I’ve been tracking the Covid vaccine injury reports from VAERS, the vaccine adverse events reporting system run by the FDA & US CDC. As well I have been looking at the MHRA (Medicines & Healthcare Regulatory Agency) Covid vaccine reports from the UK. I’ve made some graphs. There is a clear trend, with more vaccinations there are more injuries, anaphylaxis, hospitalizations, permanent disability, Bell’s palsy, miscarriages, and yes deaths.
Here is where we stand now after almost 3 months of Covid Vaccination from VAERS. Remember VAERS is a passive, not active, surveillance system (see my previous post), so it only captures a fraction of the real injuries. AND this is only America & UK. Check it out for yourself. Go to the MedAlert site.
All you need to do is for #1 Tabulate–enter “event outcome” and check show table. Then for #3 Vaccine Information, Vaccines–select “Covid-19”. Now click on any of the “Find” tabs and a chart will come up with the numbers. OpenVAERS is another site which summarizes the VAERS Covid data.
If any other product (ie. ketchup) was mass produced and consumed on mass, and then produced this volume & severity of side effects, would it still be on the shelves in our grocery stores? I realize we are talking about 120 million doses. I get it, but would you put that ketchup on your hotdog if over 135,000 had been injured and over 2273 died (from UK & US), from millions of ketchup bottle distribution?
It doesn’t match our typical approach to safety. For any other product, this would be unacceptable collateral damage. But I guess vaccines are in some special religious category like cows in India. No other product in our society is allowed to cause this level of collateral damage and at the same time have legal immunity for those damages. Like Mob bosses they have been “made” otherwise known as untouchable.
But Brent, the CDC says there is no connection between these deaths and the vaccines. Really? About 1/3 of the VAERS deaths occurred within 48hrs after vaccination. About 46% of the VAERS deaths became ill within 48hrs of vaccination.
Sure there may be the odd coincidence, but don’t tell me that those who were relatively normal prior to vaccination, take a vaccine, then within 48hrs they are sick or dead. Sorry I can’t accept that the vaccine had nothing to do with it.
Sometimes the effect of a vaccine takes several weeks to kill, like the doctor Gregory Michael who saw dots on his skin 3 days after vaccination. He went to get evaluated and his platelet count had significantly dropped. A team of doctors from across the country tried to raise his platelet count for 2 weeks, but failed. Gregory eventually died of a hemorrhagic stroke. His wife Heidi said Gregory was pro-vaccine, but she blamed his death on the vaccine.
Yet the Big Pharma propaganda engine keeps pumping out their fact-checkers claiming “Unproven”. Pfizer states, “we don’t believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine.” Of course, we are to believe Pfizer, a convicted felon who expects to earn $20 billion from this vaccine, with a history of $4.7 billion in lawsuit payments for false claims, kickbacks, bribery, etc….. Is it really a surprise that people could die after vaccination when you look at the VAERS and MHRA data?
As CNA nurse, James Develon, explained, who was told that all the deaths in his nursing home after vaccination was due to a super-spreader,
“I’m not the wisest man in the world, but I’m not stupid”.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. James goes on discussing the side effects of his nursing home patients,
“people who could walk, no longer walk, people who could talk no longer talk, people who could think, can no longer think rationally…ZERO deaths in 2020 but we are in the middle of the month (January) and we have over 14 deaths.”
The Astra-Zeneca vaccine has now been suspended in Italy, Austria, Germany, France, Spain, Ireland, Bulgaria, Norway, Netherlands, Indonesia, Congo, Thailand, Romania, Iceland, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Luxembourg due to concerns over blood clot deaths. But our Prime Minister here in Canada, Justin Trudeau has encouraged its use,
“The best vaccine for you to take is the very first one that is offered to you. That’s how we get through this as quickly as possible and as safely as possible.”
While other countries are showing caution, Canada is throwing caution to the wind. If you look at the injury rate (above) in the UK, AstraZeneca has close to double (74% greater) the injury reports of Pfizer and Pfizer’s injury rate is already too high. The main concern of the AstraZeneca is bleeding, blood clotting, and low platelet counts, which has led to several deaths in Europe.
Well, this shouldn’t be a surprise, remember Gregory Michael. 21% of the VAERS deaths are cardiac related. Remember the UK MHRA reports after vaccination showed
Are we told this information on the mainstream news or from our government? No, Big Pharma has that locked up tight and they have a script for every death. “There is no evidence that the vaccine caused the death”.
What evidence exactly do you need? what is the criteria? What sophisticated technique is being used to conclusively prove the vaccine had nothing to do with the death? Are autopsies even being done? No answers there.
Why are we taking this risk? For vaccines which may reduce symptoms but don’t block infection and transmission. Vaccines which provide some resistance to viruses but do not sterilize the virus. These vaccines are “leaky vaccines” which actually drive mutations and the creation of variants due to selective pressure. This is a real concern right now, that the vaccines are driving the evolution of variants because they allow immune mutant escape, hence “leaky”.
Many scientists are now coming out saying that giving vaccinations in the midst of a pandemic, especially with “leaky” vaccines, is a bad idea. Viruses want to survive & replicate. Among those concerned is Paul Bieniasz, a virologist at the Rockefeller University.
“Rolling out a partially effective vaccine regime in the peak of a highly prevalent viral epidemic is just not a great idea if one of your goals is to avoid vaccine resistance,”
When viruses meet a new non natural vaccine antibody without being eliminated/sterilized, within 10 hours they mutate to evade the vaccine antibody. These mutations then are no longer controlled by the vaccine antibody and a new variant grows to be the more dominant strain. These strains tend to be more infectious and sometimes more virulent. This is well documented in the scientific literature.
Then the vaccine loses its effectiveness. See the nice diagram I posted which clearly explains this.
This explains why a vaccine is not used for the cold virus. Because a cold is not serious, it is not advisable to put selective pressure on the virus to mutate into a worse strain with a vaccine.
Vaccines are only designed to address the original strain and not the new variants. Even if the vaccines have some effect on the current variants, other variants will eventually develop which will evade them. Then a new vaccine is created to address the new variant, but then this will drive a new worse variant. If vaccines do not sterilize the virus and allow transmission, this cycle will continue in a vicious unending circle.
On top of this, if we have strong immune systems, our first line of defence, our NK cells (natural killer cells) will kill the virus before it has a chance to mutate and will attack all variants. Therefore our main goal should be to use antivirals and vitamins/minerals which strengthen our immune system. Listen to Dr, Mobeen Syed explain how Ivermectin works on all variants.
Why not use antivirals which sterilize the virus and block infection & transmission? Drugs whose mechanisms are not effected by variants and eliminate the virus before it has a chance to mutate. Most of the mechanisms of Ivermectin are not effected by variants and because it is an antiviral, it kills the virus before it has a chance to mutate.
At the end of the day, here is the main point. Ivermectin mechanisms attack all variants and it doesn’t have the volume or severity of these vaccine side effects. Vitamin D & C, Zinc, Quercetin, Magnesium, Melatonin, Budesonide are all proven Covid-19 treatments for strengthening the immune system & fighting inflammation. A healthy immune system fights all variants with little side effects. So why do we choose the medication (vaccines) which drive new variants and produce high side effects, rather than antivirals and immune system builders which eliminate the virus?
Therapeutic drugs and protocols are now ready to get us out of this pandemic. It is disturbing that very little attention has been given to them considering the huge death toll we have experienced from Covid and the severe consequences of lockdowns. It’s time we all got better acquainted with the drug Ivermectin & the iMask protocol.
I know many will be skeptical when you hear about a new “miracle drug”, and you should be skeptical. Many drugs (ie. remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, etc…), therapies (monoclonal antibodies), and even these vaccines have been promoted as life savers when in reality they provide either minor benefit, or benefit only at a specific phase of Covid, or no benefit at all, or produce harm, or even cause death. Countries (India, Mexico, South America, etc…) around the world are now using Ivermectin in combination with other complimentary therapeutics based on the overwhelming data collected over the past 8 months.
What is Ivermectin?
It’s a 40 year old anti-parasite drug widely used around the world with an excellent safety profile. William Campbell & Satoshi Omura discovered it 1975 and received the Nobel Prize in 2015 for its effect on parasite reduction. Ivermectin has been used on humans since 1987. The WHO considers Ivermectin an essential medicine. Ivermectin is rapidly absorbed by the body, an anti-viral, anti-inflammatory, and an immune system modulator. All of which make it so potent for Covid 19.
Dr. Marik, Dr. Kory & their highly esteemed, highly published group of doctors & researchers came together to form the FLCCC. Their sole mission has been to find a safe cure for Covid. They now believe they have it. See Dr. Kory’s passionate presentation at the US Senate committee hearing.
Why should he be begging the NIH (Dr. Collins is the NIH boss) & NIAID (Dr. Fauci is the boss) to review the data? Shouldn’t Dr. Collins & Dr. Fauci be all over this? The NIH & NIAID have no task force researching “re-purposed drugs” like Ivermectin. Zero dollars spent. All the billions of research dollars have gone to “new” drugs (ie. remdesivir), “new” therapies (ie. monoclonal antibodies) or vaccines. That’s where the real money (profit) is, not in unpatentable, cheap, widely available generic drugs like Ivermectin.
What does Ivermectin do?
It is a strong anti-viral. It kills virus’s. It has been used to successfully treat the HIV virus, Dengue virus, West Nile virus, and others. When studied “in-vitro” in a Petri dish full of Covid virus, when Ivermectin was inserted, there was dramatic improvement. In 24 hrs, 93% of the virus was gone. In 48 hrs, all the virus was gone. The beautiful part is “ no toxicity of ivermectin was observed at any of the timepoints tested”. In other words, it was safe.
To date there have been 45 Ivermectin Covid-19 trials, 21 peer reviewed, 35 comparing treatment & control groups, and 24 randomized controlled studies. This has involved 366 scientists and 15,451 patients.
When ivermectin is used as a prophylactic (like a vaccine preventative) in 10 separate trials it was overall 90% effective at blocking infection. Dr. Kory has made the incredible statement,”if you take Ivermectin, you won’t get Covid”. This is based on the research that shows Ivermectin shields the Covid spike protein from binding to the ACE-2 , TMPRSS2 CD147 receptors, the main mechanism of infection.
“The study team recruited 1,195 health professionals of which 407 received no treatment and 788 self-administered ivermectin oral drops and an iota-carrageenan nasal spray five times per day over a 14 day period.” The results were “ the participants in the control group (e.g. not taking the study drug combination) 58% of the participants were infected with COVID-19 during the duration of the trial. The study team reported no contagions were recorded in the carrageenan and ivermectin arm”. In case you didn’t catch that, 58% who didn’t take Ivermectin caught Covid, 0% who took Ivermectin caught Covid. That is a big fat ZERO!! Other studies have shown minor infection rates with Ivermectin use, but still show very high success rates vs placebo or other therapies.
It is estimated Ivermectin could save 11,378 lives daily based on daily death counts and effectiveness on early treatment where not used. In 10 EARLY TREATMENT (Covid positive) studies Ivermectin was shown to have 84% effectiveness. https://c19ivermectin.com/.
In a YouTube interview with Dr. Mobeen Syed (“Dr. Been”) and lead researcher of the FLCCC, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Been says when he prescribes Ivermectin to his patients, he sees incredible results. In a patient who had trouble breathing, Dr. Been prescribed Ivermectin. “In 2 days his oxygen went from 89 to 97…I was shocked…It is just like magic”. Dr. Marik responded, “I think Harry Potter would be very proud of Ivermectin”. Dr. Marik also says, that Ivermectin seems “to switch off this disease, like a switch” and it is “profoundly safe”. It is a very informative interview.
Not only does Ivermectin kill the Covid virus & block infection and replication, it has an anti-inflammatory effect as well. Most people who die from Covid, die not from the virus, rather they die from the hyper-immune response (cytokine storm) on the lungs (trouble breathing) and other organs as well as from blood clots which lead to heart attacks & strokes. This is why corticosteroids have proven effective with Covid but only when they are taken in the late inflammatory phase. The problem with corticosteroids is they suppress the immune system, so they are not good in the early stages of Covid when your immune system is very important. Timing is everything. In animal studies, Ivermectin has been shown to block the production of cytokines and therefore the inflammation. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43440-020-00195-y
It’s as though Ivermectin was specifically designed for Covid 19 as it is effective at all stages of this disease. See the chart. Ivermectin is effective as a prophylactic by blocking Covid infection (preventative 90%), effective in early Covid (as an antiviral 84%), and the inflammatory stage (as an anti-inflammatory). No drug or vaccine comes anywhere close to achieving this wide range of effectiveness.
As with any drug, Ivermectin does have some side effects (minimal though) and it does some drug to drug interactions to be careful with and should be reviewed by a medical professional prior to use. Dr. Marik says that the side effects are mainly due to the body having to remove the viral and parasitic debris which Ivermectin killed, not the Ivermectin itself. The drug to drug interactions to be careful of are drugs used for protection during organ transplants. Overall Dr. Marik says that 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin has been given over the past 40 years and it is “profoundly safe”.
Let’s me get this straight, we are in the worst stage of this pandemic and the only treatment recommendations from the NIH & NIAID are minimally tested experimental vaccines (these vaccines have not actually been FDA approved, but have been given emergency use authorization only), remdesivir, and dexamethazone. The NIH has just recently upgraded their recommendation “against” Ivermectin to “neither for or against”. Apparently the message is getting through. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/
In a pandemic, why is there a knee jerk reaction of spending billions of dollars on “new”, minimally tested (months, not years) drugs and vaccines with relatively unknown safety profiles? Would not the more logical action be to first look at “re-purposing” widely used drugs like Ivermectin with well known safety profiles and high effectiveness with other pathogens? How much money would we have saved on cheaper solutions?Is it not an absolute absurdity that the NIH has spent ZERO research dollars on Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid while spending billions on remdesivir ($6.5 billion) and mRNA vaccines?
Now that Ivermectin-Covid 19 research is substantial, with undeniable effectiveness, better than any current treatment, the NIH has blood on their hands. Their recommendation “against” Ivermectin has quite simply killed thousands who could have been saved. Positive studies on Ivermectin have been pouring in since June, yet the NIH has turned a blind eye and dedicated Zero research dollars. How can the NIH (Dr. Collins & Dr. Fauci) say that there is “insufficient data” for Ivermectin, yet spend no time or money gathering it, or even reviewing data that Dr. Marik, Dr. Kory & the FLCCC are gathering for them? If you don’t have the info, get it. Do the studies. “Insufficient data” didn’t stop the rollout of the vaccines. Ivermectin has been around for 40 years!! The risk is far less with Ivermectin.
Let’s face it, NIH treatment recommendations are based on profit potential, not effectiveness. Dr. Marik puts it this way, “the world has gone mad….this is a catastrophic failure of the system….our systems have failed us….”. Essentially people are dying unnecessarily. Ivermectin is widely available and could be distributed quickly, and could be taken orally at home.
If you get Covid, the only recommendation from the NIH for early stage Covid is stay home. Cant they do better than that? Basically do nothing and hope your immune system does the job and only get treatment if you get very sick. Late stage Covid is much harder to treat even with Ivermectin. Wouldn’t prophylactic or early treatment use of Ivermectin & the iMask protocol be a much better solution? What do you have to lose? Nothing.
Wouldn’t the elderly who are more frail be much better served with low side effect Ivermectin rather than a high side effect vaccine?
The NIH, by changing their Ivermectin recommendation, are apparently doing damage control. Recent news reports are claiming that Ivermectin has not been proven as effective, yet. The problem is these January 2021 news reports are quoting articles from April & May 2020. The research on Ivermectin with Covid only started showing up in June 2020 and there has been a steady flow since then, with more coming in every month. The current data, according to Dr. Marik is overwhelmingly supportive of Ivermectin. These news reports either show very poor research or deliberate quotation of antiquated information, either way it is very irresponsible reporting.
In writing this post, YouTube links I used have since been blocked. They don’t want this info getting out because it incriminates those in charge. Actually, It is damage control and there needs to be a reckoning. It’s time to end this pandemic.
Censorship is now at unprecedented levels due to a concern of misinformation. Given this concern it is bewildering that critical analysis of the Pfizer vaccine is virtually nonexistent. For people to make a proper decision, they must hear all the information. Informed consent is critical. I am presenting 5 myths of Pfizer and their vaccine to address this.
The vaccine is 95% effective. This claim is based solely on 170 confirmed cases split between 162 unvaccinated & 8 vaccinated. Vaccine effectiveness is a simple math formula = (1-(vaccinated positive cases/unvaccinated positive cases) x100). (95%=(1-(8/162)x100). The problem is Pfizer did not include the 3410 suspected “symptomatic Covid 19” cases split 1594 vaccinated & 1816 unvaccinated. (See pg. 42 of Pfizer report) These were not included because they were not confirmed with a PCR test. Testing was at the discretion of study controllers. If you are exposed to the Covid virus and you become “symptomatic” you most likely have Covid and should be tested and recorded as a case. Not recommending these “suspected symptomatic” cases for testing is inexcusable and can only be seen as deliberate. The more accurate vaccine effectiveness is somewhere around 19% = (1-(8+1594)/(162+1816))x100. If this is confirmed then the 95% claim is a fraud on an epic scale. Pfizer got approval from the FDA due to this 95% claim. Countries around the world have paid billions $$ to purchase based on 95%. Millions are getting vaccinated based on 95%. This error was caught by Peter Doshi, associate editor of the British Medical Journal.
Pfizer is trustworthy. Pfizer has paid out around $4.7 billion from 74 lawsuits. These involved fraud, bribery, kickbacks, safety violations, unapproved promotion, corrupt practice, etc…. . Pfizer spent $219.2 million in lobbying the US Government and $23.2 million on campaign from 1999-2018. Big Pharma also spends $233 million/year on lobbying the US government, $414 million on presidential and congressional electoral candidates, and $877 million to state candidates & committees. Contributions are targeted to health policy legislators. Any wonder why Pfizer was the first vaccine approved.
The vaccine stops infection & transmission. Pfizer’s clinical trials didn’t show the vaccine has a sterilizing effect on the virus. In fact they were not even looking to determine this. They were only looking for symptom reduction. 1602 vaccinated vs 1978 unvaccinated people in the trial became “symptomatic Covid-19” and therefore infected after exposure to the virus. Clearly the vaccine did not stop infection and with only minor reduction (19%). With regards to transmission, 1602 vaccinated became symptomatic transmitters. With regards to asymptomatic transmission Pfizer frankly admits in the report (p.48) “Additional evaluations…will be needed to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in individuals with asymptomatic infection”.
4. The vaccine will save lives. To save lives of any appreciable magnitude the vaccine must prevent infection and transmission which was not shown in the clinical trials. To the contrary, people around the world are dying after vaccination, especially in the elderly. As of Feb 12, 2021 VAERS has recorded 929 deaths primarily in the US (Pfizer & Moderna) in December. As of Feb 20, 2021 the media has reported on an additional 611 death around the world. This doesn’t include previously healthy Miami doctor age 56 Gregory Michael who died 3 days after vaccination due to elimination of his platelets (blood clotting cells). Nor does it include Portuguese health worker Sonia Acevedo 41, who died 2 days after vaccination.
Reports from Israel, currently the highest Covid vaccinated (Pfizer) country in the world, are showing “vaccinations caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have during the same period.” Israeli Health Ministry by Dr. Hervé Seligmann, a member of the faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases at Aix-Marseille University, and engineer Haim Yativ have re-examined the data for the 2 months of vaccination with Pfizer vaccine. They found “among those vaccinated and above 65, 0.2% of those vaccinated died during the 3-week period between doses, hence about 200 among 100000 vaccinated. This is to be compared to the 4.91 dead among 100000 dying from COVID-19 without vaccination.” So there has been around 40 times more deaths in the vaccinated during the the past 2 months than the unnvaccinated who have died from Covid.
The picture is even scarier for those under 65 years of age. This scary picture also extends to those below 65, “Among which, for the 5 weeks during the complete vaccination process 0.05%, meaning 50 among 100000, died. This is to be compared to the 0.19 per 100000 dying from COVID-19 and that are not vaccinated in that age group, as per the above table. Hence the death rate of this age group increased by 260 during this 5-week period of the vaccination process, as compared to their natural COVID-19 death rate. ” The rate increase is due to Covid being less severe for those under 65.
The CDC did active surveillance for a 5 day period in December. There were 112,807 vaccinations and within that there were 3150 “health impact events”. This works out to 1 in 36, or 2.8%. A health impact event means a person was unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from a doctor or health professional.
The CDC is also reporting that the anaphylaxis rate of the Covid vaccine is 10 times the rate of the flu shot.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90556 13 people in Israel developed facial paralysis after vaccination. Pathogenic priming or ADE will only be seen months from now when the vaccinated are exposed to the wild virus. Pfizer admits in their report (p.49) “risk of vaccine enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, is unknown”.
What is rare? According to the WHO rare is 1-6 per 10,000. 1 in 100 is considered common. 1 in 10 is very common. So 1 in 36 falls in the range of common and not too far off very common. Therefore this is far from rare. If you get vaccinated you will probably be 1 of the 35 without an event, but we shouldn’t ignore that 36th person. When you give this vaccine to a billion people that 36th person equates to over 27 million people. What is acceptable collateral damage? What protection was given to warrant this? What is my risk of getting Covid? What is my risk profile if I or my children get Covid? I’m not saying Covid is not a problem , especially for the elderly. Nor am I saying getting vaccinated is an easy choice. But in the end it’s a cost/benefit analysis based on ALL the information. This will take some digging. You may be thinking, why have I not heard this information? Simple answer. Censorship. Pfizer is expected to earn $20 billion from this vaccine so they have plenty of money to pay for censorship.
I recently heard someone say, “I have been waiting to see how safe these vaccines are before I get vaccinated. I haven’t heard anything so I am thinking of getting it done.”
A very reasonable stance to take, though I do have a significant concern about the “I haven’t heard anything” part. For this philosophy to work, the vaccine side effect surveillance system needs to be capturing a majority if not all of the adverse reactions. Once this data collection takes place, the totals need to be well publicized to the general population. Only then can one make a proper, data-based decision. I get it, we all are sick & tired of Covid, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the data.
The important questions then are, are our safety regulatory agencies robustly doing active & passive surveillance on the adverse reactions from this vaccine rollout? Also is this data being well publicized to the public?
Unfortunately the answer to both of these important questions is NO & NO.
There has never been a more important time in the history of vaccine rollouts, for the CDC, FDA, and Health Canada to be doing their job by conducting intense, highly detailed surveillance of adverse reactions.
Why so important? The Moderna & Pfizer vaccine clinical trials were only about 3 months long. Normally vaccines undergo 7-10 years of testing prior to rollout. Very little was actually determined in these trials, there is plenty of controversy regarding the efficacy & safety math (as you have seen in my other posts), and both Pfizer & Moderna frankly admit that more research is needed to accurately assess the long-term efficacy & long term safety.
Not only are these vaccines brand new, the mRNA technology being employed has never been used in a vaccine rollout before. This is essentially an “experimental” vaccine rollout and anyone who gets vaccinated is part of a massive experiment. Those who have studied the history of medical experimentation know that some nasty reactions have occurred in the past and that is why animals are typically used in the “experimental stage” , not humans.
The New York Times article, which I have attached to this post, addresses this, “Monitoring is all the more important because the vaccines were developed and approved in record time, with the goal of inoculating most of the US population as quickly as possible.” So how is the monitoring going?
As the title of the article indicates,
“As millions get shots, FDA struggles to get safety monitoring system running”.
To assess monitoring one must know the difference between ACTIVE vs. PASSIVE surveillance.
Passive surveillance is more of a reactionary reporting system rather than a proactive investigational reporting system. It relies on the diligence of healthcare providers and the general public to assess and report adverse reactions. The Boston University School of Public Health states,
“Passive surveillance is advantageous because it occurs continuously, and it requires few resources. However, it is impossible to ensure compliance by health care providers; moreover, cases occurring in people without access to care will frequently go unreported. Consequently, passive systems tend to UNDER REPORT DISEASE FREQUENCY.”
The key here is acknowledging passive surveillance, without active surveillance, significantly underreports the real safety profile of a vaccine. VAERS, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is a passive surveillance system. The HHS did a study on VAERS (p.6) and found only around 1% of vaccine injury is captured through this system. In another study by vaccine manufacturer, Connaught Laboratories (SAGE article–see underreporting), found “a fifty-fold underreporting of adverse events’‘ for VAERS. In other words, whatever numbers are being given by VAERS, multiply them by at least 50 or even 100 if you want a more accurate count.
What is active surveillance and why is it needed in addition to passive surveillance?
The Boston University School of Public Health states that
“Active surveillance occurs when a health department is proactive and contacts healthcare providers or laboratories requesting information about diseases. While this method is more costly and labor intensive, it tends to provide a MORE COMPLETE ESTIMATE of disease frequency.”
Essentially active surveillance is a more robust, intensive, investigational, investigative, and yes costly, but much more accurate recording system with quick up to date results.
You could compare it to an Easter egg hunt. Passive surveillance would be like your Dad saying, ”I’ll go hide the chocolate eggs and you guys over the next year, go about your daily lives and let me know if you end up coming across some eggs.” Active surveillance would be like Dad saying, “I’ll go hide the chocolate eggs, you have 2 hours to go hunting for the eggs, look under every rock and behind every tree, and whoever finds the most eggs wins.” Active surveillance is “Sherlock Holmes” style and passive surveillance is a “complaint box” style.
Active surveillance gets quick and more complete results. Passive surveillance gives delayed results and leaves many “eggs” unfound. Ideally, it is best to use both active & passive surveillance ongoingly as you will get quick, fairly complete results with the active, and the passive will capture any remaining adverse events as well as any longer term adverse reactions.
Given the seriousness of this “experimental” vaccine rollout, if billions of dollars are being allocated to purchase vaccines, there should be a proportional budget and proportional seriousness given to active & passive surveillance to ensure safety.
Quick results are critical right now because if these vaccines are unsafe, that needs to be caught now, not 6 months from now, otherwise we are putting millions of people at risk. This is why passive surveillance on its own is grossly insufficient.
How is Canada’s vaccine injury surveillance doing? Canada’s agency which monitors vaccine reactions is the Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS). This is primarily a passive surveillance system. The current Canadian totals for adverse events from the Covid vaccines are located here.
“The report is sloppily written, poorly designed and not transparent. It reports different numbers for the same data, makes statements that are nonsensical and makes declarations that are non-verifiable from the data presented.”
“if CAEFISS continues on this downward spiral of barely useful summary reports, trust in the Public Health Agency of Canada and their surveillance system will correspondingly continue to erode.”
The Canadian Medical Association Journal had a scathing review of the FDA & Health Canada drug safety surveillance system in 2005 after the Vioxx Scandal.
“The FDA and Health Canada have demonstrated their structural inability to do ongoing safety monitoring of new drugs and devices, and industry is far too conflicted to be able to carry out this important task. We need new national agencies to monitor drug safety independently from the approvals process.”
I’m sorry, if what I’m presenting here seems negative, and I wish this was not the truth of the matter. Hearing that our regulatory safety agencies in Canada/North America are not doing a very good job at gathering safety data might be a difficult paradigm shift for some to accept, but it is a fact. In a sense, we are our own to judge vaccine safety. As the New York Times article indicates, millions of vaccinations have taken place with military zeal, yet the active monitoring system IS NOT EVEN RUNNING. The FDA was supposed to have a high tech monitoring system called BEST up and running. It could be months before it is running as FDA officials acknowledge that BEST will not be active “until after the Biden administration reaches its goal of vaccinating 100 million people.” What is the point of having a monitoring system and not run it especially at such a critical time?
As I’ve already explained, the Covid vaccines are essentially “experimental”. They are not even FDA approved, but rather have only been given “emergency use authorization”. The only reason they have been given emergency use authorization is because “there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives”. This explains why Ivermectin, Vit C, Vit D, Zinc, Melatonin, and other proven successful treatments for Covid-19 are not approved or promoted. If these treatments would have been accepted as standard treatment, the Covid vaccines would not have been allowed emergency use authorization because these therapeutics would satisfy the “alternatives” criteria which would close the loophole for emergency use authorization for the vaccines. If the general population sees that Covid-19 can be treated with effective therapeutics, containment measures, and natural herd immunity, the need for vaccines disappears.
But this would mean Pfizer & Moderna miss out on the billions of profit and have truckloads of doses sitting on the shelf collecting dust. This is what happened in 2003 with SARS -1 and 2018 with the Zika virus with other vaccine companies. This is an unacceptable situation for Pfizer & Moderna, hence the rush to get the “vaccine into arms” without the proper safety surveillance in place. They have to beat the therapeutics and natural herd immunity to get paid and get the credit for the decline of Covid. Zika, for the most part has fizzled naturally through herd immunity, while vaccines were still in the developmental stage. They missed the boat on that one.
Vaccine companies have learned from past mistakes, if you want your vaccine to get purchased and make profits, you need to get it out early as you only have a small window of time before herd immunity and therapeutics kicks in. For Zika, it needed about 18-24 months to fizzle out through herd immunity.
So how can waiting for 100 million people to be vaccinated before activating a system for “analyzing vaccine safety data” be a good plan? Isn’t that a little late if this vaccine ends up causing serious problems? This seems very suspicious and could be seen as deliberate. After all, we do have the passive surveillance system VAERS running and it is capturing some disturbing numbers. As of February 12, 2021, after about 2 months and 52 million vaccine injections VAERS has captured these adverse events:
These side effect numbers from VAERS are significant, especially considering it’s from a PASSIVE surveillance system which as I have shown only touches the tip of the iceberg. These numbers demand the need for ACTIVE surveillance.
For comparison sake, lets look at the active surveillance the CDC did for a week in December and compare to the passive surveillance VAERS data.
From Dec 14-18 the CDC recorded 112,807 vaccinations and also recorded 3150 health impact events from ACTIVE surveillance. This accounts to a high 2.8% (1 in 36) injury rate. VAERS through PASSIVE surveillance has captured 15,923 injury reports from 52 million vaccination injections. This accounts to a moderate 0.03% (1 in 3,333) injury rate. Can you see the difference when ACTIVE surveillance is done vs PASSIVE surveillance? Here we again see that passive surveillance is only accounting for about 1% (0.03/2.8) of what is found when active surveillance is done. This coincides with the study by the HHS and the SAGE study which both found VAERS captures only 1% of the actual vaccine injury total. So those numbers you see for VAERS, multiply them by 100 to get a more accurate idea of what is happening.
So hopefully, you can see now that our regulatory agencies are not getting it done when it comes to vaccine injury surveillance. To me, it is pretty clear that our regulatory agencies are more worried about bad publicity than they are about vaccine safety.
Dr. Ashish K. Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.
“We knew these vaccines were coming for at least several months before they got authorized, so we really should have had a well-developed system.”
Dr. Jeffrey Brown from Harvard Medical School and a leader in the FDA says,
“It is not only critical to get needles into arms, but also to get data into databases.”
Here’s the other question. Even if the data surveillance was working well and a complete record was being compiled for the injuries caused by these vaccines, would it be widely publicized? I catch a fair bit of mainstream news through TV, radio, and other media. I have not heard any reporting of the VAERS data. Nor did I hear anything about the CDC’s active surveillance in December. One has to go to non mainstream sources or directly to the actual agencies to find this info. To make matters worse, non mainstream news sources which investigate vaccine injury are being severely censored and deplatformed.
Why is there such a concerted effort to avoid capturing, publicizing, reporting, and even discussing vaccine injury? Its as if discussing safety is some evil taboo. Why is safety discussion in the workplace, schools, public transit, etc… encouraged, yet discussion on vaccine safety discouraged. Are Vaccines religious gurus that we dare not question?
Let’s face it, 929 deaths and over 15,000 injury reports in 2 months from a PASSIVE surveillance system is not good publicity and not good for the vaccine business. Imagine what the numbers would be if we were constantly running ACTIVE surveillance. If there was the same dedication to publicizing vaccine injury as there is in publicizing Covid deaths & daily cases, Big Pharma knows far fewer people would get vaccinated.
The mainstream media is controlled by a few top dogs who very deliberately control the message we hear on a daily basis. We make decisions based on the info we hear. A lot of money is on the line with these vaccines and Big Pharma is doing everything they can do to control the narrative. You hear what they want you to hear. You might say this is conspiracy theory. Ok, then explain why there is no publicity of the VAERS data? How many people know of the 929 death reports in the past 2 months following vaccination? Why are those who discuss vaccine safety being deplatformed from Facebook, YouTube, etc….? Why has there been no research dollars allocated to Ivermectin? Why are vaccines the only product in our society which have been given legal immunity to the vaccine makers? You need to connect the dots.
Why is this CNA nurse worried about losing his job for whistleblowing about his nursing home patients dying after vaccination? Should not a nurse be encouraged to report numerous deaths following vaccination?
Look I’m all for everyone having the free choice to choose whether or not to get vaccinated. My main concern is that we must be given the full story so we can make a proper decision. The bottom line is the Covid vaccine side effects are not being tracked properly, the VAERS data is being suppressed, the active surveillance BEST system is not even running, and anyone questioning this safety narrative is punished. Not exactly an ideal environment to think freely and make proper decisions.
The propaganda message now is that all must be vaccinated to get back to normal. This is a false narrative. There are lots of highly successful treatments for Covid, though none of them are being promoted because vaccines would no longer have emergency use authorization. This delay for FDA approval will close the profit window of opportunity to beat herd immunity.
After about a year of Covid viral spread and 2 major waves, the level of natural herd immunity is increasing. According to the CDC, about 40% of the population infected with the virus are asymptomatic or in other words immune. (See 5 scenario chart)
Dr. Monica Gandhi, a professor of medicine and infectious diseases physician at UCSF, in an interview with Dr. Makary, the editor of Medpages, they estimate that in America “100 million to 200-plus million have had the infection.” This is approaching 30% of the population. Dr. Gandhi says these people “would have immunity because, like we talked about, even asymptomatic infection can give durable immunity. So, yes, I think a lot of people already have it.”
Gandhi also states,
“The estimates are like unclear what it would take to get to herd immunity, but everyone keeps on using this 70% number because of extrapolation from other infectious diseases and extrapolation from the R0 of this virus, but it doesn’t actually factor in the natural immunity.”
So if the general population already had around 40% natural immunity before the pandemic, probably from prior exposure to other coronaviruses, and now after a year of Covid infection there is close to 30% of Covid natural infection immunity, this means we are getting close to 70% (30%+40%) natural immunity in the general population (in America). We might be a little behind here in Canada as our transmission has been less than the US. No one knows the actual percentage of natural immunity required to reach herd immunity, but if its 70-80%, we are getting pretty close to that number. When we reach herd immunity the numbers will naturally drop off as the virus will have a difficult time finding non-immune people to infect.
So if natural herd immunity is close on the horizon, and we have effective treatments for Covid if you are one of the few who develops serious Covid symptoms, why do we need to be taking the risk from these experimental vaccines which are not being effectively tracked for side effects? Maybe the vaccines will work to some extent or maybe they won’t. The safety profile might be acceptable but according to the VAERS numbers we have seen so far, probably not. We simply won’t know if active surveillance is not done. To me, this suppressed climate of information gathering, censored publicity, and general lack of transparency makes it an unnecessary risk to be vaccinated, especially when there are much safer and arguably more effective ways to treat the virus. And here is the real kicker question, why not just be transparent, what are they trying to hide?
As you have seen in my previous posts, there is an increased level of censorship occurring right now in social media as well as the mainstream television media for “vaccine misinformation”. Posts are being taken down and YouTube videos removed for the “evil” of presenting an opposing science based view which conflicts with the Big Pharma autocracy.
Robert F Kennedy Jr., one of my new heroes has just sent a letter to CNN’s Sanjay Gupta listing 10 offences “vaccine misinformation” by Sanjay and CNN. RFK is trying to appeal to Sanjay’s good nature and we’ll see if Sanjay’s conscience is pricked and comes clean.
Hello again. I hope you have read my previous post on keeping an open mind when looking at vaccination. You could say if we are putting vaccinations on trial, you should read my opening statement before reading this one. I am going to build a case point by point, post by post that we need to rethink our approach to vaccination. Am I an anti-vaxxer? Not entirely, I believe there is some merit to the principle of artificially creating immunity, but in the paradigm we are in right now where safety, vaccine ingredients, lots of injury, low level of testing, false information, and Big Pharma’s huge conflict of interest in the highest levels of the FDA and the WHO make it very difficult to trust any vaccine. And then there is the topic of this post, VACCINE MAKERS CANNOT BE SUED!!
Did you know that? No matter what happens, no matter how severe, or even death. Vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued in Canada or the US. In Canada, the way the Canadian Law is written, judges cannot rule someone was at fault. Vaccine Injury Class action lawsuits are not allowed in Canada or the US. In Canada (not Quebec) you are double screwed if you or your child receives a vaccine injury because there is no vaccine injury compensation program (Quebec is the only province with one). You might be saying, what is a vaccine injury compensation program?
In the US, there is a program which compensates those who can prove they were injured by a vaccine, called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) run by the Federal Vaccine Court. Most people don’t even know this program exists as its not advertised, for obvious reasons. Its actually very hard to prove causation, so you need very strong evidence with all your t’s crossed and i’s dotted. Even with these stringent requirements and with the program being barely known, it has payed out $4.3 billion in vaccine injury claims to 7211 plaintiffs. Another 11,471 were denied claims.
To top it off a report from the Department of Health and Human services has found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” So if fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and “only” $4.3 billion has been paid out so far. If all vaccine injuries were reported then you could easily be multiplying that $4.3 billion by 100. And this is only America!! So for those of you that say vaccines are safe, multiply that out and as Samuel L. Jackson said in the movie “Coach Carter”, “those are some stats for your ass”. I’m sorry for the jab, but I love that line and I had to get it in there somewhere, and these unavoidably huge stats seem perfect. Just having some fun.
Where does the money come from if you can’t sue the vaccine maker? Well, the fund collect a 75 cents tax on each vaccine given. If its a trivalent (a triple vaccine like MMR or DTP) vaccine is given then a $2.25 tax is paid each time.
If you are a Canadian like me, you’re probably saying, “so if my child receives a severe injury to a vaccine I am SOL?” You got it. I was very surprised when I found this out because we as Canadians take great pride in our health care system and the protections our country gives to our human rights. I’m a proud Canadian, but this is an embarrassment in my opinion. If the government pushes the use of vaccines, do they not have an obligation to help those that get injured due to this program?
A CTV News report in 2011 described the legal situation in Canada regarding vaccine injuries:
“[Jennifer] Keelan says currently the only recourse for people who have been injured by a vaccine is to sue the vaccine’s maker or provider. But there has not been a single successful civil lawsuit for medical injury related to immunization in Canada, she says. ‘These are very difficult cases to prove in court,’ she says. … Not only do victims spend money trying to fight the cases, but so do the vaccine makers. ‘And so nobody wins. There’s money spent and the only people that win are the lawyers, really,’ she says.”
What countries offer a vaccine injury program?
Canada is the only country in the G7 that does not have a vaccine injury program. CanVax gives a list of the countries that offer this program.
Table 1. Jurisdictions with VIC Programs (including the year of introduction)
This doesn’t look good for English speaking Canada. The fact that vaccine makers can’t be sued is bad enough, and then you see that Canada is way behind in protecting its people when it comes to vaccine injury. Some might argue that vaccine injury isn’t a pressing issue in Canada and that it simply hasn’t been needed. Sorry, our government is well aware of the problem and has done nothing. There is a website run by a Canadian, Bob Martin, that is pushing for this program. Bob Martin, got a flu shot in 2009 which caused Guillain Barre Syndrome, a rare autoimmune disease which can lead to progressive paralysis and death. The website reports,
“In 2011 a report written by Jennifer Keelan, assistant professor at the University of Toronto’s Dall Lane School of Public Health and Kumanan Wilson of the Ottawa Hospital Research Insititute at the University of Ottawa argue that because vaccination is a cornerstone of public health and strongly encouraged – even mandatory in some cases – there is an ethical obligation to compensate people in those instances when they suffer disability or death as a result. They argue that Canada should create a no-fault compensation plan.” https://vaccineinjurycompensationcanada.weebly.com/
I suspect the hesitancy in Canada to start a national vaccine injury compensation program is that this concedes that vaccines create injury. Its actually amazing how hesitant our society is at simply admitting the truth that vaccines do create injury. Adopting this program would develop stats which bring light to the extent of the problem, and this is not ideal considering the government is pushing vaccination. I already showed you the stats in America.
So let’s get back to the US Vaccine Compensation program.
How did it start?
Back in the 1980’s there was real problem with the Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTP) vaccine. A huge number of vaccine injuries were resulting in a wave of lawsuits causing panic for Big Pharma vaccine makers. With so many vaccine injuries taking place with potential litigation, it was becoming an unsustainable business model. Basically they were going to go out of business. As a result, Big Pharma strong armed the US government with an ultimatum, saying they would stop making vaccines unless they acquired legal immunity from being sued. In 1986, the Vaccine Act was formed and you could no longer sue Vaccine makers.
A loophole was found in a case in 2011, where if you could prove that the vaccine could have been made safer, you still had a case. As Barbara Loe Fisher, a long time activist for vaccine safety, has said in the documentary “The Truth about Vaccines” by Ty Bollinger
“Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth. It was a DPT vaccine injury case…..The Supreme Court majority, with two dissents. Justice Sotomayor and Ginsberg dissented. The Supreme Court said “Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and there shall be no more law suits against any vaccine company.“
Wow, only 9 years ago. So this a fairly recent occurrence. Did you catch the statement by the US Supreme Court, “Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.” What do we hear from the mainstream media almost on a daily basis. Vaccines are SAFE!! What do you hear from the CDC. Vaccines are SAFE!! What do we hear our directors of Health. Vaccines are SAFE!! What do most doctors say to patients. Vaccines are SAFE!! If vaccines are safe, why did the US Supreme Court in one of the most important cases on vaccines and after copious amounts of data review, state that they are “unavoidably unsafe“. Because they are UNSAFE!! Harvard trained Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych Ph.D supports this by saying, “Vaccination at its core is neither a safe nor an effective method of disease prevention.”
I will look at the ingredients in vaccines in future blogs which will explain why they are unsafe. There is also the question, do they work? That will be another blog as well. So why does everyone else say they are safe?
This is a heavy question and will take several other blogs to unpack, but without getting too deep into the details it goes right to the top. Bill Gates who is now the top dog in the world of Vaccine Policy. He is the largest donor to the World Health Organization (WHO). In 2010, the Bill and Melinda Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO because his goal is to vaccinate every single person in the world.
Bill declared “the decade of vaccines”. Robert F Kennedy Jr. just posted on Instagram that Bill and Melinda Gates have invested $21 million to perfect “microneedle technology” that embeds, under the skin, a vaccination record visible by infrared light that can be read by a “minimally-adopted smartphone technology.” The technology will allow health officials to scan US citizens to detect their vaccination compliance.
Holy Smoke, this doesn’t seem like an appropriate action to take in a free society. Why would such a high level of vaccination compliance be needed? What is he planning on doing to those who are non-compliant? This is a scary concept and eerily familiar to stuff you would read in the book of Revelation. Bill was able to push Windows as the dominant operating system on most every computer and that was before he was one of the richest people in the world. Imagine what he can do now with that determination supported by buckets of money.
This goes against the Nuremberg Code which states “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion” https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf
The Nuremberg Code was developed during the Nuremberg trials at the end of WW2 to protect humanity from the unethical medical practices of the Nazi regime. Forced vaccination is simply an immoral, unethical, and an unacceptable practice. It must be outlawed.
The rest of Big Pharma (Merck, Pfizer, GSK, etc…) controls the medical schools and the media. Never underestimate the power of the MEDIA. Robert F Kennedy Jr. said in the documentary, “The Truth about Vaccines”,
“This network president told me that if one of his talk shows allowed me on the air that he would fire the host. This person is a friend of mine and “I would have to fire the host because this is where our advertisers are,” and if he lost an advertiser it’s a major catastrophe for the network.”
He went on to say, “Our news division…gets up to 70% of ad revenues from pharma in non-election years.”
Is it any wonder why everything we hear from the mainstream media is, “Vaccines are safe”, “Vaccines are your best protection against viruses”, “Life will only get back to normal when we have a Vaccine for Covid-19”.
Facebook and Google have ramped up their censorship on their social media platforms. Its a regular thing now for posts, videos, and websites to be censored due to “vaccine misinformation”. A lot of the doctors I view on YouTube and Facebook are regularly complaining how their posts are being taken down for non compliance. Now, through experience they refer to Bill Gates on YouTube as Bill G as a precaution, so that they don’t get flagged and taken down. A university friend of mine, Wooje Jo, has mysteriously disappeared from Facebook and I can’t find him. He is an anesthetist doctor who wrote many posts on the dangers of vaccines. I don’t know how to contact him, so Wooje if you read this blog, let me know what happened.
So are you getting the picture?
We are supposed to live in a free society with freedom of speech and freedom to choose what enters our bodies and the bodies of our children. This ramping up of measures for non compliance should be concerning to anyone on both sides of the aisle. It’s not like my friend Wooje was promoting hate speech. He was simply giving insights as an anesthetist doctor on what he was finding in his research on vaccines. A proper debate cannot happen if the other side is banned from presenting.
VS
There is a very common argument put out there that if children aren’t vaccinated, they put others at risk. Well, let’s look at the logic of that reasoning. This premise assumes that the unvaccinated are more at risk to contract a sickness (ie. flu). Okay, even though that is a dubious statement, for fun, let’s go with that for a second. It is then assumed that if the unvaccinated are more at risk to get sick, this puts others at risk. Okay, lets go with that. Are not the vaccinated protected from getting sick? Then if they are protected how are they at risk? They would only be at risk if you feel that your vaccination didn’t work. If your vaccination doesn’t work, then why are you getting vaccinated? If your vaccination doesn’t work, why are you expecting me to vaccinate? It either works or it doesn’t, either way the unvaccinated have no impact on the vaccinated. Its an illogical concept.
In addition, I mentioned Harvard trained immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych Ph.D. She also states, “People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have,”
So do you see it? The incessant push for everyone to be vaccinated not only infringes on human rights, it goes against the Nuremberg Code, the science doesn’t support this and it is simply ILLOGICAL!!. If you vaccinate, your concern about the unvaccinated is misdirected, your real concern should be the vaccines themselves.
Well, I went into more detail than I was planning on the battle for truth and the powers behind this push to vaccinate, but it had to be discussed. Let’s get back to why it should be a major red flag that Vaccine makers cannot be sued.
Would you eat a restaurant is there was a big sign out front that said, “Just so you know, if our food causes you to get sick, we have legal immunity from the courts because the government has made legislation that we cannot be sued.” I think most marketing experts would probably say this would not be an advisable advertising strategy. I highly doubt you would eat at that restaurant. I wouldn’t. Would you buy a car, food in a grocery store, a toy at Walmart, or even a coffee at Timmies if they had this same sign on the front window? Probably not.
Let’s unpack this idea. Many people view lawyers and more specifically personal injury lawyers as opportunistic sharks looking to fill their pockets. Of course, there is some truth to that and most personal injury lawyers would not deny an element of that. But what most people don’t realize, the fear of being sued actually make our society a safer place. So in a sense, personal injury lawyers are actually an essential part of a society that seeks to protect its people.
If you go to any large construction site in Canada, there are very stringent safety rules in place to make sure workers are not hurt on the job and they go home in the same condition as when they arrived. Are large construction owners just really nice people solely motivated by protecting their workers? Well, I won’t say that there aren’t good ones who genuinely care, but I think if we want to get real here, their main concern is having the Ministry of Labour (MOL) come to their jobsites to shut them down. If a severe injury occurs, that is what happens. Then there are the severe fines, the higher level of scrutiny on their operations and the stats that are affected which need to be good for safety compliance. Basically if the penalties are severe enough, things are kept safe. It essentially comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. It may seem cold, but that is the way it works. When an auto company sends out a recall, they do a cost/benefit analysis. The cost of doing the recall vs the cost of the lawsuits. The HuffPost reported a story about GM doing a cost/benefit analysis,
“The executives at GM knew for 13 years that their cars had a defective ignition switch that would, well, kill people. But they did a “cost-benefit analysis” and concluded that paying off the deceased’s relatives was going to be cheaper than having to install a $10 part per car. They then covered up their findings and continued to let millions drive around with the defective part in their cars. There would be no recalls. There would only be parents and the decapitated body parts of their dead children. ” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gm-recall_b_5070492
You might say, “what GM did was a pretty rare event.” Not so, Big Pharma has done the same thing on countless occasions. Richard Enos writes,
“One example of this is with the painkiller Vioxx, which by some estimates led to 60,000 deaths, and for which Merck had to pay out almost $5 billion to settle 27,000 lawsuits. Merck emails from 1999 showed that company execs sought to intimidate doctors who disliked using Vioxx.”
So, now that vaccine makers cannot be sued. What is the cost to them if someone sustains an injury from their vaccine? none. GM decided not to do the recall even though they could be sued. What motivation do vaccine makers have to make things safe? not much. What motivation do they have to take mercury out of the flu vaccine? none. What motivation do they have to properly test their vaccines? None. Well, I may be going too far in saying none. I guess these vaccines have to be safe enough so that people don’t die on the spot when they get it. The damage has to be controlled somewhat otherwise the public outrage would shut things down completely. They seem to have found a level of minimal safety so there aren’t riots and the money chain keeps rolling. I guess they have learned from history.
In 1885 there was a major rally in Leicester England of over 80,000 people protesting their mandatory vaccination policy of small pox. Dr. Humphries stated in an interview in the documentary, “the Truth about Vaccines”,
“They had a 95 percent infant vaccination rate and had some of the worst epidemics in history in that city. And so people were outraged because of mandatory vaccination had been instituted. People were being arrested and their belongings confiscated. Horrible….there was a big rally with over 80,000 people that showed up. I mean these people were angry. Their kids were getting really messed up from this vaccine and it wasn’t working…it was a lose-lose for them…they stopped vaccinating…instead, whenever somebody had smallpox they had people that were already immune tend to the person, and they sanitized everything in their midst and kept them isolated. And that turned out to be actually the best way to deal with small pox in those communities.”
This method became popularly known as the Leicester Method to handling pandemics. It actually sounds a lot like what we are doing right now with Covid-19. Dr. Wakefield, in the documentary “the Truth about Vaccines” says the eradication of smallpox was due to this type of Leicester Method rather than the common proclamation that this success is attributed to vaccines.
Ty Bollinger went on to say, “they won their freedom of choice…that vaccination rate went from 95 percent to only 5 percent…death rates drastically decreased after they implemented quarantine and isolation.”
Hey Brent, that might have been in 1885, vaccines have come a long way since then. We don’t see those types of vaccine problems anymore. Are you sure about that? Robert F Kennedy Jr. reports some fairly recent events exposing Bill Gates’ vaccine program in India,
“Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India.”
Bill Gates claims to have eradicated polio in India, only to create a non-polio virus which paralyzed 490,000 children. Did anyone hear about this on the mainstream media? 490,000 children getting paralyzed. Gates and his vaccine policies kicked out of India. This should be headline news. Some of you are probably saying Robert F Kennedy Jr. must be some sort of conspiracy theorist with some axe to grind with Bill Gates. Well, I don’t know if there is some sort of personal battle going on here, but from what I have seen, Robert F Kennedy Jr. is about as solid as they come. He has documents backing up his every accusation. His reasoning is sound. He has access to information that the average person doesn’t or doesn’t know where to find. Remember his uncle was JFK, a former president of the US. His dad, Robert (Bobby) Kennedy was a former US Attorney General. The Kennedy family, sometimes referred to as American royalty, has a history of challenging the darker powers of this world. Many think this determination to challenge resulted in JFK and RFK getting assassinated.
But Brent, Bill Gates also has fought for third world sanitation. Yes, I watched a Netflix documentary “Inside Bill’s Brain” showing Bill’s determination to develop special toilets which are affordable and self-maintaining to be used to improve sanitation in Third World countries. I went away from this episode thinking Bill Gates is a great guy using his great brain to solve big problems. Conversely, what I have seen in his vaccine practice, he doesn’t seem so nice. He should be commended for his sanitation efforts, but Robert F Kennedy accuses Bill Gates’ obsession with vaccines is “steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development….his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.”
I expect the vaccine battle to heat up with Covid-19 and the exchanges between Bill and Bobby Jr. to heat up as well as they seem to be the leaders on each side.
Stay with me for one last point. We need to consider the importance of the rule of law. What is the rule of law and why is it important? The Burma Legal council states,
“Rule of law essentially guarantees equality of all individuals in society on the basis of the principle that every person is equal before the law. In societies where the rule of law is exercised, people have the opportunity to seek equal protection whenever any rights violations occur.” http://www.socialwatch.org/node/10920
Imagine if there were no police, and no courts. We have seen movies about this. The movie “The Purge” is a futurist fictional story where an annual national holiday is proclaimed in which for a 12 hr period any crime of any kind is legal with no future ramifications. Yes its essentially a horror movie and quite disturbing to watch. You quickly develop a deep respect for the need of laws to protect us. It is well known in countries around the world where there is a lack of respect for the rule of law, corruption abounds. I won’t list the countries, as I’m sure we can all list countries with high corruption.
I think you see where I am going with this. Vaccine makers are above the law because they are outside of the rule of law. They can do most anything they want with their vaccines. What has history shown us about this type of power. Lord Acton keenly stated,
“All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”
The success of any democracy is directly related to the checks and balances a society develops to resist power and corruption. Western society is built on this. We have given vaccine makers this legal immunity and we are trusting them to protect us. History has shown this simply doesn’t work. You may have heard of the Fable of the Scorpion and the Frog,
“A scorpion asks a frog to carry him over a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, both would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog then agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature.”
Human nature is too predictable, and giving vaccine makers complete protection from being sued creates corruption, and that is what we see when you uncover the rocks. You and I are not their priority, their priority is the almighty dollar.
So, have you absorbed this information? Have you grasped why not being able to sue vaccine makers is such a major problem? This reason on its own should be a perfect justification to avoid vaccines. Change the legislation and I guarantee you vaccines will become more safe. The testing will get ramped up. They might even become what they are claimed to be, SAFE. And those Vaccine makers that continue to make unsafe vaccines will be sued some much that they will go out of business, and the only the good vaccine makers will remain. Seems like a win-win to me.
If you wouldn’t eat at a restaurant with legal immunity, why would you allow vaccine makers who have legal immunity to vaccinate your kids? Take a serious minute think about that.
Please comment, I really want to understand this logic.
Hello all, yes my dedication to blogging has not been good for many years. It seems it takes a crisis to get me motivated to do the work and get back at it. Before it was my friend dying of cancer, and now its Covid-19. In my defense, I’ve been busy coaching my kids in hockey, baseball, and basketball. It takes up alot of time especially when you get drawn in to joining the baseball board and then become president of the board and my wife becomes the Registrar. Even though its been busy, its been fun. I’m sure when I’m older I’ll look back fondly on these days.
On another note, like Rodney Dangerfield, I went back to school and got myself a diploma in Civil Engineering at age 47. Yes, it had its tough moments, including spending 50hrs in 1 week on an AutoCad assignment including an all nighter. I was actually proud of myself that I was able to keep up with all the young bucks and finished with a 93.7% overall average. Not bad for an older guy and I guess I still have some juice left. I do need to acknowledge that I achieved this success by hanging out with smart, motivated and helpful people, so in essence it was a team effort. For anyone in school, I highly recommend surrounding yourself with these types of people if you want to do well. This is really a life principle–we is better than me. Well enough about me.
That’s why you haven’t heard from me for a while.
But now, I’M BAAACK!! Yes in the middle of a month long Covid-19 lockdown. I’ve been doing a lot of reading and watching videos. I’ve been digging into a lot of different topics. A strange thing has really hit me recently. Do people really want to know the truth? I am starting to doubt this desire in most people.
My motivation to start this Truthbreakdown blog was to delve into topics I felt had the Truth getting squeezed out of them. I also assumed that most people at heart want to know the truth and that most people believe that “the truth will set you free”. The death of a friend of mine from cancer, moved me to immerse myself into alternative cancer therapy research. When discussing this info, I started to see that many people don’t want to hear about alternative cancer therapies, they want maintain their current faith in conventional medicine and leave the debate there. In the back of my mind I’m thinking, “Don’t you want to hear about other options? Especially since cancer is eating people up in conventional medicine”. “Don’t you want know the dangers of conventional therapies?” “Don’t you want to look into other therapies with high success rates?” Some want to know, but many don’t. They would rather stay in the mindset of, “This is what I know and I’m good with that”. We as human beings don’t want to change very easily. Its the “comfort zone” mentality. For me, I have trouble understanding that. Sure we all have our own biases, but I want to know the truth. Show me the facts and keep the propaganda, number twisting, coverups, sensationalism, emotionalism, and the insults out of the equation.
To find truth, you have to let your guard down a little and be willing to have your world rocked. It may feel like a kick in the teeth especially if it goes against everything you have ever been taught or known. I have felt this feeling on many occasions and on many topics. At the same time, it doesn’t mean you have to get rid of everything you know, you just have to open things up a smige and keep it open. But from what I’ve seen, most people don’t want to open things up a smige. You can give them the facts coming up the ying yang, and it seems to make no difference, like they’re in a fog. For example, I just listened to a video of Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Robert De Niro discussing Thimerosal use in vaccines offering $100,000 for a study that sufficiently proved it was safe after giving a litany of facts on the issue. I’ll tell you Robert F Kennedy Jr. is about as sound as they come, but the guy interviewing him was not getting it, he was in a fog of his pre-conceived ideas. To me, the interviewer didn’t want to know the truth or maybe the facts were drowned out by the voices in his head “this guy is a quack, the whole world disagrees with this”. You know what, I get it. If the whole world is shouting in an opposite direction of what is being said, how can you even consider this information? The doctors, the medical schools, the FDA, the WHO, Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci, the directors of Health in most major countries, and major politicians. I get it, its huge. But if you get rid of all the hoopla, and go where the facts lead, then that’s where you got to go, no matter who is pushing in the opposite direction. That’s what a truth seeker must do. I know it seems cocky, but its really not, its actually courage to go against the grain and stand firm like an oak tree on a riverbank against the river.
And why can’t we just have a civil debate on issues, even if they cause emotions to fire up? What I see almost across the board on a variety of issues is the fear of debate. On many hot topic issues, I find it hard to locate good debates on YouTube. I’m not naïve that emotions are part of the equation and sometimes people resort to insults and the debate is shutdown. I also understand the fear of emotions. In the search for truth, emotions create fog and when there is not mutual respect shown, debate loses its value. But the fear of debate is causing real problems in our society and our world. Opinions are more polarized than ever and this is creating great tension which I fear will become explosive at some point. Many feel they haven’t had a voice in what is happening around them and this is causing frustration. Also, pushing issues under the carpet does not get rid of problems, it only infects them. I think of Theo Fleury, NHL hockey player, who was sexually abused by a coach in his teenage years. You would think that accomplishing his dream of becoming a professional hockey player and the big money would make him happy and forget about his past abuse. What did we see? Theo became increasingly tormented and he started to act erratically and abusive to the point that his career had to be halted. It was only when he squarely looked at his pain and talked about it, that he began to heal.
We need more talk. We need more debate. On TV, on YouTube, on Facebook, in classrooms, in school assemblies, in public forums, on university & college campuses, and in our homes. Its actually very concerning that YouTube, Facebook, Google and others are censoring debate by removing individuals and posts that don’t fit their vaccination model. Most do not realize the healing power of debate and simply talking to each other.
This brings to mind a movie I recently watched during my Covid-19 lockdown. The movie is “The Best of Enemies”. It is a true story of an African American civil rights activist, Ann Atwater, who faces off against the Exalted Cyclops (local leader) of the Klu Klux Klan, C.P Ellis. It was a fight about school integration after an African American school had a fire which required the students to integrate with a school of “white” students. A decision was made, to ease the tension, to have a “charette” to discuss the issues. A charette is set of collaborative sessions in which a group comes together to discuss issues in order to come up with a solution to a problem. Basically, it is highly organized debate. What makes it work are strict rules of respect, a high emphasis on keeping things fair to both sides throughout the process and an open and honest sharing of ideas. For instance, Ann Attwater and C.P. Ellis co-chaired the process. Yes, an African American who had received severe discrimination, and a KKK leader who from birth was taught to believe in segregation, had to come together to create a fair environment of debate and resolution. What happened? Sorry to blow the plot if you haven’t seen the movie, but many of the people came together. A defining moment came when Ann Atwater, without C.P’s knowledge, helped C.P’s son with down syndrome to be moved to another room to get away from a roommate who was causing his son great emotional distress. C.P. tried to move his son, but the institution would not allow it. Ann found out about this, and used a connection she had with a nurse in the home to get C.P’s son moved to another room. When C.P. found out about this, it rocked his world. Why would my enemy do this? The story concluded with C.P. changing his worldview on segregation and he voted for school integration, he gave up his membership with the KKK, and he became life long friends with Ann and the African American community in the area. What a message on what can happen if you respect and even show love to your enemies. The greater message is, what can happen when we talk and debate. The result was good, but yes there were tense times in the movie and compromise was necessary on both sides. In short, it was tough work requiring patience from both sides, but it worked and brought healing.
When I search a topic, I want to hear the best arguments from both sides. I search for debates with the best, smartest, and most informed leaders on both sides. I don’t hide the fact that I have personal biases. I also recognize that on many of the controversial hot topics, there is usually a side in the power position. This means they have more money, more power, more resources to promote their views, and the current rules are in their favour. I have found those in the power position don’t want debate, why would they? They like the status quo. They don’t want to shake things up. Questions need to be asked. I ask, “who is paying for this study and are there conflicts of interest?” I ask “what is motivating this person to say what they are saying?” I ask “is there a fair debate taking place, and if not why?” I ask, “who is squashing debate and why?” Actually, one of my pet peeves is watching debates, documentaries, and news reports where the combatants are clearly “unequally yoked”. One side has the PHDs and the leaders in the field and the other side has the moms. Nothing against moms but it is clearly an unfair fight. Show me the best, most knowledgeable, and solid leaders on both sides, and then let it rip. In defense of moms, you don’t want to mess with a mama-bear’s cubs. They will come out fighting and remain resolute to the end, especially when you try to hurt the cubs. I feel my strength here and why I write these blogs is my focus. My wife sometimes calls me “Spock”, referring to the unemotional and logical Vulcan from the Star Trek series. I don’t get too emotional and I don’t get bored with too many facts. This may be an issue in my relationships (I’m trying to be better here), but I feel it is an advantage when researching hot topics. It keeps the fog out. Well, you can judge for yourself.
So where am I am going with all this? Well, with all this Covid-19 craziness, we are told that the only way we are going to get back to normal is the development of a Covid-19 vaccine. Its our Holy Grail which will solve this whole mess we’re in. Its our Superman coming to save the day. Is it? Have vaccines saved the day in the past? Are vaccine makers our heros or clever entrepreneurs? Are people all over the world going to be forced to take this vaccine? Looks like the biggest lottery ticket ever–develop a vaccine that everyone has to take, you can’t be sued, less cost for testing due to it being rushed through, support from the highest levels of government, and a population gripped by fear. As Robert F. Kennedy, says “a great business plan, but not a great health plan”. If you add to the fact that big Pharma’s profits are decreasing with their regular drugs, but the vaccination profits are rockin’. Legal immunity due to the Vaccine Act is really paying dividends, literally. (We will look at this more in depth in my next post)
OR
I realize questioning vaccine safety and efficacy may seem as foreign to many people’s paradigms as walking on Mars (I was there), but I am asking you to open your mind a smig, minimize the emotional fog, and lets take a ride through the maze of the vaccination debate. Some of the greatest philosophers have maintained the value of critical thinking. As Jordan Shapiro writes,
“Critical thinking is painful. Plato equated it with walking out of a dark cave and staring directly into a bright light. That’s what it feels like when you’re willing to question your most sacred beliefs no matter how much it hurts. It’s a kind of masochistic intellectual flagellation. Sounds horrible, but Plato promised it was worth it.”
I’ll try to minimize the jabs unless I feel it is absolutely necessary. My philosophy is, when a debater uses insults it shows a weakness of the facts and a resort to the art of misdirection. I’m going to chunk it step by step, point by point, and I hope we can be friends when this is all over. Leave a comment, be nice, and let me know your thoughts. As CNN host Chris Cuomo says, “Let’s get at it”
Hello all, its been a while since my last post. I guess I just needed some time to recharge my intellectual batteries enough to get passionate about an issue. What has instigated this passion is my research on the topic of water fluoridation and the sinister & coercive issues surrounding it. Having spent a lot of time investigating the causes of cancer, I have to spend some time discussing Fluoride.
Water Fluoridation follow the same path as many other truthbreakdowns in our society such as Vaccinations, Chemotherapy, Radiation therapy, and most Big Pharma drugs. Here are some commonalities:
It is generally thought and promoted that these activities are normal, well-tested, and fully substantiated methods to create health or destroy disease. When researched in depth, these activities are actually the reverse and this comes as a great shock to the researcher (as it did to me)
These activities are promoted, supported, and utilized by the highest levels of government.
These activities are pushed and almost forced on the majority of the human population under the guise of health for humanity.
Billions (not millions) of $$$ are made off of these activities mainly through securing governmental support and contracts for mass distribution
Big Pharma & Government fight tooth and nail to make sure these activities continue. Why? A) $$$$$ B) Legal liability. Imagine the class action lawsuits that would occur if the courts of public opinion & the courtrooms ruled that Water Fluoridation, Vaccinations, Chemotherapy, etc… all caused great harm to those it was given to. Remember Asbestos and Tobacco? Yes they were once supported by doctors and government.
Big Business has manipulated the facts and squashed the true facts through their control in government and their big $$ to fight in the courts.
Labels those with oppositional scientific views as quackery or fringe wackos.
Influence Medical School curriculum, FDA investigations, and scientific studies to produce the results and conclusions which support continued money making.
Ignore & Squash competing alternative therapies which are successful, natural, way cheaper and far less collateral damage. In short they monopolize their product even if it causes great harm and/or even kills people.
Ignore & Squash doctors and other medical practitioners who have good success with alternative therapies. Why? Eliminate the competition, especially the ones with great success with a far cheaper, non-patented protocol.
Setup a system where alternative therapies have too many hoops & too much cost to gain scientific acceptance. Big Pharma and Big Government have the funds and influence to get their methods instituted.
If you have read this list and are probably thinking that I am one of those conspiracy theorists and that our western culture is far too advanced and ethical to allow such treachery. Think again. I realize it may come as a shock, but get used to it. Greed has a way of making humans do less than kind things. It is especially hard for Big Pharma to stop when they get a taste of the Big $$$, like a vampire’s compulsion when they get a taste of blood. As well Government has gone too far to admit guilt due to the potential legal implications.
Having visited numerous schools as a supply teacher over the past 15 years, I have seen the huge lists in the staff rooms of all the children with allergies, behavioral disorders, ADHD, OCD, autism, auto-immune disease, cancer, and the list goes on. My son’s friend jokingly yet frankly stated, “Ya almost all the kids in my school have some sort of disorder”. The bottom line is, we are poisoning our population and most importantly poisoning our kids.
Putting Fluoride, though touted as the great savior of tooth decay, in our water is simply unethical and dangerous. Anyone with knowledge of Grade 11 chemistry will know that Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine, and Iodine are all in the same family of elements in the Periodic Table known as the Halogens. You will also know that Fluorine is similar to and resembles Iodine in our body as they are both in the same family of elements. The difference is Fluorine is much more reactive than Iodine, and when its ion Fluoride enters our body, it displaces Iodine by attaching to receptors designed for Iodine. You might say, “So what”. Well, when one studies the importance of Iodine to our body, one will find that Iodine is one of the most significant elements in human biochemistry. When Fluoride displaces Iodine in our body, critical processes become disrupted especially in the thyroid gland and our immune system. Basically Fluoride disrupts human biochemistry at a cellular level. Read more detail on this from Dr. Sircus.
You might say, “Come on, its well established that Fluoride fights tooth decay and it isn’t harmful to our body. They wouldn’t put Fluoride in the water if it was unhealthy.” Well, if this is what you think you need to read up on the history of Water Fluoridation and the health effects of Fluoride. Check out non-chemo survivor of cancer, Chris Wark’s blog on the history of Water Fluoridation.
Haven’t tooth decay rates declined in communities which use water Fluoridation? Yes, BUT tooth decay rates have declined at the same rate in NON-Fluoridated communities. Is the rate decline due to Fluoridation or just generally better oral hygiene? The answer is obvious. Check out the graph on declining tooth decay rates.
Fluoride is not needed in your body and Iodine is, its as simple as that.
Spread the word and stop water fluoridation in your community. While your on that note have a look a water Chlorination. Chlorine is also a halogen element with sinister effects, but lets save this for another day.
With this new Angelina Jolie breast mastectomy situation in the news lately, I think some common sense needs to be applied here. I subscribe to an email distribution from a nutritionist named Mike Geary. This is his take on the Jolie deal. Enjoy
———————————————————————
You are receiving this newsletter because you are a subscriber
to Mike Geary’s Lean-Body Secrets Ezine from TruthAboutAbs.
———————————————————————
I know this has turned out to be a massively controversial topic in the media with Angelina Jolie’s recent double mastectomy.
One thing I want us to keep in mind is that this was a personal decision for Angelina, and that deserves to be respected. To each their own.
However, the big concern here is that so many other women around the world that look up to such a high profile actress might think this is the best route to go if you carry the BRCA1 gene, that indicates increased risk for breast cancer.
The big issue is that Angelina was essentially LIED to about her risks. Just because you carry a gene that increases your likelyhood for a certain cancer doesn’t mean you can’t create a biochemical environment in your body that prevents the expression of that gene.
Remember that this isn’t an issue of “curing cancer”…. She didn’t have any cancer to begin with! This is an issue of PREVENTING cancer. And to cut off perfectly healthy body parts with the thought that you “might” somebody get cancer is not a mindset that I’ll ever understand.
Remember that the alternative is to create a biochemical environment in your body throughout your life that prevents the cancer in the first place regardless of which “risky genes” you carry.
A controversial article was published by NaturalNews.com about this very topic, and I’ll let you read it below and decide for yourself…
How Angelina Jolie was Duped by Cancer Doctors into Self Mutilation for Cancer She Never Had
by Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) In a New York Times op-ed explaining her decision to have both of her breasts surgically removed even though she doesn’t have breast cancer, Angelina Jolie cited risk numbers as key to her decision. She said that doctors told her she had an “87% risk of breast cancer.” Her solution? Undergo three months of surgical procedures and have her breasts cut out.
Problem solved, right? With her breasts removed, she says her risk of breast cancer is now reduced to a mere 5 percent. The same bizarre logic can also be applied to men who cut off their testicles to “prevent testicular cancer” or people who cut out their colons to “prevent colorectal cancer.” But that would be insane, so nobody does that, because one of the most basic principles of medicine is that you don’t subject patients to the considerable risks and costs of surgery and anesthesia to remove organs that have no disease!
But the really sad part about all this is that Angelina Jolie was lied to. She didn’t have an 87% risk of breast cancer in the first place. All the women reading her NYT op-ed piece are also being lied to.
Here’s why…
How cancer doctors lie with statistics and use fear to scare women into high-profit procedures
The very idea that breast cancer is a “percent risk” is a complete lie. In reality, everyone has cancer micro-tumors in their bodies, including myself. Cancer is not a disease you just “get” like being randomly struck by lightning. It’s something you must “manage” or “prevent” day by day, meal by meal, through a lifestyle choice that involves vitamin D supplementation, nutrition, superfoods, vegetable juices and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals and radiation.
So when a doctor says you have a “chance” of getting cancer, what he’s implying is that you have no control over cancer, and that’s an outright lie. Cancer quackery, in other words.
Even Jolie with her BRCA1 gene that’s linked to breast cancer can quite easily follow a dietary and lifestyle plan that suppresses BRCA1 gene expression. It’s not rocket science. It’s not even difficult. It can be done with simple foods that cost a few dollars a day. Those foods include raw citrus, resveratrol (red grapes or red wine), raw cruciferous vegetables, omega-3 oils and much more. Those same foods also help prevent heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and other chronic diseases.
Indole-3-carbinol (I3C), by the way, a natural chemical found in cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and cabbage, offers powerful prevention against BRCA1 gene expression. But you don’t hear cancer doctors telling women to “eat more cabbage” because that doesn’t make the cancer industry any money. You can buy I3C as a potent nutritional supplement from a variety of sources. It’s literally cancer prevention in a capsule.
So the whole “chance” argument is pure quackery. There is no chance involved in whether you get cancer. It’s all cause and effect. You are either living a pro-cancer lifestyle and therefore growing cancer, or you’re living an anti-cancer lifestyle and keeping cancer in check so that it never becomes a problem. Cause and effect is what results in either the growth of cancer tumors or the prevention of cancer tumors. There is no “luck” involved.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it, that medical doctors don’t believe in luck or voodoo on any topic other than cancer. But when it comes to cancer, they want all women to be suckered into the victim mentality that cancer is purely a matter of “luck” and therefore women have no control over their own health outcomes. How dis-empowering! How sick! How incredibly exploitive of women!
If you really want to be informed about breast cancer and the corrupt, dishonest cancer industry, read my related article 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You’re Not Supposed to Know. Or listen to our upcoming FREE Cancer Solutions Summit broadcasting this coming Monday, May 20th.
Why doesn’t the cancer industry empower women with a sense of control over their own health?
I find it astonishing that the cancer industry doesn’t believe in cause and effect. They would rather scare women with “risk” statistics that imply people have no control over cancer. Empowering women with a sense of control over their own health is the last thing the cancer industry wants to do, because that would cause them to lose customers and lose money.
It’s far more profitable to scare all women into a state of such irrational panic that they agree to the most insane things imaginable such as chopping off both their healthy breasts even though they have no cancer. Such women are then convinced they’ve literally saved their own lives by agreeing to be mutilated by cancer surgeons.
“My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent,” says Jolie. “I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.”
Will she also tell her children they should mutilate themselves, too, as a form of medical disease prevention? And what happens if she learns she has a risk of brain cancer? Does she chop off her head and call it a cure?
The scam of making women believe there is only ONE way to reduce your “risk” of breast cancer
The other enormous scam in all this is the idea that there’s only one way to reduce your “risk” of breast cancer. Even if you believe the fictitious number of “87% risk,” why does everyone automatically assume there is one and only one way to lower that risk?
“For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options,” writes Jolie in the NYT. Yet she utterly fails to offer women any options other than the one she took: check in to a cancer center and let them play “cut-poison-burn” on your body. Jolie’s op-ed piece, which reads as if it were written by the public relations department of the Pink Lotus Breast Center, offers nothing in the way of nutrition advice, lifestyle choices, holistic therapies, wellness, alternative medicine… nothing! What an incredible disservice to all the women of America…
In the world of health, nutrition and cancer, there are thousands of ways to prevent cancer and suppress the expression of BRCA1 genes. But Jolie and the cancer industry seem to imply no options exist other than chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. Three options only. Nothing else exists in their world, not nutritional prevention, not vitamin D therapy, not vitamin C potentiated micro-chemotherapy, not ozone therapy, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, stress reduction or anything else. You are supposed to believe that none of these things exist!
And why? Because the cancer industry wants to funnel women like cattle into their slash-poison-burn system of quack treatments. And Angelina Jolie is their new cheerleader. Scarred and no doubt experiencing the chest and armpit numbness that almost always accompanies mastectomy surgery, she now seeks to “inspire” other women to exercise their own sick “choice” and have their breasts removed, too!
It is the sickest invocation of women’s power that I’ve ever witnessed. This is not empowering women, it’s marching them into self-mutilation. And the “risk” is a complete fraud. In truth, Angelina Jolie had a higher risk of dying on the operating table than dying from breast cancer if she simply followed an anti-cancer lifestyle.
Don’t be tricked into self-mutilation by cancer industry quacks
In summary:
• The claim that you have a “percent risk” of breast cancer is a big lie which implies you have no control over cancer.
• BRCA1 genes can be kept quiet (suppressed) through proper foods and lifestyle choices. A gene is not a death sentence.
• The implication that there is only ONE way to reduce breast cancer risk is a complete lie. There are thousands of options and strategies for preventing cancer. Never be cornered into surgery by a group of surgeons pushing irrational fear.
• Cancer micro-tumors exist in everyone. Cancer must be “managed” in everyone to keep it in check and avoid the growth of tumors.
• The cancer industry tricks women using unethical fear tactics to scare women with false statistics into high-profit cancer procedures that only cause them harm.
• The claim that cutting off healthy breasts somehow “empowers” women is sick and demented. Women are far more empowered by honest information on nutrition and healthy living that allows them to keep their bodies intact rather than being sliced up by dishonest cancer surgeons.
-Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com
————————
I told you that it was a bit of a controversial article. But Mr Adams is on point with a lot of his arguments.
The important thing here is that gene expression can be suppressed with the right biochemical environment in your body through the right superfoods, preventing nutrient deficiencies, balancing hormones, controlling stress, avoiding inflammatory foods, avoiding carcinogenic chemicals, etc, etc.
In fact, remember that you can greatly reduce your risk of cancer and all other degenerative diseases by eating the right foods such as those featured in my manual here:
101 unique superfoods that control blood pressure, fight diabetes, protect brain health & help prevent cancer.
You do have power over prevention if you control your internal environment.
PS — fwd this email to your friends and family that are interested in this topic.
Mike Geary
Certified Nutrition Specialist
Certified Personal Trainer
Sources: Looker and Kelly, 2011; Attwell et al., 2019
truthbreakdown 