But it’s only probabilities. Easy to ignore since there’s always the possibility everything will be fine.
This is the substance of what passes for medical ethics: the weaponization of ambiguity. Except where harm is obvious and demonstrable such as genital mutilation, in which case resolute blindness is needed, but it takes years of medical education to achieve that level of self-discipline.
(Natural News) For the longest time, I’ve wondered why scientists have not done more straightforward, direct comparisons of the health outcomes of vaccinated children versus those whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate them. After all, that would provide the definitive answer, wouldn’t it? No more of this shilly-shallying back and forth; if you took a group of kids around the same age, half of whom were vaccinated while the other half were not, and checked which group had the better health outcomes, the vaccine debate would be over.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other agencies have stubbornly refused to promote such uncomplicated, straight-forward scientific analyses – no points for figuring out why – but a group of scientists from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University has nonetheless risen to the challenge. For those who have been warning parents about the dangers of vaccines for years, like Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the scientists’ findings are not the least bit surprising.
The study, which was published recently in the Journal of Translational Science, sought to do two things: Firstly, the scientists wanted to compare a broad range of health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children; and secondly, they wanted to determine whether there was an association between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) which remained significant after adjusting for other factors.
Interestingly, the study abstract begins by singing the praises of vaccines and all they have accomplished in preventing diseases in the past. They then go on to point out, however, that in terms of the current recommended pediatric vaccine schedule, children receive 48 doses of vaccines to prevent 14 different diseases by the age of 6 – a number which has increased steadily over the past 60 years.
The researchers point out that individual vaccines are tested before being rolled out to the public, and that though they are known to carry risks, these risks are believed to be minimal.
But here’s the kicker: It’s the long-term effects of these vaccines, and particularly having so many vaccines in such a short space of time, that scientists have not assessed. “There are very few randomized trials on any existing vaccine recommended for children in terms of morbidity and mortality,” they note, “in part because of ethical concerns involving withholding vaccines from children assigned to a control group.”
Okay, so scientists haven’t wanted to withhold vaccines from children in order to study them, as that would raise ethical concerns, so they’ve rather just gone ahead with vaccinating millions of children with pretty much untested vaccine combinations? Okay … moving on.
The abstract explains that the major controversy raging at the moment is whether vaccination can be linked to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) like autism, ADHD and so on – a controversy which has been “fueled by the fact that the U.S. is experiencing what has been described as a ‘silent pandemic’ of mostly subclinical developmental neurotoxicity, in which about 15% of children suffer from a learning disability, sensory deficits, and developmental delays.”
For their study, researchers studied 666 children, 39 percent of whom were unvaccinated – they managed to find a large enough control group of unvaccinated kids by approaching homeschool organizations.
Though the vaccinated kids were found to have lower incidences of chicken pox and whooping cough, there were no significant differences in the rates of other diseases, including Hepatitis A or B, high fever over the previous 6-month period, measles, mumps, meningitis (either bacterial or viral), the flu or rotavirus!
And that’s not all. Vaccinated children were “significantly more likely than the unvaccinated” to have developed one or more of the following:
Autism: 4.2 times higher risk
ADHD: Also 4.2 times higher risk
Learning disabilities: 5.2 times greater risk
Eczema: 2.9 times higher risk
Allergic rhinitis: a massive 30 times higher risk
Pt: Doctor please save me from my mistrust of medicine!!
Dk: Here’s a nice injection of aluminum. Bend over please.
Vaccines have injured thousands of children — and the parents of these children often turn to social media to share their stories as a way of cautioning other parents and to spread awareness. Now, Pinterest and other social media networks are trying to silence them. By taking away their freedom of speech and ousting concerned parents from their platforms, Big Pharma’s puppets can continue to push their narrative for total vaccine tyranny unchallenged. Erasing posts sharing the realities of vaccine injuries serves the ludicrous notion that vaccines are “100-percent safe.’ The echo chamber is real — and it is getting bigger. Under the left-wing’s reign, free speech on the internet is disappearing.
Pinterest’s “Community Guidelines” section includes a host of topics that are banned or “hidden” from public view. As the site states, “Our team works hard to keep divisive, disturbing or unsafe content off Pinterest.”
The topic of vaccines would probably fall under “divisive” content but Pinterest takes it even further by labeling anti-vaccine content as an extension of self-harm. Their community guidelines on Self Harm declare:
We remove any content that promotes harmful behavior, or anything that encourages or suggests self-harm. We’ll take action on misinformation that has immediate and detrimental effects on a pinner’s health or on public safety – like promotion of false cures for terminal or chronic illnesses and anti-vaccination advice.
Information that paints vaccines in a bad light is also labeled as “harmful misinformation” under another section of the community guidelines — so disparaging the vaccine industry on Pinterest may count as two offenses, instead of just one….
Globally, the number of babies born through caesarean section (C-section) almost doubled between 2000 and 2015 — from 12% to 21% of all births — according to a Series of three papers published in The Lancet and launched at the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) World Congress in Brazil. While the life-saving surgery is still unavailable for many women and children in low-income countries and regions, the procedure is overused in many middle- and high-income settings….
In the 10 countries with the highest number of births in 2010-2015, there were large differences in C-section use between regions — for example, differences between provinces in China ranged from 4% to 62%, and inter-state differences in India ranged from 7% to 49%. The USA, Bangladesh, and Brazil reported C-section use in more than 25% of births nationally, but some regions within these countries used C-section around twice as much as others ….
Maternal death and disability is higher after C-section than vaginal birth. In particular, C-sections have a more complicated recovery for the mother, and lead to scarring of the womb, which is associated with bleeding, abnormal development of the placenta, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth and preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies. The authors say that it is important to note that these are small but serious risks, but each of these risks increases as a woman has more C-sections.
There is emerging evidence that babies born via C-section have different hormonal, physical, bacterial and medical exposures during birth, which can subtly alter their health. While the long-term risks of this are not well-researched, the short-term effects include changes in immune development which can increase the risk of allergies and asthma and alter the bacteria in the gut….
As is customary in “scientific” medical research, the toxic psychological impact on imprinting children and vulnerable mothers (see #3 at http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/MGM/birthUSA3.html ) is resolutely and uniformly ignored in the source article ( https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2818%2931928-7 ) . In fact that seems to largely be the function of the psychological sciences: rationalize business as usual, objectify and pathologize predictable reactions to resultant trauma and find a way to blame the victim.
It seems the punishment for having children is becoming increasingly severe. Normal, unhurried, confident birth is an orgasmic event designed to bond mother and baby. It is hardly ever to be found in a hospital setting.
This will continue to accelerate as doctors become increasingly overworked, time-constrained and ignorant of normal birth, and humanity will become increasingly barbarized and medicalized as the toxic epigenetic imprint spreads with each new generation and babies are physically, emotionally, hormonally and immunologically severed from their mothers and put on industrial effluent (aluminized and fluoridated formula) due to lactation disruption, and abandoned to strollers, TV, computers and day care.
Sorry if this sounds depressing, but it’s only logical. Birth trauma creates dissociation and reduced empathy, leading to abandonment of empathic behaviors like child nurturing and play and the adoption of more “efficient” hive-like behaviors to fill in the voids. The intergenerational feedback loops are hard to miss, especially with profit-driven male doctors involved. The only constraint to exponential growth that I can see will be the level of population saturation as the rate approaches 100%. Thankfully, all the misery and illness that it causes will be great for the economy. At least until everything falls apart completely.
Michigan State Economics Professor Mark Skidmore made a stunning discovery late last year. Using publicly available government accounting reports, he revealed there was $21 trillion in what he calls “missing money” from the Department of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The data he used has been scrubbed, all accounting records are heavily redacted and now the federal government has declared its accounting falls under “national security.” Dr. Skidmore can no longer get the government to respond. Dr. Skidmore explains, “At this point, they are no longer responding to any of my inquiries. They are just not answering, and that is very astounding . . . and you can go on and look at the report yourself and see all of it blacked out. I actually lost sleep over that. That really bothered me. . . . Now, they are not even using standard accounting financial reporting rules. They are just moving things around and not telling anybody. So, first, all of this stuff is hidden because it is a national security issue, and now they are just changing the accounting standards. I would ask is that constitutional? I don’t think so. Does it match any of our financial reporting laws? I don’t think so. I am not sure what gives the government the authority to make that decision, and, yet, it’s happening.”…
Dr. Skidmore says there is a limit to money printing even when all the global central banks are doing it. Skidmore says, “What does it mean when a central bank is buying equities, or buying debt with printed money in order to suppress interest rates and keep this game going? I think, overall, the whole world is awash in debt, and it’s expanding at a rate that is unsustainable. The only way it has been sustained is that interest rates have been falling for 30 years. Now, interest rates are no longer falling, and we are running up against a constraint. Now, if this $21 trillion in ‘missing’ federal money really represents spending above and beyond what the official records indicate, then that has huge financial implications and huge implications for confidence in the dollar as the reserve currency. This is an enormous priority to address and not just cover up and say we are all good.”…