Feel free to jump to the heading "Safety Net #2" below, as everything stated until then is a repeat of what was written on the first article in this series.
This is a 14-part series. I hope you will read the series at your own pace, continuing to come back to this series until you’ve completed it. When reading through this 14 part series, remember that each piece fits within the collective contributing to the bigger picture, and that each unique piece is NOT actually separate from the whole.
When it comes to the various products that are available for purchase, there are many safety nets that are established to protect consumers from dangerous products. Those safety nets ensure that products are designed, manufactured, and distributed in such a way that potential harms are minimized, and any harms are more easily and quickly identified once that product is in distribution. Unfortunately, there are shortcomings in many of these consumer safety nets, or industry has found a way to bypass some of those protective measures. As a result, unsafe products continue to be made and distributed widely. What’s more unique to vaccines though, is that every single one of the multiple safety nets that were established to protect people and ensure product safety, all those protective measures have actually been neutralized by the pharmaceutical industry. This neutralization has happened either by direct financial funding from pharma, or indirectly through Governmental conflicts of interest that have influenced internal policy, bureaucracy, and legislation. But before explaining how the consumer protective safety nets have been neutralized when it comes to vaccines, I’ll first list what those protective measures were, or should be. (Bolding in the list below denotes which topic point will be discussed in this article).
The consumer safety nets for vaccine products are:
Government and our political leaders who represent the people
Federal agencies that oversee vaccine regulation, research, safety, and distribution: These agencies include: Health and Human Services (HHS), The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), The National Institute of Health (NIH),The Institute of Medicine (IOM). Yes, these agencies are all based in the United States, however their policies are often adopted on a global scale.
Scientific research and medical journals
Our doctors and the institutions where they are educated and employed
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
The legal system
Safety Net #2: The Federal Agencies
This article discusses the role that Health and Human Services (HHS) and its subordinate agencies (the FDA, CDC, NIH) have played in protecting public health, and how the structural design of these agencies has led to a bias favouring pharmaceutical drug use, over health creation.
HHS is the highest level of government, overseeing all things related to public health. If you read HHS' mission statement, and the mission statements of the FDA, CDC, and NIH, the take away message is that these federal health agencies are in place to ensure that public health is protected. These agencies conduct research and implement various tools, action plans and measurements to achieve that mission. Or so it seems.
I say that, because when you compare what each of these agencies do with the most important action for achieving health and protecting health, that most important action is actually missing from their measurements, research, strategies, tools, action plans, and post-action evaluation.
To explain, I provide a quote given by Dr. Julie Gerberding during an interview/talk she gave to students of Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Gerberding was the former head of the CDC from 2002-2009. In this interview she explains:
I have theories and fantasies about what I wish could happen. I wish that we really could put a premium on health and health creation. And that we, as a society, could reward and incentivize health creation, the same way we reward and incentivize disease care.
...we need to measure health. We only measure disease. So how many adolescents have herpes infection? Or how many people have diabetes? Or how many people have cardiovascular disease?
But we don't ask the inverse question. How many people have none of those things? How many people are really experiencing good health? That measure is very difficult to come by in most communities. And until we start measuring the proportion of healthy people in a holistic way, it's really difficult to see if we're creating more health or less health in the communities that we're working in.
...We accept the model that health is about disease care...But we are not able, at a societal level, to come up with solutions that move us off that paradigm in the powerful way, into a different framework for health creation.
Because these agencies don't measure how many people have good health, they also can't measure what it is that these people are doing right and differently that causes them to have good health. What are they eating, drinking, breathing, what's in (or not) their environment, what's different about their immune systems? etc, etc, etc.
At present, when it comes to health, the medical model implemented by both the government and the medical institutions is set-up in a short-sighted way. Quality standards and measurements of success are all centered around disease care and management. Tracking systems closely follow rates of disease, research is focused on disease causes, industry strives to achieve advancements in medication, vaccine and treatment options to reduce disease (or ease symptoms of disease), and agencies are focused on establishing response plans when confronted with outbreaks of disease, etc.
In essence, we are in a time that can be described as a "War on Disease."
Within this war there has been no place and no role for learning about what creates health. As the former head of the CDC explained, it's because there has been no incentive to do so. Think about that - really really think about that. Such a statement should be surprising for people to hear.
If you recall from Safety & Efficacy Part 16-1, I shared a few quotes from a Stanford Medicine article. The immunologists interviewed in that article stated the following (emphasis mine):
[The immune system is] staggeringly complex, comprising at least 15 different interacting cell types that spew dozens of different molecules into the blood to communicate with one another and to do battle. Within each of those cells sit tens of thousands of genes whose activity can be altered by age, exercise, infection, vaccination status, diet, stress, you name it. “
That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know what the vast majority of them do, or should be doing,” says [Mark] Davis [PhD, director of the Institute, and] the Bert and Marion Avery Family Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology. “We can’t even be sure how to tell when the immune system’s not working right, let alone why not, because we don’t have good metrics of what a healthy human immune system looks like.”
"Health," knowing what health is – who is healthy, why they're healthy and how health can be produced in those who are unhealthy, that is probably the most important factor for establishing "public health." And yet that "health" factor has been un-considered and completely ignored in all of the measuring, strategy and action planning, and post-action evaluation completed by these federal agencies.
If "health" is not included within the government's strategic planning and targeted measurements for success, then it doesn't make sense to refer to these agencies as "public health." Based on their measurements, strategies, tools, action plans, and targeted goals, it makes more sense to refer to these these agencies as "public disease management."
That's not to say there isn't a place within public health for disease care and management. What's incorrect though, is believing that disease management is health (this is a normal belief today). To believe that disease management is health, is equivalent to believing that the stillness and submission which follows after a weapon is drawn, is peace.
Because health creation has not yet been established as the medical model, disease management plays an important role in limiting disease, but disease management cannot remain the sole focus as is currently happening. If disease management remains the sole focus, with no intention of advancing forward into health creation, then that short sighted-ness traps us in a self-fulfilling prophecy cycle.
Currently the majority of the population is ill and remains ill, needing to rely upon numerous medications on an ongoing basis to ease illness symptoms from various ailments. Amidst that, regular forecasts of disease are projected, and the population is pressured (or forced) to use the promoted vaccines as an additional disease management strategy. After the disease threat has passed, more forecasts of disease are projected and the cycle continues. The forecasts and disease management strategies don't get people off medications, rather, they have a tendency of adding more and more "necessary" drugs.
Our focus needs to look beyond disease management, recognizing that it as only a short term and unsustainable strategy. The focus needs to shift to a long term sustainable strategy of creating health, and figuring out what the tools and strategies are, that are necessary to achieve that. This currently isn't happening.
Today, the very structural make-up of our federal agencies is set-up with the focus of managing disease rather than generating and creating health. As a result, the pharmaceutical industry, by default, has a crucially important role to play. Their role has actually become essential. Without this industry, disease management would collapse. And if there were no medications to manage and ease the symptoms of the population's poor health, the population would obviously suffer severely from that un-dampered illness. Because pharmaceutical industry makes billions of dollars in profit from managing people's poor health, and those profits flow back to government through taxes, application fees and lobbying, that money flow ensures that "disease management" is the operating structure that continues, year in, year out, with no intention of moving beyond it into health creation.
This was alluded to in HHS's 1984 instruction, which was:
”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."
So the government admits there that maximum use of a prescribed drug is the objective. When it comes to vaccines, maximum use overrides everything else, including well founded concerns about the vaccine's safety. And the word safety in that quote, is equivalent to saying the "health of an individual."
Remember, vaccines DON'T create health. Their purpose is to manage disease. Health, what creates it and what hampers it has never been officially studied, because mainstream medicine hasn't felt the topic to be worthy of time or attention. Despite that reality, the public and health officials actually think that the purpose behind vaccination programs is to create health. This was stated clearly by the British Health Secretary when he said, "‘Vaccination is good for you, good for your child, good for your neighbour and your community." To determine whether or not vaccination is good for you, would require long term testing that compares health outcomes between a group that received a vaccine, and a group that received a saline placebo. Such testing has never been completed.
In that bold HHS statement, that vaccine safety concerns "cannot be allowed to exist," that instruction means that censorship and propaganda must be used on the public. At that time, the government's objective of maximum vaccine uptake was in peril, because pharmaceutical companies were losing vaccine injury court cases for the damage their vaccines caused to individuals health. These companies were paying out millions of dollars in damages and as a result they were going bankrupt or were discontinuing production of vaccines. Dr. Paul Offit, who is considered to be the expert of all vaccine experts, wrote about these lawsuits in his book titled, "Deadly Choices." His book says (empahsis mine):
In the United States, the dominoes fell: parents decried the vaccine, the media trumpted their claims in dramatic headlines, and medical experts supported them with evidence from Miller's study [a study he later describes as being wrong]. It was a perfect storm. And it added up to one thing: lawsuits. Many, many lawsuits.
...By the end of 1982, lawyers had filed 17 lawsuits; during each of the next four years, they filed 41, 73, 219, and 255...
The amount of money requested by plaintiffs increased exponentially from $25 million in 1981...to $414 million in 1982, $655 million in 1983, 1.3 billion in 1984, and $3.2 billion in 1985. In response, pharmaceutical companies increased the prices of their vaccines and scrambled to get liability insurance. In early 1982, DTP vaccine cost $0.12 per dose. In June 1983, the cost rose to $2.30; the next year to $2.80. By 1985, the cost of one dose of DTP vaccine was $4.29 - a thirty-five-fold increase in less than three years. Increased revenues didn't offset the cost of awards. In 1984, the amount claimed in lawsuits exceeded DTP sales twentyfold. In 1985, despite a near doubling of the price, the damages claimed exceeded sales thirtyfold.
The result was predictable. Pharmaceutical companies abandoned vaccines. In 1960, seven companies made DTP. By 1982 only three remained: Connaught Laboratories,..Lederle Laboratories,..and Wyeth laboratories. On June 13, 1984, Wyeth announce it would no longer be distributing DTP. Late that summer, Connaught announced it was unable to get liability insurance and would stop making DTP vaccine...Lederle was the only company left standing...
Other vaccines suffered. The number of companies making measles vaccine dropped from six to one and those making polio vaccine from three to one. Vaccine makers were getting out of the business...
[T]he federal government stepped in. On October 18, 1986, the last day of the Ninety-Ninth Congress, legislators passed a bill that protected vaccine makers...
This 1986 bill, called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, granted vaccine makers immunity from liability. As a result, vaccine makers could not be sued for any harm a vaccine caused. Never before in history, nor since then, has a company been exempted from responsibility or accountability for the harm their product causes. The Act ordered that HHS step into the vaccine maker's shoes, taking over responsibility for vaccine safety. The legal process was removed, and a re-designed pseudo-judicial process, which has come to be known as "vaccine court, was enacted in it's place. Within this vaccine court, HHS acts as the defendant, defending a government mandated program. HHS relies upon a vast array of government resources and government attorneys when battling against parents who are stretched thin from the strain of caring for a child with special needs."
When the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed liability from manufacturers and gave it to HHS, from that point forward government and industry became an intrinsically unified entity.
In a prior article, Safety & Efficacy - 18, I explained that HHS again publicly expressed the need to use censorship and propaganda when talking about vaccines. In a 2010 interview with Kathleen Sebelius (the then Secretary of HHS), she 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.
No, she didn't say "we must use censorship and propaganda!" But let's dissect what she did say, because in doing so you'll see how that is her message.
Kathleen tells us that all science opposes the views of "these people." What she wants the public to take-away from that statement, is that these people have rejected science entirely, 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, interviewing a doctor on one panel at length, and a parent briefly in opposition, on the other. That would be unequal 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 time to present the evidence they relied upon in arriving at their professional medical opinion. If unequally weighted reporting is done consistently on an ongoing basis by both government and media, well then that is 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 these unintelligent people are a threat public health. In other words, un-intelligence is dangerous.
Take a moment to really evaluate such a suggestion, that unintelligent people and their unintelligent statements are actually dangerous. 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!"
My opinion of people and society today, is that if they were going to be swayed into changing their strongly held long-term opinions and practices, changing a strongly pro-vaccine stance, 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. Forrest Gump like statements, stupid statements made by stupid people who had zero scientific evidence to back up their what they were saying, wouldn't sway anyone, and because of that there'd be no harm giving those "people equal weight" in any media reporting.
Therefore, Kathleen Sebelius' statement alludes to the reality that if equal weight reporting was allowed, vaccination rates would fall because the public would be swayed by the intellectual debate, discussion and scientific evidence presented.
Not only does HHS need to use censorship and propaganda to ensure maximum vaccine uptake, HHS also needs to implement censorship and propaganda because they have become the defendant in vaccine "lawsuits." 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 could then be used against HHS in vaccine court. That evidence would cause HHS to lose their cases, meaning they'd be liable and responsible for paying for those damages.
And that reality leads us to our next and final critical piece of information, about HHS. But to explain that, I have to provide a little background.
A non-profit organization called Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) engaged 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.
Liability (or fear of it) is a powerful force that drives manufacturers to be innovative, motivating them to continually try to improve the performance and safety of their product. Because the 1986 Act removed manufacturer liability for vaccines, removing motivation to continually make improvements to vaccine performance and safety, Congress mandated that HHS become that motivating force. To be that driving force, the Act required HHS to do a bi-annual safety review, critically evaluating conducted research and identifying items still unknown about the vaccines. In evaluating those known and unknowns, HHS is required to prepare and a submit a report to Congress, detailing all the research, measurements and actions they've taken to evaluate and improve vaccine safety, and to explain all the next-step actions and research projects they will continue working on to aid future vaccine safety audits. ICAN submitted a FOIA request to receive all those biennial safety audit documents.
You can see this requirement within the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for yourself. 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.
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.
ICAN's inquiry to HHS initially went no where. 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:
[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]
Or give us a credible explanation why [they couldn't] give that to us, or
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 now gaping hole and economic incentive, assigned specifically to HHS, the obligation to make sure that vaccines were safe. And one of the key parts of that obligation, and this is all in the 1986 Act, one 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 lackidaisical, 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. And of course the gravamen of that, their strategy has been to make sure that vaccines are never safety tested. Most American's don't understand this, that prior to being licensed, every other pharmaceutical drug and pharmaceutical product has to go through rigorous randomized double-blind, placebo testing. Vaccines alone are immune from that. So instead of five year tests with true placebos, vaccines sometimes only get a few hours of safety testing, or a few days, and of course that's not long enough to spot injuries...
Because of this lawsuit, HHS was forced to sign official court documents admitting 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:
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.
When you realize that HHS is the defendant in vaccine court, and that the Department of Justice represents HHS, battling against the plaintiffs, parents who have submitted a claim of vaccine injury, it only makes sense that that very Government would simply refuse to conduct any research that might give those parents the evidence needed to win their cases. Despite being legally required to use its vast resources to improve vaccine safety through various avenues, and report on the progress they've made on this front, HHS has simply refused to do this critically important work.
Continue to the next post in this series: Here
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
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
You are currently on Part 2 of a 14 Part Series.
View a Post in the Series Using the Links Below:
Part 1 of 14: Consumer Safety Nets Here
Part 2 of 14: HHS (You are on this page)
Part 3 of 14: The FDA Here
Part 4 of 14: The CDC Here
Part 5 of 14: The IOM Here
Part 6 of 14: Scientific Research Here
Part 7 of 14: Scientific Research Corruption Here
Part 8 of 14: The Medical Journals Here
Part 9 of 14: Our Doctors Here
Part 10 of 14: Doctors Responsibility Here
Part 11 of 14: Medical Institutions Here
Part 12 of 14: VAERS Here
Part 13 of 14: The Media Here
Part 14 of 14: The Legal System Here