When it comes to health care, the United States has been ranked last among developed nations. The country is facing down an onslaught of legislation at many levels aiming for mandatory vaccination and the fast tracking of potentially deadly pharmaceutical drugs. Dangerous products from private companies are being forced into citizen’s bodies, backed by the full extent of government force, with no liability required by the manufacturers or health professionals distributing them. A valid concern for many who understand immunization research and data is the fact that the shots are neither safe, nor effective. Autism spectrum disorder rates are rising fast and threatening the very stability of society as we know it. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are building on their rich history of highly criminal activity and willful damage to the public. Five of the eight largest pharmaceutical settlements in history have taken place in the last fives years. Since 2010, pharmaceutical criminal and civil fines have totaled nearly $10 billion dollars. Is there any hope among presidential candidates to curb medical tyranny and corporate cronyism?
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.
The Times Free Press in Chattanooga Tennessee reported last week that the Erlanger Health System was going to start forcing all newborn babies in their health facilities to receive an antibiotic ointment applied to their eyes at birth, whether their parents want it or not. Even if nurses and midwives attending the birth do not approve of the antibiotic ointment, the hospital allegedly stated that they will apply it anyway, using security guards at the patient's bedside if need be.
A new federal executive order expands the list of illnesses for which you could be detained, isolated, and treated against your will if you are entering the US or traveling between states—even if you are completely healthy. Some states have similar or worse laws that would even allow entry into your home. The Public Health Service Act allows the government to apprehend and detain individuals based on communicable diseases named in the Act, or named by presidential executive orders. Executive orders do not have to get congressional approval.
You will be shocked at the amount of money political campaigns receive from the pharmaceutical industry. As such, more and more money is being spent on drugs for prisoners. Is Big Pharma reaping the rewards of their Election Day investments? Contracts for inmate drugs increased from 3 to 4721 under the Bush administration. Under President Obama, the number of contracts awarded for drugs for federal inmates skyrocketed to 7,767 in 2008. By 2012, The Department of Justice awarded 41,658 contracts to drug federal prisoners totaling $332.5 million. It’s projected that the Affordable Care Act and its resulting Medicaid expansions will put millions more prisoners on psychotropic drugs.
Congressman Steve Stockman will introduce legislation cutting off funds to medical institutions that conduct greater than minimal risk research on wards of the state, deny First Amendment rights to parents and wards of the state, and take children away from their parents over disagreements on subjective diagnoses. Such medical institutions include the National Institute of Health, state agencies, medical facilities, and hospitals. This bill would direct the Inspector General of Health and Human Services to withhold funds from these institutions for the aforementioned reasons. The story of Justina Pelletier, who has mitochondrial disease and was declared a ward of the state over a custody battle regarding a subjective psychotropic drug diagnosis, motivated Congressman Stockman to introduce the legislation.
Aliea Bidwell birthed her firstborn child naturally. Aaron was born on Friday morning, March 14, at 9:26 am, weighing 7 lbs, 11 oz. His Apgar scores were 9 and 9, at one and five minutes respectively – the picture of health. He was successfully breastfeeding within the first hour after birth. Grandparents Vesta and Ralph Bidwell were present with the happy new family and celebrated the arrival of their first grandchild. Just a few hours later, their world imploded. Their “choice” was to submit to something that both generations were opposed to on religious and philosophical grounds, or have their newest member of the family be taken in a doctor-sanctioned kidnapping. They saw it as nothing less than vaccine blackmail. Dr. Bierd claimed that “doctor’s discretion” gave her the right to override the parents’ decision and force the vaccine, or take the baby away and give it anyway. She based this on the fact that Aliea did not have existing bloodwork prior to admission demonstrating that she did not have hepatitis B. In other words, unlike the American system of justice, the assumption of this doctor is that mothers are “guilty until proven innocent by bloodwork.” Three times Dr. Bierd came in threatening the family. By the second time, Ben and Aliea were in their hospital room with an additional 12 family members, including great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, and nephews. With a united front of 14 members of the extended family present, Dr. Terry Bierd came into the room and repeated her threats to allow the vaccine or they would take the baby. The entire family saw it as blackmail. Around 8 pm, the pediatrician moved up her timeline, telling the family that they needed to decide right then if it was going to be her way (consent to the vaccine) or the hard way. She would call security and they would take the baby away, and they would have to figure out how to get the baby back later. The baby was going to get the shot one way or another, that night. It was blackmail. Aliea and Ben saw no choice. They consented to the vaccine so that their baby would not be taken away from them. They were compelled to sign an “informed consent” form for the vaccine. The form stated that the doctor had explained the risks, and that the parents were making an informed decision. Ben said that they were the ones who explained the risks of the vaccine to the doctor. The form absolved the hospital of any and all risks and responsibilities, stating that the parents take all responsibility. Aliea and Ben told the nurse that they were signing under duress. There was no “consent” about it. The baby would get the vaccine no matter what they wanted; this was the only way their baby would not be kidnapped.
The FDA is condemning children to death by refusing to allow them access to experimental cancer treatments, even though it has the authority to grant such access to terminal patients who have not responded to conventional treatment. Six years ago, 10-year-old Braiden was enrolled in a clinical trial for his incurable brain tumor. The “experimental” drug Antineoplaston (ANP) was the sole treating agent. He went into full remission, and suffered no toxic side effects. An MRI recently revealed Braiden’s tumor has reoccurred. The FDA is now refusing to allow Braiden to go back on ANP even though the treatment has already proven its efficacy through his previous remission. Many other terminal patients are also being prevented from accessing ANP.