Childbirth is miraculous, beautiful, traumatic, and overwhelming, all at the same time, for both the baby and the mother. But for many children born today, squeezing through the birth canal is the easy part. Soon after birth, males born to North American women routinely face amputation of a fully functioning, healthy organ – the foreskin.

Circumcision is so commonplace in North America, it has long been considered the norm. The World Health Organization estimates the male circumcision rate in the U.S. to be 76% to 92%, while the rates in most of the Western European countries are less than 20%. Globally, more than 80% of the world’s men are left intact. An intact penis is not rare – an intact penis is the norm.

Medical professionals tell parents that circumcision is relatively painless, just a snip and it is over. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the rare but possible complications, which include mutilation of the penis or death, the practice of circumcision is painful and traumatic.

The following nurses have come forward to share their knowledge and experience, to tell the truth about this practice.

Related: Circumcision Linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

Nicole, A Former Nursing Student

A few years ago, I began an OB/GYN hospital clinical as a student nurse. One day, I was enlisted to attend a ‘routine circumcision.

… I did not anticipate the lurching sensation that gripped my heart as I looked upon that baby. He was laying strapped down to a table, so small and new – pure and innocent – trusting – all alone – no defenses.

I walked toward the baby and wanted to take him off the table and shelter him – to tell him that it would be okay, that nobody would hurt him on my watch.

Then in walked the doctor. Loud. Obnoxious. Joking with his assistant. As if he was about to perform a 10-minute oil change.

Not once did he talk to this little baby. I am not sure he even looked at him – really looked at him.

Rather, he reached for his cold metal instruments and then reached out for his object of mutilation: this sweet newborn’s perfect, unharmed, intact penis.

I recall this little baby boy’s screams of pain and terror – his small lungs barely able to keep up with his cries and gasps for breath.

I turned in horror as I saw the doctor forcefully rip and pull the baby’s foreskin up and around a metal object.

Then out came the knife. Cut. Cut. Cut. Screaming. Blood.

I stood next to the baby and said, “You’re almost done sweetie. Almost done. There, done.”

Then came the words from the doctor, as that son-of-a-b***h dangled this little baby’s foreskin in midair and playfully asked, “Anybody care to go fishing?”

My tongue lodged in my throat.

I felt like I was about to vomit.

I restrained myself. It was now my duty to take the infant back to the nursery for “observation.”

… Back in the newborn nursery, rather than observing, I cradled the infant. I held him and whispered comforting words as if he were my own. I’ll never forget those new little eyes watch me amid his haze. He knew I cared about him. He knew he was safe in my arms. He knew that I was going to take him to his mommy. But, deep in his little heart, at some level, I know he wondered where his mommy was. While he lay there mutilated in a level of agony that we cannot imagine, in what was supposed to be a safe and welcoming environment after his birth, where was his mommy?

Related: Religious Reasons Not To Circumcise

Betty, RN

We are saying what is happening, because the male myth is, “Well, I was circumcised and I am fine, and my son was circumcised and he’s fine.”

But we’re saying, “Maybe you were circumcised, but it wasn’t fine, because we were there, and we saw what happened. It’s the same thing with your baby. We were there, and we saw it. It was not fine.”

… That is the next step, for the grown men to come forward. It’s happening now. There is a powerful coalition forming. We women are coming out as mothers and as witnesses to this brutal sexual assault. Women who have been circumcised in Africa are coming forward, too. We’re all saying this isn’t okay.

Mary, RN

We just wanted people to stop hurting babies. In 1992, we started a petition. Before that, I think we all had the sense that something was wrong, but we had never communicated about it. Everything I’d read said circumcision isn’t a necessary thing to do, from a medical or health standpoint. So why are we doing it? You take a newborn baby, strap him down to a board, and cut on him. It’s obviously painful!

Circumcision became so intolerable that five of us wrote a letter saying that ethically we could no longer assist. When we were getting ready to present the letter, other nurses came out of the woodwork and asked to sign it. Out of about 50 nurses, 24 signed it.

Now we’re conscientious objectors, but it’s still going on. We can still hear it.

… Behind closed doors, you can hear the baby screaming. You know exactly what part of the operation is happening by how the screams are.

Mary-Rose, RN

My dreams were about taking the babies and strapping them down, participating in the whole thing, and having the babies say to me, “Why are you doing this? You were just welcoming me, and now you’re torturing me. Why, why, why?”

I’ve watched doctors taking more foreskin than they should. When there’s too much bleeding, they burn the wound with silver nitrate so that the penis looks like it’s been burned with a cigarette. Then the doctor will tell us to go tell the mother that this is what it’s supposed to look like.

Related: Celebrities Against Circumcision

Chris, RN

I worked with countless intact men, mostly European immigrants in Chicago: Poles, Serbs, Lithuanians, etc. Younger men and older men. Men who could walk to the bathroom and men who constantly soiled themselves. Men who had indwelling Foley catheters and men who didn’t. Men who were impeccably clean and men who were homeless. Men who were healthy and men who were critically ill and severely immunocompromised. Never once did I encounter an adult male patient who had ever had a medical problem due to being intact.

… In fact, female patients are far more prone to fungal and bacterial genitourinary infections than male patients are—yeast infections, urinary tract infections, abscesses, etc. And we know that this is largely due not only to their shorter urethra, but also to their labial folds—their “excess” skin. Why don’t we cut that off? Why isn’t female circumcision considered for infection prophylaxis? That’s how we think of male circumcision. Except the reality is that, as with male patients, the “benefit” of circumcision would be negligible, because the number of serious complications with women staying “uncircumcised” is extremely minor.

So as it stands, we have two sons who are intact. One is almost five years old and the other is nearly three. They’ve never had a problem. During diapering they required less care and bother than our daughters did. And now, during bathing, we don’t retract or mess with their prepuce (foreskin).

They’re clean. They’re fine.

I suspect that someday they’ll be like my patients were: ninety years old and intact—with no regrets.

Related: Circumcision, the Primal Cut – A Human Rights Violation

Patricia, RN

I am a neonatal nurse practitioner with over 42 years of experience in maternal newborn health. I have seen many circumcisions, and I have been appalled at the pain that they have caused.

… In my experience as a neonatal nurse, I know that circumcisions are painful, that little boys will cry for days after the procedure. They need to be medicated with Tylenol. They need to have injections at the penile nerve to try to prevent the pain, but it doesn’t completely eliminate it. I have seen excessive bleeding after the procedure. I’ve seen disfigurement. I believe that little boys are made the way they are because it’s absolutely fine to be intact. If there was a problem with foreskin, nature would not have put it there. So let little boys decide when and if they want to be circumcised. But parents, please spare your child the pain and unnecessary surgery that is not without risk. Just think about it.

I have seen, not loss of the entire penis but definitely disfigurement, and definitely excessive bleeding that has required intervention by GU specialists, suturing. Complications occur frequently.

…When babies are born, one of the first developmental tasks is to learn to trust the world, which means being in the comforting arms of their mother and father. To subject them in the first couple of days after birth to this terribly painful procedure just seems like the wrong way to start life. But the bottom line is: it is not necessary.

Jacqueline Maire, RN

I am a retired nurse in France as well as in British Columbia, a mother, a grandmother, and today I really want to speak specifically to female circumcisers, those who cut the penis of little boys. I have questions. What is your excuse? Were you at one point molested by a male in your youth that makes you now take revenge on any penis whatsoever and whatever the age of the victim, in this case, a defenseless little boy? Did you ever have an orgasm? And I’m not talking while you’re making love, I’m just talking about sex. Never had an orgasm with an intact male and discovered the wonders and the perfection of the act? Well. I feel sorry for you, but this is not an excuse to take revenge on defenseless children, baby boys mostly and I don’t understand how you can do that without being ashamed of yourself. Well, it’s just excuses, or medical excuses, or plain and simple fallacies. I feel sorry for you, but I also feel ashamed in the name of womanhood. You don’t respect your Hippocratic oath if you even know what it’s all about. Well, I’ll remind you it’s first “do no harm.” You’re just plain bitches, and I’m not insulting the female dog there. You are very mean, and I’m disgusted.

Related: 10 Circumcision Myths – Let’s Get the Facts Straight 

Dolores Sangiuliano, RN

I’m a registered nurse, and we have an ethical code, the AMA Code of Ethics for Nurses, and it states very clearly that we are charged with the duty to protect our vulnerable patients. If we’re not protecting our vulnerable patients, then our license isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. If anybody is vulnerable, it’s a newborn baby. You know, a child with no voice, and that’s why I carry this sign: “I will not do anything evil or malicious and I will not knowingly… assist in malpractice”.

Infant circumcision is maleficence and malpractice. It’s totally unethical. Proxy consent is only valid for a procedure. In other words, parents can give consent for a procedure for their child. That’s proxy consent in a case of treatment or diagnosis, and circumcision is neither. You’re not treating a disease, and you’re not trying to diagnose an illness. So it just flies in the face of everything we know to be ethical, right, and moral. And I believe that forced genital cutting, all forced genital cutting, is always wrong. It should be consented to, fully informed consent, and that fully informed consent needs to include what you’re cutting off the penis, the value of the foreskin, and the consequences of changing the structure from a mobile, fluid unit to this dowel like structure, and that needs to be included. Ethical nurses educate their patients. Ethical nurses teach intact care, and ethical nurses don’t participate in forced genital cutting ever.

A woman from Egypt came up to us and she said,” I totally agree with you. Female circumcision happens in our country all the time, and it’s illegal but it still goes on. And it’s our cultural shame.” And she said, “I totally understand you having your cultural shame for doing this and it is the same thing.” And we just had a total agreement conversation about, and it doesn’t matter the varying degrees. We don’t need to compare the varying degrees of harm. Because a lot of people say female circumcision is much worse. But right out of her mouth she said, “But no, it’s the same. To the person having it done, it’s the same.” That was really good.

A Danish woman came and said, during her college days, she came to the United States and had a little bit of fun one season and she had sex with an American man. She was horrified because she didn’t know what had happened to him. She thought he had been in some sort of industrial accident. She didn’t know how to ask him or how to approach it. So that was an interesting tale, and I really appreciated the term industrial accident in a new way cause this is an industry, the medical industry. It’s not so accidental. Although their intention is to say that they’ve improved our males, they, perhaps by accident, devastated us and devastated so many men sexually and in their souls.

Kira Antinuk RN

Feminism, at its best, encourages me to think broadly and critically about the potentially harmful effects of gender constructions on all people. To me, feminism should be more than a narrow interest group of women who care only about women’s issues or women’s rights. My feminism is bigger than that. I believe that feminism can help us to identify and challenge discourses and practices that engender all of us.

… Upon review in 2009, scholars Marie Fox and Michael Thompson found that most feminists’ considerations of female genital cutting either omit to consider male genital cutting altogether or deem it a matter of little ethical or legal concern. Why might this be? So biomedical ethicist Dena Davis observed that the very use of the term “circumcision” carries vaguely medical connotations and serves to normalize the practice of male genital cutting.

Conversely, it’s worth noting, how the term female circumcision was essentially erased from academic, legal, and to some extent popular discourse following the World Health Organization’s re-designation of the practice as FGM or female genital mutilation in 1990. The WHO’s justification was that the new terminology carried stronger moral weight. So, terminology then, as well as the differential constructions of the practices themselves seems to protect male genital cutting from the critical scrutiny that other practices like female genital cutting attract.

Now it seems pretty clear to me, that this asymmetry extends to the very different understandings of genitalia and human tissue that we all have. Here in the West, for example, we’re heavily invested in the clitoris to the extent, that its excision results in what Canadian anthropologist Janice Body referred to as “serious personal diminishment.” Janice Body went on to say, “We customarily amputate babies’ foreskins, not with some controversy, but little alarm. Yet global censure of these practices is scarcely comparable to that level of female circumcision. Is it because these excisions are performed on boys and only girls and women figure as victims in our cultural lexicon?”

Sophia Murdock, RN

After we had taken the newborn back to the “circ room” in the nursery, I watched the nurse gather the necessary supplies, place him on a plastic board [a circumstraint], and secure his arms and legs with Velcro straps. He started crying as his tiny and delicate body was positioned onto the board, and I instantly felt uncomfortable and disturbed seeing this helpless newborn with his limbs extended in such an unnatural position, against his will. My instincts wanted to unstrap him, pick him up, and comfort and protect him. I felt an intense sensation of apprehension and dread about what would be done to him. When the doctor entered the room, my body froze, my stomach dropped, and my chest tightened.

This precious baby was an actual person. He was a 2-day-old boy named Landon, but the doctor barely acknowledged him before administering an injection of lidocaine into his penis.

Instantly, Landon began to let out a horrifying cry. It was a sound that is not normally ever heard in nature because this trauma is so far outside of the normal range of experiences and expectations for a newborn.

The doctor, perhaps sensing how horrified I was, tried to assure me that the baby was crying because he didn’t like being strapped onto the board. He began the circumcision procedure right away, barely giving the anesthetic any time to take effect.

Landon’s cries became even more intense, something I hadn’t imagined was possible. It seemed as if his lungs were unable to keep up with his screams and desperate attempts to maintain his respirations.

Seeing how nonchalant everyone in the room was about Landon’s obvious distress was one of the most chilling and harrowing things I had ever witnessed. I honestly don’t remember the actual procedure, even though the doctor was explaining it to me. I can’t recall a word he said during or after because I wasn’t able to focus on anything but Landon’s screams and why no one seemed to care. I only remember that the nurse attempted to give him a pacifier with glucose/fructose at some point.

Landon was “sleeping” by the end of the circumcision, but I knew it was from exhaustion and defeat. I had watched as his fragile, desperate, and immobilized body struggled and resisted until it couldn’t do so anymore and gave up.

Seeing this happen made me feel completely sick to my stomach, and I told myself that I would absolutely refuse to watch another circumcision if the opportunity presented itself again. I was unable to stop thinking about what I saw and heard…

The sounds that I heard come from Landon as he screamed and cried out still haunt me to this day.

Darlene Owen, RN

The truth about circumcision is that it is not medically necessary. It is not cleaner. Studies have proven again and again that it has no direct relation on cancer etc. as was once thought. It is also a very painful procedure. The baby does feel it, experience it.

There have been studies that demonstrate actual MRI changes within an infant’s brain after a circumcision has been performed.

As for those who claim “it looks better”, my response is, “Really? Based on whose decision?” A penis with a foreskin is how the penis is supposed to look. The foreskin has a function. It provides protection of the very sensitive glans (head) of the penis, and it provides ease during intercourse. During intercourse, the penis moves within its foreskin, preventing rubbing or friction of the vagina, which makes intercourse far more pleasurable for both the man and woman.

Many people will respond in outrage over female circumcision, yet still consider circumcision of males “the norm.”

Many parents aren’t properly informed of the procedure. It IS a very serious procedure with very many real risks involved. In my experience as a post-partum nurse, many parents who were led to believe it was a “minor” procedure and observed their sons’ circumcision, were sickened just as I was at the actual pain and distress it caused their infant. I have had many patients who, after witnessing their first son’s circumcision, decided immediately that they would not get any other boys they may have circumcised. Many parents told me that they wished they had known just how painful it would be for their son, that they would not have even considered it if they had known what is actually involved.

As for the argument that many men want their son to look like them, my answer is, “Why?” It is a stupid argument. Why can’t parents simply teach their son that their son’s penis is “normal and healthy”, that “Daddy had his normal, healthy functioning skin of his penis removed surgically, unnecessarily.” I also always say to those people, “Really? Well, watch an actual circumcision, and see if you still feel that way afterwards.” I have yet to see any parent watch a video, or view an actual circumcision procedure, who is not completely against the idea afterwards.

An uncircumcised penis is very easy to keep clean. There is no special care required. The saying goes, “Clean only what is seen.”

As for worrying about the son’s foreskin not retracting, and needing a circumcision later in life, that actually only occurs in a very, very small number of males. However, even if the male does need the surgery later in life, he will be put to sleep for the procedure and will not feel it. He will also be managed comfortably with pain medication. A newborn doesn’t have any of those benefits. A newborn is awake for it, will feel it, and doesn’t receive any pain medication.

Ask any grown male if he’d get his penis circumcised while awake, with no freezing, and I guarantee you’d hear a very loud resounding “NO!” Yet, many men will put their newborn son through it. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

I realize that at one time it was considered the norm. Now, however, with all of the education about it, I cannot understand why parents still proceed to put their tiny little newborn son through such a horrific experience.

I am proud to say that I am an intactivist and the proud mom of two gorgeous, healthy, intact boys.

Related: Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

Andrew, RN

I am a registered nurse. I work at a DC hospital. It’s not part of my current job, but when I was in nursing school, I witnessed several circumcisions as part of my rotation, and I was interested in it because personally, I had developed an opposition to circumcision.

As an adult, I never had to be part of that decision not having a child. But I knew that if I did, it was one that I would want to make. And when I had the opportunity, I asked a doctor whom I watched perform it if he thought it was medically necessary because in my education, it is no longer stated, there is no longer a valid medical claim being made in the literature including in my nursing textbooks and so how can you justify it? And he said that he doesn’t personally justify it. He just knows that for the time being, it will continue to be done and he wants it done humanely and as well as possible. And he said “And I do it well” And indeed, he seemed to be proficient in it. I then asked him if he had noticed that the husband of the couple who had just had it done had seemed like he had his doubts and he said, “Yeah, I noticed that too”. “Do you think someone should have discussed it further with him because he clearly didn’t support the decision.” And then he said that that happens all the time, that one of the two of the couple want that decision made and the other go along with it.

My nurse’s perspective is that part of our job as an educator is to give more information, and so that would have been a great opportunity for someone to give that couple more information about whatever concerns the mother had that made her think that circumcision was the best decision. She seemed actually like she had some ill-conceived notions about the difficulty of keeping it clean, things that I knew that medically were not actually accurate. I actually thought at that time that I saw an opportunity for nurses to step in and educate her, to help and not tell the couple what they should do, but make sure they had the best information possible to make a decision, that again, is no longer being promoted clearly on the literature as medically necessary, including in my textbooks, and this was just last year.

Carole Alley, RN

And after the strap down and tie, they’re still screaming. The screaming lasts the entire time. And I don’t know if you’ve ever heard a baby scream like that. It’s not a regular cry. It’s not a cry of hunger or a cry of wanting to be hugged or a cry of having a wet diaper. This is a cry of incredible pain. I mean, it goes right through your body. Every cell in your body responds. And then the child is circumcised. You know, there are two different ways of doing it. Sometimes anesthesia local will be used but for the most part, I’ve never seen babies stop crying, even if that’s given. A lot of the time, it’s not used. More often than not, it’s not used. And then the clamp goes over the baby’s penis and the foreskin is cut off.

Patricia Worth, RN

In my opinion, this is an abuse. There is not enough information out there to convince me that this is medically necessary. And just as I can read through the Old Testament of the Bible, and stoning women to death because they committed adultery, I see as abusive, this “ancient covenant,” I look at it as a well, the human race has done all kinds of things and thought was the best thing at the time, and in retrospect, we can look back and go, blood sacrifice of human beings? This is not right. This is not morally right. This is not ethical. And especially when you’re taking someone who has not consented. Parents can consent all they want. This does not mean the child has consented to this.

Marilyn Milos, RN The Mother of the Intactivist Movement

While working as a nurse in a hospital, she learned about circumcision by assisting doctors during the procedure. The obvious pain and distress felt by the infant prompted Marilyn to research circumcision. Afterwards, she was able to provide parents with all of the facts.

By offering true informed consent, she dramatically cut into her hospitals’ cutting business. She was fired. Undaunted, she went to work saving our sons. She founded a non-profit known as NOCIRC, demonstrating that one person can still make a difference.

Here are her words:

The more we understand what was taken, the more we understand the harm of circumcision, that it is a primal wound, that it does interfere with the maternal-infant bond, that it disturbs breastfeeding and normal sleep patterns. Most importantly, that it undermines the first developmental task, which is to establish trust. And how can that male ever trust again? And I think that’s very hard for a lot of men and why men need to have control and be in control, and their reactions to make themselves more safe.

It was so amazing to me when I worked in a hospital, and my first question would be, “I see—I see that you’re gonna have the baby circumcised, and may I ask why you’ve chosen circumcision for your baby?” And they would say, “Oh, because I’m a Christian.” And I said, “Do you know that there’s 120 references to circumcision in the New Testament, that circumcision is of no value? If you’re a Christian you don’t live by outward signs. You live by faith expressed through love. Christ shed the last—was the last to shed the blood. He was the ultimate blood sacrifice for everybody. We don’t need to do this again.”

Conclusion

The hardest moral dilemmas seem to lie at the crossroads of two or more moral principles. In this instance, the right to religious freedom and the right to bodily integrity are in conflict for some parents. But if we are to uphold the right to bodily integrity for girls regardless of religion (Muslims often circumcise girls), shouldn’t we allow the same protection for boys?

Although religion is a factor, many parents choose circumcision simply because it is considered the norm. Myths about disease and cleanliness add to the confusion. When parents are not given all the facts, they cannot make an informed decision. On average, nurses are poorly equipped to answer their questions about circumcision. They do not educate parents, explaining the 16 functions of the foreskin or teach parents how to care for an intact child. (Nothing! Do not retract the foreskin. It cleans itself!)

Our sons’ genitals are carved apart in the name of healthcare when in actuality the practice is a profit-making enterprise. Circumcisions generate a lot of money for hospitals, while intact penises bring in no money at all. So while it is ethical for a nurse to provide parents with informed consent, it is wholly unprofitable for them to do so.

The truth will win. Circumcision is a profound violation of human rights. This conclusion is inescapable once we begin to think critically about the practice.

Author’s Note:

Male genital mutilation is still legal in all 50 states, and although Marilyn Milos hasn’t yet completely changed the world, she changed mine.

I am the second born of two sons. My older brother was circumcised. I was not.

Before my birth, my mother met a neighbor who had been given literature from NOCIRC. The sharing of this information about the benefits of the foreskin and the dangers and drawbacks of circumcision is the reason I was left intact.

Marilyn Milos bet on the idea that when given all the facts, more parents would make the right decision, and in my case she was spot on. I am intact, my sons are intact, and my nephews are intact.

Marilyn, I can never thank you enough for what you’ve done for me and for my family. You are an inspiration to us all.

Sources

• Circumcision- A Male RN’s Perspective: Chris – Dr.Momma.org
• Ethical Nurse Refuses to Assist Infant Circumcision: Dolores Sanguiliano – YouTube
• Nurses For the Rights of the Child
• Nurse Questions Women Who Sexually Mutilate Boys: Jacqueline Maire – YouTube
• Registered Nurse Shares Thoughts About Circumcision: Andrew – YouTube

Not all medical professionals support vaccination. Some nurses are bold enough to publicly question their safety for some time now. This is bad for Big Pharma’s image. Masters of the game, the pharmaceutical industry has pushed for vaccine mandates on all hospital workers, nurses included and they have been lobbying for laws like these under an all too familiar guise, for the betterment of all, for the “greater good.”

Vaccine mandates nearly guarantee that those who are skeptical of vaccines don’t pursue a career in medicine. Many nurses have lost their jobs for speaking out against vaccines, which has backed them  into a corner and made many of them feel like they have nothing left to lose. Most nurses choose to criticize vaccines under the guise of anonymity. As long as their identity is protected and reprisals are all but impossible. Freedom of speech is how these nurses are fighting to restore our medical freedoms. In the information age, censorship is more difficult for Big Pharma than it ever has been before. The world is waking up.

From all walks of life, here are the stories from those brave enough to speak out. Hear from the nurses against vaccines.

Patriot Nurse

In the time I was at my educational institution there was very little discussion, true discussion, and even less true debate, on the subject of vaccination, on the true science of vaccination and on real risks and possible perceived benefits of vaccination. So I had to search out the information, the studies, the data for myself and in an effort to find the truth, I have come to the conclusion that I am against vaccination, especially for children and infants under the age of 2. I have three main areas of objection. We could spend hours talking about this

…my areas of objection are the additives that are present in the vaccines, the vaccination schedule for children, especially under the age of one, and the sufficiency of breast milk for conferred immunity.

Guerilla RN

As an E.R. nurse, I have seen the cover up. Where do you think kids go when they have a vaccine reaction? They go to the E.R. They come to me.

…The cases almost always present similarly, and often no one else connected it. The child comes in with either a fever approaching 105, or seizures, or lethargy/can’t wake up, or sudden overwhelming sickness, screaming that won’t stop, spasms, GI inclusion, etc.

And one of the first questions I would ask, as triage nurse, was are they current on their vaccinations? It’s a safe question that nobody sees coming, and nobody understands the true impact of. Parents (and co-workers) usually just think I’m trying to rule out the vaccine-preventable diseases, when in fact, I am looking to see how recently they were vaccinated to determine if this is a vaccine reaction.

Too often I heard a parent say something akin to “Yes they are current, the pediatrician caught up their vaccines this morning during their check-up, and the pediatrician said they were in perfect health!”

If I had a dollar for every time I’d heard that I could fly to Europe for free.

But here’s the more disturbing part.

Mind you, I have served in multiple hospitals across multiple states, alongside probably well over a hundred doctors and probably 300-400+ nurses.

…I have even made a point of sitting in the most prominent spot at the nurse’s station filling out a VAERS report to make sure as many people saw me doing it as possible to generate the expected “What are you doing?” responses to get that dialog going with people.

And in every case, if a nurse approached me, their response was “I’ve never done that!” or “I didn’t know we could do that,” or, worse “What is VAERS?” which was actually the most common response. The response from doctors? Silence. Absolute total refusal to engage in discussion or to even acknowledge what I was doing or what VAERS was.

The big take away from that?

The number one place parents bring their kids in the event of a vaccine reaction is the E.R., and as an E.R. staffer, I have NEVER met anyone who filed one, in spite of seeing hundreds of cases of obvious vaccine-associated harm come through.

What does that say about reported numbers?

The CDC/HHS admits that VAERS is under-reported

…In an industry that is rocked on a monthly basis by horrible medication scandals, if you didn’t question everything they told you, I would look at you funny. And it’s my job to give these medications to people.

Just to note, on a recent scandal, I have been warning people about Zofran use in pregnancy for 5 years. The information was right there in the insert. It was right there on the manufacturing website. It was right there in the PDR. As well as on every downloadable app and printed IV drug book.

The information is there.

It is the medical professionals that are failing the general public.

…Everything I’m saying is public domain knowledge. It’s stuff we SHOULD be telling you.I am sorry we are not. I try to take a stand where I can, but at the end of the day, I’m only one nurse.

Matt Smith, RN

After being on the vaccine team for one day and seeing children get sick after receiving their vaccine, I came home exhausted and turned on TV and I happened to catch the Larry King Show and he had a story and it aired. I think it was November 2^nd, 2009 where he did a story about 19 deaths caused by the vaccine, and it was a vaccine that I was giving out that day.

In response, I sent out an email to all my co-workers saying, “Hey, watch this report,” because I felt it was my responsibility to inform that what’s going on and they might be giving a shot that could kill somebody.

…Basically, they said, “Shut up, you’re fired. Stop using email,” and they sent me a confidentiality agreement threatening federal prosecution and that pretty much scared me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj6ZKVeQ8hU

Michelle Rowton, MSN, RNC-NIC, C-NPT, NNP-BP

Well, I had mentioned that they go ahead and vaccinate premature infants on time, meaning that once they are two months old, they are ready for their two month vaccines regardless of the fact they are supposed to have been inside their mothers’ stomachs and not even born yet, and some of the things we’re seeing and that are being said is like a neonatologist calling from the step down unit to the level three, to the more intensive unit, saying, “Hey, I’m going to give these four babies their two month vaccines this weekend so I just wanted to make sure you had four beds ready cause I know they’re all going to have issues and need increased care.

I had mentioned before that I had sat in the call room before with a bunch of providers saying, “Hey we have this 25-weeker that was so strong and now, they never required intubation with a breathing tube to actually go on the vent, had a less invasive type respiratory support and you come in and they’re like, “Oh how embarrassing. We gave that baby his two-month immunizations and now he’s intubated and on the vent for the first time. Oops.” And it’s just kind of blown off.

Really low birth weight infants are 28 weeks of gestation or less and under 1000 grams, approximately 2.2lbs or less at birth. You had a group of physicians and a practitioner that went into a database of a large neonatology corporation with almost 14,000 infants looked at. What the results said that they were looking at the pre-immunization period versus the post-immunization period and their sepsis workups went up 3.7 times in the post-immunization period. What sepsis means is a blood infection and so there were multiple labs drawn, blood cultures, urine cultures, they go ahead and start those babies on antibiotics right away while they wait for results so it’s not a benign thing. It’s life threatening. And if it ends up not being an infection, they’ve still had pain, they’ve still had invasive procedures, and they’ve had antibiotics given, which is not a benign thing for these babies with their very sensitive intestines. So it’s a big deal. We had increased respiratory support, two times higher in the post-immunization period and then intubation, actually getting intubated with a breathing tube and going on the vent at about 1.7 – 1.8 times higher and what really shocked me, I had to read it about three times, when I got down to the conclusion, they said based on this, there was no difference in reaction between single shots and combo shots and so you could just go ahead and keep giving the combo vaccines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPBHGa4TtUs

Whistle Blower Nurse

Since the Affordable Care Act came out, we are now as nurses required to ask every single patient who comes into the hospital if you’ve had your flu vaccine or your pneumococcal vaccine. If you say no to either one of those, in the computer an order will generate that says we need to give you this vaccine. We don’t need to speak to a doctor; it’s hospital policy. It’s now health department policy that we now have to give you the vaccine. Even if you came to the hospital with a stubbed toe, you will be offered both vaccines if you meet requirements, which just about everybody meets requirements for flu vaccine and most people over the age of 65 will meet the pneumococcal vaccine. Even if you come to the hospital with a stubbed toe, you are going to be given this vaccine. You have the right to say no. If you say no, they just check off as “refused”. This was never like this years ago. This was a new thing.

When you go into a hospital, if you need surgery, you need a knee replacement surgery, first they’re going to ask you if you’ve had the vaccines, and you’re going to say no. Then they’re going to say, “Well you need to sign this consent. If you’re going to have surgery, you need to sign this consent.” In the consent is a word called “biogenics” [and/or bioligics]. If you sign the consent saying I consent for you to give me biogenics [or biologics] basically it means they can give you anything deemed necessary, including vaccines. So if you say you didn’t get a flu shot and its flu season and you sign the consent to say they can give you biogenic[biologics], they will give you a flu vaccine even when you’re under anesthesia because you already signed the consent.

Unless you go and get your medical records, you will not know you got a flu vaccine. They may tell you at the end “Oh, by the way, you’re now covered. You got the flu vaccine,” or “You got the pneumococcal vaccine,” but two people now have reported to me last week, saying they got the vaccine, that they did not want the vaccine, and that they did not know.

… You can, when you sign consent for surgery, you can specifically say no vaccines. I don’t want this. You can write and initial after you say what you do not want and they have to honor that. And if they don’t honor it, they can be sued.

The word biogenics [biologics] is now being used. In the past, there used to be a consent that basically said we could give you blood products if we feel you need it, we could give you other medications if we feel you need it, but now with the word biogenics [biologics] it’s now including vaccines.

Brenda Ikemeyer, FNP

I’m a family nurse practitioner practicing emergency medicine. My story with immunization is basically I bullied a dad to get a chicken-pox vaccine for his two-year-old daughter when the chicken-pox vaccine first came out. She then developed shingles and went blind in her left eye at the age of three all because of immunizations. I had to take a flu shot because of mandatory vaccination for my job. I developed Guillain–Barré and I could not walk for a month and a half.

…It was a new vaccine and they didn’t want to get it. Nothing had come out about MMR at that time. There was no controversy with immunizations at that time. That was in ’99, ’98. I blame myself. Probably in 2002 when I had my Guillain–Barré reaction myself.

I do emergency medicine. I got out of primary care so I didn’t have to be part of the problem anymore. Now, I get to educate about why are we immunizing and when their children come in, I can actually make the VAERS report because their children come to the Emergency Department when they are vaccine injured.

Anonymous Nurses Speaking Out Against Vaccines (Their names have been changed to aliases in order to protect their careers)

Mel RN

I became aware of the dangers….well, I had to get my DTaP updated about four years ago to enter into my FNP program.  My arm swelled up huge, like a football player’s and was red, hot, and swollen.  This lasted a couple of weeks.  I could not even work for a week or more.  To be honest, I have been sick ever since.  I have something autoimmune going on.  I am not sure what it is, but I feel my body go through “flare ups.” …I am not 100% if it is related to this, but it is a definite possibility.  Then, I have just awakened to more and more situations via Facebook and my own research.  I am in functional medicine as an R.N. and plan to specialize in this as an FNP as well.

Jana RN

There is a huge emphasis on informed consent of the risks/benefits of procedures/meds. Vaccines are not singled out in this portion of the education. I get a strong feeling from comments made by the instructors that in the real world we won’t have time for proper informed consent often.

Lila RN

A year or so after I graduated and had my first child, I noticed that a high school friend posted on FB that she didn’t vaccinate her child. This led me to look into them enough to realize that they weren’t made of saline solution. I saw that Jenny McCarthy had started a “Green the Vaccines” campaign. Unfortunately, I didn’t really dig much further than that until the CDC Whistleblower story came out in the summer on 2014. I posted about it on FB, and thought it was going to become an international story and immediately affect the U.S. vaccine program. When I realized that it was a media blackout instead, I really started researching vaccines.

Liz RN

If nurses knew more about the dangers of vaccines I think more of them would feel ethically conflicted about administering them. I think now everyone is fooled into thinking that neuro-developmental problems are genetic. I NOW know that genetics are involved in the extent of injury, but I believe all vaccines are injurious.

…Based on my experience it doesn’t matter what is presented in school because the science isn’t being done. “You give a vaccine, you make antibodies, you are protected” – that’s all there is to it. There is so much more to it than that but it has been hard to find, especially when organizations such as the CDC fraudulently withhold data, there’s poor access to the VAERS data, the VAERS data is completely voluntary so it’s almost meaningless anyway, there’s no transparent access to the vaccine safety data. All the lack of transparency, the deliberate Google misdirections, [and] the very system of research funding all goes against vaccine safety research and sharing of information.

An Anonymous Nurse From The FB Page Informed Consent

I was asked to discuss a cover up I witnessed.

…The ambulance report was a male child who had just received vaccinations a few hours ago, who was progressively deteriorating in mentation and finally experienced sudden onset seizing. It was what we call status epilepticus, where the seizure starts, and it doesn’t stop. It just keeps going. I wrote in large letters across the bottom of the paramedic report “JUST RECEIVED VACCINATIONS, NOW SEIZING”. Often I didn’t get a chance to convey relevant or important material to the doctors because we were too busy. That medic radio report was stuck on top of the chart when it went to the doc, and they were supposed to look at it first before anything else. It also was supposed to be part of their record for the visit as it was the only record of prehospital interventions we often received and functioned as the first director of interventions.

On EMS arrival to the scene, kiddo was still in active seizure. They had administered drugs to stop the seizure, but were not convinced it was not still ongoing at some subacute level because there was no responsiveness and they were seeing clenched hands, and tight arms, and minimal spontaneous breathing, but it was apparently there, and pulseox was getting a reading over 90%. Mind you, I’m just getting what the very scared sounding paramedic was quickly spitting into the radio. It always makes you clench up when the paramedics sound scared. Anyway, I acknowledge their radio report and looked for an open room. There was a couple literally walking out, just discharged. We had bare minutes until their arrival. I couldn’t find the nurse assigned to the room, so I just ran in and hammered out a quick clean down so we could use the room when the medics got there.

Right as I finished cleaning the room, they roll in. Charge nurse is finally back, but has no idea what’s going on. I grab the papers and get them into the room yelling back at charge nurse “pediatric status epilepticus” so he knew to get people heading my way to help. I started getting bedside report as we are transferring the kiddo over to our gurney. Mom is with them, near breakdown, freaked out. Additional help arrives as we are padding the bed rails and working on vitals, and the nurse assigned to the room finally arrives. At this point, I’m supposed to turn the case over. But this is kind of heavy to drop, so I pause and give the nurse a quickie run down emphasizing the pediatrician office visit and vaccinations immediately prior to onset of symptoms with mom nodding yes while crying in the corner and the paramedic nodding yes.

Here, I then get out of the way, and I step out of the room, telling the nurse I’ll get the rest of the history and enter it for her to save her time so she can work on interventions. At this point the doctor is finally getting to the room, chart in hand, with the paramedic report and my large block writing visible on it. The medic is talking to me telling the rest of the story for their report. The doctor interrupts us and asks what happened. This is typical. Poor medics usually have to tell their story three times before they get back out the door unless all the staff meet them at the same time in the room. The paramedic starts relaying the story from call out, what they found on scene, interventions. The doctor asks if there is a seizure history. Medic says no. I add in that the child vaccinated only hours ago, and symptoms onset was after vaccination. The doctor does a dismissive “humph” and turns away from me and looks at the medic and asks, “Is that right?” The medic says, “Yes.” Then the doctor looked at the room and the mom standing about ten feet from us, kind of glares at us, turned on both of us and walks into the room.

I finish getting the medic report. And the doctor has started some orders, and the doctor is now talking to the mom who I hear talking about how he was perfectly healthy earlier, how the pediatrician was saying he looked in perfect health, how he got his vaccines. I figured my part was done.

… A couple hours go by before I finally catch a break to go check in. We dosed the heck out of the kid with benzo’s, and he was sawing logs and mom was calmer. I caught the nurse and asked if he came out of it at all, and she said he had some semi-lucid speech at one point and it looked like seizures were done, but that he had been gorked out with the drugs and had been sleeping for a while. She said the labs and imaging had been coming back, and that the doc was in contact with a peds neuro trying to decide what to do with the case.

I went into the room to check vitals and re-document. I was honestly helping the nurse who was busy where I finally had a break, but it also gave me an excuse to get back involved and stay involved in the case. I talked with the mom while she was in the room. I asked what she had been told. Not much. She told me the doctor did not believe the vaccine had anything to do with it. I asked her when the doc had told her this, and she said right away, when they first got there and met her. I asked if she had shared what the labs and imaging showed, and she said all she was told was that there was some kind of swelling in his brain and they were getting transferred to another hospital, and the doctor didn’t know what caused it.

(Encephalitis, or swelling of the brain is a common adverse reaction to vaccines, and it is frequently listed in vaccine warning inserts).

I went out to look at labs and imaging report from the perspective of patient education with the intention of filling the mom in more with what was going on. I also dug through to the doctors notes to see what the doctor had written up. Since they were being discharged, I could help the primary nurse by printing off our chart copies to make a transfer packet. The paperwork is what kills in the ER. The primary nurse was more than grateful to get the help, and I was more than willing to help. Plus it let me get a look at what was going on.

I quickly noted that there was absolutely nothing documented in the physicians notes about the vaccination or the pediatrician appointment, in spite of its obvious necessity for mention as it was the “last known normal” time and correlated with an exam by a medical doctor who declared him in perfect health. If for no other reason, that should have been in there to establish time frames for onset of illness. But it also, because of this, did not include any mention of vaccination, in spite of the mom saying it, the medic saying it, and the triage RN saying it. It appeared to be a new onset illness, out of the blue, that occurred with no outside interventions or changes in routine, if you were to simply read her physician pass-off notes (which is all the receiving medical doctor is going to do. They don’t read nurses notes). So this information was not being relayed. Most disturbing, in the face of this absence of inclusion of potential etiology, the disposition line that my doctor included under diagnostic impression was “encephalitis of unknown etiology”. Okay, well, yeah, I can’t argue with that statement, but, there was a potential source, a change in daily routine and exposure, that was temporally associated! It should have been mentioned, or at least discussed as a possibility.

Not willing to leave it alone, I approached the doctor and politely tried to broach the subject. I said that I noticed when I was putting together the packet, there was no mention of the pediatrician office and the vaccinations in her pass off report and ER summary, and did she want to amend this before I finalized the transfer packet. I thought it was a polite way of nudging to try to get her to include it. I got “the glare” and a stern voice dismissal that was something to the effect of “they’re not related”. That’s it. I said something like Don’t you want to at least include it for the neurologist to consider? And I got the glare again and was told no, and to just finish the packet.

So I went about piecing and copying the packet together. I included a larger text line with more emphasis about the vaccinations in my triage notes, hoping that at least someone over there might notice that. And then I tried to find the paramedic report to copy it. There is the paramedic radio report that I fill in while I’m talking to them on the radio and they are inbound. Then there is their official run report, which is their paperwork, which they make a copy of for our records. Both were missing from the chart. In fact, every mention of the vaccines was sterilized from the chart. The primary nurse had not written in anything about it either.

…The doctor, of course, did not report to VAERS. In spite of the fact that there were lab findings, radiology findings, and symptoms which all warranted a VAERS report, and the child was not just brought in to the ER, but was hospitalized, and assigned neurological follow up care.

… I went and filed a VAERS report nice and publicly sitting at a prominent terminal as close to the doctors as I could get. I made sure to say it loud enough to be overheard that I was filing a VAERS report on the kid we just transferred when a colleague questioned what I was doing. I know the doctor overheard. She ignored me.Top of FormBottom of Form

Conclusion

Medical freedom is quickly becoming endangered. Sadly, some things must get worse before they get better, and this is what we are experiencing now. When persuasion to vaccinate fails, we are seeing mandates, coercion, and deception used instead. Although this may seem like things are getting worse (and in some ways they are), in the end, these kinds of heavy-handed tactics will only make us stronger. Mandating vaccines for nurses is ultimately what inspired so many nurses to speak out against vaccines. The biggest difference between the nurses who are against vaccines or for them is that those nurses who are against vaccines actually know something more about vaccines than simply how to administer them. Knowledge has a way of changing minds, the same way it has changed the minds of these nurses. They took the time to research vaccines, as they were not taught about the dangers of vaccination in school, they had to take the time to teach themselves. Knowledge is power. When we live in ignorance, we are slaves to the propaganda of others. It is knowledge of the truth that will set us all free and restore our medical freedoms.

Related Reading:

• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• More Doctors Against Vaccines
• Even More Doctors Against Vaccines
• Celebrities Who Have Spoken Out Against Vaccines
• More Celebrities Speaking Out Against Vaccines
• Statesmen Against Mandatory Vaccines
• Scientists Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• More Scientists Against Vaccines
• Chiropractors Against Vaccines

Sources:

• Why This Nurse WON’T Vaccinate! – Patriot Nurse
• ER Nurse Shares His Experiences With Vaccine Reactions – Healthy Families for God
• Nurse Fired For Sharing Truth About Vaccines Tells All – InfoWars
• AMA Verifies Whistleblower Warning of Vaccine Harm to Infants – InfoWars
• Nurse Warns of “Biologics” & Forced Flu Shots Happening in US Hospitals – Jefferey Jaxen Update
• #Vaxxed Review from a Nurse Practitioner – Tia Severino
• These Nurses are Silently Speaking Out Against Vaccines: Find Out Why – Dinner for Thought
• An Experience in Cover Ups – Informed Consent

Vaccines do not need much in the way of advertising; they have a way of selling themselves. After all, the majority of people believe that they are absolutely necessary. How did these beliefs come to be so entrenched in the minds of the public?

Most Americans don’t realize they have a choice. Day care centers and schools ask for proof of vaccination before registration and pediatricians and general physicians treat vaccines as a fundamental and necessary part of basic health care. The pharmaceutical industry heavily funds medical schools and medical research, influencing the perceptions of the medical profession, convincing them that vaccines are safe and effective. They, in turn, influence public perception. This kind of propaganda is highly effective when neither doctors nor parents take the time to do the research.

Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.”- Eric Hoffer

Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism

If vaccines do not cause autism then why is autism listed as one of the possible side effects on vaccine warning inserts? If we read the warning inserts, we can begin to see vaccines for what they really are -dangerous pharmaceuticals. For instance, encephalitis is an adverse reaction listed for many different vaccines. When severe swelling of the brain occurs, it can cause autism.

There have been dozens of studies by independent scientists that show vaccines increase the risk of autism. To the layperson, yes, vaccines do cause autism. To a scientist, the word “cause” is a word that is not used in the same manner as lay people would use it. As Judy Mikovitz, an experienced vaccine researcher explains:

Ah, no. Vaccines definitely don’t cause autism. And we’ve talked, and we should talk, about this word “cause.” Because in my forty years or so working with cancer and HIV/AIDS and other chronic diseases there are two words that we don’t use. We don’t use cause and we don’t use cure. Because in order for something to be causative by the scientific definition that we use, every single case of the disease must have a vaccine origin.

And of course, you yourself just said 7 of 10 moms feel that the change in their child’s behavior and health occurred following a vaccination, but that’s still not every case. So what we usually say is associated.

So if you change that question and you ask me are vaccines associated, do they play a role in the brain damage and the immune damage that results in autism, I would say absolutely. And there is a ton of data to back that up.

Though there have been many studies demonstrating no link between vaccines and autism, these studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry or the U.S. government. Both the U.S. government and the pharmaceutical industry have a vested interest in manipulating the outcomes of these studies to show the results that they want. This may sound a little conspiratorial, but they have been caught doing exactly that, manipulating data to make vaccines appear to be safer than they actually are. One such example of this is the study identified by William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, but his involvement in vaccine cover-ups is just the tip of the iceberg. U.S. regulatory agencies are staffed by industry insiders who are constantly seeking to push vaccines on the public under the guise of the “greater good”.

In order to find reliable guidance, many people look to independent scientists for guidance. However, genuinely independent research is very hard to find. When universities are heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, they are not conducting truly independent research either. They do often conduct pro vaccine studies claiming that vaccines do not cause autism, but this is what they are paid to do. We don’t need to be fooled by vaccine propaganda. All we need to do is read a vaccine warning insert or take a look at the FDA’s website. They readily admit that the vaccine can cause all manner of adverse reactions:

Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea.” ^[1]

The FDA directly contradicts the talking heads on CNN and other mainstream media outlets. The reason why is simple: over 70% of mainstream media’s advertising revenue comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Media reports what they are told to report, even when it’s not true. They know most of their viewers will not take the time to do the research.

Vaccines Have Played a Role in the Historical Decline of Infectious Disease

Malnutrition, food poisoning, high parasite exposure, abysmal hygiene, unreliable or non-existent trash removal, unclean drinking water, plumbing infrastructure that ranged from insufficient to nonexistent, these are the factors that contribute to unsanitary living conditions. As these crippling living conditions were slowly addressed, the decline of infectious diseases began.

The connection between living in abject filth and rampant disease is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be explained, but it has been explained comprehensively. The scientific explanation is known as the filth theory of disease. Most doctors have never even heard of it. They are too busy being taught pharmaceutically influenced curriculum to learn the historical facts.

We used to be plagued with epidemics on a regular basis. When it comes to understanding how people lived, died, and what challenges they faced, the experts are not the physicians. The experts are the historians, the archeologists, and the anthropologists. Asking doctors what eradicated smallpox is like asking them detailed questions about black holes, inflation and deflation, or what events led to the American Revolutionary War. Most doctors are well read, and though they may be familiar with these topics, they are unlikely to be experts on them. These kinds of questions are best left to those who actually study these phenomena – the astronomers, economists, and historians respectively. To learn about history, consult the historians.

You Get More Mercury From Consuming Fish Than You Do From Getting Vaccines

Despite claims to the contrary, no one gets more mercury from consuming fish than from receiving a vaccine that contains thimerosal. There is a profound physiological difference between ingesting mercury and injecting mercury. When we are healthy, our digestive tract does a remarkable job of keeping toxic substances from entering our bloodstream. In either case, the mercury in seafood or vaccines is from an unnatural origin. Even though mercury naturally occurs in the environment, the sheer amount of mercury that we are exposed to is problematic, and the majority of it is a direct consequence of vaccination and industrial pollution. No amount of mercury is good for us, for the environment, or for wildlife. The mercury in seafood is no doubt a serious health concern, but injecting mercury directly into our bloodstream is far worse than eating small amounts of it and is totally avoidable.

Vaccine Manufacturers Do Not Make Much Money on Vaccines

The pharmaceutical industry doesn’t produce anything out of a sense of altruism or for the greater good. For instance, even though we are in need of new antibiotics (many antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have emerged as a real threat to our safety) all of the major pharmaceutical companies have publicly stated that they have no interest in developing new antibiotics. Their reasoning is simple: antibiotics are not profitable enough for them. It is far more profitable to develop drugs that are used over and over again, like vaccines, psychiatric medications, steroids, and statins. Disease and symptom management is far more profitable than developing drugs that actually cure or prevent illness. The first antibiotics were not developed by the industry but rather by independent scientists. Although antibiotics are no doubt egregiously overused, when used appropriately, they can save lives and cure infection. Big Pharma has the means to develop drugs that save lives and cure disease. In reality, this almost never happens because there is a lot more money to be made through symptom management. It is a comforting thought to believe that vaccines are made for the common good, but sadly they are made for money. The bottom line is the pharmaceutical industry only cares about the bottom line.

Each vaccine is worth billions of dollars, and that is why there are hundreds of them in development. There is no liability on vaccines, and if a vaccine causes permanent injury (such as autism, ADHD, asthma, or immune disorders) most parents hold to the belief that medications are needed indefinitely to manage these syndromes. Obviously, this makes the pharmaceutical companies even more money.

Our children are sicker now than many generations past. As before, there are many reasons for this: diets heavy in processed foods, GMOs, sedentary lifestyles, and chemical pollutants. However, the primary reason that our young are in worse health than previous generations is vaccination. It is the profit motive that drives vaccine mandates. If vaccines were held to the same standards of liability as everything else that is bought and sold in America, vaccine research and production would halt faster than you could say “accountability”.

Adverse Reactions to Vaccines are Rare

If you don’t believe that vaccines are safe and effective, then industry hopes that you will believe that they are usually safe, and usually effective. Despite the fact that vaccines are filled with neurotoxins, Big Pharma has worked very hard to spread the belief that vaccine reactions are rare. This is, after all, what parents are told by their doctors. In truth, rare is the new normal.

At present, we are experiencing an epidemic of autism, ADHD, neurological disorders, asthma, SIDS, and several chronic illnesses. We are told by vaccine manufacturers that these rising rates of chronic illnesses are a mystery – that vaccines have nothing to do with it. If it is all coincidence, it is the biggest coincidence the world has ever seen.

Neurological disorders are on the rise and as more vaccines are added to the CDC’s vaccine schedule the rates of autism rise along with increased vaccinations. Before vaccines were invented, SIDS was so rare as to have gone unnamed. In fact, SIDS happened so rarely that it almost didn’t exist. Unfortunately, this is the case with countless other syndromes. The same goes for autism. Before vaccines, no one, not even the experts, knew that such a neurological disorder even existed. Other chronic conditions such as autoimmune diseases and ADHD have also been on the rise, increasing alongside the ever-growing vaccine schedule.

A vaccine is designed to agitate the immune system into developing a lasting immune response. Sometimes this backfires in the worst and most noticeable way. What often goes unnoticed are problems that don’t tightly correspond with recent vaccines. A lasting immune response could leave us with what we see today, an epidemic of chronic illnesses. A genetic epidemic is a biological impossibility. However, environmental toxins injected into the body can account for this sudden rise in chronic illnesses. It is vaccines that are causing these rising rates of chronic illness, but proving it is very difficult when the truth is overshadowed by propaganda.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Research was Fraudulent

Dubbed the “father of the anti-vaccine movement”, Wakefield has been both revered and vilified, depending on which side of the argument uses his name. Ironically, he is not anti-vaccine. But he dares to criticize them, and for that he’s been vilified. Wakefield has done expert research that fully supports his argument. The Japanese only administer the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines separately, and yet no one claims all of the Japanese are fathers of anti-vaccine movements or frauds. The Japanese are also, on average, far healthier than most Westerners.

In 1998, Wakefield, Prof. John Walker Smith, Dr. Simon Burch, and 10 other co-authors published a paper in the Lancet, a British Medical Journal, which showed a possible correlation between the MMR vaccine and resultant gastrointestinal dysfunction along with developmental delays and autism. Though the paper itself did not state a conclusive causal effect, it did state the need for further study into the possibility that the MMR shot was responsible. In a radio interview, Wakefield went on to publicly bring attention to the possibility, criticizing the MMR shot and calling for separation of the three vaccines.

The publication, the publicity, and the controversy caused an uproar, which was credited with a sharp decline in vaccine compliance in the UK and to some extent in the U.S. The United Kingdom General Medical Council regulatory board (GMC) investigated and came to the conclusion, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the study and the published paper were fraudulent. The paper was retracted by the Lancet. Ten of the authors signed a letter retracting the claim that the MMR vaccine caused autism (even though the paper did not state that conclusion). Wakefield, Smith, and Burch did not sign the paper. They were brought up before the GMC on misconduct charges. Wakefield and Smith both lost their medical licenses.

In 2012, Prof. Smith won an appeal against the GMC. Although he was already retired, his license to practice medicine was restored. The reason why he was successful in getting vindicated while Wakefield was not is simple. Unlike Wakefield’s insurance, Smith’s insurance covered his expensive appeal. There was a clear ruling that the published paper and study met academic standards and that the GMC was at fault in their earlier ruling. The GMC has not taken the opportunity since then to restate Andrew Wakefield’s license or to clear his name. In order to fuel the vaccine propaganda machine, Wakefield’s work is to be unceasingly attacked, regardless of how scientifically valid it is. The same thing has been done to Judy Mikovitz , and the movie Vaxxed. In the battle for the hearts and minds of the public, open scientific discourse is widely discouraged and crushed whenever possible.

The Toxic Ingredients in Vaccines are Needed in Order to Make them Work

Since the 1800s, homeoprophylaxis, a non-toxic, safe, and effective alternative to vaccination has been in use.  Homeoprophylaxis or HP is the use of diluted and potentized disease products, called “nosodes” to elicit an immune response. Our bodies response to HP serves to educate our immune system in such a way as to make us highly resistant to the real pathogen. Homeoprophylaxis has been clinically shown to reduce the incidence of both infectious as well as chronic disease.

The goal of HP is the same as the stated goal of conventional vaccination – disease protection and improved health, but the differences are so profound as to make them a world apart. The most obvious difference is that the purity of nosodes as compared to the purity of conventional vaccines. HP nosodes contain no additives whatsoever – no antibiotics, no preservatives, no detergents, no foreign DNA, no unknown viruses, and no foreign DNA are present.

HP nosodes are administered on small sugar pellets. They dissolve on the tongue and enter the system by way of the natural route past mucous membrane. Here the natural process of disease recognition can begin in the way that Mother Nature intended. Bypassing this route by injecting a substance directly into the bloodstream is like an ambush attack to the immune system. There is no opportunity to mount a preliminary response in a biologically appropriate way. This proves that toxic ingredients are not needed to make a vaccine work.

High Vaccination Rates are Needed for “Herd Immunity”

Herd immunity does not have the narrow definition generally used today. Herd immunity as generated by vaccines has never been proven to exist, and there is no evidence that supports it. The kind of herd immunity that is evidence based is something else entirely. Real herd immunity is something that survivors of epidemics retain and pass on to their children. The survivors of plagues, both Europeans and those they encounter, all end up with some measure of herd immunity or they perish.

When the Desoto expedition first came through North America, infectious diseases came with them. Indigenous peoples of North America had no natural resistance to these diseases; they had no herd immunity. Long after the Desoto expedition was fought off, pathogenic microbes lingered, devastating the Native Americans. One disease after another spread through native cities, diseases like smallpox, cholera, typhoid fever, and so on. Europeans had centuries to develop resistance to these diseases. The Native Americans were not granted the same luxury of time. Over 90% of the North American continent’s original inhabitants were wiped out by these epidemics. Indigenous peoples of South America suffered these same ravages of disease. Thankfully, the survivors developed an increased resistance to these epidemics. The survivors had herd immunity, and this was passed on to their children. This is why their children showed resistance to European diseases and didn’t die from infectious disease 90% of the time like other natives.

No vaccines were developed that bolstered this immunity. It was and always has been an inherited resistance. Obviously, the children of those who survived diseases were more resistant to disease despite having not been previously exposed. The survival of the fittest, leaves us with herd immunity, not vaccination.

The Tetanus Vaccine Saves Lives, and is Needed Immediately Following an Injury

The cure for tetanus, a painful and potentially fatal disease, has long been pursued by medical researchers. A cure for tetanus has proven elusive, so in the absence of a cure, the medical community has latched on to the idea of prevention. So far, these efforts have proven ineffective. It is blind faith that motivates the tetanus vaccine, faith in a vaccination that has never been proven to work. Harvard trained immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD explains:

The tetanus toxin, called tetanospasmin, is produced by numerous C. tetani bacterial strains. C. tetani normally live in animal intestines, notably in horses, without causing tetanus to their intestinal carriers. These bacteria require anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions to be active, whereas in the presence of oxygen they turn into resilient but inactive spores, which do not produce the toxin. It has been recognized that inactive tetanus spores are ubiquitous in the soil. Tetanus can result from the exposure to C. tetani via poorly managed tetanus-prone wounds or cuts, but not from oral ingestion of tetanus spores. Quite to the contrary, oral exposure to C. tetani has been found to build resistance to tetanus without carrying the risk of disease. ^[2]

Doctors typically give someone a DTaP vaccine as a treatment for tetanus infections. This is actually contraindicated. This is one of the most persistent falsehoods about vaccines, but one that can be quickly dispelled by simply reading the vaccine’s instructions. It reads:

“Tripedia vaccine is not to be used for treatment of B pertussis, C diphtheriae, or C tetani infections.” ^[3]

It is used in this manner anyway, despite instructions to the contrary.

You Need The DTaP Vaccine If You Are Pregnant

Whooping cough or pertussis can kill people, especially infants, but so can the DTaP vaccine, and the vaccine often does. What is an expectant mother to do? We recommend taking the time to do the research and read the vaccine warning label. It reads:

Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Tripedia vaccine. It is not known whether Tripedia vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproductive capacity. Tripedia vaccine is NOT indicated for women of child-bearing age. ^[4]

Doctors recommend it anyway, even though it’s never been tested on pregnant women. The only thing that we know for sure about vaccines is that they tend to generate antibodies, but this does not equate to immunity or even resistance to infectious disease.

Conclusion

Vaccinations are an effort to eradicate infectious diseases, but sadly this effort has backfired. Diseases have become more prevalent in the young than in previous generations, and chronic illnesses are now commonplace. Measles, whooping cough, and other vaccine-preventable illnesses can and often do strike the well vaccinated.

Though governments claim it would be unethical to do a study that compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children, the reality is they would not want the public to see just how much healthier unvaccinated children truly are. Despite the supposed ethical controversy, some independent scientists are studying this. Studies have begun to emerge that show that the unvaccinated are healthier than their vaccinated peers. A study from 1992 examined the health of children in New Zealand and found that, typically, unvaccinated children had fewer chronic illnesses than vaccinated children. A similar longitudinal study out of Germany showed the same results.

Truth will win out over propaganda eventually, but it will take some time. When the news boldly proclaims that vaccines do not cause autism, they are spreading propaganda, the kind of lies that are not supported by independent science. Ironically, when parents take the time to do the research or even read a vaccine warning insert, they are often labeled conspiracy theorists. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a conspiracy is “a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal”. Conspiracies can and do happen. They are aided and abetted by propaganda and by the willingness of those trusting enough to deceive themselves.

Recommended Reading:

• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• How Plumbing (Not Vaccines) Eradicated Disease
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Celebrities Who Have Spoken Out Against Vaccines
  
• Statesmen Against Mandatory Vaccines
• Scientists Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials

Sources:

• ^{[1] [3] [4]} Diphtheria and Tetanus DTaP Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed Tripedia – FDA.gov
• Tetanus Shot: How Do We Know if it Works? – International medical Council on Vaccinations
• S. Government Patented Ebola! Why? – Western Journalism
• Human Ebola Virus Species and Compositions and Methods Therof – Google Patents
• Patent Landscape Report on Vaccines for Selected Diseases – World Intellectual Property Organization
• Diptheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed Tripedia – FDA
• Tetanus Shot- How Do We Know That It Works? – Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
• Research Supporting Vaccine/Autism Causation – Experimental Vaccines
• Studies Prove Without Doubt That Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier Than Their Vaccinated Peers – VacTruth

“A people without knowledge of their past, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.”-Marcus Garvey

All over the world, parents are reacting out of fear. They are terrified of germs, yet they trust toxic injections. Why does the Western world adopt a culture of vaccination? Because we fear microbes. We have been trained to believe that communicable diseases are life threatening and that we are powerless to fight them without vaccinations. After all, it is reasoned, people used to die from diseases like the measles, didn’t they?

Although this is true, we don’t look at the evidence in perspective. In the past, we didn’t have access to clean water and nutritious food. Under conditions like these, many mild illnesses posed a serious threat and were more likely to prove fatal.

Research is Time Consuming; Besides, Isn’t That What Regulators Are For?

In America, and much of the Western world, we are busy and overworked. Understandably, we want to be able to trust the expert opinions of public servants in their respective fields. Some would call this the height of naiveté, but it’s understandable. No one has the time to be an expert on everything. But when we outsource responsibility for our health, the outcome is uncertain at best. Many Americans look to the CDC for guidance, but are they really the best source of unbiased information?

Four scathing federal studies, including two by Congress, one by the US Senate, and one by the HHS Inspector General, paint CDC as a cesspool of corruption, mismanagement, and dysfunction with alarming conflicts of interest suborning its research, regulatory, and policymaking functions. CDC rules allow vaccine industry profiteers like Dr. Offit to serve on advisory boards that add new vaccines to the schedule. In a typical example, Offit in 1999 sat on the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee and voted to add the rotavirus vaccine to CDC’s schedule, paving the way for him to make a fortune on his own rotavirus vaccine. Offit and his business partners sold the royalties to his rotavirus vaccine patent to Merck in 2006 for $182 million.-Robert Kennedy 

Big business is driving vaccine mandates, and they are using regulatory agencies as the vehicle.

Those Who Do Not Know The Past Will Believe Anything

It suits pharmaceutical industry interests to give credit where none is due and to revise history, giving credit to vaccines for eradicating disease. In medical school, doctors are taught that vaccines eradicated all manner of diseases when, in fact, improved sanitation is responsible. When doctors tell you vaccines eradicated disease, this shows a profound ignorance of history and the pharmaceutically biased indoctrination that they have mistaken for a medical education.

Any college freshman can tell you that correlation does not equal causation. Just because something correlates, that doesn’t mean that the cause is easy to determine. Vaccines were introduced well after diseases were already on the decline. Vaccine manufacturers and government regulators tell us that vaccines made the difference. While they try so hard to turn this correlation into causation, they paradoxically try to ignore the rapid rise of autism, asthma, allergies, ADHD and other neurological disorders that tightly correlate with today’s dirty vaccines and the overblown vaccine schedule. A few graphs are worth a thousand words. Here are some visuals of our forgotten history (click on the image below for more charts):

Pro-industry propaganda has permeated so deeply into Western consciousness, vaccines are seen as a panacea for diseases everywhere, both here and abroad. Foreign aid often comes in the form of a syringe, even when people don’t have access to the most basic of necessities, such as healthy food, or clean water.

We May Not Like To Admit It, but All Cultures Do This

When faced with an unknown, people often resort to rituals and other superstitions. Germs are intimidating because they can bring down the young and the old. They are invisible and are usually untraceable. Communicable diseases are frightening, powerful forces of nature. When people feel powerless, they often resort to magical thinking.

You can see this kind of behavior in sports fanatics. As fans, they have little influence over the outcome of sporting events. To grant team supporters an illusion of control, they often wear their lucky jersey in order to “help their team win.” The belief that their actions can have a direct effect on their teams’ outcome is widespread. According to one ESPN poll which showed no statistically significant differences between race, education, or gender, as many as 1 in 5 fans try to improve the luck of their favorite team in a variety of different ways. Some fans never purchase or own things that are the colors of their rival teams. Other fans believe that they are the bad luck, so they refuse to watch their favorite teams play. Some of the most die-hard fans don’t watch the seasons’ most crucial games due to the belief that watching those games will “jinx” their team. This behavior is very ironic, as it is actually the opposite of supporting one’s team.

Westerners are just as superstitious as everyone else. We just show it in different ways. We make connections where none exist. We see correlations where none exist.

Ritualistic behavior is common to all cultures. When people die (death is another aspect of life with which we have little to no control) a series of rituals, such as a wake, a viewing, burial/cremation, and so on take place as a means of mitigating the loss and showing respect for the deceased. These rituals help to give a sense of control over death. Even though we can not stop death, we can organize our activities around it.

When faced with microbes and the threat of disease, something we believe to be out of our control, many of us subject ourselves or our children to the ritual of vaccination. We are attempting to control the invisible.

The Ritual of Vaccination

Even though they seldom work in a lab, doctors wear lab coats, which lends an air of authority, and an illusory scientific presence. They tell their patients vaccines are safe and effective without discussing the risks. Unfortunately, most doctors are not fully aware of the risks. They cannot tell you what the shots contain or why many of the ingredients are included. They are however, usually aware that they and the pharmaceutical companies are safe from harm should your child die or become disabled due to the vaccinations they recommend.

Vaccination is a form of ritualistic practice that is filled with make-believe. Why are vaccines injected? Infants and children often cry when injected, and this pain engenders a renewed commitment from the parents. The injury of injection, however small, doubles their commitment. After a brief surge of guilt, parents become more entrenched in the idea that vaccines must be necessary, because of the belief that no one, even pharmaceutical industry employees, would put a child through pain if it wasn’t necessary.

Despite the fact that there has never been a study proving all of the vaccines in the schedule are cumulatively safe, and the growing concern among scientists and doctors about their synergistic toxicity, parents all over the world are sacrificing their children to the superstition of vaccination. With reassuring voices, they tell their children the shots are necessary, even when they know nothing about them.

The information age has begun to change this entrenched belief. It is difficult, if not impossible, to silence tens of thousands of parents, holistic health care practitioners, and vaccine injured people connected to the Internet. The truth is being disseminated all over the web. Vaccines can and often do cause the exact diseases they are intended to prevent. Also, death is a known risk of immunization, as is paralysis, brain damage, neurological disorders, and auto-immune disease.

If We Are To Believe the CDC, Formaldehyde is Unsafe in Construction, Yet Perfectly Safe When Injected

Ever since the CDC released a report on the dangers of formaldehyde found in laminate flooring, people have been in an uproar over the health risks. News stories abound warning people to avoid laminate flooring or advising them to limit their exposure. The CDC even recently revised their report, showing that the dangers are in fact worse than they originally stated.

Formaldehyde in laminate flooring can contribute to respiratory problems and irritation in the general population, not just to those in at-risk groups. The lifetime cancer risk was raised from a range of 2 to 9 per 100,000 extra cases of cancer to 6 to 30 extra cases per 100,000 due to exposure from the fumes of formaldehyde additives in flooring. With all this concern over the risks to people’s health from breathing in minute particles of formaldehyde dust from flooring, it stands to reason that more people should be concerned with the fact that formaldehyde is commonly found in vaccines.

Formaldehyde is injected directly into the bloodstream via vaccination. But under the auspices of vaccination, anything goes due to enculturation. People of a culture believe that their way is the correct way to do things, and other cultural practices are backward or flat out wrong.

Health Doesn’t Come From a Bottle, and It Doesn’t Come From a Syringe

With clean hands and dirty injections, doctors spread disease to all those who heed their advice. Using a syringe heightens the sense of urgency because injections are commonly used with trauma victims and those who are unconscious. If more vaccines came in another form, they would be less popular. They would seem less urgently needed, and the connection between failed pharmaceuticals (like the countless medications taken off the market because they weren’t safe) and vaccines would be better formed in the minds of the public. Vaccines are, in fact, pharmaceuticals. They are made by the same corrupt companies that are regularly caught breaking laws and fined for putting profits before public safety. Health doesn’t come from pharmaceuticals. It comes from good sanitation, proper nutrition, and low exposure to toxins.

Conclusion

For a culture to be functioning, people must believe that their way is the right and proper way to do things. Most Westerners, especially Americans, believe that culture is something other far away people have and that we live by the scientific method. When it comes to the health of our children, we live by the untested method.

When Andrew Wakefield first recommended that the MMR vaccine be split up into separate vaccinations, he was vilified, labeled a quack, and stripped of his medical license. He dared to research the dangers of vaccination. He challenged the Western cultural paradigm. He was seen as a traitor to our way of life. Yet, when an entire country, Japan, refused the MMR vaccine and chose to use 3 separate vaccines, they were not vilified because they belong to a different culture.

The Japanese do not begin vaccines until two years of age, and their schedule has less than half of the immunizations than the U.S. schedule. As a result, their SIDS rate has plummeted to nearly nothing, and their autism rates are a tiny fraction of America’s. As vaccinations have been added to the CDC schedule, autism rates have been rising. The vaccine injured are all around us, so many now that they have become the new normal.

We are told that vaccines are keeping diseases from making a comeback and that herd immunity is propping up our health like the Greek Titan Atlas holding up the world. These are myths. Vaccine mythologies run deep, and many people are beholden to these beliefs. Improved sanitation eradicated disease. If we are fortunate enough to open our eyes to this basic historic fact, then we must open the eyes of others as well. Many of us are under the cultural delusion that to vaccinate is to do something, and not to vaccinate is to do nothing. In truth, there is much that we can do to build up our immune systems. Only the truth can set us free and pull back our cultural blinders.

Recommended Reading:

• How Plumbing (Not Vaccines) Eradicated Disease
• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Celebrities Who Have Spoken Out Against Vaccines
  
• Statesmen Against Mandatory Vaccines
• Scientists Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials

Sources:

• Mercury & Vaccines – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
• Graphs – Dissolving Illusions
• CDC/ATSDR Revises Report of Possible Health Effects Associated with Formaldehyde in Select Laminate Flooring – CDC Newsroom
• Poll Results: 1 in 5 fans try to improve luck for favorite team – ESPN
• Chemtrails, Vaccines & GMOs: Toxins from Above and Below with Jason Christoff – YouTube 

One of the biggest lies ever told is that vaccines eradicated disease; improved sanitation eradicated disease. This lie is the big falsehood upon which many other myths are propagated. When lies are repeated enough, they come to be taken as the truth.

…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.” -Adolf Hitler

Though the pharmaceutical industry can fool most of the people most of the time, they cannot fool all of the people all of the time. As Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “No lie can live forever.”

Truth has a way of winning out when given enough time, but time is not a luxury all of us can afford, not with mandatory vaccinations looming. Some of the greatest deceptions have spanned centuries. In every generation, there are people said to have been “ahead of their time.” In hindsight, we honor the most notable historical figures that helped to unravel the delusions under which progress faltered. Racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, superstitions, and other forms of abject ignorance have taken centuries to fade away, these and other illusions die hard. There are still thousands of people who ardently believe the earth is flat, and just as absurd, there are thousands of people who still believe that the sun orbits the earth.

The majority of people believe that the anti-vaccine movement is regressive and not progressive. Pro-vaccine propaganda, propped up by government mandates and CDC recommendations has come to dominate popular opinion. Most people have come to believe these myths and have internalized them. In order for us to get to the truth, we must first absolve others and ourselves of these delusions.

Vaccines are Safe

Like all pharmaceuticals, vaccines can have potentially devastating side effects. Adverse reactions can and often are far more serious than the diseases they are intended to prevent. Your chance of dying from measles with modern healthcare is nearly zero, and yet hundreds have died from the MMR vaccine.¹

Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine, testified before Congress that the mass immunizations aimed at eradicating polio caused most of the polio cases since 1961. How can the polio vaccine be safe or effective when it causes the disease it is intended to prevent?²

In a bad year, India has fewer than a thousand cases of polio. In fact, India was certified polio-free in 2014 and hasn’t had a case of polio in three years.³ In their efforts to eradicate polio in India, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s mass immunization campaign permanently crippled well over 50,000 children. It could take more than a century for polio to cause the kind of devastation this polio immunization campaign caused. These are not the results of a safe practice.⁴

Vaccines Are Effective

There is a saying that no vaccine is 100% effective. This saying implies that vaccines are close to this number, but in truth, vaccines are not tested for effectiveness at all. If a vaccine generates antibodies, it is considered effective; however, antibody generation does not equate to a numerical percentage of disease prevention. One of the best indicators of vaccine ineffectiveness is that the same vaccines are given over and over again. If a vaccine guaranteed immunity, why would it have to be given again? Vaccination carries with it serious risk of injury, including death. If you’re going to bet your life on it, wouldn’t you want the vaccine to actually work?⁵

Our immune systems rely on far more than just antibodies to fight pathogens. An individual dying of AIDS has no shortage of antibodies in their blood; their body produces vast numbers of antibodies and yet that doesn’t keep them alive when their white T-cells have been decimated by the HIV virus. Antibodies aren’t everything. Just because vaccines generate antibodies, that doesn’t mean they are effective.

Your Doctor Knows More About Vaccines Than You Do

No doubt your doctor has strong opinions about vaccination; but do they know anything about them? Probably not. The science of immunology, virology, or advanced toxicology is not taught to most medical students. If anything about vaccines is taught, only one side of the scientific debate about vaccines is ever presented to medical students.⁶

If you ask the average medical doctor about MRC-Cells, WI-38 Cells, vaccine adjuvants, or vaccine court, you will probably be met with deafening silence. Doctors are typically profoundly ignorant about immunizations. If you spend ten minutes researching vaccine ingredients, you are likely to know more about vaccines than your doctor. If you read a vaccine insert, you are likely to know more about vaccines than your doctor. If you spend five minutes speaking to a naturopathic or homeopathic doctor or even a chiropractor, you will find that they know far more about vaccines than your conventional medical doctor.⁷

Mercury Was Removed From Vaccines

This actually never happened. Mercury was removed from some vaccines and replaced with aluminum. Other vaccines, like the flu shot, still contain mercury under the name thimerosal. Thimerosal is 49% ethyl mercury. Mercury is 1,000 times more toxic than lead, and it is still present in a number of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals.⁸

If You Are Vaccinated and Get a Vaccine Preventable Disease, You Will Catch a Milder Case of the Illness Due to Having Been Vaccinated

Actually, if you were vaccinated and then caught the disease, you either caught it from the vaccination itself, or if time passed, the vaccine failed and you caught it from someone else who had been recently vaccinated and was shedding the disease.

There is no evidence to suggest that injecting the body with toxins and pathogens makes our immune system stronger, but there is a growing body of evidence that suggests the highly vaccinated are more vulnerable to both chronic and acute diseases.

Vaccine Manufacturers are Held Accountable for Vaccine Injuries

In 1986, the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act made vaccine manufacturers immune from all liability due to vaccines. Instead of holding the manufacturers accountable, vaccines are taxed, and these taxes go to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.⁹ In order to receive compensation for vaccine injury, one must win in Vaccine Court. Vaccine Court is a rigged system of compensation designed to protect the vaccine industry and deny claims brought forth by parents and family members of dead and crippled children and adults. There is a better than 80% chance that a claim will be denied by vaccine court. If claims are paid out, compensation rarely covers medical expenses. If a vaccine kills, the maximum payout is $250,000.¹⁰ Isn’t human life worth more than a quarter of a million dollars?

Adverse reactions to vaccines can also result in agonizing, rare, exotic, and crippling diseases. A few examples of these are Guillain Barre Syndrome (an immune disorder in which the body attacks the nervous system), Transverse Myelitis (a neurological disorder which can result in paralysis, urinary retention, and loss of bowel control), Miller Fisher Syndrome (which can result in respiratory failure, abnormal muscle coordination, and a myriad of other symptoms) and Intussusception (which is caused by the intestine being pulled inward, onto itself, which can be fatal, and it is always excruciating).¹¹

The payouts awarded by vaccine court vary on a case-by-case basis. When considering how miserable these diseases make people, and how expensive treatment is, one would think the compensation would be greater. The following payouts were advertised by Maglio, Christopher, and Toale, P.A.:¹²

• From 2010 through 2015, this law firm won 11 cases that included death. The smallest payout was $100,000 and the largest payout was $400,000. The average payout was $218,792.50. Cases with a payout over $250,000 included payment for injuries as well.
• From January through November 2015, this law firm won 46 cases that included Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS). The smallest payout for GBS was $60,000 and the largest payout was $807,000. The average payout was $215,829.70.
• From January through November 2015, this law firm won 6 cases related to Transverse Myelitis. The smallest payout was $85,000 and the largest payout was $537,500. The average payout was $184,750.
• From January through November 2015, this law firm won 2 cases related to Miller Fisher Syndrome. Each had a payout of $125,000.
• From January through November 2015, this law firm won 1 case related to Intussusception. It was awarded an annuity totaling $58,106 to be paid over four years as well as an additional lump sum of $10,221.19 to cover a Kentucky Medicaid lien.

The Anti-Vaccine Movement is a Fad

Objections to inoculation and vaccination have been around for as long as inoculation and vaccination have been practiced. Typically, when we hear the term conscientious objector we think of someone who is opposed to military service during wartime. Centuries ago, the term referred to someone who was opposed to getting inoculated, or getting their children inoculated. The anti-vaccine movement is an old movement, and it is not going away. We will not be silenced, and we know the truth is on our side. We know it is only a matter of time before the truth about vaccines is known by the majority of people, not just by a select few who have taken the time to do the research.¹³

The Internet is Full of Misinformation Regarding Vaccines

Have you heard this tired cliché, “Don’t believe everything you see on the Internet”? Actually this is sound advice, but you shouldn’t believe everything you see on TV either, or everything you read in books, everything your doctor tells you, or even everything you read in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Misinformation is everywhere. Falsehoods, half-truths, and outright lies are not solely limited to the Internet.

An informed opinion demands familiarity with both sides of an issue. No one, not even your doctor will ever care about your health or your children’s health as much as you do. Both sides of the vaccine debate are easily accessible via the Internet. Even anti-vaxxers agree that the Internet is full of misinformation about vaccines.

Misinformation abounds everywhere, especially on websites like the CDC, FDA, and NIH. The truth is out there for those willing to go and find it. A good place to start is to look up vaccine ingredients. Isn’t it a good idea to know what is being injected in you or your children?

The Unvaccinated Spread Disease to the Vaccinated

This lie spread by vaccine manufacturers is another believed and repeated by so many only because they’ve heard it so often. Infectious disease is typically spread by person-to-person contact. A healthy individual doesn’t spread disease; sick people do. Rarely, there are cases of those who are disease carriers, individuals who exhibit no symptoms, but are capable of spreading disease. There is no evidence to suggest that if these individuals were vaccinated, that this would happen less often. On the contrary, it is the recently vaccinated who spread disease through viral shedding.

Yes, viral shedding is a real hazard.¹⁴ The recently vaccinated often spread the very disease that the vaccine is intended to protect against. When this happens, the unvaccinated are typically blamed for the outbreak. A good example is the recent Disneyland measles “epidemic”.¹⁵

If there is no vaccine for the strain of the virus responsible for the outbreak, the same tactic is used: blame the unvaccinated. In the absence of television advertisements, every major or minor disease outbreak engenders free marketing. Despite high vaccination rates, it is the unvaccinated who are blamed for disease.

This blame is assigned by the mainstream media outlets whose bills are paid by Big Pharma. Defying all logic, the public is told that vaccines can only work if everyone is vaccinated.¹⁶ Considering how interconnected the world is these days, even if everyone in our respective country of origin were to be vaccinated there would still be unvaccinated foreigners traveling people would encounter, and the gullible could place blame upon strangers in strange lands for spreading disease. The fight for 100% worldwide vaccination is unattainable, so there will always be scapegoats.

Scientists and Doctors Agree that Vaccination is the Best Defense Against Infectious Diseases

Another myth perpetuated by the mainstream media and Big Pharma is that there is a consensus among scientists and medical professionals that vaccines are the best protection available against disease. In actuality, there is no consensus. Vaccination is hotly debated by doctors and scientists, especially those who actually study vaccination.¹⁷ When it’s Mom and Dad against the world, anti-vaxxers are framed by the mainstream media as anti-science.

In order for science to progress, competing scientific explanations must be evaluated on their own merits, not dismissed or accepted based upon their initial popularity in the scientific community. There are, in fact, so many doctors and scientists opposed to vaccines that we have produced an ongoing series of articles giving voice to their expert opinions.¹⁸ We are unlikely to ever run out of new experts we can draw upon to continue this series. Obviously, there are more than a handful of experts opposed to vaccination.

Conclusion

One cannot eradicate diseases by way of immunization. Injecting pathogens and toxins into the bloodstream bypasses the body’s natural defenses, and leaves us more vulnerable to injury and death than natural exposure to the disease ever could. When we are intimidated into vaccinating because diseases like measles used to kill people, we aren’t being given all the relevant facts. Measles are unlikely to kill anyone these days due to modern medical care. It’s true that antibiotics are useless against viral infections, but when someone is battling measles, they are more vulnerable to secondary infections, like pneumonia. It is another modern day myth that the measles vaccine saves lives. Your chances of dying from measles is nearly zero. The same cannot be said of the measles vaccine.

There are many myths surrounding vaccines. They will continue to be perpetuated until those of us who are in the know challenge them wherever and whenever we hear them. The best defense against lies is the truth, and the best defense against bad ideas are better ideas. In the absence of truthful reporting, it is up to us to be the media before vaccine hysteria spreads ever further though vaccine mandates. If we cannot be deceived, we are to be coerced – that is until we can shed light upon these vaccination myths. If you’ve recently been vaccinated, or may be getting immunized soon, check out How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children.

Related Reading:

• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Vaccines, Retroviruses, DNA, and the Discovery That Destroyed  Judy Mikovits’ Career
• How Plumbing (Not Vaccines) Eradicated Disease
• The MMR Vaccine – A Comprehensive Overview of the Potential Dangers and Effectiveness

Sources:

1. Can Measles Vaccine Cause Injury & Death? – National Vaccine Information Center   ↩
2. The Polio Vaccine Myth: ‘The Vaccine Stopped Polio’ – Collective Evolution
   Updates on CDC’s Polio Eradication Efforts – CDC   ↩
3. Bill Gates’ Vaccine Program Caused 47,500 Cases of Paralysis Death – NSNBC   ↩
4. Voodoo Science: The Myth of Vaccine Efficacy – Age of Autism   ↩
5. Doctors Learn to Talk Vaccines – Wall Street Journal   ↩
6. Vaccines: What Your Doctors Know and Don’t Know – Vactruth   ↩
7. Ten Lies Told About Mercury in Vaccines – Trace Amounts   ↩
8. Supreme Court vaccine ruling: parents can’t sue drug makers for kids’ health problems – CBS News   ↩
9. History of Anti-Vaccination Movements – History of Vaccines   ↩
10. Studies Show That Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease – Weston A. Price   ↩
11. Journalist Infuriates Readers While Reporting on Massachusetts Whooping Cough Outbreak – Inquistr   ↩
12. Pertussis Outbreak Among Vaccinated Preschoolers Raises Alarm – Medscape   ↩
13. Doctors Against Vaccines – Organic Lifestyle Magazine   ↩
14. Scientists Against Vaccines – Organic Lifestyle Magazine   ↩
15. Hitler and the ‘Big Lie’ – The Holocaust Historiography Project   ↩
16. FAQ- Topic: Vaccine Injury Compensation – National Vaccine Information Center   ↩
17. Disorder Index – National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
    Our Firm’s Vaccine Case Results – Maglio, Christopher, & Toale, P.A.   ↩

People respond to financial incentives. Physicians are no exception to this basic rule of human nature. According to Merrit Hawkin’s salary survey, the average compensation for a family general practitioner in 2011 was $178,000. For that same year, the average compensation for a general surgeon was $330,000, with orthopedic surgeons commanding an average salary of $532,000. Obviously, it pays to cut on patients.

Surgical procedures are commonly forced on patients by doctors who are not surgeons, with or without patient consent, often under enormous pressure from profit-driven hospitals, even when it isn’t in the patient’s best interest. And, of course, the charge is added to the bottom line.

Just A Little Cut, They Tell You, Before Performing An Episiotomy

An episiotomy is a surgical procedure wherein the surgeon makes an incision in the perineum, severing the tissue between the vagina and the anus. Routine episiotomies have been shown to be harmful to women and not beneficial to babies. Episiotomies run the risk of complications such as increased long-term discomfort, infection, hematoma formation, recto-vaginal fistula formation, and dysfunction of the anal sphincter. Many of the possible complications  from episiotomies require corrective surgery. It is understandable why many women would not want such a procedure performed on them, and yet the procedure is forced on many women on a regular basis, under the guiding rule that the doctor knows best.

According to the authors of the national Listening to Mothers II Survey (2006) said, “The great majority of mothers who had experienced episiotomy (73%) stated that they had not had a choice in this decision.”

Routine episiotomy has been scientifically discredited for more than 20 years, and yes, child birthing experiences like this are becoming more commonplace:

Dr. A came into the room and after two pushes he had scissors in his hands and told the nurse that he was going to perform as episiotomy. I said, “Why?” … I pushed two more times, and he was going to cut, and I said, “No, Don’t Cut Me”. Then I said, “Why, why can’t we try?” He said why you don’t go home and try or go to Kentucky! So then after he yelled at me he cut my vagina twelve times. So before the episiotomy, the nurse said it’s only going to be a little cut. A little cut turned into Dr. A’s horrific rage against me as a human being and against my will to begin with. I wanted to cry so badly and I was so horrified while he was cutting me.”

Kimberly Turbin has since filed suit against Dr. Abbassi. Her attorney explains, “Today, legal protections for American women in childbirth are uncertain—but with Ms. Turbin’s case, I intend to show that there are, indeed, real consequences when providers inflict harm on vulnerable patients.”

Unfortunately, this wasn’t an isolated incident. Rebecca Woolf did not want an episiotomy, and she clearly communicated that fact to her doctor in her prenatal visits. “Oh yeah, it shouldn’t be a problem. Sounds good,” Woolf recalled him saying. “But when we got into the delivery room, it was, ‘I’ve got to do this, I’ve got no choice. If I don’t cut you, you’re going to tear. It’s going to be terrible. It’s going to be way worse.”

…I had pushed, like, once and he said, ‘I’m going to have to cut you, or else you’ll tear.”

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported 443,000 episiotomies performed in 2007. A 2005 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that between 30 to 35 percent of vaginal births in the U.S. involve an episiotomy.

The episiotomy rates among American midwives is roughly 3%.

C-Section

According to survey results, (32%) of respondents gave birth via cesarean section. Many women said they would have preferred the option of giving birth vaginally, but their doctors refused natural childbirth as an option.

The mainstream media prefers to emphasize the glamor of “designer births” wherein labor is induced and babies are born by cesarean section on schedule, followed by a tummy tuck. Despite their emphasis on this way of giving birth, these options are rarely sought after. More prevalent than designer births are allegations of profound abuse. Andrea Davis explains that she can’t recall her most recent birth, “without crying and becoming physically ill at times.”

Angela’s doctor manually removed her placenta and performed a uterine sweep following her baby’s birth, while blatantly ignoring her distress and refusing to speak to her. “I have never had someone put their arm up inside of me in my three previous births, let alone without telling me what they were doing first, and without asking permission. [The doctor] had zero respect or regard for me as a human being.”

Another woman explains that she was rolled into the OR while she was screaming, “I don’t want a C section!” while being told, “If you don’t shut up, we will knock you out!”

Another shares her gruesome experience giving birth.

When my plans for an HBAC [home birth after cesarean] failed, the hospital treated me like a criminal. I was ignored, yelled at, verbally abused, denied pain medication, neglected, separated from my husband, held down, strapped to a table, and told that my baby and I would most likely die…

Then I was put to sleep.

Strangers witnessed my baby’s first breath; we were not surrounded by love in that operating room. I suffer from PTSD.”

Rinat Dray a mother of three boys had her first two children delivered by C-section that resulted in difficult recoveries. So in 2011, she was determined to have her next baby naturally, referred to “vaginal birth after cesarean,” or VBAC.

After several hours of labor, Dr. Dray’s doctor abruptly decided when and how Rinat Dray was to give birth.

He said, ‘It doesn’t matter if you’re making good progress. I don’t think it’s going to be natural. I don’t have all day for you.’ …They pushed me into the operation. I was begging all the way, ‘Don’t do it, my baby is fine! Don’t do it!’  His answer was just, ‘Don’t speak.’ “

What if You Are Not Dead Yet? You Better Speak Up

According to consulting firm, Milliman, the recipients of single-organ transplants—heart, intestine, kidney, liver, single and double lung and pancreas—are charged an average of $470,000 dollars, ranging from $288,000 for a kidney transplant to $1.2 million for an intestine transplant.

The current criteria on brain death was put in place by a Harvard Medical School committee in 1968. In 1981, the Uniform Determination of Death Act made brain death a legal form of death in all 50 states.

The exam for brain death is straightforward, but by no means foolproof. A doctor splashes ice water in your ears, pokes you in the eyes with a cotton swab and checks for gag reflexes, and then he runs some other tests. The whole process takes less time than a typical eye exam. Finally, in what’s called the apnea test, the ventilator is disconnected to see if you can breathe unassisted. If not, you are often declared brain dead. (Some or all of the above tests may be repeated later for confirmation.)

Unfortunately, many people who are declared brain dead are never tested for higher brain activity. Even if testing for higher brain activity was to be required, brain death diagnoses would still not be an exact science. The harsh reality is that vital organs could become useless if doctors always waited until they were positive the donor was dead before they removed them. Giving the gift of life may be something that you do while you are still alive.

We’ll never know how many patients were pronounced brain dead who would have recovered if their doctors had not harvested their organs.

There have been numerous accounts of patients who came to consciousness just in the knick of time, people who recovered after a firm diagnosis of “brain death” was already given.

Zack Dunlap, a 21-year-old Oklahoman, flipped over on his 4-Wheeler and suffered catastrophic brain injuries in November 2007. Thirty-six hours after his accident, doctors at United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas, declared him ‘brain dead.’ Preparations to harvest his organs were underway when friends and relatives gathered to say their final goodbyes. His cousin, a nurse, wanting to make certain, scraped his pocket knife along the bottom of Zack’s foot. Zack jerked his foot away. Just months later, Zack was walking and talking. Zack recalled hearing the doctor say he was dead and being ‘mad inside’ but unable to move.

Steven Thorpe, a British 17-year-old, suffered horrific injuries in a multi-car accident. Four doctors declared him ‘brain dead.’ Doctors asked his family to consider donating his organs before his life-support was turned off. The family sought a second opinion from a neurologist who detected faint brain waves. Seven weeks later, Steven was discharged from the hospital having made a near-full recovery. In 2013, at age 21, now an accountant trainee, he spoke to the media for the first time: ‘Hopefully (my experience) can help people see you should never give up. My father believed I was alive—and he was correct.’ ”

Doctors are expanding their definition of what it means to be a viable donor.

Colleen Burns was initially found unresponsive and surrounded by empty bottles of Benadryl, Xanax, a muscle relaxant and an anti-inflammatory drug on Oct.16, 2009. If her prognosis remained hopeless, it would have proven to have been more profitable for the hospital.

Colleen did not meet the standards for withdrawal of care. Her paperwork documents a cardiopulmonary arrest, a heart attack that conveniently resulted in brain damage. The heart attack never happened and doctors ignored nurses’ observations that her condition was improving. Nurses noted that she curled her toes when touched, flared her nostrils, and moved her mouth and tongue. Poison control specialists recommended using activated charcoal to stop Burns’ body from absorbing the drugs, but the recommended treatment never happened. She became conscious not a moment too soon, waking up seconds before a transplant team was set to harvest her organs. (Unfortunately, Colleen’s later suicide attempt in 2011 was successful, taking her life at age 41).

New rules have been established to expand eligibility for donation. Patients on ventilators whom doctors find to be “hopeless” or “vegetative” are now seen as viable candidates for organ donation. Newer rules have also been put in place to allow donation after cardiac death. Despite the flawed track record of our current protocols, the changes put in place are ensured to maximize organ donation, not minimize mistakes. The true magnitude of the problem encompasses the countless cases no one hears about, all the patients who would have woken up if given the opportunity. We hear only about those who woke up in time.

Breast Augmentation

At what age should breast augmentation surgery be considered? Should a parent be allowed to force breast augmentation surgery on an unwilling child? How young is too young for breast augmentation surgery?

Sarah Burge had been under the knife since she was seven years old. She has spent nearly a million dollars on surgeries, earning her the nickname,”The Human Barbie.”

Poppy kept bugging me to have it done. She’d stomp her feet and throw a tantrum, and say things like, “Mommy, you had your first surgery at 7! I’m 10 now! I want my surgery!”

Sarah Burge had to extend her search to Latin America in order to find a doctor willing to do it. No physician in the UK or the U.S. would agree to perform the surgery, citing ethical prohibitions. She found a Mexican doctor who routinely performs surgeries from home, at a bargain price.

Sarah came to me after being turned down by lots of doctors. People with ethics and concerns for children. Me, I don’t have those things. I performed the surgery, and it went very, very well. Young girl, she has a great set of breasts now.

Male Genital Mutilation, AKA, Circumcision

Whenever a male infant is born, his country of origin is arguably the biggest factor in determining whether or not his penis will remain intact. American parents have been lied to, and they have been sacrificing their children for an ancient superstition, a medical myth, or what they perceive to be the cultural norm. Over a hundred children die each year from complications arising from circumcision. Many more suffer from botched circumcisions that often requiring corrective surgery.

Does it make sense to risk an infant’s life to make their genitals more closely resemble a family member’s? What if the operation were botched? Does it not follow that it would be beneficial for us to stop doing routine surgical procedures?

Justifications for circumcision vary. There are many myths surrounding circumcision. A growing number of men grow up resenting that they were circumcised because they did not consent to the procedure.

Ahmadi gave birth to a baby boy who loved attention, cried very little, and smiled at his parents. “He gave us the most amazing moments of our life.” Against their better judgment, Ahmadi and John Heydari were persuaded by their pediatrician to circumcise their son. They had resisted their doctor’s recommendation to have their son circumcised because they were believed that “Mother Nature created us the way she intended us to be.”

In a country that no longer circumcises the majority of their infants (32%), this Canadian pediatrician had to be determined in order to gain consent from the Iranian immigrants.

Ahmadi admits that she and her husband knew, almost immediately after their son’s surgery, that something was seriously wrong.

The previously cheerful baby –

Was crying so much, so hard, and he wouldn’t stop,…He was bleeding, and it only got worse over just hours … It was so obvious from the blood his tiny body had lost that he was in danger.”

Ryan Hedari was brought to Toronto’s North York General Hospital. Pathologists said he succumbed to “hypovolemic shock” caused by bleeding from the circumcision, incisions which emptied his body of approximately 40% of his blood supply. It was too much for him to take, and he died.

His parents are wracked with grief. “We … waited for care that could have saved his life, but that level of care never came.”

The loss of Ryan, our only child, has made us realize that we can’t possess anything, even our hopes and dreams. We hope that this never happens to any other baby.”

Mario Viera’s parents had repeatedly told the hospital staff that they did not want their son circumcised. Like most Latin Americans, they consider themselves culturally opposed to circumcision, and they made their position clear. Eight days after their son was born and was still being cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit, Vera Delgado returned home briefly to take a shower and to change her clothes. By the time she got back to South Miami Hospital, the hospital staff had circumcised her child, supposedly by mistake. She is suing the hospital for assault and battery and asking for a million dollars for the deformity the circumcision caused.

Her attorney, Spencer Aronfeld, explains:

This is not medical malpractice. We are suing for battery, an unauthorized assault on this baby. They took a knife to him without his parent’s permission.

The baby was in neonatal intensive care with complications from a birth-related infection. They took the baby out and amputated healthy tissue from the penis in an irreversible procedure.

…The parents were very explicit they did not want him circumcised, and [the hospital] had asked the parents repeatedly.”

…We are the only country in the world that routinely does non-religious and non-medical circumcisions.

Americans need to learn circumcision is not the way penises were meant to be.”

Conclusion

Generally speaking, the more surgeries that take place, the more profit is made through patient care. It pays to cut. If doctors only cut on consenting patients, they wouldn’t make as much money. Childbirth is done by a schedule designed to enhance the profitability of hospitals, not the safety of the mothers or the newly born. The American infant mortality rate is a national embarrassment. Surgical interventions are increasingly common, and are forced on women for reasons such as a “failure to progress.” If you don’t achieve progress in due time on your own, they will cut you open to achieve their notion of “progress.” Surgical childbirths do pay better than natural childbirths.

Circumcised penises pay better than intact penises. Don’t be fooled. That is the main reason circumcision has been perpetuated in modern times. There are also a significant number of people who desire to cut on your children. They know it isn’t medically necessary, but they enjoy taking your newborn children to soundproof rooms, ripping the foreskin from the glans, and then cutting into the foreskin, amputating the prepuce. Dr. Raymond Rezaie stands accused of botching over 30 such operations. Despite his track record, he doesn’t want to stop doing them. Infants do not consent to circumcisions; they fight them. That’s why doctors strap them down.

Surgical operations are often done routinely, and often against a patient’s will. At a time when people are at their most vulnerable, they are either told they have no choice, or they are never given a choice. The choice to be an organ donor shouldn’t mean that the gift of life could cost us our own lives, but this remains a very real possibility.

It used to be commonplace to get a second or even a third opinion in order to confirm the diagnoses whenever surgery was recommended. This kind of due diligence is no longer the norm. Instead, patients trust their physicians, taking it on blind faith that it’s in everyone’s best interest that they be cut open. Rarely is it acknowledged that doctors are dying to cut on us, and they may be the only one to benefit.

Recommended Reading:

• Doctors Against Vaccines
• Scientists Against GMOs
• How Plumbing, Not Vaccines, Irradicated Disease
• Circumcision, the Primal Cut – A Human Rights Violation

Sources:

• Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences – NCBI.gov
• Quebec doctor accused of botching circumcisions – CBC News
• Caught on Video: Improving Birth Breaks the Silence on Abuse of Women in Maternity Care – Improving Birth
• Break the Silence – Improving Birth
• Woman Charges OB With Assault & Battery for Forced Episiotomy – Improving Birth
• Episiotomy, Once ‘A Little Snip’ Childbirth Routine, Curbed by New Guidelines – Catherine Pearson
• Labor & Delivery: Complications of Episiotomies – Healthline
• Mother Sues Hospital Claiming Forced C-Section – CBSNews
• The Mom Forced to Have a C-Section – Huffington Post
• Cesarean Section-Risks and Complications – WebMD
• Patient Wakes Up As Doctors Get Ready to Remove Organs – ABC News
• What You Lose When You Sign That Donor Card – Wall Street Journal
• Ghost Boy – Martin Pistorius
• The Dark Side of Being an Organ Donor – Gizmodo
• Organ Donation Refusal May Save Your Life – Pro-Life Healthcare Alliance
• 10-Year-Old Girl Receives Breast Implants From Mexican Doctor – Empire News
• Ontario newborn bleeds to death after family doctor persuades parents to get him circumcised – National Post
• Mother’s fury after doctor circumcises three-month-old baby boy at request of Muslim father WITHOUT her consent – Daily Mail
• Circumcised by mistake: Hospital performs surgery without parent’s permission – BabyCenter
• Muncie Family Sues After Doctor Gives Baby Unwanted Circumcision – Keller & Keller
• Miami Hospital Circumcises Baby by Mistake – ABC News
• Complications of Circumcision – Aaron Krill, Lane Palmer, and Jeffrey Palmer
• Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experience – Eugene Declercq, Carol Sakala, Maureen Corry, and Sandra Applebaum

Along with the belief that vaccines are “safe and effective” come other beliefs. There is a belief that vaccines do not cause autism, that vaccine reactions are rare, and so on. This is what the public is told about vaccines through the mainstream media. Despite these beliefs having no basis in scientific reality, they are continually reinforced by propaganda-laden journalism.

Only six corporations control the mainstream media. Though their popularity is waning, the “mainstream media” still dominates news coverage. Many people still rely on news outlets like CNN, Fox News, USA Today, NY Times, etc. Expecting journalistic integrity, instead we are told what their advertisers want us to hear. Seventy percent of mainstream media’s advertising revenue comes from the pharmaceutical industry. That is why there are so many people under the fervent belief that vaccines have no connection with autism. These slogans are fundamentally no different than Got Milk?, McDonald’s I’m Loving It, or Coca Cola’s Can’t Beat The Real Thing. The nefarious thing is that consumers of mass media have no idea that their news reports are filled with slogans that Big Pharma wants them to hear.

Trusting in “Big Brother”

There is a prevailing belief that adverse reactions to vaccines are rare, because if they weren’t “they” wouldn’t let “them” sell dangerous vaccines. (It is true that vaccines are unprofitable in a free market. Vaccines cripple, injure and kill far too many people to be subject to the same standards of safety as everything else bought and sold in the U.S. This is why vaccine manufacturers are immune to all liability). The rational goes on. Even if vaccine manufacturers could make money selling dirty vaccines, the government would never allow it (or so goes the belief). These beliefs are not based on a critical analysis of vaccines; these beliefs are based on sound bites (even among doctors). This is why the primary message from the anti-vaccine movement has been, “Do your research.”

You Want Me To Do What?

Research is analogous to homework, and it hasn’t been very popular with Westerners. “Research” is typically limited to watching the news, or reading the newspaper. Internet research is distrusted, simply because most people do not how to check the veracity of their sources. Opinions are often formed on limited information and motivated by fear. Fear is a powerful motivator; politicians play on the public’s fears to get elected and to elicit cooperation in undermining civil liberties. Pharmaceutical companies use fear tactics to influence public opinion. Medical freedoms are more easily taken away when people are frightened. Such tactics are highly effective. The public is told if vaccination rates fall, we will see a return of global epidemics, such as the Spanish Flu or small pox. Under the shadow of this misinformation, pro-vaxxers are forming the best opinions they can, given the information available to them.

We Are Not Going Away

Inevitably, pro-vaxxers encounter objections to vaccination. These counter arguments range from unrefined views that vaccines are bad to highly sophisticated scientific objections. The vaccine debate is framed by the mainstream media as an argument between those in the know (scientists and doctors) and those who are anti-science, stupid, or even superstitious. In truth, there are numerous doctors and scientists opposed to vaccines. There is a debate among independent scientists and industry funded scientists, not among scientifically literate and the scientifically illiterate, as the mainstream media would have us believe.

Disagreements Happen, but Are They Necessarily Productive?

No one enjoys being wrong, but many of us do enjoy proving someone else wrong. Given this basic proclivity of human nature, pro-vaccine advocates and anti-vaccine activists are bound to get into arguments. These arguments tend to have predictable beginnings and endings. Dale Carnegie may have said it best when he wrote:

Nine times out of ten, an argument ends with each of the contestants more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right.

You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph.”

A vaccine argument usually begins with the same declarations “show me the peer reviewed academic articles” or demands of “show me the data”, even in instances when data wouldn’t really apply (such as case studies, which provide anecdotal evidence). When pro-vaxxers’ demands for scientific evidence are met, predictable objections arise.

No One Needs a “Degree from Google University”; You Just Need To Be Able To Work a Keyboard

The information is out there, and it is not hard to find. When offered peer-reviewed scientific articles, the pro-vaxxers dig in their heels. They were, after all, under the impression that such studies didn’t exist, and they do not wish to profess their ignorance. The average Westerner has not read peer-reviewed academic anything since college, but when debating the merits of vaccines most vaccine advocates are self-appointed armchair experts. It is uncomfortable to admit that your ignorance far exceeds your knowledge, so for this reason, a know-it-all approach is often adopted. If they are incapable or unwilling to attack the research based on its inadequacies (no research is perfect) they will attack the source, questioning its credibility even though they never even glanced at the information. The other option is to attack the person providing the evidence, because a meaningful exchange of ideas is beyond the maturity of most people, regardless of their views.

When pro-vaxxers are shown evidence of government corruption they simply dismiss the evidence as conspiracy theories. As if by the suggestion that something conspiratorial is taking place; that alone invalidates the argument.

Conspiracies are Actually Quite Commonplace

Webster’s defines a conspiracy as a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal, or the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal. This may sound like a far-fetched concern to some, but it happens all the time; especially in regards to vaccines.

• Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski filed lawsuits in 2010 alleging that Merck falsified data by adding animal antibodies to blood samples. In order to protect their government approved monopoly, Merck had to demonstrate that their vaccine produced antibodies with a 95% rate of success, so they defrauded the U.S. government because that is easier than making a vaccine that reliably produces an antibody response.

• William Thompson was a senior epidemiologist at the CDC, and he co-authored research on the MMR vaccine for the CDC in 2004. Years later he revealed data that showed that the MMR vaccine strongly correlates with autism in African American males and that the CDC concealed this information. For months the story was ignored by the mainstream media, and then only briefly reported on.

• Judy Milkovitz made the discovery that destroyed her career. She found that at least 30% of our vaccines are contaminated with gamma retroviruses. This contamination is associated with autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and Alzheimer’s. She was under the naïve impression that her due diligence (all of her work being properly reviewed, meticulously documented, etc.) would protect her from persecution, but she was mistaken.

An objective analysis reveals that conspiracies happen all the time, and that there must be something nefarious going on when it comes to vaccines. But objectivity is the exception and not the rule, the pro-vaccination advocate has never been objective about vaccines if they were, they couldn’t possibly condone their use.

A Mind Already Made Up

A confirmation bias was in place long ago, rooted in a need to trust one’s doctor. Desperately wanting to outsource responsibility for their health, patients base their medical decisions on their doctors’ recommendations, and informed consent is at the convenience of the physician. If their doctor recommends it, it’s good enough for them. (Does the doctor really want to lose a sale by explaining risk in an honest and straightforward manner?)

The pro-vaccine advocate doesn’t want to do the research. They want to be able to rely on their physician. Life and death is frightening, even terrifying. Something must be done to reduce the risk of death, so we must immunize against the threat of disease. After all, germs are everywhere. Inside the pro-vaccination mind is the devout belief that vaccination reduces the complications associated with living. It’s what most doctors recommend, so it must be the right thing to do. Ultimately, pro-vaccination logic falls prey to a logical fallacy: the appeal to authority.

When asked why they support vaccination, the vaccine advocate responds with incredulity. There is no in between to them. Vaccines are above reproach. You are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and if you’re anti-vaccine you’re against science. Vaccines are a sacrament to the pro-vaccine mind, science is the religion, and doctors are the priests. Vaccines are what saved us from the dark ages of disease, or so they believe.

Seeing What They Want To See

When shown the data, graphs that show historical rates of mortality and morbidity, pro-vaccine advocates see what they want to see. Anyone who doesn’t harbor deep-seated prejudices can see that it was improvements in sanitation and nutrition, not immunization, that eradicated disease, unless of course one is looking at a skewed graph created for vaccine propaganda.

Check out more graphs at Dissolving Illusions – Disease, Vaccines, and Forgotten History.

Conclusion

Our medical system abandoned its own scientific and medical ethics decades ago. In order for science to flourish, a free exchange of ideas must take place; there is nothing in the scientific method that condones the persecution of scientists that hold differing scientific views. Most of our greatest scientific discoveries were once ridiculed, taking years to be accepted as mainstream scientific theory. Continental Drift which was later developed into Plate Tectonic Theory, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Galileo’s discovery of a round earth and Ignaz Semmelweis’ declaration that hygiene can save lives were met with abject persecution. In our current era of scientific illiteracy, many of these theories are still poorly understood. For instance, there are still thousands of people who ardently believe the world is flat.

Inside the pro-vaccination mind, there is a desire for simplicity and safety. It is easier to believe that vaccines are safe and effective (the Supreme Court has ruled them unavoidably unsafe) than it is to do the research. Despite feigning scientific literacy, the pro-vaxxer is unfamiliar with the counter arguments to vaccination, they simply want to shut down any discourse on vaccine safety. If anyone criticizes anything about vaccines they are deemed “anti-science”. In reality, it is the pro-vaxxer who suffers from delusional views. This is called anosognosia or lack of awareness of a deficit.

Isn’t it time to wake up? Multi-national pharmaceutical corporations don’t care about your health; they care about the bottom line. The government is not looking out for our best interests. Government workers are looking out for their own interests-as long as bribery of elected officials remains legal (aka lobbying) we will always have a corrupt system of government in place, regardless of which political party is in control. We need to be savvy consumers of news media and check their sources. We should know all about what we put into our bodies and have the freedom to decide. We are being herded into a future without freedom, not herd immunity. Check out How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children and Doctor’s Against Vaccines.

Recommended Reading:

• Scientists Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• A Burden of Guilt – Learning About Vaccine Dangers the Hard Way
• Why Antivaxxers Don’t Vaccinate
• Cultural Cognition and Alternative Medicine

Sources:

• Dissolving Illusions
• The Tiniest Ones: Doctors Ignore Data on Premies – Kelly Brogan, M.D.
• Limbic System: The Center of Emotions – Julio Rocha de Amaral, M.D. and Jorge Martins de Oliveira, M.D.
• Vaccine Whistleblowers File to Compel Merck to Respond to Federal Lawsuit – Health Impact News
• Merck accused of stonewalling in mumps vaccine antitrust lawsuit – Reuters
• How to Win Friends and Influence People – Dale Carnegie