnormalities—are controversial. The term “medicalization” was introduced in the 1970s by Illich and others [1] to challenge the characterization of normal variation among humans as disease. However, defining illness can be the first step toward reducing human suffering. Thus, medicalization can alternatively be defined as “a process by which human problems come to be defined and treated as medical problems” [2].

    A case in point is fibromyalgia, a chronic pain condition associated with tender points on certain parts of the body. Physicians began to see patients with this constellation of symptoms in the 1980s and cautiously and provisionally defined a new syndrome. As with many syndromes, elucidating its pathogenesis was not so easy and has lagged behind the description of the disorder. It is not uncommon, however, for clinicians and drug companies to search empirically for new treatments even without a precise understanding of pathogenesis. Several medications—including pregabalin (approved in 2007), duloxetine (approved in 2008), and milnacipran (approved in 2009)—were found to alleviate the symptoms of fibromyalgia and were the first medications to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating it.

    What are the implications of these new drugs for fibromyalgia? Most importantly, they may provide relief to patients with a potentially debilitating condition. However, there may also be other, important downstream effects. First, the very fact that drugs have been approved provides some validation that fibromyalgia is, in fact, an illness. Receiving treatment for fibromyalgia may legitimize a patient’s chronic pain symptoms that might otherwise be dismissed by family, friends, or employers as hypochondriasis. Indeed, some fibromyalgia patients report improved health after diagnosis [3]. Second, if the treatment is truly effective, one would anticipate that it would reduce the use and cost of health care for sufferers, perhaps benefiting patients as well as society. Some investigators have reported these outcomes [4, 5]. Third, in a reversal of the usual direction of translational medicine, knowing the mechanisms by which effective drugs act may provide important insights into pathogenesis.

    On the other hand, are there potential risks to medicalizing the symptoms of fibromyalgia? Some rheumatologists still dispute the existence of this condition. If they are correct, its medicalization could encourage inappropriate sick-role behavior. It could also expose otherwise healthy patients to medications with potential side effects and unnecessarily increase the costs of medical care. Some data indicate that pharmacy and health care costs go up among patients who have been treated with pregabalin and duloxetine [6].

    In either case, it is clear that the pharmaceutical industry has played a role in the medicalization of fibromyalgia. While this process is usually driven by physician experts, the decision to develop and seek approval for new drugs can strongly influence the medicalization process—especially when those drugs are efficacious. One might question the motivations of drug companies—are they after profit, patient welfare, or both? Regardless, in the case of fibromyalgia, several new medications have been added to the treatment armamentarium.

    In contrast to fibromyalgia, there are other examples in which pharmaceutical companies have played a less positive role in the definition of disease. For example, some allege that GlaxoSmithKline developed a business plan to promote paroxetine as a treatment for social phobia by depicting the disease as a severe medical problem [7]. Although the prevalence of social phobia was noted as “rare” in the 1980 DSM-III, it was noted to be “extremely common” by 1994. GlaxoSmithKline’s extensive media campaign included posters displayed prominently across the country that showed a dejected man playing with a teacup and proclaimed “Imagine being allergic to people.” Labeling people who may simply be shy as severely ill may be stigmatizing. Encouraging them to take a medication with potential side effects raises a concern about whether patient welfare is the key objective. Expanding the boundaries of a treatable illness simply to enlarge the market for a drug has been termed “disease mongering” continue here.
    The thing about all pharmaceuticals is the massive issue of "Side Effects" The vaccines inserts themselves describe potential and possible serious side effects. Yes, the hope would be to identify people at risk before being challenged by a mandated substance like vaccination. More important is the "informed consent" component where parents and children can refuse.

    ALSO, the MOST IMPORTANT of all is that MAYBE vaccination is not the "new and improved" approach to communicable disease at all. When you look deeply into the claims that vaccines are safe and effective, one finds an unbelieveable fact. These claims are not based on scientific study at all.

    BUT back to the suppression of information. These facts are discovered only through the efforts of people who have challenged the "system". One is NOT given even the basic vaccine insert information unless they challenge the physicians prescribing them. When the demand is made to decide based on informed consent, one is possibly labeled "difficult" and possibly a rabble rowser if making a loud noise in public?

    If one refuses vaccination based on the notion of informed consent and freedom to refuse if not in consent, when it is mandated legally such as in Williamsburg today with the adult MMR, one is now a CRIMINAL rabble rowser. In many ways, lack of power is obvious when on literally cannot afford to protest. One who can home school, who can afford to fight with legal representation, can afford a fine, affiord to leave a job........

    Otherwise, obey to keep the status quo of social benefits. In an EMERGENCY EVERYONE MUST CONFORM or face jail and fines. In the interest of the public good of course. Yes, the arrest of Assange too is in the public good too because obviously like measles he is DANGEROUS to every good citizen.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzpReTgPTus
    Last edited by Maggie, 14th April 2019 at 23:19.

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019), modwiz (14th April 2019), WantDisclosure (15th April 2019)

  23. #12
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    3,564
    Thanks
    14,061
    Thanked 16,001 Times in 3,566 Posts
    I'm definitely with you on the side effects...After watching some of those TV drug commercials I figure it is better to just shoot yourself in the head than take the drugs
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Aragorn (15th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019)

  25. #13
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    East Tennessee U.S.A.
    Posts
    922
    Thanks
    1,357
    Thanked 5,727 Times in 926 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    The 1st amendment...I'm not stuck on it...
    That's unfortunate, as well as unsurprising, but I still fully support your right to stick your neck out and boldly proclaim such a repressive idea.

    It's important everyone knows where each other stands. That's, what the 1ST Amendment was all about after all. The freedom to speak one's mind no matter how repugnant it may appear to another.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  26. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Aragorn (15th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019), Kathy (16th April 2019), Maggie (15th April 2019), modwiz (14th April 2019), NotAPretender (14th April 2019)

  27. #14
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    3,564
    Thanks
    14,061
    Thanked 16,001 Times in 3,566 Posts
    repulsive to you, of course...

    From my perspective since 1776 more than a few of the sacred amendments have been used to bash the unfavored. Because you are stuck in the 'Law and Order' paradigm you missed the most important part of my statement. I let my conscience drive my humanity and sense of right and wrong. I don't need written favoritism or an attorney to give me the right to speak my mind nor does it limit my ability to respect others right to speak theirs. Have you ever been in a court of law when you were told to 'shut the fuck up!'. I have.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Dreamtimer (15th April 2019), Elen (15th April 2019)

  29. #15
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    1,691
    Thanked 7,649 Times in 1,264 Posts
    Some say there is no such thing as an autism epidemic. Epidemics are associated with contaigen and so yes, technically there is no epidemic. It is not "catching" but it is dramatically increasing. I met a mother of sons 18 and 22 (born 2001 and 1997). She came for a massage. She never can anywhere or do anything without arranging care for wheelchair bound adults (issues including autistim). This is a permanent child hood of near infancy.

    IF vaccines are part of this increase, we owe it to all the families who have children unaffected so far to STOP the process. Is it vaccine related, glyphosate related, related to EMF, what is the issue?

    What kind of investigation is needed to identify what is going on? Something happened since 1980. IMO there is a mob that insists on protecting its own status and power. To admit having been wrong is threatening at the least. The mob uses the BOLD FACED LIE IMO to protect turf.

    What happens to people getting in the way of a mob without a shield? IMO the PROMOTION of 1st Amendment and Efforts to protect unpopular opinion is a symptom of a healthy society of free humans who will survive the mob.

    The CDC’s bloated vaccine schedule has doubled since 1988 after the federal government gave pharmaceutical companies immunity from lawsuits. Autism and other childhood disorders like asthma, ADHD, juvenile diabetes, and digestive ailments have skyrocketed. And parents are understandably nervous, desperate for objective guidance that takes those concerns seriously.

    Mark Blaxill is co-founder and Executive Director of XLP Capital, a firm founded in 2015 and focused on technology strategy development, new technology business incubation, and technology-based investments. He often writes on autism, science and public policy issues for Age of Autism and has published a number of articles, letters and commentaries on autism in journals such as Public Health Reports, the International Journal of Toxicology, the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Frontiers in Pediatrics, Neurotoxicology and Medical Hypotheses.

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leQiu_my1r0



    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1hfcB85hrM



    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfO1mKAwCLc


    Vaxxed is mentioned as a watershed moment for Mark Blaxill and is now banned on Amazon.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ln2f4T88g
    Last edited by Maggie, 15th April 2019 at 00:28.

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th April 2019), Kathy (16th April 2019), NotAPretender (15th April 2019), WantDisclosure (15th April 2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •