TY: Welcome to The Truth About Vaccines. I'm your host, Ty Bollinger. You may recognize
me from documentaries that I've produced in the past on the subject of 'The Truth About
Cancer. A natural progression was to investigate the truth about vaccines and bring awareness
to that topic as well, and that's exactly what we've done. I truly believe that the
next seven days are going to change your life, and I look forward to going on this journey
with you. So, let's go ahead and get started.
It's a commonly held belief that people, including doctors, are either pro-vaccine,
in other words, they believe that all vaccines are safe and effective for all people all
the time, or anti-vaccine, in other words, they are 100 percent against all vaccines
all the time. But is this accurate? Are these the only two legitimate positions about vaccines?
DR. MARGULIS: It's absolutely ridiculous to even talk in terms of pro or anti-vaccine.
The reason why is that it would be like talking in terms of pro- or anti-antibiotics. So,
you can know that it's absolutely wonderful to have access to antibiotics when you need
them, when they're being used appropriately, when there's a bacterial infection that an
antibiotic can really help beat. That doesn't mean that you would prescribe an antibiotic
for a viral infection.
But somebody, a doctor or a parent who didn't want an antibiotic for a viral infection,
you would never call that person anti-antibiotic right? So, when people are questioning vaccine
safety or vaccine efficacy or vaccine necessity that does not make them anti-vaccine, that
makes them pro-science and pro-common sense and pro-public health.
The truth is we all care about the same thing. We care about having healthy children and
a healthy population. Nobody is anti- or pro-vaccine. We are all pro-kid and pro-health. And questioning
certain aspects of our current CDC vaccine schedule is actually really important if we
want to make sure that our kids are safe and healthy.
TY: I agree with Dr. Margulis. We all care about the same thing. We all want to make
sure that our kids are safe and healthy. That's it. I think we can all agree on that, right?
This docu-series will be focused on the scientific integrity of vaccine studies, the safety and
efficacy of about a dozen particular vaccines that are in the CDC's current schedule, and
the vitally important topic of vaccine freedom of choice.
I don't want my opinions to get in the way of scientific facts, nor do I want to influence
anyone to do anything against their own conscience. My goal is to present the truth so that you,
the viewing audience, can make an educated decision for you and your own family.
What is the theory behind vaccines? I asked Dr. Paul Thomas, a board-certified pediatrician
from Portland, region, this very question.
What is the theory behind vaccines? Why do they work or what's the theory behind why
they work?
DR. THOMAS: Well, before I get into that, I just want to mention, what we've lost in
this whole vaccine discussion is that what really keeps us healthy is a strong immune
system. Having said that, is it possible to use your immune system and promote some aspect
of it so you develop immunity against something that might be causing harm?
And I think the theory of vaccination goes way back to small pox, cow pox, Jenner, and
all those pioneers. And they were able, at that time, to take a little bit of something
that was causing disease or that was similar to it, and get it under the skin and get your
body to mount an immune response, so that in the future, when you got exposed to small
pox, let's say, your body was ready to go. So, in a simplistic term, I think that's what
we're trying to do with vaccines.
We're trying to prime the immune system with the organism that's been killed, or pieces
of the organism that's enough for the body to recognize it, and you develop antibodies,
so that next time you're exposed your immune system reacts quickly and you don't actually
get sick, so you'll have a huge immune response.
To some extent, we've been successful, but where we've lostÑwe may have won a battle
but we've lost the war, in my opinion, is the collateral damage.
TY: We will be looking at the collateral damage, to use Dr. Thomas's exact words, over the
next week. Vaccinations are credited with the reduction and even elimination of several
diseases, including whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, Hepatitis
B, smallpox, meningitis, and influenza.
If a person develops a positive antibody response following a vaccination, then that vaccination
is considered to be successful and that person is believed to be immune to the disease. We
will address this topic, antibodies, in the next episode. Let's listen to Dr. Rachel Ross,
formerly one of the physicians on the TV show 'The Doctors,' share her perspective on vaccinating
her newborn daughter.
DR. R'SS: At that time, I looked at the data and I decided that it just wasn't going to
be the right decision for my daughter and that I was going to be one of those people
that delayed vaccinations. Delaying vaccinations means that at some point I'm going to revisit
this idea and decide whether or not this is something I'm going to do.
But at this point just reading through the data and talking to families whose loved ones
have been injured by vaccines, I'm just not sure. I just need more answers. So, when she
was born, I filled out all the paperwork ahead of time. I let all the nurses know that she's
not getting any vaccines while we're in the hospital.
I almost had like security camped out. Like 'Don't take my baby and we're not getting
any vaccines here.' Because as a family practitioner, as an African American mom, I need more answers.
I need more than just spoon-feeding me that these vaccines are okay when the data is suggesting
otherwise.
DR. THOMAS: I'm a member of the Academy of Pediatrics. We're supposed to be, the Academy
of Pediatrics, the organization that guards the health of children, and when it comes
to vaccines, which is what we're going to be talking about, I feel like the Academy
has not been as thorough as perhaps I would like them to be in investigating what's going
on.
TY: That really sums up the reason that we produced this docu-series. We need more investigation.
We need more discussion. We need more honest debate. But the two diametrically opposing
positions of those who are pro-vaccine and those who are anti-vaccine have resulted in
a climate where civil discussion rarely takes place, where there's much name-calling and
pejoratives. This has created a climate that is not conducive to true debate or discussion.
DR. PALEVSKY: In today's climate, you have the 'Get your kid vaccinated now.' Then you
have a growing climate of 'Don't vaccinate your kid.' Now neither standpoint allows for
owning a decision and understanding why you make that decision.
DR. BARK: The moment you question the safety of vaccines you are a 'quack,' the moment
you bring up any issue with safety. You could be pro-vaccine but if you bring up one safety
issue you're automatically a quack. We have Nobel Laureates who've brought this out. These
are Nobel Laureates and suddenly they're being called quacks and idiots and crazies because
they're questioning the safety of vaccines.
SAYER JI: I think it's one of the most disturbing facts of our time that you can't even speak
to the basic facts like vaccine inserts that state that all of these potential harms are
possible and have been observed previously. You can't even speak to them without being
called an 'anti-vaxxer,' whatever that's supposed to mean.
TY: If we look back in history, we'll see people like the Italian astronomer and physicist,
Galileo. He was convicted in 1633 for publishing his evidence that supported the Copernican
theory that the earth actually revolves around the sun. Galileo was called a heretic for
his anti-scientific, heliocentric, in other words, sun-centric views and was sentenced
to house arrest, where he remained for the rest of his life.
Now we later learned that Galileo's scientific theories were correct and that the orthodox
scientific community of his day was wrong. 'ver the next seven days, we are going to
present expert testimony, scientific studies, and medical data in as concise and understandable
manner as possible so that you can make wise decisions based upon informed choice. A big
part of making wise medical decisions is the concept of informed consent.
DR. MARGULIS: The idea behind informed consent is that whenever you do a medical procedure
you have to talk to the patient about the benefits of the procedure, the possible complications
with the procedure and the other options that you may have.
So, with vaccinations, you have to talk about what are the positives of vaccinating your
child, what are the potential negatives of vaccinating your child, and what are the alternatives?
And one of the alternatives always has to be not vaccinating or spacing out the vaccines.
The problem is that doctors are incredibly busy, they have less than 15 minutes in the
office with a family. They hand them a piece of paper that comes from the CDC. That's not
informed consent. That's not really saying to them, ''kay, look at this is really the
pluses and minuses.'
And the problem is that most doctors in America haven't actually taken the time to do the
fundamental research that they need to do to figure out what the true risks and benefits
are of any given vaccine. So, in this country we don't really have informed consent when
it comes to vaccines.
DR. THOMAS: There's a term I remember vividly being taught in medical school and that's
iatrogenic. So, iatrogenic is caused by what we do. If you take a medicine that I prescribed
and it makes you ill, or causes you harm, that's iatrogenic. And I think we've lost
our way in looking at vaccines and looking at what are the iatrogenic effects? What harm
is being done by our vaccine program? So, you know, I wrote this book, The Vaccine Friendly
Plan, andÑ
TY: Just so people know, you're not anti-vaccine?
DR. THOMAS: Absolutely not. The dilemma I was in in 2008 after I had those four cases
of children who regressed into severe autism, and I'd already learned about toxicity, I'd
read studies on thimerosal and aluminum toxicity. There's books on this topic. I could no longer
ethically keep doing vaccines 'business as usual' with the CDC schedule.
And the things that concerned me the most were that Hepatitis B dose for newborns. Back
then they weren't pushing vaccines on pregnant women, that's happened since. And the sheer
number of vaccines that were being given, for example, at the two month visit we were
giving six different vaccines, three of which had too much aluminum. So, you're multiplying
huge toxins, adding on top, adding on top, and it was just clearly not a scientifically
justifiable approach when you understand toxicity.
NEIL MILLER: If you're going to give parents informed consent before they take these vaccines,
don't just tell them that the vaccine was responsible for lowering the incidence of
cases of measles.
Tell them that there are studies that if you take thisÑshowing that if you take this measles
vaccine you're statistically significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving
that vaccine. 'kay? You're more likely to have epileptic seizures. You're more likely
to have allergies as a result of that vaccine. 'kay? That's well documented.
You're more likely to develop cancers and heart disease in later life if you've taken
that vaccine, because it has suppressed you from being able to develop those protective
effects that you gain when you are exposed to that disease naturally as a child.
So, if you want informed consent, you have to have all of that information, access to
all of that information, so that then you can make an informed decision. And then you
have to be free to accept or reject vaccines.
TY: According to the CDC, there is no federal requirement for informed consent relating
to immunization. For state and local regulations, check with your state or local health department.
So, this is a 10th Amendment issue, since the 10th Amendment states that all powers
not specifically given to the federal government are the responsibility of the states.
BARBARA L'E FISHER: Whatever was not defined in the Constitution as a matter for the federal
government defaults to the states. Public health laws are state laws. Vaccine laws are
state laws. Now, the federal government has to protect the borders, so they can make laws
about people coming into the country who have infectious diseases or who are not vaccinated.
But, in our country, it's the states. That's why you have different vaccine laws in different
states. Different states have different exemptions. Right now, 50 states have medical vaccine
exemptions. 47 states have a religious belief vaccine exemptions. And 16 states have medical,
religious belief, and a third exemption that's worded as either a conscientious belief, philosophical
belief, or personal belief exemption.
TY: Vaccine laws are statutory. In other words, they are created by a particular state, not
the federal government. In my investigations, one topic that initially interested me the
most was the amount of vaccine education that a typical medical doctor, especially a pediatrician,
receives when he or she is in medical school. Here's what the experts had to say.
DR. PALEVSKY: Vaccines were not very much discussed in medical school other than, this
is what vaccines do, they save lives, they protect people from disease, and this the
schedule you need to use in your pediatric clinics to give to kids.
I started medical school 1983, and it wasn't until 1998 that a mother came over to me and
said, 'Dr. Larry, did you know that there's mercury in vaccines?' I said, 'No.' Instead
of just pushing it aside and saying, ''h, it's just such a small amount, it doesn't
matter,' I actually started looking to see what else is in vaccines. I realized that
there's a great amount of material in vaccines that impairs many cell structures and cell
functions.
DR. HUMPHRIES: I really didn't think about vaccines very much throughout my career because,
I don't know if you know this, but medical doctors really aren't taught anything about
what's in vaccines or the contents or the problems that can happen after vaccination.
We're basically given a sheet of paper during a pediatric rotation and told this is the
schedule and to keep up with it. So, the thinking there is, oh, I just got to make sure that
everybody's got the ones that they need and which ones they need, not really critically
thinking about it at all.
I used to think it was just me because I was an adult internist, but when you look at people
like Dr. Larry Pavelvsky and Dr. Toni Bark, who actually specialized in pediatrics and
you hear the same thing from them then you realize that medical schools are not providing
this information and there's no incentive to goÑand look there's not a lot of time
during residency, so unless something's really a problem you're not going to go trying to
disprove a well-proven theory or practice. Nobody does it.
DR. THOMAS: I've got a daughter in medical school and a really good friend in medical
school, and I've asked them, because they're already being taught vaccines are safe and
effective, and they're the best thing you can do to further the health of the population.
They're already being taught this, and I was never taught when I was in medical school
30 years ago, what was in a vaccine. We were only taught that they're wonderful and do
them. Most doctors trained today have no idea what's in the vaccines.
DR. TENPENNY: When I went to medical school, I graduated in 1985. At that period of time
when I went on to practice there were only three vaccines that were used in children.
There was DPT, MMR, and Polio. It wasn't until 1991 when there was the big ramp up of the
vaccines schedule starting with the hepatitis B vaccine at birth.
And then they added the HIB and then chickenpox and Prevnar. Now we have 46 doses of 16 vaccines
that are given to children by the time they're five years of age.
So, I would say that when I was in the medical school there wasn't much to talk about. There
was only the three vaccines. But then we had this big ramp up.
So, anybody who's graduated from medical school and gone through a residency program from
1991 forward, which has been 25 years, the only thing that they're told is here's the
schedule and here's how you give it. And you really need to deal with those parents who
are doing this whole thing called 'vaccine hesitancy' now.
TY: Dr. Tenpenny just mentioned a term that you may have heard before, vaccine hesitancy.
We'll get to that in a moment. But first, I want to address the apparent lack of vaccine
education that most doctors receive while in medical school.
Perhaps things have changed since Dr. Pavelvsky and Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Humphries attended
medical school. I wanted to get an idea of the current courses that a medical school
student would take while they're at a school like, say Harvard. The first year includes
the following 13 total courses:
* Introduction to The Profession * The Molecular and Cellular Basis of Medicine
* The Human Body * Human Genetics
* Patient-Doctor 1 * Introduction to Social Medicine and Global
Health * Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health
* Introduction to Healthcare Policy * Scholarship in Medicine
* Physician and Community * Integrated Human Physiology
* Immunology, Microbiology, and Pathology * Medical Ethics and Professionalism
It appears that whatever is taught about vaccines and vaccination in Harvard's five-year curriculum
is done with one course: Immunology, Microbiology, and Pathology. If you search through the curriculum
of dozens of other medical schools in the United States, you will find that there's
not much variation from Harvard.
Apparently, vaccines and vaccination are simply not featured prominently. Now let's go back
to what Dr. Tenpenny said earlier. She mentioned a term, 'vaccine hesitancy.' What exactly
is this? According to the World Health 'rganization, 'Vaccine hesitancy refers to the delay in
acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services.' Let's
listen to Dr. Tenpenny once more to get the full context of her statement.
DR. TENPENNY: The only thing that they're told is 'Here's the schedule and here's how
you give it. And you really need to deal with those parents who are doing this whole thing
called vaccine hesitancy now.' Which is being published in all of the medical literature
saying that 'All of these crazy people, why wouldn't they want vaccines?'
They're actually even combing information off of Facebook of the arguments that people
get into and try to come up with arguments to convince more and more people why they
should be vaccinated.
DR. THOMAS: In an attempt to have a safer vaccine approach, I did something in 2008
when I started integrative pediatrics that is pretty much unheard of for a pediatrician
to do, and that is to one by one give parents the real facts about the vaccine, the benefits
of the vaccine, the risks, and the alternatives. So, informed consent.
And I truly believe this is what doctors should do. We need to get back to doing that if we're
doing something to a healthy person. You got a healthy child in front of you, and you're
saying, 'Well we're going to do this thing to you, this vaccine, and it's a good idea.'
And all they're being told is it's safe and effective to do it. And ''h, by the way, if
you don't do it, you're going to leave my practice.' That's what's happening today.
That should be illegal. I mean if you have a doctor that's telling you to leave your
practice if you don't do what I say, that's called paternalism.
And we were taught in medical school that is the worst way to practice medicine. Yet,
the Academy of Pediatrics is now saying that's okay. Today, pediatricians are being trained
on how toÑI would just use the word coerce their patients into doing all the vaccines.
TY: Why do pediatricians need to convince and coerce patients to vaccinate? Shouldn't
parents be presented with the facts and then be able to make up their own mind? Did you
know that the American Association of Pediatricians actually has an entire page dedicated to teaching
physicians how to persuade vaccine-hesitant parents?
Some parents just want to spread out vaccines. But in the video entitled, Are There Too Many
Vaccines, in order to convince the mother, who's really an actor, that there's no need
to spread out the vaccines and that there's no benefit, the doctor, who is also an actor,
refers to a study of over 1,000 children where 'Researchers found no evidence that getting
all the vaccines on time during infancy is associated with any developmental delays.'
This study to which she was referring was published in the journal Pediatrics in June
2010. Sure enough, here's a conclusion, and I quote, 'Timely vaccination during infancy
has no adverse effect on neuropsychological outcomes 7-10 years later. These data may
reassure parents who are concerned that children receive too many vaccines too soon.' That's
the actual conclusion.
Now the children studied were born between 1993 and 1997. So, let's take a look at the
actual vaccine schedule back then. In 1995, prior to 18 months, a typical baby would receive
3 doses of Hepatitis B, DPT, HIB, and polio vaccines, as well as the MMR, a total of 13
doses.
However, according to the CDC schedule in 2016, by the age of 18 months a typical child
would receive 3 doses of Hepatitis B, 3 doses of rotavirus, 4 doses of DTaP, 4 doses of
HIB, 4 doses of pneumococcal, 3 doses of polio vaccine, influenza, the MMR, varicella, and
2 doses of Hepatitis A, for a total of 26 doses.
That's exactly double the doses that were studied in the original study. How can the
AAP take a study that concluded that 13 doses had no effect on neuropsychological development
and then apply that same study to 26 doses, and then come to the same conclusion without
further studies? Let me ask you a question. Is it possible that some vaccines work and
some don't? Is it possible that some vaccines cause severe side effects and some don't?
DR. MARGULIS: We have to look at vaccines on a vaccine by vaccine basis. So, saying
that you have concerns about the Hepatitis B vaccine, about the infant series of the
Hepatitis B vaccine, which is not based on science doesn't mean that you want to throw
the baby out with the bathwater and you want to do no vaccines ever for any children. That's
not what this is about.
But what ends up happening is that a parent who says, like I did, a parent who says 'I
want more information. I don't think I need the hepatitis B vaccine. I'm hepatitis B negative.
My husband is too. We've been in a monogamous relationship for three years. There's no chance
that my child will get exposed to this disease,' is then told, 'Well you're an anti-vaccine
fanatic, how dare you question our science?'
And then is vilified and ridiculed and then that parent ends up turning away from all
vaccines because they've been sort of ostracized by mainstream medicine.
DR. HUMPHRIES: Another problem that I see when people talk about vaccines is that it's
very convenient to paint all vaccines with the same brush and we can't do that because
the fact of the matter is there are different kinds of vaccines. Some of them have live
viruses, some of them have killed viruses. Some of them have killed bacteria, some have
pieces of bacteria, pieces of virus, and so we have to distinguish are we talking about
a live virus, like the influenza vaccine?
We talked about pertussis, whooping cough, but we didn't talk about the vaccine but that's
another killed vaccine, a subunit vaccine and it has particles of either some of the
toxins or some of the pieces of the external bacteria.
So, those vaccines don't stimulate immunity on their own, you have to add aluminum to
them. Whereas influenza vaccine, you don't have to add aluminum to the influenza vaccine
but most of the other killed vaccines you do need to add aluminum.
When you do that, what happens is you're stimulating that more of an antibody response than a cell
mediated response. And so, those are the people that are going to be more prone to allergies
later and who won't haveÑthat's why you need, with your newborn baby at two months, four
months, six months, and one year and then again when you're four years old.
And now we're told that every time a woman is pregnant she needs to get a pertussis vaccine.
Well that's why, because immunity is really short-lived after those particular vaccines.
TY: Dr. Humphries just articulated other issues that arise when vaccines are painted with
a broad brush. Some vaccines need additives, or adjuvants, to create the immune response,
and there are different types of immune responses. In other words, antibody versus cell-mediated.
The polio and the injected flu vaccines, and the DTaP, are composed of inactivated, killed
virus, while the MMR, measles, mumps and rubella, is composed of a live virus. It's important
to remember that there are various types of vaccines, and all of them are different with
different ingredients, different risks, different side effects, different benefits.
But let's get back to our focus on the current CDC vaccine schedule, which is one of the
things that most every doctor is taught while in medical school. When I was a baby in 1968,
I think I got about three or four vaccines in total, and I was considered to be 'fully
vaccinated.' But in order to be considered 'fully vaccinated' today, it's much different.
BARBARA L'E FISHER: What we have now is 69 doses of 16 vaccines that the federal government
is saying all the children should use from day of birth to age 18. Back when my children
were receiving vaccines in the late 70s and 80s, it was 23 doses of 7 vaccines. So, we've
had a tripling of the numbers of doses of vaccines that children are now getting.
And in that time period, as this dramatic escalation of the child vaccination schedule
has occurred, what have we seen? Have we seen children be healthier? Just the opposite.
We have an epidemic of chronic disease and disability.
'ne child in six in America, now learning disabled. 'ne in nine with asthma. 'ne in
50 with autism. 'ne in 400 developing diabetes. Millions more with inflammatory bowel disorders.
Rheumatoid arthritis. Epilepsy. Epilepsy is on the rise.
We have childrenÑ30 percent now of young adults have been diagnosed as having a mental
illness, anxiety disorder, bipolar, schizophrenia. This is the worst public health report card
in the history of this country. And it has coincided perfectly with the tripling of the
numbers of vaccines.
SAYER JI: Pediatricians are actually like foot soldiers to the CDC, which is like a
military organization. They literally wear uniforms. It's a top down command situation.
If a pediatrician does not abide by the standards of vaccination and promulgate them, then they
themselves become legally liable for being sued.
Even if they're open and they're like, ''h well she doesn't want to vaccinate according
to the schedule,' and then someone actually gets injured or gets an infection, then they
themselves could be legally liable. Whereas they are completely expunged of all liability
if they follow without any thought the vaccine schedule.
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: When I was a kid I got smallpox vaccine and I got polio vaccine
and that was it. My kids received 69 doses of 16 vaccines.
DR. LEVATIN: A typical two-month-old baby will be getting as many as nine vaccines at
once. It may not be nine injections, but it's nine vaccines.
TY: At once?
DR. LEVATIN: At once. They can be getting a Hepatitis B, Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus,
Polio, Haemophilus influenza B, Pneumococcal, Rotavirus, and I might be missing one.
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: I'm pro-vaccine. I had all six of my kids vaccinated. I think
that vaccines have saved millions of lives, and I just accepted that they were safe. That's
what the science said. I started looking at the science, and I started calling people
within the agencies.
I called Paul 'ffit, who was a big defender of vaccines, and I called Kathleen Shraten
(?) at CDC and other people within the agencies, and I started questioning them. And their
answersÑthey gave me the answers that they gave to the public, but I was informed about
the science.
And when I started drilling down with them on the science, it was clear that not only
that the science they were citing me was bogus, but that they knew that it was weak, and they
were unwilling to defend it in front of informed criticism.
And that shocked me because these were notÑI was used to environmental agencies becoming
captured, but a public health agency that is charged with protecting the health of our
children, to lie about science and to manipulate science, which is what they were doing, just
seemed criminal.
DR. MARGULIS: There was a study published in Pediatrics that showed that parents who
decided to delay or forego some vaccines were parents who made over $70,000 a year and had
the most education.
So why is it that the best educated parents who have the highest socioeconomic income
are choosing to delay some vaccines? It's not because something is wrong with those
parents, it's because something is wrong with the current CDC vaccine schedule.
I'll tell you an industry-kept secret, which is that a lot of doctors in America are choosing
not to vaccinate their children on the current CDC schedule. Almost every doctor I've interviewed
has chosen an alternative schedule for their children that is based on better health and
better science.
It's a really well-kept secret that the people working at the CDC are also alternating the
vaccine schedule for their own children. And how do I know that? I know that because I've
talked to them.
So, I had someone who's an active very, very vocal spokesperson for the current vaccine
schedule who confided in me that that person did not do the hepatitis B vaccine, because
when that person looked at all of the data that person realized that it wasn't a good
idea.
So here we have public health officials screaming from the rooftops that parents must do this
vaccine schedule exactly as it is put out by the CDC, while themselves in their own
families are choosing not to follow it.
Whenever I have a doctor who I talk to who says 'I alternate the schedule,' I say 'Would
you share that, can I use your name?' and they say 'I don't want to lose my job,' or
'I don't want people to know,' or 'I'm choosing not to do these vaccines, because I know they're
not effective or I know they're not necessary but you can't let anybody know.'
And I'm a journalist and I'm bound to journalistic ethics and I could never reveal who those
people are, but I can tell you that I have spoken to them myself and they have told me
the truth, and the truth is that they are alternating the schedule in their own families
for their own children.
TY: Why would CDC employees not follow their own vaccine schedule? Why would pediatricians
not follow their own vaccine recommendations to their own patients? In medical schools
across the globe, physicians are taught that the current CDC schedule has been proven to
be safe and effective.
BARBARA L'E FISHER: In 2013, the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences,
issued a report that said that the current federally recommended child vaccine schedule
of 49 doses of 14 vaccines, given between day of birth and age 6, has not been adequately
studied for safety.
And one of the issues was that the vaccines may have been studied separately, but they
have not been studied in the combined schedule, including giving 8-10 vaccines on one day.
So, that is something the Institute of Medicine has acknowledged.
The federal government disagrees, but I think everybody needs to understand, that child
vaccine schedule has not been adequately studied for safety. Fewer than 40 studies have actually
studied the schedule. That's not enough studies to prove that that schedule is safe or effective.
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: Plus, there haven't been any studies looking at the synergistic
effects of the ingredients. So, if you have one metal, what does it do to the body? If
you have one metal and another metal, what does that do to the body?
If you have one metal, one metal, and antibiotics, what does that do to the body? And it's already
been shown that metal detoxification in the presence of antibiotics is diminished, versus
metal detoxification without antibiotics.
You have metal, metal, antibiotic, then you have a microorganism. What is the synergistic
effect of that? So, none of those amplified studies, or the look at the amplification
of one ingredient's effect on another have ever been done.
NEIL MILLER: The studies in this book, Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, this book,
there's 400 studies in here. And these are studiesÑmost of these studies are recent
studies. These are all studies that are showing problems with vaccines.
Because I got tired of hearing medical doctors saying 'There are no studies that show that
vaccines are a problem, that vaccines are unsafe.' What are you talking about? That
is an outright lie. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of studies published in peer-review
journals, documenting safety and efficacy problems associated with vaccines.
DEL BIGTREE: The consensus around vaccines is just like tobacco science. You know? Would
we have fought for tobacco science? There was a time when every doctor was saying 'Smoking
cigarettes is good for you, or at least it's not bad for you.' That existed, and the industry
was just paying for tons and tons of science to be done that supported that issue. That's
what's happening in vaccines.
DR. THOMAS: Back in the 50s, doctors were promoting this brand. 'Smoke Camel' or whatever.
Doctors will tell you, 'It's good and it will relax you. It will help you.' The tobacco
companies back then knew, they had their own data, they knew that tobacco is a carcinogen,
that there were problems.
And once we did the huge studies, followed millions of people over years, decades. Everybody
today knows. Everybody knows tobacco is a leading killer. We need to do those same sorts
of studies for vaccines.
TY: We do need to do more studies on vaccines and more testing. While the CDC recommends
polio, Hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenza type B, and
pneumococcal vaccines for 2-, 4- and 6-month-old infants, this combination of 8 vaccines administered
during a single physician visit was never tested for safety in clinical trials.
In addition, the CDC report entitled Mixed Exposures Research Agenda that states exactly
the opposite and concluded that mixed exposures to chemicals, including pharmaceuticals and
stress factors, may produce unexpected deleterious health effects.
In the executive summary, we read this, and this is a quote, 'Exposures to mixed stressors
can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate
the response expected from individual component exposures.' Did you know that since the late
1980s, vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued?
T'NY MUHAMMAD: The vaccine makers have been protected by Congress under the Vaccine Injury
Act. The anger and the rage that whites in my audiences that've attended, blacks and
Latino mothers. They say, 'Wait a minute. We can't sue them?'
I mean even those that I have met that are pro-vaccine, when you let them know that the
vaccine makers cannot be so sued, even they say 'Wait a minute. I'm against what you're
here for, but I ain't for that. You're telling me that I can't sue the vaccine makers if
it's proven that vaccine injured my child?' I say 'No, they're indemnified. You can't
touch them.'
IAN CLARK: 'ne of the first red flags that scares me the most about vaccines is that
they remove any potential for litigation against any damage from vaccines. What that tells
you is that they don't have the science set up properly.
The original vaccinations, the toxins, or whatever they wanted to call them, to try
to put a tiny little bit of a disease into you so that that would get your immune system
to become aware of that and used to that, and then therefore fight it off and be stronger,
that principle is actually a fairly sound principle.
But, when it came to making money, and getting everyone to get vaccinated for all manner
of things, when it wasn't required, it became a money scheme.
As children, we were injected with all manner of poisons. I remember, when I was a kid,
I couldn't figure out, one day my eye drooped. I remember my eye drooping. Directly related
to a vaccination. My eye drooped permanently.
Vaccinations are irresponsible the way that they're done. If they were responsible, if
they made absolutely sure that there was no possibility of a negative side effect, and
that if they didn't do their due diligence properly then they could be litigated against.
Fair's fair. They don't do those things. There are so many red flags around vaccinations.
MICHAEL HUG': You have the vaccine manufacturers pretending that they were having production
problems and going to Congress and saying, 'We need to upgrade our plant, our physical
plant to make more of this.'
'But we're not going to spend the money because we're getting sued. And if we're going to
get suedÑif we're going to spend the money to make a product to get sued, it doesn't
make sense for us businesswise. We're dropping out of the vaccine business.'
All of the vaccine manufacturers went to Congress and told them, 'We're dropping out of the
business unless you do something to make it so that we can stay in the business.' Which
is where the vaccine compensation program and the vaccine act, the vaccine court, the
things that you've heard so many things around this area over the past few days.
That's where the whole idea came from. It came from the manufacturers who could no longer
defend themselves. And Congress saying, 'We need to protect the vaccine supply.'
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: I think the choice at that time was not an irrational choice
by congress given the alternatives that they were presented and the alternative was that
I think the calculus was based upon the idea that, at that point, there was so much litigation
against the vaccine companies that the pharmaceutical industry was considering abandoning vaccines
altogether.
And I think the vaccine companies went to Congress and said 'We're going to stop making
vaccines and that's going to be a national security problem, because if there is a bioterrorism
attack or if there is an epidemic, there's going to be no factories that are up and running
that can create new vaccines that can respond to those national emergencies. And so, if
you want us to continue to make vaccines you're going to have to give us immunity from litigation,'
and that's what happened.
DR. PALEVSKY: If you're a surgeon, you can't go into the 'R without liability insurance.
What business do you know is allowed to practice and offer its service without liability insurance?
BARBARA L'E FISHER: And what product that carries a risk of injury or death, what other
product is mandated to be used by every single person born in this country multiple times,
and there's no liability for anybody?
MIKE ADAMS: The vaccine industry has absolute legal immunity. In other words, they push
all the risks of their toxic interventions onto the individuals, the families, the moms
and dads.
They take no risk whatsoever. And you know why? Because they have legal immunity and
it means they have no reason to have quality control. They could putÑif they wanted to,
they could put Radioactive cesium-137 into a vaccine and inject people with it and cause
you cancer and they would have absolute no liability whatsoever.
They can put anything in a vaccine. And to some extent, they do. They put known neurotoxins
in the vaccines. It's criminal what they do to our fellow human beings.
BARBARA L'E FISHER: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that our organization worked
on to try to get safety provisions in that law, says that your doctor is supposed to
keep a permanent record of every vaccine and lot number given.
Your doctor is supposed to write down in a child's permanent medical record if there
is a health problem that occurs, that's serious, hospitalization and injury, and report it
to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
TY: With no responsibility and legal immunity basically, the companies that manufacture
vaccines have no reason to have quality control. They literally can put whatever they want
into vaccines. Barbara Loe Fisher's nonprofit organization, The National Vaccine Information
Center, NVIC, worked with Congress to pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
of 1986.
This law included a centralized vaccine reaction reporting system, the Vaccine Adverse Events
Reporting System, VAERS, which is jointly operated by the federal Food and Drug Administration,
the FDA, and Centers for Disease Control, the CDC. Let's have a listen to a few experts
discuss the topic of adverse reactions to vaccines.
DR. THOMAS: In the United States, we have the VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting
System, and this is the system that doctors or patients, anybody, can report a possible
vaccine reaction to. The reason it doesn't work is this, Ty. I'm a pediatrician. I should
be seeing all these vaccine reactions, right? And you ask any pediatrician. How many vaccine
reactions have you seen?
'I haven't seen any. I mean a little bit of redness where the shot's given. Some fever.
We expect that. But no, I haven't seen any reactions.' How can that be? Well, either
there are no reactions, or we don't know what to look for.
I think it's the latter. Here's the thing. Kids will have seizures after vaccines and
we'll say, ''h that's normal,' because you can have febrile seizures and that's a normal
thing. We're taught that febrile seizures are normal.
And are they? I don't know. Let's look at the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. Let's
follow them and see. Do the unvaccinated have febrile seizures as well? SIDS. I'm trained
to think that's just normal. We don't know what causes it, but it's normal. Let's look
at the unvaccinated and vaccinated and see if they both have the same amount of SIDS.
Neurological problems, autism, which you remember is the tip of the iceberg. What about all
the ADD, the ADHD, the autism spectrum, the anxiety and the depression that we're seeing?
We're not even talking about all the auto-immune stuff we're starting to see at higher levels,
diabetes type 1, and we're seeing way more allergies and eczema, hearing more and more
about people with peanut allergies that have to carry EpiPens around.
Would that still be in that unvaccinated arm? Would they have all those same levels of these
disorders, these chronic diseases that we're seeing in kids? I'd love to see this study
be done. That's what we need to do.
R'BERT KRAK'W: I think there is a government-industry collaboration to promote vaccination. We know
that government sees itself primarily as the promoters of the vaccine program. They're
supposed to also warn us about the risk.
By the way, they're supposed to, under the law, the legislation of the vaccine act, publicize
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. We know from a recent report from the government
accountability office that the people who are pushing the vaccines did not want to publicize
it because they thought that conflicted. That's not me saying that. That's Congress.
Congress commissioned the report. They said that. So, they intentionally did not publicize
the vaccine program. By the way, it's my statutory obligation, as a lawyer who does this, to
promote the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. So, we can consider this interview as promoting
the statutory purpose of the vaccine act.
Everyone in our country, especially the doctors who don't know how to recognize vaccine injury,
should know that there's a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, should be familiar with
the types of injuries that occur, and be receptive to it, and report it to the Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System so that we can monitor what's going on. That's not happening.
DR. BARK: What we see on VAERS is not 1/10th of the injury, which is what the government
says. The government says 'It's probably 1/10th.' Right? It's probably 1/1000th. I say that
because I didn't know to report to VAERS. I ran a pediatric emergency room. I trained
in pediatrics.
TY: And you didn't know you were supposed to report vaccine injuries?
DR. BARK: No. No. We had, in our year when I was a medical student, a resident and running
the ER, we certainly saw kids, and I would moonlight at other hospitals even, that came
in who had stopped breathing or had seizures after they'd been in the vaccine clinic. Nobody
reported that. Nobody went and said 'This has to be reported.'
TY: Didn't even know.
DR. BARK: No. It was kind of like we knew that happened, okay. But they didn't get reported.
So, think how many don't get reported.
DR. PALEVSKY: Doctors are not taught what a vaccine adverse reaction looks like. In
fact, when a parent calls the doctor and says, 'My child was vaccinated, I can't wake them
up, he'll only wake up to feed. He's sleeping for two days.' The parent is told 'That's
normal.'
When the parent raises the question, 'Could this have been from a vaccine?' meanwhile
the kid has never done that before. The doctor almost unanimously says, 'No. It's just a
coincidence.'
That kid suffered brain damage. Sleeping for two days as an infant, not waking up, other
than to feed. That kid was brain damaged, had brain inflammation. Not waking up for
two days, other than to feed is a neurological event. That's not normal. That's from the
injection of material into the brain.
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: 1989 is the year that this epidemic of childhood illnesses began.
Autism, ASD, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, ticks, something called misery disorder
which I'd never heard of before. Texas Tourette's syndrome, and other family of grave neurological
injuries that became epidemic that year. SIDS, narcolepsy, seizure disorders, and of course
food allergies and asthma and all of those things began at 1989.
'n all of those illnesses there is science today, there is science out there that indicates
that those illnesses are being caused by thimerosal or adjuvants like aluminum or squalene or
some other vaccine association.
DR. PALEVSKY: Something is happening to the brains of our children. Something is interfering
with the normal neuro-sequencing of brain development. Because when babies are born,
their brain is not developed. When babies are born, they have more nerve cells than
their brains need.
It's through life experience, that the tracks are laid down to create the proper sequencing
of muscular development, speech development, cognitive development, and emotional development.
Something is interfering with the proper sequence of those steps. Something is getting in the
way of the brain developing properly. No one is asking the question, 'Why?'
Why are so many kids having an interference of the proper sequencing of brain development?
Why as of January 2016, are we seeing one out of every 20 children under the age of
five with a seizure disorder?
SAYER JI: I believe that it's clear that the vaccines were the beginning of my downward
spiral of my health, which became sort of a lifelong issue as far as bronchial asthma,
as well as other health issues that emerged. So, it was a very personal journey for me
in advocacy. Because I wanted to see, is the literature supporting the view that there
are this many adverse effects that could occur?
And it turned out, after spending 10 years looking at the research, I've got all of it
on my website, there's actually over 200 adverse health effects that have been documented caused
by vaccines in the schedule today.
DR. R'SS: As I was speaking to my colleagues, what's interesting to me is that a lot of
us don't even realize that there is a government institution set up to compensate people for
vaccine injuries. So, I'm tired of hearing other practitioners say 'Vaccines never hurt
anybody.'
Because it's proven that they do hurt people. But my question is how many people have they
really hurt, and how many people will continue to get hurt by them before there's a huge
outcry for change and investigation and answers?
TY: Dr. Rachel Ross just told us that most doctors she knows don't even know about VAERS.
That's the acronym for Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. The name itself implies
that vaccines are not totally safe because of the fact that there are admitted adverse
reactions.
After the legislation was passed that exempted vaccine manufacturers from liability, there
was a small loophole in the law that allowed for manufacturers to be sued. But even that
small loophole was closed in 2011 with a Supreme Court decision.
BARBARA L'E FISHER: You could still sue a manufacturer if you could show the manufacturer
could have made a safer vaccine. In 2011, a case went to the Supreme Court. Bruesewitz
versus Wyeth. It was a DPT vaccine injury case.
And the lawyers representing the pharmaceutical industry,
government, and medical trade convinced the Supreme Court that there should be no liability
at all for the pharmaceutical industry when it comes to vaccines that are licensed by
the FDA as safe and effective.
The Supreme Court majority, with two dissents, Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg dissented.
The Supreme Court said 'Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and there shall be no more lawsuits
against any vaccine company.'
DR. BARK: Legally they're classified as 'unavoidably unsafe.' That's their legal classification.
When I say that, in court in the state cases that I have which are not injury obviously,
that's federal court, the judges always stop me and go, 'What? What did you say? Wait,
repeat that, repeat that.' I'm like, 'They're legally classified as unavoidably unsafe,
your honor.' Then they're like, 'Woah, wait a minute.'
BARBARA L'E FISHER: So, today, if you or your child are injured by vaccine or if your child
dies from a vaccine, you cannot hold anyone accountable in a civil court of law, anyone
who makes or sells the vaccine, who regulates the vaccine and who makes policy for the vaccine,
who votes to mandate for the vaccine, or who gives the vaccine. The only one who's left
with any responsibility for what happens to a child, after that child's injured by vaccine,
is the parent.
EDDA WEST: My son sustained a permanent brain damage and so there is a big inner struggle
because you see that yourÊchild struggles with basic things that most children can easily
do. That is learn language, learn how to speak, learn how to tell colors.ÊComprehend more
complex issues.Ê
Yeah, you do have guilt, but at the same time if you didn't know in advance that that was
a possibility and you blindly simply acceptedÊsomething innocently that was told to you would be the
best thing you could do for your child, you know you can't beat yourself up forever.
TY: 'ver the course of my travels, I was able to interview many parents, including several
attorneys who could personally testify that the 2011 Supreme Court decision that vaccines
are unavoidably unsafe was no joke, and that what happened to their child was proof.
Listen to Congressman Bill Posey from Florida describe how he believes that every member
of Congress should co-sponsor studies to make sure that the vaccines we give our children
are safe.
BILL P'SEY: And I think every member of Congress should be a co-sponsor. There's no Ñwhat
does everybody fear requesting a study? I mean why does anybody fear it? You go back
through this stuff, and some of my friends here who are doctors, I talk about the issue
with them, and they say 'You're nuts. There's been dozens and dozens of studies.'
Then I was like 'How many of them have you read? What you know is a big blue-eyed pharmaceutical
rep comes in here with your Super Bowl tickets and tells you about these dozens of studies
that say this, that are not true.'
LAURA HAYES: So, when I started putting it all together and realized wow, Ryan was severely
vaccine-injured, I thought I have to get the word out. I can't let this happen to other
children. I was one of many and we thought people are going to want to hear this.
First thing I did, I wrote to the pediatrician, who we no longer went to, but the pediatrician
who vaccinated him. Wrote her a five-page letter about all that had transpired, including
not being able to get through to her when our son was nearly was killed by his vaccines.
Then I called to follow up to make sure she'd received the letter. And I said, 'What makes
you so confident that these vaccines that you're giving day in and day out are safe,
that they're not harming kids?'
And she saidÑand I quoteÑshe had a one sentence answer for me. This was pretty much the end
of our phone call. She said, 'Because the pharmaceutical reps tell me they're safe.'
The very people who are profiting from these products are the ones claiming their safety.
They're also the ones who are allowed to do their own studies and tell the FDA, 'Another
safe vaccine. We want you to approve it.'
Right around age two I figured out, on my own with no help from my pediatrician, I woke
up one morning. It was a Sunday morning. I'll never forget it. A neon light in my mind.
The word autism. I truly believe that was divine intervention. That was the day I had
just had my third child three and a half weeks prior to that.
I think God wanted me to get through that pregnancy before the bombshell hit that there
was something really wrong with our two-year-old. So, he was subsequently diagnosed with autism,
which is a term I hate to use because it is what the medical authorities and government
entities and pharmaceutical companies have coined to divert the blame from themselves.
It's really encephalopathy that he has. He has brain damage. Catastrophic brain damage
from his vaccines. He also has immune system damage. He has been tested. He makes antibodies
to his myelin basic protein that covers every nerve sheath in your body.
So, you can imagine if your body is attacking that sheath on every nerve cell, your nervous
system is not going to work. He has GI issues, he has heavy metal toxicity. He has been greatly
harmed by routine childhood vaccinations. I refuse to call them immunizations.
Vaccination most certainly does not equal immunization in any sense of the word. He's
now 22. A boy in a man's body. 6'4' tall, 180 pounds. 'n a good day, he has the cognitive
abilities of a five-year-old. He must be cared for 24/7/365. While I'm here interviewing
with you, a former tutor of his is taking care of him for two days.
It's not normal to have to hire a babysitter to care for a 22-year-old man. Unfortunately,
it's becoming the norm in our country. He still works with tutors 40 hours a week. We
do a special behavioral program that helps him to learn new things and maintain that
which we've already taught. He's not able to work.
You cannot imagine a four or five-year-old holding down a job. It's not going to happen.
He's never gone on a date. He never will. He's not going to get married. He's not going
to have children. He's been robbed of leading the life that he would have lived had we not
vaccinated him. As a mother, it's painful. If I could have one do-over, one do-over in
life: no vaccines for any of my children.
TY: Are you enjoying Episode 1 thus far? Have you learned some great information? Are you
excited to see the rest of this show and the next six episodes? Do you think others would
enjoy watching it as well? Do you want to support our mission to educate the world on
the truth about vaccines?
Then help us spread the word by clicking the links below and sharing on Facebook, Twitter,
and all the other social media sites. Your support makes a huge difference in how many
people we reach, and ultimately, how many lives are saved. Thanks in advance, and please
click the links below to help us spread the word.
Now let's get back to Episode 1 of 'The Truth About Vaccines.'
R'BERT KRAK'W: I discovered later that for the decade of the 80s, I was prosecuting the
wrong drug dealers. But by the time I learned that, which was in 2002-3, shortly after that
we discovered that the drug dealers we should be prosecuting had immunity from liability.
Well, what I mean is I discovered, and this is largely a product of personal experience,
that one of the greatest threats to the health of our children is, among other things, vaccines.
And I say that without saying that all children get hurt by vaccines.
Vaccines, it's arguable, play a very important role in promoting health. What I have seen,
based on my personal experience, how vaccines can be damaging and when I had that personal
experience, and I fully recognize that the authorities do not agree with me, and we tested
that unsuccessfully, but we discovered, when I started pursuing that and trying to promote
the interests of my own child, other parents started asking me about how they would bring
a vaccine-injured case because their kid was injured.
This was primarily the timeÑthis was 2002-3-4, focused on parents of children who had been
diagnosed with autism. And I didn't even know until 2002 that there was something called
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which was sort of an experiment in tort reform that
changed the entire civil compensation system, taking it out of the courts and putting it
into a special program.
And when I discovered it, other parents couldn't find lawyers, so they started asking me would
I handle their cases. And the rest changed my entire law practice, and also essentially
my entire life. Because now I focus at least 80 percent of my time on vaccine injury cases.
And there are more than I can handle.
I'm not suggesting that everyone on the government side or in the court, certainly not in the
court, are bad actors. That they're doing this on some ill will or some desire to hide
something that they know about. The system is set up in a way that we cannot get at the
truth. That is a much more profound policy problem that's cultural, that's societal,
that's political.
NIC' LAH''D: We start from the position of what we're for, not against. We are not against
anything. We're for our kids. And if you can show us that anything is going to benefit
our children, we're all in. And we showed that by believing whatever the medical community,
and I'm not against the medical community, said to do about vaccines, and we did it.
And so, as a DA, as a prosecutor, I deal with circumstantial evidence. I look at motives,
right? And so, all we did that really started a storm in our community and really internationally,
was share our testimony and give our opinions.
Share our testimony and give our opinion. 'ur testimony is our journey with our son
about how he was developing normally. We have the pictures. Like so many other families,
hundreds of thousands of other families share our story.
We have pictures. We have video. He's reaching all his milestones. Then something happened.
Something happened. There was some intervening cause that made our son not be normal and
not develop the way he was. And so, we have to ask ourselves 'What was that?'
We didn't drop him. We didn't get in a car accident. He wasn't exposed to any chemicals
other than vaccines. And that was the only intervening cause, and it was immediate. It
wasn't like it was months developing, a year, not even a week.
It was immediate. It was almost like we were driving down the road, got in a car accident,
we walk away but our son doesn't. It was that type of an event. And so, we shared that journey,
and in my opinion and my wife's opinion, and it wasn't immediate.
It wasn't like we just automatically thought it was vaccines. We believe that the vaccines
caused the tipping point, over the edge, the straw that broke the camel's back, whichever
way you want to say it, that caused our son to be in the situation that he is now.
DAVI LAH''D: We have four children. So, we kind of went the same route with our first
two. Mya and Michael were vaccinated. And Mya even had some reactions as well, with
a skin allergy and hives, breaking out in hives. And then our two youngest ones, Lia
and Zyter have never been vaccinated. Completely the way they develop is completely different.
NIC' LAH''D: It's apples and oranges. I tell people that we became an unintentional study.
We have two children that we followed the schedule. And again, we didn't know any better.
We followed the schedule. And our first daughter, tremendous hives after like four-six month,
I don't remember which round.
They thought it was an autoimmune disease. First time parents, we're freaking out. We
had some fool actually tell Davi that she was allergic to her breast milk, which is
insane. And she loves breastfeeding our children. And poked her and prodded her, nobody gave
us an answer.
So, we just kind of went on. We just didn't know. We didn't know anything about it. We
didn't even think about vaccines. I mean when it happened immediately after also, but God
forbid, anybody blames vaccines.
And then to this day, Mya, and we're in the process of detoxing her, too. Even though
she hasn't been vaccinated since she was 3, and she's 8 now, she sleeps and scratches
in her sleep. She does jujitsu, she sweats. And she has these ringworms around her elbows
and her joints.
And so, she has skin allergies. So, we feel, and this is our opinion, it's very frustrating
for me. I'm a Type A personality. I trust the Lord, and I defer to him on everything
I do. But in my flesh, I'm a very take control type of person.
And when people try to tell me that 'your son was born this way,' or 'there's no correlation,'
or 'you're stupid to have this opinion,' or 'how can you go against science?' I'm like
'Look, my oath as a prosecutor is to ensure that justice is done.'
What does that mean? It means that we get it right. I do that for a living every day.
I look at circumstantial evidence. I look at direct evidence. I look at expert evidence.
I deal with science and theories. So, this isÑall I'm doing is wearing my lawyer hat,
either as a defense attorney or as a prosecutor, for our children and for this issue.
And so, to me, it just makes complete sense that there's a correlation. And then people
say, 'Well, there's correlation but not causation.' I hear that argument all the time. Well, in
my world, correlation means investigation. But in this world, correlation means 'Stop
your investigation.'
That makes no sense to me. And the analogy I told someone the other day, if someone said
'Mr. DA, there is murder at 123 Street. We have five suspects because there were only
five people in the house.' ''kay, well who caused the murder?'
'We don't know. We have correlation between suspect number one, but no causation between
any of them. But don't consider suspect number one anymore.' That's insane to me. They're
all suspects still. Until you can show me what the cause is, they're all suspects.
And nobody can tell us why our son is on the spectrum of autism, why he was developing
normally, why all of a sudden that after that round of vaccines, that was it. And that's
not a shot against doctors. That's not a shot against anything.
It's a plug for truth. We obviously want to find out the truth, and we're amongst hundreds
of thousands of other parents. In my common-sense approach, I look at 1 in 15,000 children who
were autistic in the 70s when I was born, early 70s, and today as you and I speak, it's
1 in 43. And with a projection, as you know, in 16 years of being 1 in 2. And people are
just going to sit around and be politically correct and not worry about it?
MICHAEL HUG': It's not about greedy lawyers. It's not about greedy trial lawyers. And it's
not about parents who are looking for a free handout. The most common line that I have
ever heard in all of the cases I represented in front of that courtÑand I tried the first
two cases in the vaccine program.
I tried the first death case and the first life case. From those cases on to the last
case that I ever did, with the exception of one case, the first words out of the parent's
mouth were, 'Thank God.' Not, 'Thank you.' Not thank you to the judge but 'Thank God'
And what they were saying was, 'Thank God I have an answer. I didn't do this to my child.'
When they come to me, the first session isÑI'm getting a little emotional myself. But the
first session is heart-wrenching because they come to me and they say, 'I need to know that
I didn't do this to my child. If I didn't vaccinate my kid, my kid would be just like
all the other kids in the playground. What did I do wrong?'
And they get the answer from the court saying, 'The vaccine caused your child's injury. You
didn't drop your kid. You didn't rock him on your leg too hard. You didn't squeeze him
too hard when you were hugging him. It had nothing to doÑyou didn't put him in the crib
the wrong way. Nothing to do with your parenting. It was an outside force that went into your
child's body.' That's the most important message that any of these mothers and fathers that
you see in this hotel right now want to hear is that they didn't do anything wrong.
TY: That's so important to remember. If you are the parent of a vaccine-damaged child,
you didn't do anything wrong. You were just trying to protect your child. We learned earlier
that vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued if a person is damaged or even killed due
to a vaccine. But I'm sure you've heard of large settlements being paid to families of
vaccine-injured children, right? Like the Hannah Poling case.
R'BERT KRAK'W: The authorities, especially in the courts, have refused to recognize the
fact that vaccines can cause a syndrome or a constellation of symptoms that equal autism,
despite the fact that there was a very celebrated case where that was in fact conceded by the
government.
TY: What was that case?
R'BERT KRAK'W: That was the Poling case, a very well-known case where initially the government
conceded that vaccines, specifically MMR and other vaccines, five vaccines in one day,
caused autism-like symptoms because of an underlying metabolic susceptibility.
The government actually conceded that case. The concession was not public. Someone released
it, and it was leaked, and it became public and became well-publicized in the winter and
spring of 2008.
TY: Hannah's father, John, is a Harvard-trained medical doctor, neurologist, and in 2008,
he claimed that Hannah's autistic symptoms were caused by a vaccine reaction after she
had received five vaccines: DTaP, HIB, MMR, varicella and polio, at the age of 18 months.
Here's what's interesting. Hannah had been part of a study of normally-developing children
prior to being diagnosed with autism, and had received an advanced brain imaging technology
being developed by Harvard University.
Her father John was able to present compelling evidence that the vaccine reaction was causative
of Hannah's autism. The vaccine court ruled in favor of Hannah Poling, stating that there
was sufficient evidence to conclude that vaccines given to Hannah Poling likely aggravated an
underlying mitochondrial disease, causing brain damage with features of autism.
The Poling family was awarded $1,507,284. But you may be asking the question, 'If you
can't sue vaccine manufacturers, where did the $1.5M come from?' The money came from
the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund, also known as the NVICP, National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program, which is basically a stash of cash collected on every vaccine sold and given
to children and adults in the USA.
That trust fund is financed by a 75-cent excise tax on each vaccine actively recommended by
the CDC. 'n multivalent vaccines, in other words, those that contain more than one active
disease, for example, trivalent vaccines, like the MMR and the DPT, then 75 cents is
paid for each valent, or a total of $2.25 for each trivalent vaccine.
The Hannah Poling case is only one case, but there are literally thousands where a family
has received a monetary award from the trust fund due to the court's ruling that the child
was damaged by the vaccine. In the next segment, Congressman Posey from Florida discusses some
congressional hearings on the safety of vaccines, as well as the trust fund.
BILL P'SEY: They had in the Senate a hearing on this, and I watched all of the high-profile
defenders of the public good get up there and throw the softball questions to the expert,
which was a top Navy medical doctor. And they basically said 'Vaccines are absolutely 100
percent safe. There is no harm in any vaccine in any person. And anybody who says otherwise
is a complete idiot.'
And so, I'm watching this on a monitor and I'm screaming 'Ask them about the trust fund.
Ask them about the trust fund.' But nobody asked about the trust fund. If these things
are 100 percent safe, why has a trust fund paid out over 3 billion dollars to injured
people?
DR. MERC'LA: There's clearly a potential for harm. No question. No one will deny that.
As a parentÑtypically it's a parent evaluating this for their child, you need to make the
responsible decision to carefully evaluate the evidence and look at the risk. Look at
the side effects and see if the benefits warrant or justify that, because you have to balance
the scale for your child.
Your child is too young. They can't do it for you. You have to do it for them. If you
do that and you carefully evaluate it and you may reach a different conclusion than
the public health authorities and your pediatrician is telling you.
MIKE ADAMS: The vaccine industry only tells part of the story. They like to highlight
children who are sickened by pandemics, measles, mumps, and so on. And they claim that vaccines
are completely safe and effective, implying zero risk.
Well, this is a distorted science, or junk science on their part. The truth is that vaccines
have risks themselves. And if you look at vaccinating very large populations, you end
up with more children having side effects from the vaccines than would have caught the
disease that the vaccines claim to prevent.
There's no such thing as a completely safe vaccine. Every medical intervention has risk,
and that risk is completely ignored, even denied, by the vaccine industry because they
don't want people to think rationally and scientifically about risk versus possible
benefits.
It's interesting, when you look at any kind of a medical intervention, whether it's drugs,
or chemotherapy, or surgery, there's a risk versus benefit ratio. And an informed person
makes a decision to go into that when the risk is low and the reward is high.
That makes sense. But when it comes to vaccines, the risk is very, very high of damage and
the reward is very, very low. And it's that equation that the vaccine industry does not
want people to think about.
DR. CENTERS: The question is, do the risks outweigh the benefits, and vice versa? And
for some children, there is a great risk and a real problem. The real issue is that we
don't know which children those are. And because we don't know, we are exposing those most
vulnerable, most at-risk children to these immunological agents.
TY: Congressman Posey mentioned 3 billion dollars being paid to vaccine-injured people.
'n the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website, I found the data report.
Through January 1, 2017, there was a total of 3.56 billion dollars in total outlays to
families of injured people. We need to evaluate the risks and the benefits of vaccines and
then come to our own conclusions.
DR. WAKEFIELD: The idea that we can't question vaccines now is derived from the success of
what people believe happened with smallpox and polio. So, whenever I get involved in
a debate about measles vaccine, or MMR, or thimerosal, people say, 'Yeah, but what about
smallpox? What about polio?'
I say, 'We're not talking about those. We're talking about something completely different.
Can we stay on topic? Can we focus on this and actually deal with the safety issue?'
We're not talking about either the benefits of vaccination, which are very questionable.
There's certainly many, many questions that need to be answered. We're talking about the
safety. They're two very, very different things. People talk about the benefits when they really
should be focusing upon the safety. Just because something may produce a beneficial effect,
that does not make it safe.
DR. THOMAS: I was in a group practice with four other pediatricians and around 2004-5,
I saw my first case in my own practice. A child that I am taking care of who is completely
normal at age one regress into severe autism over a matter of months. So, by age two, this
child was non-verbal, no eye contact. Suffering. Some of these kids suffer. They have pain,
they have severe abdominal pain and GI stuff.
Some of the stuff that Wakefield was charged to look at back in the day. And I'm thinking,
I'm reading 'there's no link.' We don't know what's causing it, so I'm thinking it's a
coincidence. It's clearly nothing to do with vaccines.
TY: Because that's what you were told?
DR. THOMAS: That's what I'm reading almost daily. We have what we call 'throwaway journals'
for pediatricians. So, there's an infectious disease journal. I mean if you look at all
the ads in it, it clearly comes fromÑit's supported by pharma. But it's very well-written,
I mean it looks good, it's glossy and it comes across your desk weekly.
And you read, pretty much almost every copy of that will have something that's elevating
vaccines and putting down any possible connection. Putting down Wakefield as a fraud. They would
just repeat that. So, you read that over and over again. I'm reminded of weapons of mass
destruction and off we went to war. I mean you hear it enough times, you start thinking
it must be so.
But anyway, next year, I get another case. My practice, a kid in my practice who was
doing great, perfectly normal at one, becomes severely autistic. I was seeing at that time
about 100 babies a year. Maybe slightly more. 100 to 150 babies a year would join my practice
at that time.
So, that's an autism rate of 1 in 100, 1 in 150, which is about what it's been reported
to be back then. I should remind you or tell you, when I was in medical school in 1985,
I saw not one case of autism. So, I'm at a regional center, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical
Center, and I didn't see a single case.
In my residency training in California, again, at major centers, I had one case that I recall
of what we called PDD-N'S, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified That's sort
of another code for autism spectrum, that's the term we used back then. 'ne case in all
those years. So, it is true that the autism rate has just skyrocketed, I mean absolutely
skyrocketed. You'll hear people say, 'Well we're just better at diagnosing it.' Right?
'h, come on.
These cases that I'm telling you about, so to get back to them, you can't miss them.
They weren't missed, they didn't exist. You cannot miss a kid who's got no eye contact
and is flapping perhaps and not talking, when they were talking before. This was something
new, this was something different.
Fast forward a couple more years, I had had four cases. So, in November of 2007, I walked
into a room and there was a little fellow, I know his name, he's still my patient. He'd
been normal at one when I'd seen him, he'd seen my nurse practitioner at 18 months and
was doing great. And he wasÑwe're behind the window, he had his back to the window
in a stroller and he was just doing this.
I went up to him and I saidÑcalled him by name, trying to get his attention. I can usually
get kids to interact. Nothing, he was gone. And he ended up being my fourth case in four
years of normal one-year-olds who were completely, severely autistic by age two.
And that was the last straw for me. I had already been doing my own research about toxins
and I knew all about the thimerosal and how hugeÑthe dose we were giving of thimerosal,
of mercury, was so far exceeding the safe limits that it was criminal. And I'd also
been starting to become aware of the amount of aluminum that we were injecting.
DR. WAKEFIELD: If you are going to institute a public health measure across the board,
for all healthy children in the country or in the world, then you've got to make absolutely
certain that it is as safe as it possibly can be. And any red flags, any red flags,
should be interpreted beyond doubt that there is a problem with that vaccine, until proven
otherwise.
TY: Any red flag with vaccines should be considered a problem, and we should apply the brakes
until it's proven safe, not vice versa. And remember, the entire purpose of this documentary
is to facilitate discussion about vaccines and to overcome the idea that we cannot even
ask questions about vaccines.
A sentence in the DHHS Register, Volume 39, number 107, from June 1, 1984, was in reference
to the final rules for polio vaccination campaigns in the United States after three decades of
controversy. And I quote: 'Any possible doubts, whether or not well-founded, about the safety
of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to ensure the vaccine
will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health
objectives.'
Why are well-founded doubts not allowed to be discussed? We are here to explore uncomfortable
topics in order to protect our children and humanity. Dr. Wakefield just mentioned smallpox
and polio, so I want to address the history of both of those vaccines.
We'll cover smallpox in this episode, and then we'll get to polio in the next episode.
Edward Jenner was born in 1749 in Berkley, Gloucestershire. He was orphaned at age five
and went to live with his older brother. During his early school years, Edward developed a
strong interest in science and nature that continued throughout his life.
DR. BELL: If we go back to the dawn of this idea, Jenner, Dr. Jenner was observing, as
a number of people had, that the milkmaids that were milking the cows that had the cowpox
didn't suffer from smallpox.
TY: And this is a couple hundred years ago?
DR. BELL: This is way back. So, some of them posited that 'I wonder if there's a reason
that they're getting or encountering this cowpox that it might have something to do
with preventing the smallpox.'
So, they started taking the pustule and the material, the debris from the cows with cowpox
and they would open up the arms of victims, I call them, and stuff that biological material,
unknown material, into these arms of these people, these kids.
And there was a high-level sepsis, blood disease, there was amputations because of it, there
was death, and there was smallpox as well. But the idea of vaccination, 'vaca' meaning
cow comes from that concept.
Now they had no idea of immunology at the time. It was an observation, and I'm not against
observing things, but then to violate the way the natural order of the universe is and
work and violate the skin and puncture it and put all these unknown materials in there,
it's a disaster, it's horrible. That's where this all started.
DR. HUMPHRIES: Smallpox was a big problem. People were dying. It would accumulate in
the throat, these pox, and people would suffocate and they couldn't swallow. It was painful,
there was scarring, it was horrible.
But like any disease you have to look at what the conditions of the environment was like,
which tells you how well people's immune systems are able to work, and that's really the key.
And then on top of that it's how the disease was treated.
So, people have been trying to fight smallpox for a long time, for thousands of years they'd
been trying to come up withÑin ancient Hindu times they were trying to take scabs of smallpox
victims and use those for vaccines. And each time what happened was that just epidemics
were started when this happened.
TY: They started epidemics?
DR. HUMPHRIES: Yes, because using smallpox as a vaccine, they didn't know how to attenuate,
which means to make the vaccine weaker, the virus weaker. And so, they were basically
just giving a controlled case of smallpox. And it didn't go well because, of course,
it spread to any contacts and there was an incubation period where people wouldn't know
they were infected. So, that plan failed several times in different parts of the world.
DR. WAKEFIELD: What was interesting, of course, about smallpox is that you are deceiving the
immune system by giving vaccinia, or cowpox, which was structurally similar to smallpox,
which seemed to, at least theoretically, produce an immune response against the smallpox virus.
And Jenner noted, as other people did, is that girls who got cowpox from milking cows
were protected against smallpox. And all that led to him then practicing on his son, experimenting
on his son and his next-door neighbor, and giving them multiple doses of this very, very
crude extract of cowpox.
And ultimately, I believe, leading to catastrophic failure in their immune systems and death
of both children, later, as young adults. So, not an experiment that you would necessarily
consider well-designed, or a good outcome.
TY: Dr. Wakefield said that Jenner actually inoculated his own son and a neighbor boy
with smallpox. The neighbor boy's name was James Phipps, and he was eight years old when
he was initially inoculated. 'ver the next 12 years, Jenner's son, and James Phipps,
were both inoculated over a dozen times.
Phipps died at age of 20, and Jenner's son died at age of 21, both from tuberculosis.
Since then, the smallpox vaccine has been linked to tuberculosis. Vaccinations became
mandatory in England in 1853, and by 1857, fines and imprisonment awaited people who
refused to be vaccinated against smallpox.
Dr. Humphries just mentioned that once smallpox vaccination became mandatory in England, massive
epidemics began to occur. According to the official figures of the Registrar General
of England, between 1857 and 1859, there were over 14,000 deaths from smallpox.
Then, between 1863 and 1865, there were over 20,000 smallpox deaths. A few years later,
there were almost 45,000 smallpox deaths between 1870 and 1872. But England wasn't the only
place to make smallpox vaccinations mandatory.
It happened in the United States, too. In 1855, Massachusetts enacted forced smallpox
vaccination laws. Similar to what happened in England following the 1855 mandate, there
were smallpox epidemics in 1859, 1860, 1864, 1865, and 1867, culminating with the infamous
epidemic in 1872 and 1873.
Similar events occurred in Germany, Japan, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Italy, Holland,
Austria, and Japan during the late 1800s. As vaccination rates increased, so did the
incidence and deaths from smallpox. I won't go into all the graphs and numbers, but they
are readily available.
DR. HUMPHRIES: The doctors at the time were saying that this is absurd, that 'We're still
seeing plenty of smallpox in people who have been cowpox vaccinated and that this vaccine
is far from safe, that people are having major issues from it.' Deaths were happening. In
some cases, in the years that the vaccine was being used, the hospitalization rates
and death rates for smallpox were higher than the years before the vaccine was even invented.
Then there was this episode in a city called Leicester in England, at the time, where they
had a 95 percent infant vaccination rate and had some of the worst epidemics in history
in that city. And so, people were outraged because mandatory vaccination had been instituted.
People were being arrested and their belongings confiscated. Horrible. And we went through
a lot of these stories in the book. And so, people had had enough and so they demonstrated.
So, there was this great demonstration, which is one of our chapters, and there was a big
rally with over 80 thousand people that showed up. I mean these people were angry. Their
kids were getting really messed up from this vaccine and it wasn't working.
So, it's one thing to take the risk of getting a vaccine if it's working, but in this case,
it was lose-lose for them. So, they decided they were going to stop vaccinating. And instead,
whenever somebody had smallpox, they had people that were already immune tend to the person,
and they sanitized everything in their midst and kept them isolated. And that turned out
to be actually the best way to deal with smallpox in communities.
And so, predictions of doom and gloom that there was going to be a wildfire of smallpox
set upon the planet as a result of this, lunatics who wanted to stop vaccinating were dictated
from on high, and of course that didn't happen.
And we give you the exact numbers in Dissolving Illusions of how the death rates plummeted
and how the outbreaks actually went down significantly. And Leicester, compared to the surrounding
towns that continued to vaccinate heavily, had the lowest death rates, and in lots of
cases the actual outbreak rates as well.
DR. WAKEFIELD: The eradication of smallpox was actually really a function of containment
and isolation, of quarantine, rather than the vaccine itself.
TY: Dr. Humphries mentioned a city called Leicester in England. It's very interesting
what happened in this city, which saw a massive outbreak of smallpox in 1871 despite an almost
100 percent vaccination rate. Quarantine and isolation, according to Dr. Wakefield, led
to the eradication of smallpox.
And Dr. Humphries just mentioned a rally, 80,000 people strong, in Leicester, in 1885,
and protested the mandatory vaccines and actually won their freedom of choice. 'ver the next
eight years, that vaccination rate there went from approximately 95 percent to only 5 percent.
And during that period, if someone had smallpox, everyone in the infected house was placed
in strict quarantine and the house thoroughly disinfected. She documents the way that the
death rates decreased drastically after they implemented quarantine and isolation.
These facts are illustrated in depth, with studies, graphs, and charts, in Dr. Humphries'
book, Dissolving Illusions. Consistent with this theme, according to the World Health
Statistics Annual, 1973-1976, Volume 2, and I quote: 'There has been a steady decline
of infectious diseases in most developing countries, regardless of the percentage of
immunizations administered in these countries.'
Now that's certainly an interesting quote, and we will discuss the decline of several
infectious diseases in later episodes. We're going to look at the graphs and we're going
to see what's true and what's false. I want to focus on one word in that quote, the word
'immunization.'
Beginning with smallpox, the process was referred to as variolation, or inoculation, and was
the beginning of what we now call vaccination. In today's vernacular, oftentimes the terms
'vaccination' and 'immunization' are almost used interchangeably. But are they the same
thing?
MIKE ADAMS: I want to be very clear up front, as a scientist who owns my own private science
lab, I am not opposed to the theory of immunization, the theory of it, how the body could respond
to things and build its own immune system. What I am vehemently opposed to is the quack
science behind the pushing of toxic vaccines that contain toxic elements and toxic chemicals
that harm and kill children all across the world.
TY: So, you're not against the theory of vaccines, but you are against the way that they're pushed
today?
MIKE ADAMS: Right. I said I'm not against the theory of immunization.
TY: Immunization. Explain the difference.
MIKE ADAMS: Vaccination is not immunization. So, your body has a natural process of immunization
in responseÑit's an adaptive response to exposure to, for example, live viruses that
are all around us. You immunize yourself when you are exposed to a virus.
Your body recognizes it because you have this functioning immune system, the blueprints
of which are built into every cell of your body. You're a biochemical master of immunization.
You would not be alive if your ancestors weren't really, really good at this.
So, we immunize ourselves naturally all the time, through exposure to viruses that make
some people sick. Well, who do they make sick? The people who are vaccinated. Why is that?
Because the vaccines harm the immune system, they compromise the immune system, they weaken
the immune system.
In the same way that you set an astronaut into space and they have no gravity, they
have no stress on their bones and stress on their muscles, what happens? They atrophy.
They lose bone density. They lose muscle mass.
They come back to the planet and they can hardly walk. Why is that? They become weak.
Vaccines do that to your immune system. They make your immune system weak and make you
vulnerable to other infections. A healthy immune system, practicing healthy immunization,
is in people like you and IÑI haven't been vaccinated since I was a kid, and I haven't
been sick in over a decade.
Why is that? Am I somehowÑhave I been able to avoid all viruses? No. I'm shaking people's
hands. I'm in public spaces. People cough on my food just like they cough on your food.
Why am I not sick? Because my body is exhibiting its own immunization without vaccination.
DR. ''SHEA: Immunization has nothing to do with vaccines themselves. So, people have
to start using these two words correctly. If they really conferred immunity they wouldn't
have to keep giving these booster shots? Real immunity is for life.
DR. MERC'LA: 'ur bodies were designed and created to develop an immune response, and
when they're healthy they create it. When you're exposed to an infectious agent, it's
going to form the protective antibodies. Not only for a short term, like you do with vaccines,
but it's going to do it virtually indefinitely and in most cases lifelong.
You have lifelong permanent immunity when you have a healthy immune system and you're
exposed to an infectious agent. That's the ideal. Now they're doing these vaccines and
it's like, oh maybe every 10 years. Maybe every five years.
There are third, fourth boosters of DPT now. It's going to be 10 boosters. You're going
to have to get it every year. It's just insane because it's not the way the body was designed
to create an immune response. When you do it artificially, it's almost universally going
to be less than ideal.
DR. GR'UP: The way you naturally develop an immune response is through breathing a virus
in the air or breathing it into your nose. Never being injected directly into your bloodstream.
TY: It does make sense that if vaccines conferred real immunity, which is for a lifetime, then
there would be no need for booster shots. And as Dr. Group just mentioned, we're never
actually exposed to a virus by injection, but rather by breathing.
To be clear, the terms vaccination and immunization refer to two different things. The purpose
of 'The Truth About Vaccines' is to facilitate discussion and debate on this controversial
topic of vaccines. And in order to spur discussion, it's important to ask questions. That's all
we are trying to do, because the current climate is that you cannot question vaccines in any
way, shape, or form.
DR. ZIELINSKI: It's like a Platonian philosophical technique, it's a presupposition. If you presuppose
it's true you don't even question it. I mean there is no question, it's just, this is what
you do. And you start to give babies starting six months old the flu shot and you start
to do this and you start to do that.
It's like it's not even questionable anymore and that's where it becomes dangerous because
the people who do question they're considered the outliers. They're considered the dangerous
ones and now look what's happening around the country.
DR. 'BUKHANYCH: I know how medical establishment is operating, in that doctors have to follow
certain protocols. And if they were to understand that if they follow these protocols and they
harm people, it would be very hard for them as humans to do that.
So, the establishment is making everything possible to prevent doctors from realizing
that what they're doing might be harmful. Therefore, you have these studies that seemingly
deny what is obvious to the eye.
DR. LEE: My articles might not be published, because the editor doesn't even send the article
out for review. The editor. The editor's not a specialist. The peer reviewers are the specialists.
Basically, when ordinary common-day customary, when you send an article and manuscript to
a journal, the editors look at your manuscript, the editors look at the manuscript and then
refer to the experts.
That's called peer reviewers. The peer reviewers are the experts. But they stop at the editorial
level. They don't send the manuscripts out for peer review. That is the problem. Then
even in one article, the first article I tried to publish, the HPV vaccine, the editors sent
it out for peer review and all three peer reviewers say 'This manuscript should be reported,
should be published.'
And then after the agreement for publication, the editors find a reason to reject it. This
editorial censorship. Then I had to submit it to another journal. Fortunately, I found
another editor who was more sympathetic.
TY: And you found a journal to finally publish it?
DR. LEE: Right, and publish it. This is one of the problems in revealing the truth. How
can the truth not be welcome?
DR. MARGULIS: If the debate is frowned upon and not allowed, then you have to ask the
question why isn't it okay to talk about these issues, what is at stake here? Why wouldn't
we want to have the safest, the healthiest, and the most scientifically based vaccine
schedule that we possibly could?
DAVID W'LFE: Why is this taboo? Why can't we do rigorous scientific studies with one
group that's vaccinated and one group that's not? We should have at least 30 studies like
that on every vaccine. But we have zero on every vaccine.
We don't have any studies like that. And I started to become aware that something is
wrong. Somebody's trying to hide something, right? As soon as it's like ''h, you can't
talk about that.' It's like 'Why not? Why can't we talk about that?'
DEL BIGTREE: Science is not taking place here. Fraud is taking place. And we've got to get
back to science. We've got to get back to demanding science take place.
What I find fascinating when I question doctors and pediatricians that are involved in this,
within a minute and a half, you realize that their entire understanding of vaccines is
'just because.'
'Just because they told me so. Just because they said it was safe. It's safe because they
told me it was.'
'Well, do you understand how a vaccine works, right?'
'I know how to give a vaccine.'
'But do you know how it works? Do you understand that it's not going through safety testing?
Do you realize it's not categorizedÑa vaccine's not categorized like a pharmaceutical drug,
that it doesn't have to go through the same safety tests, it's being rushed on the market?'
'Well, no, but I mean it's safe.'
And they just keep repeating this line. You're like 'oh my God.' These poor doctors really
in a way have spent a fortune on an education that has robbed them of actual information.
And so, you realize this fraud and this mantra of 'vaccines are safe. Vaccines are safe.
They're safe. They're safe. They're efficacious.' I mean it's just not true.
RASHID BUTTAR: It's like saying, the sky is blue and some people come up and say 'No it's
not blue. It's green. It's pink.' I don't care how you spin it. The truth is the truth.
It's blue. You can describe it as azure. You can say it's sky-blue. It's still blue. You
can't say it's green.
A lot of people will say 'Well, this is a controversial subject, Dr. Buttar.' There's
no controversy about the truth. You can doubt the truth and say, ''h, it's not the truth
or its controversial.' But it still remains the truth. Just by labeling it something else
it doesn't change the truth.
JACK W'LFS'N: When the whole measles outbreak occurred in January of 2015, and I say outbreak
very loosely. It turned out to be about 150 people infected with the measles virus, and
just about all of them recovered fully. 'ne person, unfortunately, did die from the measles.
That person was highly immunocompromised, very sick, and only on autopsy was it shown
to have measles.
But what happened with me was, when a friend of mine called, she's a PR representative
and she wanted me to go on NBC, the local affiliate in Phoenix to talk about the measles
outbreak. I went on NBC, did my piece on there and that led to a lot of commentary on the
Arizona Republic website. That commentary was in large part negative. People were very
upset. They were immediately calling for my censorship, for my license.
DR. WAKEFIELD: If you offend the powers that be, if you offend public health, if you offend
the pharmaceutical industry and threaten their bottom line, as we did by calling into question
the safety of MMR, there is no price that you will not pay.
That's it. People talk about conspiracy theory. This is just ruthless pragmatism. 'We will
destroy you in order to protect our bottom line.' And that's the way these people operate.
DR. LEVATIN: There have been ramifications for me professionally for making the decisions
that I've made, because choosing to not vaccinate on the scheduleÑ
I used to be affiliated with Children's Hospital Boston, which is a very conventional institution.
And they have a program where pediatricians out in the community can bring medical students
into their office and sort of mentor them for a couple of days.
It's really only a couple of days a year. 'f course, I would be talking to my patients
about my philosophy and the way I do things in front of these medical students. So, after
a while, word got back to the powers that be over at Children's Hospital Boston that
I wasn't vaccinating on the schedule.
So, the first thing they did was to call me up and tell me that they didn't want me participating
in that program anymore and mentoring medical students. They didn't say it in this way,
but it's like 'We don't want our medical students hearing an alternative philosophy or hearing
a different point of view.'
Mind you, it's not that I was forcing anybody to not vaccinate on the schedule. Parents
were coming to me with their children because they wanted to not vaccinate on the schedule.
I was offering an alternative. There's certainly a thousand and one pediatricians out there
who would vaccinate them by the guidelines.
So, I stopped having these medical students in my office. So, the next thing that happened
was the next time, every year or maybe every two years you have to recredential with the
hospital, so that you can be on their roster, so that your patients can go in there if they're
sick, and so that you can be affiliated with insurance companies and patient visits can
be covered.
So, they told me they weren't going to allow me to stay on their list of affiliated doctors
because of this issue, which would mean that I couldn't be affiliated with Blue Cross,
Blue Shield, or the insurance networks. So, it was really a form of marginalizing me,
blacklisting me for this choice that I had made.
TY: Sure.
DR. LEVATIN: So, there are ramifications for doctors who are making these kinds of choices.
TY: Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Wolfson, and Dr. Levatin are just three of literally hundreds, if not
thousands of doctors who have suffered professional ramifications for attempting to facilitate
discussion about vaccines and for giving parents the freedom of choice not to follow the CDC
vaccine schedule.
When debate and scientific questions aren't allowed to be asked, when ad hominem attacks
are rampant, and when name-calling is pervasive, the subject of vaccines almost becomes more
of a religious type of debate as opposed to a rational scientific debate.
DR. WAKEFIELD: It's gathered an extraordinary momentum, taking on the life of a religion
rather than any kind of science or primary public health measure.
DR. BELL: It's a sacrament in the church of pharmaceutical mysticism. It is not a real
scientific endeavor anymore. It's about the Holy Grail attempt, if you will, to achieve
artificial antibody stimulation.
They might claim that the antibodies are real, but they're not the same thing and they don't
provide the same level of immunity should you acquire and encounter the disease in the
natural state. And that's a big problem, but they'd like us to believe that it isn't.
DR. BARK: It is such a religious belief that when you present a physician or somebody who
believes it, and doesn't know why they believe it, with contrary information, they immediately
get very defensive and angry and incensed and furious. I understand that because it
means that everything they have been taught to believe is topsy-turvy and really messed
up. If that's true, then they've been lied to.
They're not consciously thinking all of this but I've analyzed why it's soÑbut, everything
they've been taught, they've been lied to. If that's not true, then what else isn't true?
If you're a doctor thenÑI've had doctors tell me, 'I don't want to know anymore because
I'll have to change the way I practice and I just can't do that. It's overwhelming.'
Some doctors who are really smart can't hear it. They can't hear it and I'm like, ''kay.'
They're yelling at me, 'You're a quack and you're dangerous and you're killing patients.'
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: It's not all just money. Again, there is the dogma that if anybody
says anything bad about vaccines you're going to fuel this mythical anti-vaccine movement
and children are going to start dropping dead. So, your action is going to end up killing
babies.
DR. MERC'LA: This is the most grounded firmly entrenched belief in preventative medicine
and health, and conventional medicine, that these vaccines are crucial to be healthy.
In my belief, nothing can be further from the truth.
TY: How is it that the opinion that all vaccines are safe and all vaccines are effective has
become so firmly entrenched in our society that it's not even up for debate?
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: This network president told me that if one of his talk shows allowed
me on the air that he would fire the host. This person is a friend of mine and 'I would
have to fire the host because this is where our advertisers are,' and if he lost an advertiser
it's a major catastrophe for the network.
'ne of the problems is that all of the institutions in our democracy that are designed to protect
little children from a predatory corporation have in essence been neutralized. You've had
the vaccine act got rid of all the lawyers, all the judges and the class action suits
and the multi-district litigation suits and depositions, all of the things that curb bad
corporate behavior in every other sector, including the pharmaceutical sector.
They've got rid of the CDC by capturing that agency and that's the agency that's supposed
to be the frontline agency that protects little children from a predatory corporation and
they now have been thoroughly captured by the industry they're supposed to regulate.
The press has effectively been neutralized. All you have to do, Ty, is sit down and watch
the six o'clock news on TV and see how many of those stories are bracketed by pharmaceutical
ads.
I was told by a network executive that during non-election years or in some months during
the election years up to 70 percent of his news division revenues are coming from pharma.
DR. R'SS: I think television and Facebook and everything else does a really good job
of making you feel like if you don't vaccinate your kids, not only are you going to hell
but your kids are too.
They're going to catch every disease known to man. Really this has been a re-education
process for me. Relearning everything that I thought I knew about vaccinations. What
I thought I knew about disease and just kind of looking at it logically.
DR. BARK: I started looking at the 'playbook.'
TY: 'kay.
DR. BARK: The playbook for vaccines is the same playbook that they're using for GM's.
If the industry hires shills. Not onlyÑin the vaccine world it's not just the industry,
we have the CDC looking for mommy bloggers, looking to pay people to blog as though they're
just lay people. But there's Federal dollars going to pay these people. It's to promoteÑ
TY: And they basically do what?
DR. BARK: Promote vaccines.
DR. THOMAS: The system to promote vaccines. So, if you make vaccines, you want them given.
And if you can have it become a standing order, that is a guaranteed sale. So, the push has
become vaccinate and the push has become, let's get the message out there.
Vaccines are safe and effective and let's squash any idea that there's a problem with
vaccines. And if our media would be honest, they would look into things like this.
And this is the problem we have with our media. I really feel like they pick and choose how
they're going to report on things. If there's something along the lines of vaccine and safe
and effective, you hear about it immediately. I read studies all the time that should be
headlines, and nothing.
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: It effectively locks out any kind of debate that you have not just
in the major networks but also in the so-called alternative media, which is supposed to be
the antidote to corporate control of our country. Places like Salon and Slate and Huffington
Post and Daily Beast and Mother Jones also those media outlets will not cover this debate.
I think that it was Malcolm X, said that the greatest power of the press is the power to
ignore, and that's what we see in this sphere.
TY: The power to ignore those who question vaccines and not cover the debate is an enormous
power. But just because the press has the power to ignore, we refuse to ignore the topic
of vaccines. Please remember, when we discuss pediatricians and doctors in general, we're
talking about lots of good people, noble people in a noble profession.
DR. ZIELINSKI: I'm convinced that 99.9 percent of every young adult going into medical school
have a heart to serve, have a heart to help. I do believe there are some people out there
in it for the money, but by far most kids are in school trying to do what's good and
then they get indoctrinated. And you look at the research and then you look at the textbooks
and everything is formulated in a very biased way to convince people to one direction.
So, you graduate after really being brainwashed for eight years and then you just what, well
here's what we've got to do, it's a public health service.
I actually studied at one of the premier public health schools in the world and I'm telling
you, you want to talk about social pressure, that's a public health banner. That's what
their focus is on. It's hard, Ty, to buck the system, because you don't even know you're
bucking the system at first.
I think it's really important to remember too, these individuals aren't the enemy. To
me the enemy is the system, the big pharma, the old white haired men that are just like
in the background making billions. I mean there are people, you can look at this, but
the end of the day the doctor, the physician, they're just trying to help.
DR. MERC'LA: Part of this, what brings me to tears when I think about it, because just
I rationally can objectify I didn't know any better. There's no question. But still you
caused harm. I really did not know, and I failed miserably in my responsibility of doing
my due diligence on selecting a therapy that I believed would have more benefit. And in
reality, I did not do my homework.
TY: Most doctors are good people who are just trying to help, but they are hamstrung by
a broken system, which discourages questioning medical dogma, and as we saw earlier, even
encourages physicians to coerce patients into accepting medical procedures to which they
do not consent.
MIKE ADAMS: Science is accessible to anyone who wants to learn it. That's the beauty of
what I do and what we have in this world, which is still relatively free. Is that any
of us can pursue science and use it to expose the toxins that are in medicines. And that
science is irrefutable because it's reproducible in any lab, anywhere else in the world.
DR. MARGULIS: We have to start talking to each other. The public health officials have
to talk to the parents, the parents have to talk to the doctors. We all have to sit down
and talk about these issues. This is not religion. This is science. We don't have to agree but
we can look at the evidence and figure it out together. When you say it's off limits
and you can't talk about it, that's when you should start having as many conversations
as possible.
DR. R'SS: 'nce the door is open, the floodgates are open and I know that, I have to move forward
in the direction of pushing the information out there. I can't just suppress it and act
like it doesn't exist because it absolutely does.
R'BERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: 'nce I saw this, it was impossible for me to walk away from it.
It was like seeing a mugging on the street, or like being just seeing some horrible atrocity.
Like watchingÑhaving been down at the train station in 1939 in Warsaw or Berlin and seeing
people shipped off to the camps.
And then you have to make a decision about whether to put your head down and pretend
you didn't see it and protect your career or whether you're going to speak up about
that. And I felt like I didn't have a choice.
TY: I hope you've enjoyed the first episode of 'The Truth About Vaccines.' We have six
more episodes coming your way. Tell your friends and family, and tune back in for the next
episode. Thank you, and God bless.
Do you want to support our mission to educate the world on the truth about vaccines? Then
help us spread the word by clicking the links below and sharing on Facebook, Twitter, and
all the other social media sites. Your support makes a huge difference in how many people
we reach and ultimately, how many lives are saved. Thanks in advance, and please click
the links below to help us spread
the word.
For more infomation >> RETO FANDUB SEIYA Y SAORI (Escena del puente) SÉ SAORI :D - Duration: 2:20. 
For more infomation >> BMW X3 2.0D xDrive High Executive LEER NAVI SPORTSTOELEN - Duration: 1:01. 
For more infomation >> Jaguar XF 2.2D 191pk Automaat Premium Edition, Leer, Xenon Led, Navi, Full - Duration: 1:05. 
For more infomation >> Honda CR-V 2.2D Executive | Climate Controle | Navigatie | Cruise Controle | Metaalkleur | Trekhaak - Duration: 0:58. 
No comments:
Post a Comment