Aborted Babies Used in Vaccines

wp-image-282249783

By Dr. John Reizer

In addition to being extremely toxic, vaccines are also made from aborted human fetuses. Although this is probably shocking to most of us, it is not surprising to the people working in this industry. There are questionable bioethical practices performed in the field of medical research everyday.

Many scientists and the corporate structures they work for have very little regard for human life. To these people life is merely something that’s happened by chance and something that is eventually going to malfunction.

According to these individuals, we’re all the product of bad genetics and we will eventually express those bad genetics in the form of various diseases.

Mainstream science and medicine believe that the suppressive medical therapies practiced throughout the world are the only logical way to defeat physiological inadequacies in the human body.

Anyone who has ever had an opportunity to dissect a human cadaver should instantly realize that life on this planet has come to fruition from intelligent design. There’s an innate striving within all life that seeks to regulate itself and adapt to its ever changing environment. This is why human and animal medicine, through suppressive therapies, have over time made the people and animals on our planet weaker than they should be.

Vaccines are a bad idea for people and animals alike regardless of how many medical professionals jump up and down screaming otherwise. And these drugs contain toxins and human parts that should sicken all of us both physiologically and psychologically speaking.

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: Statement on Federal Vaccine Mandate

wp-image-879162634

To:  Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, House Energy and Commerce Committee

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

Re: Statement federal vaccine mandates

Feb. 26, 2019

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) strongly opposes federal interference in medical decisions, including mandated vaccines. After being fully informed of the risks and benefits of a medical procedure, patients have the right to reject or accept that procedure. The regulation of medical practice is a state function, not a federal one. Governmental preemption of patients’ or parents’ decisions about accepting drugs or other medical interventions is a serious intrusion into individual liberty, autonomy, and parental decisions about child-rearing.

A public health threat is the rationale for the policy on mandatory vaccines. But how much of a threat is required to justify forcing people to accept government-imposed risks? Regulators may intervene to protect the public against a one-in-one million risk of a threat such as cancer from an involuntary exposure to a toxin, or-one-in 100,000 risk from a voluntary (e.g. occupational) exposure. What is the risk of death, cancer, or crippling complication from a vaccine? There are no rigorous safety studies of sufficient power to rule out a much higher risk of complications, even one in 10,000, for vaccines. Such studies would require an adequate number of subjects, a long duration (years, not days), an unvaccinated control group (“placebo” must be truly inactive such as saline, not the adjuvant or everything-but-the-intended-antigen), and consideration of all adverse health events (including neurodevelopment disorders).

Vaccines are necessarily risky, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and by Congress. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid some $4 billion in damages, and high hurdles must be surmounted to collect compensation. The damage may be so devastating that most people would prefer restored function to a multimillion-dollar damage award.

The smallpox vaccine is so dangerous that you can’t get it now, despite the weaponization of smallpox. Rabies vaccine is given only after a suspected exposure or to high-risk persons such as veterinarians. The whole-cell pertussis vaccine was withdrawn from the U.S. market, a decade later than from the Japanese market, because of reports of severe permanent brain damage. The acellular vaccine that replaced it is evidently safer, though somewhat less effective.

The risk: benefit ratio varies with the frequency and severity of disease, vaccine safety, and individual patient factors. These must be evaluated by patient and physician, not imposed by a government agency.

Measles is the much-publicized threat used to push for mandates, and is probably the worst threat among the vaccine-preventable illnesses because it is so highly contagious. There are occasional outbreaks, generally starting with an infected individual coming from somewhere outside the U.S. The majority, but by no means all the people who catch the measles have not been vaccinated. Almost all make a full recovery, with robust, life-long immunity. The last measles death in the U.S. occurred in 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Are potential measles complications including death in persons who cannot be vaccinated due to immune deficiency a  justification for revoking the rights of all Americans and establishing a precedent for still greater restrictions on our right to give—or withhold—consent to medical interventions? Clearly not.

Many serious complications have followed MMR vaccination, and are listed in the manufacturers’ package insert, though a causal relationship may not have been proved. According to a 2012 report by the Cochrane Collaboration, “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate” (cited by the National Vaccine Information Center).

Mandate advocates often assert a need for a 95% immunization rate to achieve herd immunity. However, Mary Holland and Chase Zachary of NYU School of Law argue, in the Oregon Law Review, that because complete herd immunity and measles eradication are unachievable, the better goal is for herd effect and disease control. The best outcome would result, they argue, from informed consent, more open communication, and market-based approaches.

Even disregarding adverse vaccine effects, the results of near-universal vaccination have not been completely positive. Measles, when it does occur, is four to five times worse than in pre-vaccination times, according to Lancet Infectious Diseases, because of the changed age distribution: more adults, whose vaccine-based immunity waned, and more infants, who no longer receive passive immunity from their naturally immune mother to protect them during their most vulnerable period.

Measles is a vexing problem, and more complete, forced vaccination will likely not solve it. Better public health measures—earlier detection, contact tracing, and isolation; a more effective, safer vaccine; or an effective treatment are all needed. Meanwhile, those who choose not to vaccinate now might do so in an outbreak, or they can be isolated. Immunosuppressed patients might choose isolation in any event because vaccinated people can also possibly transmit measles even if not sick themselves.

Issues that Congress must consider:

Manufacturers are virtually immune from product liability, so the incentive to develop safer products is much diminished. Manufacturers may even refuse to make available a product believed to be safer, such as monovalent measles vaccine in preference to MMR (measles-mumps-rubella). Consumer refusal is the only incentive to do better.There are enormous conflicts of interest involving lucrative relationships with vaccine purveyors.Research into possible vaccine adverse effects is being quashed, as is dissent by professionals.There are many theoretical mechanisms for adverse effects from vaccines, especially in children with developing brains and immune systems. Note the devastating effects of Zika or rubella virus on developing humans, even though adults may have mild or asymptomatic infections. Many vaccines contain live viruses intended to cause a mild infection. Children’s brains are developing rapidly—any interference with the complex developmental symphony could be ruinous.Vaccines are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective. Nor are they the only available means to control the spread of disease.

AAPS believes that liberty rights are unalienable. Patients and parents have the right to refuse vaccination, although potentially contagious persons can be restricted in their movements (e.g. as with Ebola), as needed to protect others against a clear and present danger. Unvaccinated persons with no exposure to a disease and no evidence of a disease are not a clear or present danger.

AAPS represents thousands of physicians in all specialties nationwide. It was founded in 1943 to protect private medicine and the patient-physician relationship.

Respectfully yours,

Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Internet Trolls Attack Anyone Resisting the Vaccine Party Line Part #1

Internet trolls are absolutely used by the powers that be to protect and maintain various false paradigms that have been established and forced upon society by the same power structure. Anti vaccine comments or anything else that are in opposition to organized medicine and their suppressive drug therapies would be fair game and targeted by professional trolls employed by Big Pharma.

ppjg's avatarThe PPJ Gazette

By Guest Columnist Marco Caceres di Iorio: Honduran Human Rights Activist and Editor of the online newspaper Honduras Weekly (1436 words)

https://idsent.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/internet-trolls-attack-anyone-resisting-vaccine-party-line/

Here’s how it usually goes: You say you have some doubts about vaccine safety and all those vaccinations the government requires you to give your kids. You say you’re concerned about serious side-effects you keep reading about, and particularly potential links to autism and autoimmune disorders, and the reports of encephalitis and shock. A typical response from mainstream proponents of vaccines would proceed like this…

“Oh, you’re being silly, you don’t know the science. Look, 99.9% of all doctors and scientists will tell you that vaccines are safe and effective. The science is solid, it’s long been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

Ninety-nine point nine percent. That sounds pretty convincing. Of course, it’s unclear what formula, study or survey was used to come up with that…

View original post 1,522 more words

Mega Structures On The Moon Captured by Earth Based Telescope

20170612_1237001484777566.png

By Dr. John Reizer

This is a pretty incredible video of what appears to be mega sized structures on our moon. The thing that makes this video quite interesting is that it examines and dissects photos of the moon that were taken by telescopes here on earth and from independent astronomers.

None of the photos showing these buildings were taken by NASA or any other government agencies. In my opinion, this makes them very special.

In addition to being special, anyone with a similar telescope should be able to verify that all these structures are actually present. Have a look at the video below to see what you think.

 

Click on links below to see clear images of moon structures:

https://plus.google.com/photos/102761491922333155233/album/6519558819460176865/6519558821856805090?authkey=CNfbgajZ2OfpygE

https://plus.google.com/photos/102761491922333155233/album/6519558819460176865/6519558821634033490?authkey=CNfbgajZ2OfpygE

https://plus.google.com/photos/102761491922333155233/album/6519558819460176865/6519558821448073954?authkey=CNfbgajZ2OfpygE

Did Moon Hoax Become too Difficult to Continue After Early 70’s?

20170612_1237001484777566.png

By Dr. John Reizer

It’s become blatantly obvious to those paying close attention that the moon landing deceptions of the late 60’s and early 70’s eventually became too difficult to continue. The chances of too many people uncovering the truth about the hoax increased dramatically with the passing of time which brought with it the advancement of technology becoming available to the general public. This is technology that has allowed for careful examination of the photographic records of Apollo. It is technology that has proven the photos were not taken on the moon or in the vacuum of space.

Interesting to note, none of the Apollo cameras used to capture the moon photographs were brought back to earth. I believe the real reason for that is because analysis of said cameras would have confirmed that they would have been useless and incapable of taking photographs in the vacuum of space. It was best for NASA to leave those cameras on the moon where they were out of harm’s way or away from the eyes of researchers.

There are so many videos out there attempting to debunk the moon landings and Apollo. There are even more videos attempting to debunk the Apollo debunkers. It’s absolutely amazing to see the lengthy productions that have been created addressing this and other space missions.

In the end, the smoking gun that speaks volumes about Apollo and other NASA missions being frauds are the inabilities of any space agency to  successfully replicate manned missions beyond LEO’S (Low Earth Orbits) since Apollo allegedly did so 50 or more years ago.

Take a look at any piece of technology that is 50 years old. Look at the modern versions of those models and you will observe marked improvements in all of them. Phones, cameras, computers, refrigerators, televisions, automobiles, and others; they’ve all been improved drastically in their design and technological development. Not the case with space ships and their abilities to visit the moon and other celestial bodies.

NASA supposedly lost the technology to get astronauts beyond LEO’S and to the moon. REALLY?

You don’t see General Electric losing the designs for the toaster oven or electric range. You don’t see General Motors losing the technology to manufacture cars. Can you imagine the Ford motor company announcing next month that they can no longer manufacture pickup trucks because they misplaced the plans?

Childhood Vaccine Warning Labels Should be advertised on Television

wp-image-282249783

By Dr. John Reizer

Wouldn’t it be great if every mandated or recommended childhood vaccine was required to be advertised on television each evening along with their applicable warning labels and associated ingredients?

20190218_212629

Drug companies would cringe at the thought of having to advertise certain vaccines that have already been forced upon the public. They would have to disclose all the side effects in any ads and that would scare healthcare consumers. That’s why you never see the Rubella, tDap, chickenpox or Measles vaccines featured in ads like other drugs being pushed on a daily basis.

If the government mandated the public consumption of drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis for precautionary measures, do you think big pharma would continue to advertise these products? No!

Can you imagine if the government mandated the taking of antidepressants for everyone because studies found that too many people were depressed and it was causing an epidemic of suicidal behavior in the nation?

Do you think the mandated consumption of antidepressants would infuriate the public? Or would they sit back and roll up their sleeves and get jabbed? Would we see medical cheerleaders posting remarks on social media about what a good idea it was to mandate the public consumption of antidepressants or whatever poison the legal drug cartel wanted to sell?

It’s complete insanity that a governing body can force its citizens to take any drug. All drugs come with serious risks and no one should ever be forced to take any drug without their consent.

What do you think about this subject?