30 Tactics Used by the Medical Profession to Hoodwink the Public
Medical health authorities, including doctors, nurses, and other members of the allopathic fraternity, employ a number of strategies designed to elicit parental submission to vaccine guidelines. Currently, parents are expected to grant authorities permission to toxify their children's pure and sacred little bodies with more than 30 blends of rare germs, bacteria, and other foul substances-all before they enter school! To adequately assess the relevance of vaccine-related news, or the perils of vaccine-related situations you may find yourself in-and to increase your knowledge about how to protect your loved ones-several of the more common vaccine-related schemes you're likely to encounter are included in the following section, along with samples of each.
1. Calling the Shots “Immunizations.” Numerous studies indicate that vaccines cannot be relied upon to boost the immune system and protect an individual from contracting the disease the vaccines were designed to offset. For example, the Minnesota Department of Health reported 769 cases of mumps in school children. But 632 of these cases (82 percent) occurred in children who were previously vaccinated against this disease.(119) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 89 percent of all school-age children who recently contracted measles had been vaccinated against the disease.(120-122) And the New England Journal of Medicine published a study revealing that the pertussis vaccine “failed to give...protection against the disease.” In fact, more than 80 percent of cases in a recent epidemic occurred in children who had received regular doses of the shot.(123,124) According to Dr. Sandra Huffman, head of Nurture: The Center to Prevent Childhood Malnutrition, “Increasing Americans' breastfeeding rate would prevent more childhood diseases-and deaths-than [vaccination programs endorsed by the government].”(125) A distinction must therefore be made: breastfed babies are immunized;(126-128) children who are injected with germs and other toxic substances are vaccinated.
Calling the shots “preventive medicine” is deceptive as well. According to Dr. Kenneth Cooper, pioneering author of Aerobics, “My concept of preventive medicine is trying to prevent the things that kill us. Infectious disease is way down the list.”(129) (Dr. Cooper was ostracized from the medical community for promoting exercise to improve health!)
2. Rationalization and Denial. Medical personnel find it difficult to confront the vaccine issue head-on. It is much easier to falsely justify the use of vaccines or simply reject the idea that they may be unsafe and ineffective. Some doctors become so agitated when the topic is raised, they refuse to even discuss it. Doctors who are willing to exchange ideas and concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines often rely upon rationalization and denial. The rationalization and denial ploy can be blatant or veiled. Blatant rationalization is easier to spot. For example, in a recently published pediatric legal paper, a Canadian neurologist candidly writes, “In this article [on vaccine-induced brain injury], I will...offer some suggestions for pediatricians to rationalize this emotional controversy.” He also plainly states, “A vigorous effort is required to dispel the myth of DTP-induced brain damage.”(130) He makes his recommendation in spite of the horrendous amount of literature in the medical journals indicating a causal relationship between this vaccine and severe mental impairment.(131) The veiled Rationalization and Denial ploy is harder to detect. At first it appears logical and sound. But it merely represents a more intricate attempt at suppressing and confounding the truth. For example, according to some researchers, the DPT vaccine does not cause seizures; instead, “fever from the DTP vaccine may trigger one of these seizures.”(132) Or, according to an experienced vaccine policymaker, Ed Mortimer, M.D., “These kids already had underlying problems and DTP was the first fever-producing insult that occurred to the child.”(133) Again, it wasn't the vaccine that caused the brain damage; it was the fever from the vaccine. More examples of the rationalization and denial ploy: When the incidence of a disease is low, authorities claim high vaccination rates are responsible. When outbreaks occur, we are told not enough people received the shots. For example, prior to a recent measles outbreak in a Hobbs, New Mexico, school district, authorities boasted a 98 percent vaccination rate. Then, when 76 cases of the disease broke out, researchers claimed that “vaccine failure was associated with immunizations that could not be documented in the provider's records.” (134) Although the Food and Drug Administration was legally bound to establish and oversee the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and even though every year about 12,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines are made to the FDA,(135) authorities refuse to follow up on these cases because “the agency could not possibly investigate each report,” and besides, “a cause and effect relationship is not presumed.”(136) By November 10, 1999, the Vaccine Injury Compensation System had already paid out more than $1 billion to settle claims of vaccine-induced damage or death.(137) However, because vaccine manufacturers and the federal government are not required to admit responsibility, even when a claim is paid, they are able to assert that “the settlement of a claim does not necessarily establish liability.”(138)
3. Double Talk and Creative Logic. Medical advisers were using this ploy as far back as 1806. In that year Edward Jenner, the dubious “father of modern vaccinations,” was under examination by a College of Physicians committee. Numerous members of the English population who had recently been vaccinated with Jenner's concoction, and who were therefore considered immune to smallpox, had caught the disease. Many were afflicted with painful skin eruptions and died. When the commonly relied upon denial ploy was no longer effective, it was revealed that “spurious,” or phony, cowpox was the cause. As the number of vaccinated people afflicted with the disease grew, so, too, did public fear. How, Jenner was asked, could spurious cowpox be identified and avoided? Spurious cowpox, he explained, wasn't meant to describe irregularities on the part of the cow, but rather certain quirks in the action of cowpox on the part of the vaccinated. In other words, when the vaccinated recovered from the ordeal, and did not contract smallpox, the cowpox was genuine; otherwise it was spurious.(139) Current uses of the double talk ploy may be found at almost any forum or seminar where vaccine policymakers congregate. For example, at a recent FDA workshop officials indicated they were justified in administering new and unproven vaccines by claiming it is unethical to withhold them!(140) Here is another example of the “unethical” argument: A recent study found that the AIDS virus directly causes cancer. You'd think this would stifle the researchers' goal of creating an AIDS vaccine. In fact, Gerald Myers, director of the HIV Sequence Database Analysis Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, warrants that a live vaccine would carry a risk of causing cancer-both in the vaccinated person and in their offspring. Nevertheless, he claims that “the risk might be worth it” to prevent the spread of AIDS. “It could be unethical not to try it.”(141) A common use of the double talk and creative logic ploy may be found whenever health officials make the outrageous claim that unvaccinated children are a threat to the rest of society. This argument indicates how little faith authorities place in their own vaccines.
Cont ...