Over the years a growing number of people are actively involved in challenging the effects that vaccination may have on babies, elderly and the sick and weak. This is causing a serious rift within the population based on the belief one way or the other. Both are convinced they are right and they despise the other camp. A war of words has escalated into a fight for legislation to ensure victory once and for all. History, however, has taught us that it may not be wise to establish dominance and forcibly implement one's belief, certainly not when no truth has been agreed upon. If we win before theory has become knowledge we may be forcing a complete population into disaster. The democratic principle of "the majority is always right and must be obeyed" is a well-known recipe for failure in science.
At this moment in time the main feature of the whole vaccination pro or against argument should not be who is right and who is wrong but should be about the freedom to chose. Allow science to establish truth before authorities make decisions on what is good or bad for the population. Science can only do a good objective job when it operates independently from any lobbying and related interests. No more sponsoring of research. No more industrial trials and studies. No more favours for by employment or tax benefits. Independent should mean no ties to any organisation and no profit purpose. Whilst science is busy finding the answers we need, everybody can decide for themselves. Freedom.
That would be nice, but our reality seems a little different. Let's see if we can shine some light on the status of the vaccination programme and give us an insight into the position the ordinary citizens may find themselves in.
Vaccines are said to be completely safe. Governments and medical authorities are campaigning hard to get this messages through to people. The World Health Organisation makes these kind of statements regularly. "The public health benefits of vaccination are clear. The World Health Organization estimates that, in 2008, more than 2.5 million deaths were prevented by vaccination. Immunization programmes have led to the eradication of smallpox, the elimination of measles and poliomyelitis in many regions, and substantial reductions in morbidity and mortality from Haemophilus influenzae type b, diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus. However vaccines are not without risks and it is commonly accepted that, regardless of proper design, manufacture and delivery, adverse events occur following vaccination although serious adverse events are rare." They stress how beneficial vaccinations are through estimates and at the same time, in their words, vaccines are not without risks; there is an unpredictable danger related to vaccines.
The World Health Organisation is even so helpful as to publish lists of common side-effects, which include injection side reactions, mild fever, shivering, fatigue, headache and muscle and joint pain. Common and not important effects, as they are called. However, if you presented to any doctor with these symptoms, unrelated to vaccination, it would trigger an extensive search for possible causes, including some pretty nasty one's.
A second list is headed "Rare Vaccine Side-effects". It goes on to explain just what is meant by this. "A far less common but serious vaccine side effect is an immediate allergic reaction, also known as an anaphylactic reaction. These are dramatic and potentially life-threatening; however, it should be noted that they occur very rarely (fewer than one in a million) and are completely reversible if treated promptly by healthcare staff. To have a balanced view, potential side effects have to be weighed against the expected benefits of vaccination in preventing the serious complications of disease. Not all illnesses that occur following vaccination will be a side effect. Because millions of people every year are vaccinated, it's inevitable that some will go on to develop a coincidental infection or illness shortly afterwards." Note that you can obtain a balanced view by weighing up the experienced side-effects against the expected benefits. It tells you that a serious side-effect is an anaphylactic shock, but finishes in mentioning infection or illness without specifying that this could be a serious side-effect too. It also warns against the belief that illness necessarily is related to vaccination; more likely, it is pure coincidence, bad luck. Every vaccine comes with an information leaflet that tells you exactly which potential side-effects are part of the vaccine. That is all one needs to know. Anything else you observe cannot be a side-effect because it is not listed as one. The leaflet has a greater truth value then your own observation! However, you are always allowed to notify any side-effect you may have experienced. You can tell your doctor, a nurse or pharmacist or you can fill in the Yellow Card yourself. Don't expect a reply or media support. You are on your own, out on a dangerous limb. The information you supply the industry with by reporting what you deem to be side-effects is used to manufacture "evidence" to show there is no link at all.
Something you need to be aware of in case you insist on having a different side-effect from the ones on the list is the fact that legally only a qualified and practicing doctor ( holding a license!) can make a diagnosis. This means that no medical condition is true unless a doctor says so. Only a doctor has the right and intelligence to know what the cause of the problem is. Only a doctor is allowed to treat, or to supervise the treatment (prescribe it). Anything that hasn't been prescribed by a doctor is legally hocus-pocus and therefore dangerous. Whatever you or any other health professional may think has no value against the meaning of the medical professional. When they express a meaning, a belief, it is gospel.
As doctors are only human - a major drawback for the authority - they may differ in opinion amongst themselves. In order to prevent confusion the authority has implemented a hierarchy whereby the word of the higher placed "expert" nullifies any other ideas or opinions. An expert is appointment by the authority when he or she has shown to be fully capable and trustworthy in following the concepts and ideas of the authority. Legally this is the voice that counts. Any other expert will not have the same weight in legal matters. That is why it is so important for these experts to have letters behind their names, to have held high official posts within the authority's structure, and to have been working specifically on one issue for a long time.
It also is the authority itself that determines what is admissible as evidence and what isn't. In other words, the authority decides what is true and what isn't and courts have no other option but to accept this. In law, there never is any room for doubt and legal authority has no choice but to accept medical authority, even against a lone independent expert, a poor stray sheep drifting away from the flock.
However, the authority is having a problem if too many people are starting legal procedures against them and their machinery, because people believe they have been done wrong. You don't want that kind of idea to spread, do you? The authority invented a compensation programme whereby persons are paid compensation even before they go to trial. It saves the community a lot of money and hassle trying to find proof and counterproof. The authority is giving people what they seek without having to climb the mountain of going to trial. Nice of them, isn't it? But have a look at what that truly means.
No-fault vaccine-injury compensation programmes are based on the premise that the adverse outcome is not attributable to a specific individual or industry but due to an unavoidable risk associated with vaccines. A problem for all compensation schemes is determining whether there is a causal relationship between a vaccine and a specific injury. The method by which causation is proven in tort law can be quite different from the accepted method of establishing causation in science and epidemiology. The most commonly accepted criteria for establishing epidemiological causation are the Bradford Hill criteria. While they do not provide a definitive checklist for assessing causality, these criteria provide a framework for separating causal and non-causal explanations of observed associations. Despite its importance, there is no single, clear consensus on the definition of causation.
In tort litigation the defendant, or defective product, is on trial for “causing” a specific individual’s or group’s adverse outcome. A direct link must be established between the particular action of that defendant or product and the adverse outcome. Legal causation is deterministic and requires proof of an allegation. In general, most compensation schemes offer a more liberal approach to standard of proof than the legal standard.
To ensure that compensation schemes remain attractive to claimants, they must offer a compensation payment and process that is more appealing than the tort or litigation system. Most countries legislate that claimants can seek either damages through the courts or a compensation scheme payout but not both. You get compensation in exchange for an agreement that there is nobody at fault, that the case is closed, that you can never talk about it, that the case is not catalogued. You get paid. It never happened.
Arguments supporting vaccine-injury compensation include political and economic pressures, litigation threats, increasing confidence in population-based vaccine programmes and ensuring sustainability of vaccine supply.
A vaccine-injury compensation scheme, funded by tax payers money, was created because vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing vaccines if they weren't protected from vaccine injury lawsuits. It was created in 1986 as an alternative to a civil court lawsuit, giving partial liability protection to vaccine manufacturers, pediatricians, and other vaccine providers from civil liability for injuries and deaths caused by federally recommended childhood vaccines. Unhappy with this partial liability protection, drug companies kept pushing for complete liability protection and, in 2011, convinced the US Supreme Court majority to rule that federally licensed and recommended vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and that the vaccine injury compensation scheme should be the “sole remedy” for all vaccine injury claims. I think it’s worth repeating, in case you just glossed over it: The reason you cannot sue a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death is because vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe".
The Vaccine Injury Table, on which the compensation scheme is based, makes it easier for some people to get compensation. This list is published by the medical authorities, listing the known vaccine injury effects, and it explains injuries/conditions that are presumed to be caused by vaccines, which includes death and permanent damage to health such as brain and nervous system damage. It also lists time periods in which the first symptom of these injuries/conditions must occur after receiving the vaccine. If the first symptom of these injuries/conditions occurs within the listed time periods, it is presumed that the vaccine was the cause of the injury or condition unless another cause is found. For example, if you received the tetanus vaccines and had a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) within 4 hours after receiving the vaccine, then it is presumed that the tetanus vaccine caused the injury if no other cause is found. If it is not listed or the time it took for the reaction to occur is longer than listed, you are out of luck!
If your injury/condition is not on the Table or if your injury/condition did not occur within the time period on the Table, you must prove that the vaccine caused the injury/condition. Such proof must be based on medical records or opinion, which may include expert witness testimony. And we have already pointed out the problem with "expert witnesses". You are out of luck!
The industry has secured themselves a fully protected life whereby they are guaranteed huge profits as the government is committed to purchasing enormous quantities of vaccines, in spite of these to be known to cause serious damage. The industry is not responsible for the injuries because they are inherent to the vaccine scheme anyway and cannot be avoided. The injured person is compensated - a kind of "collateral damage" - when the industry decides compensation is warranted and the money for this compensation comes from the tax payer who also paid for the vaccine. The conclusion must then be that the pharmaceutical industry operates legally outside the law that you and I have to adhere to. Everyone can be held responsible for his/her actions, but not the pharmaceutical industry who is allowed to carry on damaging the population without any form of accountability.
Maybe you can now understand why lawsuits against the industry are almost pointless unless you have almost unlimited resources to commit to this fight?
Maybe you can now understand why vaccines will never be made safe as the industry has no incentive to do so?
Maybe you can now understand what the purpose of "healthcare" truly is? Is it not profit?