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?
HHS is the highest level of government for all things related to 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 agencies are in place to ensure that public health is protected. These agencies use their vast resources 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 all of their measuring, researching, strategizing, action planning, 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 her 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.
If you recall from Ch5: Part 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]... “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.”
Because these federal 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) in their lifestyles and environment, what's different about their immune systems? etc, etc, etc.
"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 federal government's measuring, strategizing, action planning, and post-action evaluation. Based on their action plans, and targeted goals, it makes more sense to refer to these these agencies as "Public Disease Management."
At present, there is a place within Public Health for disease care and management. But to believe that disease management is the same thing as health, THAT is equivalent to believing that when a weapon is drawn, the stillness and submission which follows, is peace.
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.
Because policy focus is on managing disease, the pharmaceutical industry then has a crucially important role to play. Their role has actually become essential. Without this industry, disease management would collapse. 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. Since the 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 in that quote 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."
In HHS' bold statement, that vaccine safety concerns "cannot be allowed to exist," their statement means that censorship and propaganda must be used on the public. HHS explains in those meeting minutes that maximum vaccine uptake was in peril because of lawsuits and litigation questioning. 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...
Reflect back to the Tedx Talk given by Dr. Christine Stabell Ben. In it, she said:
In Guinea Bissau. We have a field station where we follow 200,000 people...we started doing what no one else had done before, we evaluated the effect of vaccines on overall health. This may come as a surprise, but normally, vaccines are not assessed for their effects on overall health. They're only assessed for their protective effects against the vaccine disease. Everybody has been so convinced that vaccines only had protective effects against the vaccine so it didn't seem necessary to assess their effects on overall health. But when we started looking at the effect of vaccines on overall health, it quickly became clear that there was something wrong, something was clearly missing in this equation.
You need to constantly remind yourself that HHS has NOT been tasked with creating health in the population. Health is not their mandate. Unfortunately, public Health is currently focused on disease management, and the pharmaceutical industry plays an essential role in assisting with that. Did this structure happen by chance or by design?
In 1984, HHS made it clear that maximum vaccine uptake is one of their highest priorities - that's one of their mandates. So, if anything gets in the way of achieving that, HHS has stated that the obstacle needs to be eliminated. If information gets in the way of maximizing vaccine uptake, then censorship and propaganda need to be implemented. If the legal system gets in the way of maximum vaccine uptake, then the legal system needs to be removed. Over the last several decades we have witnessed "Public Health" agencies battling and destroying each and every obstacle that has affected maximum vaccine uptake. Where has that effort lead us to? Are our children today healthier than they were two, four, or six decades ago? That's an important question - maybe the most important question - and yet the government has not measured this. Why?
It is not unreasonable to evaluate the health of the population. If such a study found that fully vaccinated children are far healthier than unvaccinated children, that study would end all vaccine controversy forever and would result in maximum vaccine uptake. So I ask, why do you think it is that this study has never been conducted?
CONTINUE to the next article Ch9: Part 3
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
1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Here
Paul Offit's Book - Deadly Choices How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens us All Here
Tedx Talk by Christine Stabell-Ben Here
Content last updated April 24, 2020