Congressman Bill Posey questioning the CDC’s Dr. Boyle at an autism hearing in November of 2012. Congressman Bill Posey is one of the few lawmakers daring to ask questions about vaccines.
Why We Need to Ask Questions About Vaccines
By Claire Dwoskin
Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute
Pharma companies and the media are not kind to those who publicly question the use of vaccines and the practices of their manufactures. Often people are either pounced on by the media, made to look paranoid or crazy, or unceremoniously and unsympathetically dismissed. However, this should not dissuade questioners from making their inquiries public. There are many good reasons why questions should be asked.
Fact: By law, drug companies cannot be sued when a child is harmed—or dies—from an adverse reaction to a vaccine.
In 1986, Congress passed legislation to prevent drug makers from being sued for vaccine-related injuries. The drug companies claimed their ability to ensure a steady supply of vaccines to the public would be affected by expensive lawsuits.
But the real effect of this law has been that manufacturers have no financial incentive to make vaccines safer and more effective. When performed properly, medical testing is a laborious, lengthy, and expensive process. Vaccine manufacturers are now able to shirk this responsibility without fear of negative financial consequences. (Note: It is permissible to sue the U.S. government for vaccine injuries; in fact, it has paid out over $2 billion dollars to parents and patients.)
Clearly, vaccines have caused severe and lifelong damage to many individuals, so, why are we not incentivizing drug companies to make vaccines as safe and effective as possible?
Fact: Vaccines are only safety tested individually, but they are administered in a variety of combinations and up to eight at a time.
Part of what makes proper medical testing so expensive is that medications must be tested against other medications and consumed substances (like alcohol and certain foods) to determine possible interactions. By only testing vaccines individually, pharmaceutical companies are missing important and dangerous interactions that multiple vaccines may have when administered close together or, even worse, at the same time. Why aren’t vaccines tested in the combinations and at the rate they are given?
(Note: Unlike nearly all other medications, vaccines are not tested against true placebos. Rather, in many cases, they are tested against substances that contain some of the same ingredients as the vaccine, e.g., toxic aluminum adjuvants.)
Why aren’t vaccines subject to the same testing standards as other drugs?
Fact: Because people react very differently to medications, for every medical condition, there are numerous drug treatment options – but not vaccines.
In addition to interactions between vaccines, vaccine manufacturers do not consider the different ways in which individuals’ immune systems react to vaccines.
Humans are a complex and diverse species and what works for one person, may make another sick. Because of this, there are alternative remedies for nearly every other ailment known to man, but vaccines are produced as a one-size-fits-all treatment.
Why do manufacturers assume that all children will react identically to the same vaccines?
Fact: All expectant mothers are screened for Hepatitis B, but newborns are required to be vaccinated for it, regardless.
For vaccines to be legally required and for vaccine companies to have the level of legal protection they do, these vaccines must be absolutely essential, right? If that is the case, then why are newborn babies of mothers who have tested negative for Hepatitis B required to get the Hep B vaccine at birth? The only way the babies could acquire the disease is through sexual intercourse or shared needles – which is unlikely in infancy or when a booster shot is required at the age of 10.
The United States has more required vaccinations than any other developed country in the world, but perversely, the U.S. has the highest rate of chronic illness. This includes developmental disorders such as autism, which is rising at an alarming rate. By 2025, it is estimated that one out of every two male children will be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, the majority of whom will be unemployable.
But that bleak future is not written in stone. History has proven that if enough people ask enough questions, the FDA will react. There is a laundry list of once FDA-approved drugs, including Thalidomide, Accutane, Quaalude, and more, that have been pulled off the market. The questions above and more should be raised against vaccine manufacturers to ensure the safety of ourselves and our children.
Read the full article at Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute.
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com.
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.
