Medical Director and Chief Operating Officer Dr. Daniel Neides of the Cleveland Clinic. Image source.
by Jefferey Jaxen
Health Impact News
Last week Medical Director and Chief Operating Officer Dr. Daniel Neides of the Cleveland Clinic decided to post an op-ed article titled “Make 2017 the Year to Avoid Toxins (good luck) and Master Your Domain: Words on Wellness.” Half of the article is dedicated to the known and well-documented fact that the public in the U.S. is exposed to an unprecedented toxic burden that, for the most part, relies on the daily choices in many areas of each individual’s life. The other half of the piece is dedicated to raising questions for the public and the medical community to consider regarding vaccines and the current vaccination program in the United States, a program that has seen over $3 billion in injury and death payouts; $114 million in 2015 alone.
Dr. Neides opens his article describing his personal experience with a recent adverse reaction he endured from the flu vaccine he received. A vaccine that continually tops the Department of Justice’s payout list for damages awarded racking up $61 million alone in 2015.
Dr. Neides’ premise throughout his piece was for the public to “start with ourselves” when making our own decisions about our individual health and wellness. He explicitly states:
“My goal is to help you think about your total body burden related to toxic exposures” and “discover ways to assist our bodies to optimally detoxify.”
As Dr. Neides, like his recent free thinking medical peers Dr. Daniel Kalb and Dr. Robert Sears, quickly found out, you don’t get to question or challenge vaccines or environmental toxins publicly when you belong to establishment medicine…period.
The corporate media machine— funded primarily by the pharmaceutical industry — groaned to life and bellowed out tired propaganda in unison to counter the traitor within the tightly controlled medical establishment’s ranks. Forbes weighed in with the article title “Cleveland Clinic Doctor Goes Full Anti-Vaccine” while local ABC News 5 Cleveland ran with the title and video investigation “Cleveland Clinic Doctor Faces Discipline After Bashing Vaccines in Blog.” Many other mainstream media outlets followed suit.
Yet the majority of the article titles have one thing in common: they are sensational and wrong.
Asking simple questions is not the same as “bashing vaccines” or going “full anti-vaccine.” The Cleveland Clinic appeared to be blindsided and scrambled to play damage control first by releasing a message on Twitter the day after Dr. Neides’ article stating:
“We fully support vaccines to protect patients & employees. Statements made by our physician do not reflect the position of Cleveland Clinic.”
The next day, the Clinic released its official statement where it stated:
“Harmful myths and untruths about vaccinations have been scientifically debunked in rigorous ways…Our physician published his statement without authorization from Cleveland Clinic. His views do not reflect the position of Cleveland Clinic and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.”
These statements were also gleefully picked up and regurgitated by an eager media to debunk the Cleveland medical director’s public questions further.
In the current atmosphere of increased toxic burdens and increasingly mandatory (forced) vaccinations, Dr. Neides’ column was mild. Perhaps his major mistake was simply the position he held within the controlled medical establishment and the unwritten rules which, if he didn’t understand he certainly does now.
What are those rules?
Public messaging from mainstream medical and media outlets must be simple, clear, and confident regarding vaccines. Put in even more simplistic terms, vaccines are “safe and effective.” Anything, anybody or any event that challenges the simple vaccine statement must, rapidly and at all costs, be disciplined, omitted, ignored and publicly ridiculed.
The unwritten math equation appears to be “the higher the public standing of the individual who counters the false ‘safe and effective’ meme, the greater the punishment.”
For a case study in this equation please see the rise and fall of Robert De Niro regarding his public comments and endorsement of the film Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe during its 2016 Tribeca Film Festival disappearing act.
Doctors Who Dare to Question Vaccines
As mentioned earlier in the article, Dr. Neides now joins Dr. Daniel Kalb and Dr. Robert Sears in being persecuted for asking questions, using their medical judgement, and wanting to give their patients informed consent.
Similar to Dr. Neides, Dr. Kalb was disciplined medically and financially for posting an article on the Cool Springs Family Medicine website (since removed) outlining eight reasons they will no longer vaccinate their patients. The empowering public release concluded by stating:
“…just as I have always done, as is my responsibility as a Family Physician, I will be an advocate for each of my patients as best as I know how. Also, I will always continue to respect the informed choices my patients make.”
Dr. Robert Sears was one of California SB277’s canary in the forced vaccination coal mine when he felt the full weight of the state’s medical board upon him for writing vaccine exemptions for his patients. Since then, the Medical Board of California has officially written in its rules disciplinary action which awaits any California health professional who offers their patients informed consent and/or vaccine choice by stating:
The Board will investigate any complaints in which a physician may not be following the standard of care in these two new areas [deleted personal belief and religious exemptions].
Contrary to what the discredited, corporate media and establishment medical community would have you believe, many are rejecting vaccinations and the doctors, nurses and hospitals who force them. Seeing the continued persecution of individual medical professionals, groups are now forming and expanding to combat a creeping medical authoritarianism executed by medical professionals “just following orders,” written into law by pharmaceutical-lobbied politicians, and directed by corporate entities.
The newly formed group composed of doctors, scientists, and attorneys called Physicians for Informed Consent has surged in popularity. The nonprofit group is committed to protecting the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children, and safeguarding doctors’ professional responsibility to act ethically and in the best interests of their individual patients. The group’s recent press release states that they are:
“…dedicated to raising public awareness about the problems posed for both parents and doctors by mandatory vaccination laws.”
The existence of another highly visible group shows the internal struggle to disobey orders within the broken U.S. medical system. Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines (NAMV) highlights the unwillingness of nurses across the U.S. to submit to vaccination, against their choice, to keep their job. Nurses have begun blowing the whistle on harm they are seeing vaccines cause. With each medical professional that comes forward, the simple-minded and false “safe and effective” narrative crumbles further.
As for Dr. Neides, two days after his article went live he was forced to post a public apology in which he stated that he “fully supports vaccination” and was trying to open a conversation about their safety, not question their use.
Through a hospital spokeswoman, Neides released this statement:
“I apologize and regret publishing a blog that has caused so much concern and confusion for the public and medical community. I fully support vaccinations and my concern was meant to be positive around the safety of them.”
A change.org petition titled “Don’t Punish Dr. Daniel Neides For Encouraging Development of Maximally Safe Vaccines” quickly raced to over a 1000 signatures and counting within a day of his apology.
The unquestionable trend for health professionals who wish to speak out against forced vaccination, diminishing health freedom, and loss of informed consent continues to be “hang together or you will certainly hang separately.” Would the Cleveland Clinic have handled Dr. Neides and his public statements differently if he had the backing and legal protection of a group like Physicians for Informed Consent?
Dr. Neides won’t be the last health professional who is planning on whistleblowing, going public about adverse vaccine reactions they or their family have experienced, or wanting to simply question the “safe and effective” narrative.
For those considering coming forward, it would be advantageous to leverage current technology to tell your story and share your information directly, without a middleman, and in a way that cannot be censored. Upload a YouTube video, film your commentary on platforms such as Periscope, or start your own website to post your thoughts and observations.
For those unable to do the above options, follow in the footsteps of the exponentially growing number of medical professionals, parents and individuals by allowing the Vaxxed crew to film you on their bus tour happening now.
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.
