Updated: Jun 28
Chapter 2: Article 3 (Listen to the article Here)
Leading up to 1984, there had been a number of American lawsuits filed against vaccine manufacturers, for the injuries that vaccines caused to Americans. Recognizing how USA public vaccine support could be affected by those vaccine lawsuits, the USA Health and Human Services department (HHS) began paying very close attention to those legal proceedings. Based upon the evidence presented throughout the court proceedings, HHS realized that they had a serious problem, and as a result they took action, changing some FDA legislation.
HHS is the highest level of Government for all things health related. Therefore HHS oversees the FDA, they oversee the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), they oversee the National Institute of Health (NIH), and other American health agencies. That means that when HHS provides direction, all those subordinate agencies must follow through, and act accordingly to that HHS' instruction.
To quote FDA plainly, from their meeting minutes regarding proposed changes to FDA regulations, the minutes say:
"questions have been raised in litigation about whether the vaccine...met all of the technical requirements" [legislated by FDA law]...it is in the interest of the public health to make the amendment effective as soon as possible, to make certain, [litigation] questions... do not cast doubt on the safety of the vaccine and... immunization program."
Though subtly stated that is an incredible admission! What they are admitting to there, is both the FDA and the vaccine maker failed to strictly follow US law during the polio vaccine's clinical testing in the 1960s. When this was pointed out during the 1984 court proceedings, US government concluded that they needed to change the law, NOT to improve the safety testing of vaccines, but rather, to save face and maintain positive public perception and public vaccination support. Furthermore, the conclusion was not to correct the vaccine so that it met the original US law, instead, they changed the testing protocol, loosening the requirements, so that the law matched the deficient vaccine.
But that's not all that was said, the final ruling minutes go on to state:
…any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives.
"Accordingly, because of the importance of the vaccine and of maintaining public confidence in the immunization program that depends on it, good cause exists to issue these amendments as a final rule effective immediately."
FDA did not go rogue here, acting randomly, making up their own directives and initiatives. The FDA is a subordinate department supervised by HHS. Remember, when lawsuits scrutinize government actions, the affected government department and their supervising department all meet together to discuss those developments, with the supervising department (HHS) providing leadership, oversight and direction. And HHS' direction is spelled out very clearly in these meeting minutes. The quote, that ”any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist," is a pretty revealing one. The only interpretation for such a statement is that HHS, the highest level of US Government, has instructed their subordinate agencies, the FDA, CDC, NIH, etc. that honest, objective and complete disclosure about vaccine science must not be permitted, and that complete information must be withheld from US public knowledge. If that was not the direction given to the FDA by HHS, then FDA would not speak or act in such a manner.
That statement, and position, means that USA officials have admitted that they WILL use propaganda and censorship to influence the nation's behaviour. And recognizing that USA medical practices are modelled WORLDWIDE, that means that USA propaganda and censorship has subsequently influenced global behaviour.
If well-founded vaccine safety concerns cannot be allowed to exist, what do you think doctors are taught during their medical educations? Do you think the lectures that they learn from are propaganda-free?
As a result of propaganda, the vast majority of the public (including doctors) are completely unaware and therefore they are ignorant to the legitimate vaccine safety issues that exist. Obviously the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and in this case, US Government silenced that squeak in 1984, which significantly affected public awareness and outcry. Consequently, the safety problems of the past continue to exist and persist today, and in addition to that, more problems have developed, because the childhood vaccine schedule has nearly tripled since 1986 as a result of US legislative changes (more will be explained on this later).
Before 1986, American children were given 24 doses of 7 vaccines from birth to 18 years of age. Today, American infants receive more than that, receiving 25 doses of 9 vaccines in their first 6 months of life. Looking at the schedule today, from birth to 18 years of age, American children now receive 70 doses of 16 vaccines, a near tripling.
There is often confusion regarding how those "vaccine dosage" numbers are derived. To explain, vaccine preventable illnesses each have their own individual and unique vaccine, and sometimes those vaccines are later combined into combination vials. For example, the measles vaccine, mumps vaccine, and rubella vaccines are each made individually and specifically for those three separate illnesses. As the vaccine schedule grew, vaccines were combined into different combo shots, in this example producing the combined MMR vaccine, which reduced the number of injections that a child has to receive. The pro-choice often refer to MMR as either three separate vaccines, or three separate vaccine doses within one injection.
To frame this a different way, if you took one pill of each, Tylenol, Advil, and Aspirin should that be considered 3 separate drugs? Would it be fair to say 3 doses of pain killer? Or should we insist that such a combo be classified as a single dose of a single painkiller? I think most people would agree that such a combination could be referenced fairly as three distinct drugs administered at the same time, or three pain killer doses administered together.
Though Canada did not face the same legislative changes in 1986, Canadians were affected by this American legislation. As the American vaccine schedule grew drastically after 1986, the Canadian vaccine schedule grew comparably, changing nearly identically with only minor differences. Before 1986, over their entire childhood, from birth to 18 years of age, Canadian children received 24 doses of 7 vaccines. Today, Canadianinfants receive more than that, 25 doses of 10 vaccines by six months of age. Looking at the present Canadian schedule from birth to 18 years of age, Canadian children today receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines, a near tripling.
Society's ongoing ignorance, society's apathy and denial that there could be a problem with vaccines, society's hatred for a group of people they've labeled "anti-vaxxers," and the refusal of society to listen to that hated minority, all of those actions have further compounded the problems.
Only when the public can speak openly and objectively about vaccine safety issues, without fear of attack and ridicule, only then will the serious safety issues and failures be corrected. If legitimate safety issues continue to be hidden from doctors and from common public knowledge, nothing will ever change or improve. How could it? And if past and present problems continue to be ignored, denied, and silenced today, then that can only mean that our children will continue to face serious risks in the future ahead.
CONTINUE to the next article here: Ch3: Article 1
HHS Organizational Chart Here (pdf)
Must Read: HHS / Federal Register / Vol. 49 No. 107 / Friday June 1, 1984 / Rules and Regulations Amendments to 21 CFR Part 630, Food and Drug Administration, Final Rule - (pdf - with my highlights)
This small pdf file was extracted from the full document, so it loads more quickly. You can view the original Federal Register document Here (It's large and takes a while to load). If you download the file, you will need to scroll to page 252. If you don't download the document, then scroll to the page numbered 23004 and read until page numbered 23007.