Get your shot or you’re fired!



Original here:

Many people this season are being forced to accept unwanted flu shots in order to keep their jobs. Recommendations and mandates for flu shots have been escalating steadily over the past 10 years, and so have reports of injuries and adverse events.

10 years ago, a flu shot was recommended only for “high-risk” groups including seniors, and was not available outside of a medical office, clinic or hospital. The idea of giving it to a pregnant woman or a healthy child or adult was unheard of.

Today it is recommended that everyone take a yearly flu vaccine from 6 months of age on, and in many communities we can get one at school, at work, or at the drug store and local supermarket. Through aggressive lobbying efforts, we have seen legislation introduced to force flu vaccines on healthcare workers, school administrators and students in some states. Where is the public health need supporting this massive effort? Where is the proof that yearly flu shots are really making you and your children healthier in the long run, and where is the proof that we are not causing more harm than good by forcing these products on the entire population, particularly on healthy people with low risk?

Each quarter, the department of justice (DOJ) puts out a report of adjudicated vaccine injury claims. Here is one from June, 2016, where in a 3 month period 206 claims were filed overall, and 81 claims were compensated for injury or death following a flu shot. The injuries compensated include Guillain-Barre Syndrome; Rheumatoid arthritis, Transverse myelitis, AIDP, CIDP, ADEM, CIDM, Lewis-Sumner Syndrome, shoulder injuries, and neurological demeylinating injuries. This represents a tiny fraction of the adverse events and injuries reported to VAERS every year. The numbers of flu related hospitalizations in healthy children and adults is extremely low, yet there are thousands of reports to VAERS for serious events following flu vaccination in this population.

Where has the push come from to force these products on healthy “low-risk” people? This large scale initiative to push uptake of several vaccines is laid out in DHHS Healthy People 2020, which has been adopted by state and local health depts. The requirements, and rule changes have been slowly inching forward and are becoming much more aggressive as we get closer to 2020, and the goals are far from being met.

Julie Gerberding left the CDC in 2009 to head up Merck’s vaccine division. Healthy people 2020 was constructed during her tenure. It was also during her 7 year term as agency director, that she restructured the CDC into a sophisticated PR machine with roots into every local health department. It was also during this time that the vaccine industry began growing by $$Billions annually. Current estimates put annual global vaccine revenue at $41 Billion, up from only $1 billion in the early 2000’s. According to a WHO 2013 report, the vaccine industry is projected to grow to an astounding $100 Billion annual global revenue by 2025.

The focus has been shifting to adults as they are the next untapped market, ripe for research and development. The NAIP (National adult immunization program) was rolled out last year, and industry is working diligently with many public and private stakeholders to increase community demand for these vaccines. Merck just sponsored and released a study which claims to show that “unvaccinated” adults are costing the US $7 Billion per year, which sets the stage perfectly to push for stronger adult mandates.

Continues here:

[Take Action] CDC Corruption: Scientists on the Inside Slam the Agency


Original here:

More evidence of extensive crony ties. Action Alert!

Recently we’ve reported on the crony ties between top US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials and beverage giant Coca-Cola. New evidence suggests that the cronyism at the CDC goes far deeper.

A group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence, and Ethics in Research (CDC SPIDER) recently submitted a letter to the CDC chief of staff expressing grave concerns about special interest influence being exerted on the agency’s leaders.

It’s worth quoting the beginning of the letter:

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right [emphasis added].

The scientists then provide examples of this behavior, including the recently exposed ties to Coca-Cola.

It’s worth considering what other CDC issues are poisoned by these “outside parties and rogue interests.” Are vaccine manufacturers influencing CDC leaders concerning childhood vaccinations, as we’ve long believed? Are potential whistleblowers being threatened and silenced to protect industry interests? How can we put our children’s health in the hands of an agency that has this level of corruption being reported by its own scientist employees?

Action Alert! Write to your legislators in Congress and urge them to launch an investigation of the CDC to see how far this corruption goes. Please send your message immediately.


CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest


cdc-worksOriginal here:

By Jon Rappoport

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof—and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation with the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” (The Atlantic, February 10, 2015)

“The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” (Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious conflict of interest in mind.

When, in 2014, William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher, publicly admitted he and his colleagues had buried data that would have shown the MMR vaccine increases the risk of autism, he was throwing a stick of dynamite into the whole CDC operation. He was also saying, in recorded phone conversations, that the CDC was lying about vaccine safety in other studies.

This is why major media refused to cover or investigate Thompson’s claims. This is why they spread a blanket of silence over his revelations.

Thompson was threatening a $ 4-billion-a-year enterprise.

The CDC is both a PR agency for, and a buyer from, Big Pharma.

Continues here:

Wikileaks Releases: A Vote for Clinton is a Vote for Big Pharma & Mandatory Vaccination


Original here:

Hillary Clinton has made little attempt to play politics or engage in double speak on the topic of vaccinations. In the world of healthcare, medicine and parenting no other topic symbolizes the hot button nature of health freedom and medical choice vaccination represents. Amidst the bickering of fabricated issues and discussions of little or no importance to the public, the presidential debates have left out a laundry list of vital topics. The US has the developed world’s highest infant mortality rates. The US has epidemic-level rates of autism spectrum disorder over the past decades. And the US maternal mortality rate has more than doubled from 2000 to 2014.

California is fighting back against Senate Bill 277 (SB277) as parents and families who want to retain their health freedom and medical choice have been left with no choices as forced vaccination is now mandatory. Unbeknownst to most of the country, a growing subsection of US people have been beating back continued, unrelenting forced vaccination legislation in many states attempting to mirror SB277. Pharmaceutical company lobbyist continually swarm US politicians in order to secure SB277-like legislation in states to secure a revenue stream on their for-profit, zero-liability vaccine products.

Hillary Clinton has made no attempt to hide the deep roots connecting her to big pharma. In addition, she has made little attempt to deviate from the march towards mandatory vaccination signaling the desire to increase the agenda. One of the first times Clinton inserted herself into the vaccine safety conversation was to capitalize on the media hype generated by Donald Trump, Rand Paul and Ben Carson during their debate in September 2015 on the campaign trail. During the debate, Trump made numerous remarks questioning the safety of vaccines and epidemic autism rates. Trumps comments made the pharmaceutical-funded corporate news media instantly swarm to defend their backers by pandering to vaccine-injury deniers in their reporting. It was then that Clinton took to twitter with this message:


Thanks to the continual Wikileaks releases of internal Clinton campaign emails, the public has a window into the thought process of Clinton and her team away from the polished talking points and spin during the time her Twitter message was crafted.


Article continues here: