Saturday, September 14, 2019

9/11, Identity Politics And The Coming Storm

SOTT | Sep 11, 2019 | Björn Seelmann

© Christina Animashaun/Vox
The events of 9/11, and the wars they unleashed, were the work of a ruthless cabal seeking to 'shape reality' in US society and beyond. Serving as a catalyst, 9/11 artificially introduced an 'us versus them' mentality upon everyone, ultimately affecting every fracture line - every social, ethnic and religious division - in society. Quite how much of what has followed since that fateful day was intended by the perpetrators is difficult to gauge, but they certainly had their reasons, and those reasons were informed by megalomaniac visions of world domination and mass social engineering.

Those of us who lived through 9/11 watched in horror as it triggered the 'Clash of Civilizations', embroiling the Western world in a 'clash' of values with the Muslim world, 'justifying' torture, terrorism, wars of aggression, the pillaging of government treasuries, and massive state surveillance. Some of us thought, if we just expose the hand behind 9/11 and the subsequent 'war on terror', we can stave off calamity.

But this endeavor, it turns out, is beyond us. The full horror of 9/11 has since 'progressed' to cause profound economic malaise in the West, and most recently encompass (and devour) the broader 'Culture Wars'. Those who reacted to 9/11 by taking refuge in 'our Western values' believed that at least from here, we can defend the West from the Rest. But those values - reflected in what was once 'common sense' - have been hijacked and corrupted from within, then turned against everyone and everything.

With the battlefront now raging literally everywhere, from school bathrooms to the halls of power, chaos and conspiracy thrive, with manipulators and ideologues using the media to stir up a war of all against all and encouraging the worst behaviors in people - ostensibly to 'express their individuality', but really to euthanize their conscience and force their submission. The fate of humanity hangs in the balance.

This horrific mural at Denver Airport is titled "Order of Chaos". Could this be a sign of times to come?
While 'the cabal' is not necessarily a single organization or group of people with one common goal in mind, honest research cannot fail to notice the similarities between elites past and present, the commonality of their tactics for getting what they want (power and money), and the manner in which their competing interests tend to fold into, and reinforce, one another. In many respects, the metaphor of an octopus is apropos, although it falls short because no one human agency - as yet anyway - appears to control it all.

One of the greatest tools at their disposal is the tactic of terrorizing populations through false-flag attacks, then manipulating peoples' emotional reactions and thus directing public action. Without this, it's doubtful we would be in the mess we're in. False-flag operations were a thing pre-9/11, and their revelation as fact back then sheds light on the elites' current use of that strategy.

Operation Gladio was carried out with a view to corralling people to turn to the State and demand greater security, while framing 'communists' for terrorist atrocities in order to keep western European countries away from the temptation of Soviet 'influence'. As Vassilis Ephremidis, a Greek MEP, said during a European Parliament debate about Gladio on November 22nd, 1990:
"Mr. President, the GLADIO system has operated for four decades under various names. It has operated clandestinely, and we are entitled to attribute to it all the destabilization, all provocation and all the terrorism that have occurred in our countries over these four decades, and to say that, actively or passively, it must have had an involvement. It was set up by the CIA and NATO which, while purporting to defend democracy, were actually undermining it and using it for their own nefarious purposes."
We are obviously no longer living through the Cold War (current attempts to introduce a new version of it notwithstanding), so the association between terror and communism or anything 'Left' isn't what it used to be. Post-9/11, of course, Muslims became associated with terror, and the same essential 'Gladio game' expanded in intensity and complexity, generating the booming global industries of 'Jihadi, Inc.' and 'anti-terror security'.

But that isn't the only 'switcheroo' that has taken place. In March this year, New Zealand was hit by a multi-site terror attack in which two Christchurch mosques were targeted in a killing spree, ostensibly committed by a lone self-proclaimed 'conservative' concerned with the preservation of 'Western values'. This lunatic in turn cited as inspiration the 'crusader' who claimed sole responsibility for a multi-site terror attack in Norway in 2011, when a mass shooting on the island of Utoya laid waste to dozens of children of that country's liberal elite at the same time that a bomb went off in downtown Oslo.

Note that that lunatic said he did so in the name of protecting Europe from mass immigration, specifically from Muslim-majority countries. Note also that he did so years before such immigration became an issue in Europe.

And so what was once being done largely for geopolitical purposes - 'keeping Europe onside' against the Soviets - seamlessly folded into, or expanded out into - something similar, yet more dreadful in its consequences. The writers of this 'script' today alternately ascribe atrocities to 'Islamic' or 'Right-wing' terrorism, meaning 'the enemy' is both out there and 'among us', both 'the Muslim' who would attack us and the (local, and, in the West, typically white) 'men who would defend us'. The insidious manipulation of narratives has placed Westerners in a terrible bind; to call out the 'Muslim other' is to defend the 'evil among us', a predicament that is causing confusion and hatred, civil dissension and major social strife.

The cabal's efforts to create, finance and arm 'rebels' in the Middle East and beyond was instrumental in causing the immigration crisis, opening borders to all comers without any serious effort to weed out radicals, while at the same time supporting jihadists in Syria and elsewhere. No one disputes that, although it's open for debate to what extent it was an intended outcome. Given that that is what is happening, however, blackmailed and corrupt government leaders are willfully playing a double-game, permanently changing populations and cultural norms in the West, and doing so with flagrant disregard for their own citizens' wishes.

International organizations funded by George Soros are inciting people (mostly Africans) to abandon their homeland, to uproot themselves, and come to Europe. They're being duped by lies, false promises of a better life, more money, and better living conditions. Indeed, living conditions in Europe might be better in terms of money (for now), but at what cost to both the migrants and the indigenous populations?

The media is of course significantly responsible for this madness. On the one hand, journalists love reporting that migrants receive government and 'NGO' funding, and - often - unusually preferential treatment (some migrants in France are even lodged in castles while French citizens are living in the street). This of course angers honest hard-working people, who are left wondering why their government chooses to help the 'Other' over its own people.

On the other hand, the media under-reports or suppresses stories of assaults and rapes committed by migrants, which makes people even angrier. Those who oppose or even question mass migration are immediately condemned as far-right 'white supremacists'. A minority of them may very well be at this point, but the majority are just desperate and clinging to the last thing that feels real and right in the midst of all this chaos - their national identity, and their roots in the local community.

Anger and discontent among the masses is apparently what this cabal is aiming for. They're sowing seeds which might lead to some form of civil war.

Enter Identity Politics
If the only source of social division was the issue of mass migration, people would take sides accordingly, elections would reflect the majority's wishes, and the issue would likely be solved or its effects at least mitigated. But the direct consequences of 9/11 have had the indirect effect of amplifying the Culture War in other spheres.

Adding more fuel to the fire, the widespread and repeated promotion of identity politics, 'social justice' campaigns and strange new ideologies, supposedly motivated by a desire to REDUCE divisions in society, have actually INCREASED divisions, watering down what might otherwise have been focused popular resistance against entrenched corporate elites and their masters' agenda for world hegemony.

Mark Crispin, a professor of media studies from New York University, notes:
"It's interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections started giving grants in the early 70s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identity politics by these organisations and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanize the left and to prevent it from pursuing any kind of a class or economic analysis."
Identity politics was introduced to ensure that the polarization of society can never 'settle' into its natural state during times of crisis: the great majority of people more or less united by common understandings against a pathological elite whose time is up. What we see instead is that great majority polarized against itself, in myriad ways.

Race, gender, sexuality, social justice, 'MY group'... so-called intersectionality and 'what's in it for me' - and not personal responsibility - is the criteria that determines how many credits I get from the government and how much kudos I get from my social media 'friends'. ALL your misfortunes exist because of that 'Other' over there (here's looking at you, whitey), so don't even think about finding common ground and analyzing the real causes of social upheaval.

The Left which, in general, is in the ascendancy these days while the Right is vilified, has a habit of doubling-down and becoming even more extreme in its rhetoric and policies. This is inevitably influencing the political Right to become more extreme in response. Push people against the wall and certain elements will rise up.

What's more, the primary target of identity politics seems to be white people in general. To listen to the media, only whites can be guilty of hate speech and hate crimes, and only minorities can be 'offended'. The New York Times' Sarah Jeong can openly brag that she enjoys "being cruel to old white men," compare "dumbass f*cking white people" to dogs, and wish for whites to "all go extinct soon."

A Muslim Congresswoman can openly suggest that people be "more fearful of white men" than radical jihadists and propose racial profiling of ALL white males. The BBC openly turns down applicants because they are white and only "ethnic minority backgrounds" are permitted.

Taking their cue from elites, people across society are mimicking this 'anti-racist' racism. In this video an angry mob of colored students in UC Berkeley forcefully brought back segregation - "No Whites Allowed Day" - preventing white people from accessing campus. This has actually become common practice at other universities across the US.

Identity politics is completely inconsistent with a society that is actually tolerant, which is why the cabal is pushing for an ever more diverse and multicultural society, thus sowing the seeds of chaos and - they believe - cementing their control for eternity. This ideology, followed to its conclusion, will destroy the center ground and lead to anarchy. Cyberpunk 2020, a role-playing game first published in 1988, predicted today's social-political landscape with unnerving accuracy:

Recently the US military released a video about how they are preparing to protect the privileged few from this anarchic society in the near future (like, by 2030). Author John Whitehead describes it as follows:
"The chilling five-minute training video, obtained by The Intercept through a FOIA request and made available online, paints an ominous picture of the future — a future the military is preparing for — bedeviled by 'criminal networks', 'substandard infrastructure', 'religious and ethnic tensions', 'impoverishment, slums', 'open landfills, over-burdened sewers', a 'growing mass of unemployed', and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have-nots."
It takes a lot of mental clarity and stoicism to resist the push towards polarization and misdirected anger, and to see the bigger picture and the cabal's game: enticing people into picking up the banner for one 'side' and thus divide us against ourselves.

When everyone is 'required' to pick a side, everyone polarized this way becomes a puppet serving the cabal's agenda of divide-and-conquer. It's their game. Sooner or later, we the people must realize that our fight is not with each other, but with the psychopaths at the 'top' that would happily sit back and see us throttle each other (metaphorically, and perhaps literally) to avoid full public exposure of their depraved experiment in social engineering.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Proof Gov Wrong About Collapse of WTC Building 7? (New Evidence 2019)

Ben Swann | Sep 10, 2019

What really happened to World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11th, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District Commissioners’ historic resolution calling for a new investigation, University of Alaska Fairbanks' bombshell multi-year, $300K study of WTC 7 and how it collapsed, and an interview with Richard Gage of AE911 in episode #2 of Truth in Media with Ben Swann.


Read the Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks WTC 7 Study here: http://truthinmedia.com/uaf-wtc-build...

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Big Pharma’s BIG LIE: Most new drugs have zero new benefits, research confirms

Natural News | Sep 4, 2019 | Isabelle Z

© Natural News
No matter what ails you – real or imagined – there’s a drug for that. These days, stopping at the pharmacy on the way home from the doctor’s office has practically become a given. While you might think that medicine has simply evolved so much that we can now fix more problems than ever before, the truth is that the vast majority of new drugs aren’t backed by any evidence of added benefits.

In fact, a study carried out by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care found that more than half of new drugs that make their way into that country’s healthcare system show no additional benefit whatsoever.

They reached this conclusion after assessing 216 different drugs that were approved by regulators and entered the German market from 2011 to 2017. Not only did 58 percent of them offer no benefit over standard patient care, but just a quarter of them showed a significant added medical benefit according to the evidence available. Meanwhile, 16 percent provided a minor added benefit.

Psychiatric drugs have a particularly poor record in this regard, with just 6 percent of them offering any added benefit. Those that did offer a significant benefit tended to only provide such benefits to certain subgroups rather than the overall population of patients. A similar trend was seen in diabetes drugs, where only 17 percent showed added benefits.


 Why are so many new drugs failing to live up to their promises?



The researchers cited three main reasons behind the lack of added benefits. The first is a straightforward absence of studies comparing new drugs with standard treatments for a particular disease. Another reason is that the available studies use an unsuitable control treatment, often because it hasn’t been approved for the patients under study. In other cases, the studies available might use suitable comparisons but simply don’t show clear advantages.

Accelerated drug approval processes often leave little time to gather meaningful data about the use of a particular drug that is up for approval. Although some in the healthcare industry, especially those who profit from medications, believe that the limited information available about drugs when they are approved is the tradeoff for getting new drugs to people who need them, the truth is that drugs are very rarely studied further after gaining that initial approval. In cases where something is later found to be ineffective, there is a serious lack of action on the part of regulators to rectify the situation.

The study’s authors wrote: “As a consequence, patients’ ability to make informed treatment decisions consonant with their preferences might be compromised, and any healthcare system hoping to call itself ‘patient centred’ is falling short of its ethical obligations.”

The researchers called for stricter approval processes requiring more compelling, long-term evidence taken from randomized studies with large group sizes. They’d also like to see drug makers held accountable for filling in information gaps after approval is gained.

The study was published in the British Medical Journal.

There are so many ways in which the current system is failing patients, and one of the biggest is that people who are legitimately ill may be foregoing other treatment options in favor of taking a new drug that may not ultimately help them. In the case of some medications, especially antidepressants, they are taking on significant side effects in exchange for no benefits. While sick people don’t always have a lot of time to wait for complete certainty, there’s no denying the need to ensure drug makers follow through on long-term efficacy and safety studies after gaining fast-track approval.

See PharmaceuticalFraud.com for more coverage of Big Pharma’s deceptions.

Sources for this article include:

StudyFinds.org
IQWIG.de

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Americans Can Handle an Open Discussion on Vaccines—RFK, Jr. Responds to Criticism from His Family


CHD NOTE: In early May 2019, Politico Magazine published an article written by three of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s relatives, criticizing his advocacy for safe vaccines. After numerous requests, Politico magazine has refused to publish his response.

Three of my Kennedy relatives recently published an article criticizing my advocacy for safe vaccines. Our contentious family dispute highlights the fierce national donnybrook over vaccinations that has divided communities and raised doubts about the Democratic Party’s commitment to some of its defining values: abhorrence of censorship, wariness toward excessive corporate power, support for free speech, religious freedom, and personal sovereignty over our bodies, and the rights of citizens (codified in the Nuremberg Code and other treaties to which we are signatories) to decline unwanted government-mandated medical interventions. The debate has also raised questions about the independence of our press and its role as a champion of free speech, and First Amendment rights as a bulwark against overreaching by government and corporations.

I love my family and sympathize with their anxieties when I call out government officials for corruption. The Kennedys have a long, close, and continuing relationship with public health agencies so it is understandably difficult for us to believe that powerful regulators would lie about vaccines. “All issues are simple,” the saw goes, “until you study them.”

Those conflicts motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science.

My skepticism


I’ve arrived at my skepticism after 15 years spent researching and litigating this issue. I have watched financial conflicts and institutional self-interest transform key sectors of our public health bureaucracies into appendages of the very pharmaceutical companies that Congress charged them to regulate.

Multiple investigations by Congress and the HHS Inspector General have consistently found that an overwhelming majority of the FDA officials directly charged with licensing vaccines, and the CDC officials who effectively mandate them for children, have personal financial entanglements with vaccine manufacturers. These public servants are often shareholders in, grant recipients from, and paid consultants to vaccine manufacturers, and, occasionally, patent holders of the very vaccines they vote to approve. Those conflicts motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science.

HHS partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales.

The pharmaceutical industry also enforces policy discipline through agency budgets. FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations.  And CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents  and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget. Further, Pharma directly funds, populates and controls dozens of CDC programs through the CDC foundation.  A British Medical Journal editorial excoriates CDC’s sweetheart relationship with pharma quotes UCLA Professor of Medicine Jerome R. Hoffman “most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry… It is outrageous that industry is apparently allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has potential to cut into profits.”

HHS partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales. HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on. For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties. Furthermore, under the 1986 Act that created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, HHS is the defendant in Vaccine Court and is legally obligated to defend against any claim that a vaccine causes injury. Despite high hurdles for recovery, HHS pays out hundreds of millions of dollars annually (over $4 billion total) to Americans injured by vaccines. Hence, if HHS publishes any study acknowledging that a vaccine causes a harm, claimants can use that study against HHS in Vaccine Court. In June 2009, a high-level HHS official, Tom Insel, killed a $16 million-dollar budget item to study the relationship between vaccines and autism by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Insel argued that petitioners would use these studies against HHS in vaccine court.

Such conflicts are a formula for “agency capture” on steroids. “Instead of a regulator and a regulated industry, we now have a partnership,” says Dr. Michael Carome, a former HHS employee who is now the director of the advocacy group Public Citizen. Carome says that these financial entanglements have tilted HHS “away from a public health perspective to an industry-friendly perspective.”

In 1986, Congress—awash in Pharma money (the pharmaceutical industry is number one for both political contributions and lobbying spending over the past 20 years) enacted a law granting vaccine makers blanket immunity from liability for injuries caused by vaccines. If vaccines were as safe as my family members claim, would we need to give pharmaceutical companies immunity for the injuries they cause? The subsequent gold rush by pharmaceutical companies boosted the number of recommended inoculations from twelve shots of five vaccines in 1986 to 54 shots of 13 vaccines today. A billion-dollar sideline grew into the $50 billion vaccine industry behemoth.

Since vaccines are liability-free—and effectively compulsory to a captive market of 76 million children—there is meager market incentive for companies to make them safe. The public must rely on the moral scruples of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Pfizer. But these companies have a long history of operating recklessly and dishonestly, even with products that they must market to the public and for which they can be sued for injuries. The four companies that make virtually all of the recommended vaccines are all convicted felons.  Collectively they have paid over $35 billion since 2009 for defrauding regulators, lying to and bribing government officials and physicians, falsifying science, and leaving a trail of injuries and deaths from products they knew to be dangerous and sold under pretense of safety and efficacy.

Doesn’t it require a kind of cognitive dissonance to believe that vaccines are untainted by the greed, negligence, and corruption that bedevil every other pharmaceutical product?

For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.

No safety testing


Such concerns only deepen when one considers that, besides freedom from liability, vaccine makers enjoy another little-known lucrative loophole; vaccines are the only pharmaceutical or medical products that do not need to be rigorously safety tested. To win an FDA license, companies must safety test virtually every other drug for years in randomized comparisons against an inert placebo. Yet, not a single vaccine currently on the CDC schedule was tested against an inert placebo. Without placebo testing, regulators have no capacity to assess a medicine’s risks. During a January 2018 deposition, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the world’s most influential vaccinologist, acknowledged that researches who try to ascertain vaccine safety without a placebo are in “La La land”. According to Dr. Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, “It is the marketing department, not the science, that is driving the research.”  It seems plain wrong to me that Democratic-controlled legislatures across the country are frantically passing coercive mandates for pharmaceutical products for which no one knows the risks.

Furthermore, safety testing, which typically requires five or more years for other medical products, often lasts only a few days with vaccines—not nearly long enough to spot cancers or chronic conditions like autoimmune disease (e.g., juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis), allergic illnesses (e.g., food allergies, allergic rhinitis, eczema, asthma), or neurological and neurodevelopmental injuries (e.g., ADD, ADHD, narcolepsy, epilepsy, seizure disorders, and autism). Manufacturers’ inserts accompanying every vial of mandated vaccines include warnings about these and over 400 other injuries including many serious immune, neurological, and chronic illnesses for which FDA suspects that vaccines may be the cause. Federal law requires that the package insert for each vaccine include “only those adverse events for which there is some basis to believe that there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.”

Many of these illnesses became epidemic in American children after 1986, coterminous with the exploding vaccine schedule. For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.  Evidence including HHS’s own surveillance reports, manufacturers’ inserts, and peer-reviewed studies link all of these injuries to vaccines. However, the associations are not definitive because CDC has failed to conduct the necessary randomized studies to prove or disprove causation.

HHS has directed the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) to oversee the CDC’s vaccine safety science. IOM has repeatedly rebuked the agency for failing to study whether vaccines are causing these epidemics. In my experience, vaccine proponents rarely cite specific peer-reviewed studies to support their assertions that all vaccines are safe, relying instead on appeals to authority; CDC, FDA, WHO, or the AAP. My relatives, for example, argue that vaccines are safe because WHO, HHS, CDC, and FDA say so. But HHS designated the IOM as the ultimate arbiter of vaccine safety. And IOM says that the existing scientific literature does not support these claims.  Despite requests by the IOM, CDC has steadfastly refused to perform safety studies.

In total, three IOM reports (1991, 1994, and 2011/2012) investigated 231 adverse events associated with vaccines. For 34 conditions, IOM found that the evidence supported a causal connection between the vaccine and the adverse event. But for 184 adverse events, fully 80% of the conditions reviewed, the IOM found that HHS’s evidence was inadequate to accept or reject vaccine causation. How can our public health officials claim safety when there is no follow-up research on reported adverse events?

… the  IOM [Institute of Medicine now the National Academy of Medicine] study and the follow-up HHS study in 2014 both say that CDC has never performed a study to support CDC’s claim that DTaP does not cause autism.

Autism and vaccines


Let’s drill down on bedrock dogma that science has thoroughly debunked any links between autism and vaccines. That assumption is so engrained that media ridicules anyone who questions this orthodoxy as a dangerous heretic. But, look for a moment, at the facts. In 1986, Congress specifically ordered CDC to determine if pertussis-containing vaccines (DTP, later DTaP) were causing autism.  Then, as today, many parents with autistic children were claiming that vaccines were a cause of their child’s autism and DTP/DTaP vaccines were/are a popular suspect.

On its website, CDC declares that, “Vaccines don’t cause autism,” citing IOM’s comprehensive 2011/2012 literature review of vaccination safety science. However, the IOM study and the follow-up HHS study in 2014 both say that CDC has never performed a study to support CDC’s claim that DTaP does not cause autism.  The same is true for Hep B, Hib, PCV 13, and IPV. The only vaccine actually studied with regard to autism is MMR, and a senior CDC scientist claims the CDC did find an increased rate of autism after MMR in the only MMR/autism study ever conducted by the CDC with American children. Moreover, HHS’s primary autism expert recently provided an affidavit to the DOJ explaining that vaccines can cause autism in some children.

Autism has grown from about 1 in 2,500 prior to 1986 to one in 36 among vaccine generation children today. Why are we content with the CDC’s claim that the exponential explosion of autism is a mystery? CDC spares no expense systematically tracking the source of 800 measles cases. But when asked about the cataclysmic epidemic of upwards of 68,000 new autism cases annually, CDC shrugs. Why are we not demanding answers? “CDC is paralyzed right now when it comes to anything to do with autism,” explains former senior vaccine safety scientist Dr. William Thompson, who is still a CDC employee. Thompson told Congressman Bill Posey under oath that CDC bigwigs ordered him to destroy data that showed a link between autism and vaccines and to publish a fraudulent study dismissing the link. Today, he is remorseful, “When I see a family with a child with autism, I feel great shame because I have been part of the problem.”

… there are a hundredfold more adverse vaccine events than are reported.

We are killing children


HHS has also ignored its statutory obligations to study vaccine injuries and improve vaccine safety. In 1986, Congress—recognizing that drug companies no longer had any incentive to make vaccines safe—ordered HHS to study vaccine injuries, work to improve vaccine safety, and report to Congress on its progress every two years. A year ago, I brought a lawsuit that forced HHS to admit that in 36 years it had never performed any of those critical studies.

Post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance is also in shambles. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), to which doctors and patients may voluntarily report adverse vaccine events, received 58,381 reports in 2018, including 412 deaths, 1,237 permanent disabilities, and 4,217 hospitalizations. An HHS-funded review of VAERS concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” to VAERS. This suggests that there are a hundredfold more adverse vaccine events than are reported. The CDC has nonetheless refused to mandate or automate VAERS reporting.

Dr. Aaby was one of five co-authors of a 2017 study of the diphtheria tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, the most widely used vaccine on earth, which found that children who received DTP had ten times the risk of dying compared to DTP-unvaccinated children.

On March 9, 2019, Dr. Peter Aaby issued a scathing rebuke to the world’s public health agencies for continuing to allow pharmaceutical companies to sell vaccines without proper safety testing.  Dr. Aaby, who has authored over 300 peer-reviewed studies, is one of world’s foremost authorities on WHO’s African vaccine program and the winner of Denmark’s highest honor for health care research. Dr. Aaby was one of five co-authors of a 2017 study of the diphtheria tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, the most widely used vaccine on earth, which found that children who received DTP had ten times the risk of dying compared to DTP-unvaccinated children. For thirty years, doctors, including Aaby, never noticed the danger because vaccinated children were succumbing to illnesses and infections apparently unrelated to the vaccine. It turns out that while the vaccine protected children from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, it so badly weakened their immune systems that they were dying in droves from unrelated infections. The researchers concluded: “The DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.”  In March, an alarmed Aaby plead for a policy change, “Most of you think we know what our vaccines are doing. But we don’t…. We are killing children.”

The world’s most aggressive vaccine schedule has not given our country the world’s healthiest children. We now rank 35th in overall health outcomes—just behind Costa Rica, making the U.S., by most measures, including infant mortality, the sickest in the developed world. In addition to those 400 chronic diseases and injuries that FDA suspects may be vaccine related, the vaccine generation suffers unprecedented levels of anxiety and depression and behavioral disorders running the gamut from aggression to anorexia. Peer-reviewed animal and human studies have linked all these symptoms to vaccines. The present generation is the first in a century to lose I.Q., having suffered an extraordinary drop of seven points.  Researchers concluded that some environmental cause is the trigger. In the U.S., SAT and, more recently, bar exam scores are plummeting. Could these declines be the outcome of injecting virtually every child with multiple doses of two of the world’s most potent neurotoxins—mercury and aluminum—in bolus doses beginning on the day of birth? Shouldn’t we be doing the research to reject this hypothesis? The logical approach to doing so would be to compare health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. For years, public health officials, including the IOM, have urged CDC to conduct such studies.

In 2013, the IOM found that, “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes… between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children…. Furthermore, studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.” In a 2008 interview, former NIH Director Bernadette Healy explained that HHS refuses to perform safety studies out of fear that they will expose dangers, “that would scare the public away” from vaccines.  Healy continued, “First of all, I think the public is smarter than that… I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”

… the absence of press scrutiny leaves industry no incentive to improve vaccine safety.

Media malpractice


The suppression of critical safety science documented by the IOM would not be possible without a mass epidemic of media malpractice. Mainstream and social media outlets which collectively received $9.6 billion in revenues from pharmaceutical companies in 2016 have convinced themselves they are protecting public health by aggressively censoring criticism of these coercively mandated, zero liability, and untested pharmaceutical products.  But, the absence of press scrutiny leaves industry no incentive to improve vaccine safety.  Muzzling discussions of government corruption and deficient safety science and abolishing vaccine injuries by fiat is not a strategy that will solve the growing chronic disease epidemic.

The children who comprise this badly injured generation are now aging out of schools that needed to build quiet rooms and autism wings, install wobble chairs, hire security guards and hike special ed spending to 25% to accommodate them. They are landing on the social safety net which they threaten to sink. As Democratic lawmakers vote to mandate more vaccines and call for censorship of safety concerns, Democratic Presidential candidates argue about how to fix America’s straining health care system. If we don’t address the chronic disease epidemic, such proposals are like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The good news for Pharma is that many of these children have lifelong dependencies on blockbuster products like Adderall, Epi-Pens, asthma inhalers, and diabetes, arthritis, and anti-seizure meds made by the same companies that made the vaccines.

My uncle and my father argued that in a free and open society, the response to difficult questions should never be to shut down debate.

My belief that all or some of these injuries might be vaccine related has been the catalyst that wrenched so much of my focus away from the environmental and energy work that I love, and prompted me to become an advocate for vaccine safety. I have sacrificed friendships, income, credibility, and family relationships in an often-lonely campaign to force these companies to perform the tests that will definitively answer these questions.

People will vaccinate when they have confidence in regulators and industry.  When public confidence fails, coercion and censorship became the final options.  Silencing critics and deploying police powers to force untested medicines upon an unwilling public is not an optimal strategy in a democracy.

My uncle and my father argued that in a free and open society, the response to difficult questions should never be to shut down debate. What we need is science, not censorship. I am not anti-vax. I am pro-safety and pro-science. I want robust, transparent safety studies and independent regulators. These do not seem like the kind of radical demands that should divide our party or our families. As Americans and Kennedys, we ought to be able to have a civil, science-based debate about these legitimate concerns.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.