April 12, 2020

Please reload

Recent Posts

Table of Contents

April 12, 2020

1/1
Please reload

Featured Posts

1984 - Instruction from HHS

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 on 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 these subordinate agencies must follow through, and act accordingly to that HHS' instruction. 

 

To quote HHS plainly, from their meeting minutes regarding proposed changes to FDA law, 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 the FDA and the vaccine maker failed to follow US law during the polio vaccine's clinical testing. When this was pointed out during the 1984 court proceedings, HHS concluded 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, HHS' 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 HHS said. The final ruling minutes 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."

 

Remember that when HHS gives instruction that instruction is then acted upon by the subordinate agencies, the FDA, CDC, NIH, etc. The quote above, 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, instructed that honest, objective and complete disclosure about vaccine science must not be permitted, and that complete information must be withheld from US public knowledge.

 

By taking such a position, that 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.

 

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: Part 1

 

 

Article Sources

  • 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 Here (pdf)

  • NYU Professor speaking about vaccine propaganda and censorship Here (YouTube)

  • FDA Regulating Policy Part 630 - Additional Standards for Viral Vaccines Here

 

Article last updated Jan. 17, 2018

 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Follow Us
Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

Archive
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
In essence, society’s attention has become focused on vaccination, focused solely on this health treatment. But TREATMENT is not what creates health, treatment is what changes or manages a persons’ symptoms of poor health. Instead of focusing solely on the treatment, there needs to be a shift. We need to evaluate the treatment in the context of the whole - what is working about the treatment? What needs improving? What is failing completely? How does the treatment affect evolution of the species? And how can health be supported moving forward so that the treatment is no longer needed?
Canada
United States