Vaccines: Are they safe? Are they effective? To help answer those questions is Neil Z. Miller, a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. Miller has investigated vaccines for three decades and written several books on the subject, including: "Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers." "Miller's Review" was created in response to the common refrain that "there are no studies showing vaccines are unsafe or ineffective." Miller States: "I've been doing the research for 30 years. I know of literally thousands of studies that document concerns. My books all document those studies."
The American Medical Association (AMA) has released a position statement that opposes the creation of a new federal commission on vaccine safety whose task is to study the association between autism and vaccines. “The AMA fully supports the overwhelming body of evidence and rigorous scientific process used by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices which demonstrate vaccines are among the most effective and safest interventions to both prevent individual illness and protect the health of the public,” William E. Kobler, MD said in a statement. Dr. Kobler is a member of the AMA Board of Trustees. Autism is occurring at epidemic rates. We now have over 1,000,000 U.S. children diagnosed with autism. Something in our environment is responsible for causing the autism epidemic. It is not due to genetics. Could it be the increasing numbers of vaccines given to our children? Why wouldn’t any rational person want to study this association? A simple study comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children could help decide whether vaccines are responsible for causing the autism epidemic. But, the Powers-That-Be, like the AMA, do not want this study done as it may turn their world upside down. In response to the AMA edicts supporting more vaccines and stating that no further research is needed, I and my colleagues have released a reply to the AMA letter.
As an employee of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), it is certainly within Dr. Mark Schiffman’s job description to write articles promoting human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. After all, his employer owns patents on HPV vaccine production technologies and receives licensing fees from the sales of HPV vaccines. The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, based largely on technology developed at NIH and produced by Merck & Co., was approved by the FDA in June 2006. The NIH, funded by taxpayers, also maintains a forum for scientific discourse, called PubMed Commons which hopefully “will leverage the social power of the internet to encourage constructive criticism and high-quality discussions of scientific issues that will both enhance understanding and provide new avenues of collaboration within the community”. In December 2016, Dr. Schiffman and a few industry-paid consultants published an article titled “Carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection.” Dr. Lee responded to Dr. Schiffman saying: "Dr. Schiffman’s responses to my initial comment on the Primer needs a rebuttal to point out its misleading and obfuscating statements." Almost immediately, the discussion was effectively shut down by the removal of Dr. Lee’s comments. Does this not seem like a gross violation of the public trust in an organization such as NIH which has promised to ‘encourage constructive criticism and high-quality discussions of scientific issues’?
A new study, titled New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, represents an unavoidable wave of clear information supporting an immediate moratorium on vaccination, suspension of government laws mandating vaccination, and simultaneous legal action at numerous levels to investigate a criminal vaccine industry and the establishment offshoots that have worked to prop it up. What did the new Italian study find? Examining 30 vaccines — representing 44 samples in total — the researchers found particulate matter, in aggregates and clusters, of micro- and nano-sized particulate matter in 43 of the 44 samples whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product. The authors state: "We had never questioned the purity of vaccines before. In fact, for us the problem did not even exist. All injectable solutions had to be perfectly pure and that was an act of faith on which it sounded impossible to have doubts. For that reason, we repeated our analyses several times to be certain. In the end, we accepted the evidence."
The persistent investigation of Dr. Mikovits into the cause and treatment of modern illnesses, along with a handful of other scientists and healthcare providers such as the late Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, M.D., is leading us toward a new understanding of modern illness and its treatment. Dr. Mikovits sees the bigger picture of health and illness that few scientists and healthcare providers have the courage to examine. She had great respect for the work of Dr. Bradstreet and his successful use of the new paradigm for treating difficult illnesses. Dr. Mikovits stated: "Dr. Bradstreet recognized that what we call autism is in fact an acquired immune deficiency. What we know of as autism is part of a collection of more than 60 diseases that is spiraling and increasing in our environment. It is acquired immune deficiency resulting from all the toxins, all the vaccines and other contaminants in our environment from these biologicals that in fact means that what we know of as autism spectrum disorder is an acquired immune deficiency."
I feel sorry for many doctors. I really do. It must be a terrible thing to live and work in fear. Retired neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, MD often mentions in his lectures how he encounters doctors who either do not agree with the recommended schedule of vaccines or have some serious problems with mainstream vaccine science. He notes how hesitant the doctors are to make their views known in public for fear of being labeled quacks by their peers or their employers and risk endangering their reputations and careers.