top of page

The Pharmaceutical Reach: HHS Part 2

Updated: Jan 24, 2022

Chapter 9: Article 3

You have learned that creating health is NOT the goal of any of the federal public health agency. (Ch9: Part 2) In 1984, HHS made it clear in their meeting minutes that maximum vaccine uptake is one of their mandated goals. Because of that goal, HHS explained that concerns about vaccine safety, "whether or not well founded," "cannot be allowed to exist."

In 1986, Congress enacted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, an act which granted vaccine makers immunity from liability. As a result, a re-designed pseudo-judicial process known today as "vaccine court," replaced the tort system, and pharmaceutical companies are completely uninvolved in that process. 

The Act stipulated that HHS would become the responsible and liable entity, and vaccine payouts would come from an excise tax added to the price of every vaccine. Today, attorneys from the Department of Justice (DOJ) work on behalf of HHS (the defendant), defending a government mandated program against parent petitioners. 

In Ch8: Part 2, I explained that in 2010, HHS again publicly expressed the need to use censorship and propaganda. Kathleen Sebelius (the then Secretary of HHS), had the following to say (emphasis mine): 

There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We [HHS] have reached out to media outlets, to try and get them to not give the views of THESE PEOPLE equal weight in their reporting to what SCIENCE has shown and continues to show, about the safety of vaccines.

Kathleen wants the public to believe that people who question vaccines have rejected "all" science, thus making them both anti-science and unintelligent. She explains that "these people" must not be given "equal weight in [media] reporting." Obviously one way to do this is to refuse to give vaccine critics air-time - that's censorship. Another way to do this is by providing unequally weighted reporting.

Obviously you can make something appear worse or better than it is, by selectively choosing what stories to cover, which facts to discuss, how much time to devote to both sides of a story, and which "experts" to interview. For example, a journalist could prepare a story and interview a doctor at length. The journalist could also show a brief rebuttal by a parent who speaks in opposition to the doctor. That would be unequally weighted reporting. For the reporting to be equal, the story would need to showcase two doctors who disagree with each other's viewpoints, each being given equal air time to present the evidence they relied upon in arriving at their professional medical opinion. 

If unequally weighted reporting is done consistently by both government and media, on an ongoing basis, well then that becomes propaganda.

Kathleen's statement implies that the only reason why HHS has asked the media for help with their censorship and propaganda campaign, is because unintelligent people are a threat to public health.

Take a moment to really evaluate such a suggestion. Can you imagine if unintelligent Forrest Gump, with his one-liner brilliance, proclaimed on a news broadcast that "Vaccines are dan-ger-ous!" Do you think that upon airing that, the public would stop dead in their tracks and say, "Oh my gosh, he just might be right. I think I better stop vaccinating!" 

If people are going to be swayed into changing their strongly held long-term opinions and practices, first they'd expect to hear some pretty intelligent discussion about how vaccines might NOT be as beneficial as originally thought. And further to that, they'd require seeing some pretty incredible scientific evidence to support such an assertion. Stupid statements made by stupid people who had zero scientific evidence to back up what they were saying, wouldn't sway anyone. And because of THAT, there'd be no harm in giving those people "equal weight" in any media reporting. And so Kathleen's statement subtly acknowledges that many highly intelligent people, doctors, are opposed to vaccination. Equal weighted reporting cannot be allowed, because those doctors would be an incredible threat to the vaccine program.

Not only does HHS need to use censorship and propaganda to ensure maximum vaccine uptake, HHS also needs to implement censorship and propaganda because HHS has become the defendant in "vaccine court." If HHS or their subordinate agencies (FDA, CDC, NIH, etc) make any statements or publish any research that shows or explains how vaccines cause harm, that evidence would then be used against HHS in vaccine court, which could result in them having to pay out billions or trillions in damages.

And THAT reality leads us to our next and final critical piece of information about HHS. To explain it, I have to provide a little background.

A non-profit organization called Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) contacted HHS last year, inquiring into the safety audits HHS is required to conduct every two year (since 1987), as is mandated in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The Act states (emphasis mine):

Sec. 300aa-27. Mandate for safer childhood vaccines

(a) General rule

In the administration of this part and other pertinent laws under the jurisdiction of the Secretary [of HHS], the Secretary shall

(1) promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market on December 22, 1987, and promote the refinement of such vaccines, and

(2) make or assure improvements in, and otherwise use the authorities of the Secretary with respect to, the licensing, manufacturing, processing, testing, labeling, warning, use instructions, distribution, storage, administration, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting, and recall of reactogenic lots or batches, of vaccines, and research on vaccines in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines...

(c) Report

Within 2 years after December 22, 1987, and periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall prepared transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report describing the actions taken pursuant to subsection (a) during the preceding 2-year period.

In an interview, Del Bigtree (the founder of ICAN) explained that HHS repeatedly refused to respond to their FOIA request, even though HHS was legally required to respond within 20 days. When HHS did eventually respond, they refused to provide any information which would satisfy ICAN's inquiry. As a result, ICAN was forced to take legal action. Del Bigtree and Robert F Kennedy Jr (ICAN's legal representation) discussed how everything played out with their lawsuit. Their discussion is quoted as follows:

Del: [Our lawsuit] lays out that there's three ways essentially that [HHS] can respond to this:

  1. [HHS] can either give us what we've asked for in our FOIA requests, all of the documents showing us the safety work [they've] done on vaccines, since [they're] the only ones doing it. And all the surveillance work and the licensing [etc]

  2. Or give us a credible explanation why [they couldn't] give that to us, or

  3. Lastly tell us [they] don't have anything and [they] have not done [their] job

Well, it went all the way to court...

What I want to ask, Bobby, though is, people will say, so what's the big deal, so Health and Human Services signed...some agreement through a court order stating that they have no records of ever having referenced health and safety of vaccines to Congress, so Bobby, what is the big deal?

RFK Jr: Well here's the background Del, when Congress gave economic immunity to the pharmaceutical industry for manufacturing vaccines and distributing vaccines, in 1986, it was removing any kind of economic incentive for those companies to actually maintain or improve or guarantee the safety of vaccines. Every other product has an incentive to make their product safe from manufacturing defects, because they know they can get sued by people who are injured. But in this case, that check and balance was being removed. So Congress, in order to remedy that..assigned specifically to HHS, the obligation to make sure that vaccines were safe. And of the key pieces of that obligation was a mandate that every two years, that HHS makes a safety profile of the vaccines that it has approved and then it reports to Congress about what it has done during the past two years to improve vaccine safety. And we couldn't find any record of any of those reports over the 30 years

...We fired a FOIA request...they didn't produce any documents. We sued them and they have now admitted that they have never done that, any of that test[ing] and they have never filed any of those reports. And really Del, what it shows is ... the cavalier, the casual attitude HHS has towards vaccine safety.

All those institutions that normally would protect a victim, a child, no longer exists [for vaccines], and the only thing that's left over is HHS's scrutiny and vigilance. And we absolutely rely on that. And what HHS has admitted here, is there is no scrutiny, there is no vigilance. 

Because of this lawsuit, HHS was forced to sign official court documents admitting that they have never followed federal law, meeting their required obligations of the 1986 Act. ICAN provides this official court documentation for the public to see, and in a letter attached, they say (emphasis mine):

The result of the lawsuit is that HHS had to finally and shockingly admit that it never, not even once, submitted a single biennial report to Congress detailing the improvements in vaccine safety. This speaks volumes to the seriousness by which vaccine safety is treated at HHS and heightens the concern that HHS doesn’t have a clue as to the actual safety profile of the now 29 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age.

In contrast, HHS takes the other portions of the 1986 Act, which require promoting vaccine uptake, very seriously, spending billions annually and generating a steady stream of reports on how to improve vaccine uptake. Regrettably, HHS has chosen to focus on its obligation to increase vaccine uptake and defend against any claim vaccines cause harm in the National Injury Vaccine Compensation Program (aka, the Vaccine Court) to such a degree that it has abandoned its vaccine safety responsibilities. If HHS is not, as confirmed in Court this week, even fulfilling the simple task of filing a biennial report on vaccine safety improvements, there is little hope that HHS is actually tackling the much harder job of actually improving vaccine safety.

Always remember that the "public health" model is focused entirely on disease management, NOT on creating health. Pharmaceutical products are an essential tool for managing disease. And remember, "managing disease" means minimizing your symptoms but NEVER curing you. 

In 1984, HHS stated that maximum vaccine uptake is their highest priority, over-ruling everything else. HHS stated that well founded concerns about a vaccine "cannot be allowed to exist." That doesn't mean that vaccine problems aren't real and happening, it just means that the federal agency has decided when problems are discovered, they must be ignored, denied, and hidden.

Also remember that HHS is the defendant in vaccine court, and the Department of Justice protects HHS and the government vaccine program when battling against parent petitioners, parents who have vaccine injured children. If HHS conducts research that ends up showing vaccines cause harm, that research would be used against HHS in vaccine court.

HHS' statements and actions over the past 3+ decades have very clearly shown that they eliminate any obstacle that threatens 1) maximum vaccine uptake or 2) their defense in vaccine court. When information became a threat, censorship and propaganda were implemented. When lawsuits became a threat, the tort system was removed. When the 1986 Act made HHS responsible for conducting research that would uncover problems with vaccines, the department simply refused to conduct the research or  submit the biannual audits. When government studies discovered that a vaccine does cause harm (Here), the federal government destroyed the data. Time and time again, HHS has proven that there isn't anything they won't do to ensure that they achieve their mandate, even if that comes at the expense of public health.

CONTINUE to the next article in this series: Ch9: Part 4

Article Sources

  • Former head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, explains that health is not measured or studied Here

  • Immunologists explain they don't know how the immune system is works when its healthy Here

  • HHS Instruction: well-founded vaccine safety concerns cannot be allowed to exist Here

  • British Health Minister states "vaccines are good for you" Here

  • HHS: Instruction to media to censor vaccine critical discussions Here

  • CDC: Explains long term health outcomes in the vaccination population are not studied Here

  • ICAN letter addressed to the Secretary of HHS Here

  • Video - discussion with Del Bigtree and Robert F Kennedy Jr about the US lawsuit they filed and won, against HHS Here

  • Official Court Documents - HHS admitting they have not met their required obligations detailed in the US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 Here

  • 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Here

47 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

The Pharmaceutical Reach: HHS Part 1

Chapter 9: Article 2 Public health departments like Health and Human Services (HHS), and its subordinate agencies (the FDA, CDC, NIH, etc) strive to improve the American population's health. Right? HH

The Pharmaceutical Reach: FDA

Chapter 9: Article 4 In Ch2: Part 2, I introduced you to David Graham, the FDA whistleblower. Remember his interview, where he explained the FDA structural make-up is biased favouring pharmaceutical c


bottom of page