Regular readers of this site are aware that from time to time I have blogged about the controversy over vaccines and autism, and more recently, about vaccines being used covertly, under the guise of mandatory vaccination laws, to inject people with a whole host of things from nanobots to new types of vaccines designed to vaccinate others, against their will and even without their knowledge, through such a simple thing as a human sneeze, which is the latest gizmo being cooked up in Big Corporation Land. I have also blogged about studies of the vaccine-autism link that were based on the testimony of mothers who have had their children vaccinated who then came down with symptoms on the autism spectrum. The paper was first approved for publication, then withdrawn with the usual Big Corporation pressure was exerted.The paper was withdrawn for being based on "anecdotal" and not "scientific" evidence. As I pointed out at the time, this was a whole short-circuiting of the diagnostic process, for every human therapy begins when the patient tells his or her physician "what's ailing them," and this anecdotal evidence becomes, and must become, the basis on which the physician makes his or her initial diagnosis in most instances. To dismiss hundreds of stories in the historical record as merely "anecdotal" is to dismiss a priori a whole class of evidence simply on the basis of a dogma, rather than sincere investigation. The film Vaxxed came out detailing similar concerns, and was quashed.
In this context a story has emerged recently that President Trump was (or is) considering the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to head a panel to explore not only this question, but the wider role of the Center for Disease Control and the role of Big Pharma in manipulating its results. Consider these two articles, and particularly the second one by our friend and colleague Jon Rappaport, which has extensive quotations from Mr. Kennedy(Oh, and by the way and for the record, it was Mr. Rappaport who, years ago, coined the term "fake news" for his website, which of course recently the corporate controlled media tried to run with):
Mr. Kennedy "gets" it, and so does Mr. Rappaport. Consider first Mr. Rappaport's take on what the CDC is:
Kennedy understands the inherent conflict of interest at the CDC, which operates as a vaccine sales and marketing company, while at the same time posing as a neutral scientific body that assesses vaccine safety—AND OF COURSE, THE CDC PRESENTS AN EVER-EXPANDING SCHEDULE OF “NECESSARY” VACCINES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Think of it: the CDC has the power—backed by federal and state governments, and supported by the fake-news media—to buy and sell vaccines, while deciding how many vaccines the population should submit to. What salesman wouldn’t want to work for an outfit like that?
As we've also noted before on this website, note how the CDC mirrors in an almost exact way the role of the FDA in certifying the safety of GMOs under the doctrine of "substantial equivalence", first promulgated by the administration of (you guessed it) the ever-deplorable Bush family during the administration of G.H.W. Bush. F. William Engdahl and other researchers into the GMO issue have chronicled the revolving door of personnel between that agency and the very GMO companies it was intended to monitor. And of course, there were no long-term inter-generational study of GMOs, just as there were not of the vaccine cocktails currently being urged, or forced, on the public, as pointed out in the first article noted above. The Ukrainian crisis was driven, in part, by the GMO issue, as the Ukraine was to be the lever by which to coopt agriculture in Russia. The sanctions regime was intended to reinforce that. Something went wrong however; Russia didn't cave in to surrendering another significant portion of its economy to the West. Instead, it embarked on what I have been calling "GMO geopolitics," and placed bans on the products, began to increase its natural agricultural production, and passed laws undertaking long-term intergenerational studies, the very studies missing in corporate-dominated western regulatory agencies.
But if you think Rappaport's comments are strong, just consider Mr. Kennedy's which are, as Mr. Kennedy points out, based on actual investigations of the agency:
“The CDC is a very troubled agency, and it’s not just me saying that. There have been four separate, intensive federal investigations by the United States Congress—a three year investigation, 2001, 2002, 2003, by the United States Senate, Tom Coburn’s committee, by the Inspector General of HHS in 2008, by the Office Integrity in 2014. All of them have painted the CDC as a cesspool of corruption, of an agency that has become an absolute subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry, and that has become a sock puppet, a spokesperson, a shill for the industry.”
“CDC is not an independent agency. It is a vaccine company. CDC owns over twenty vaccine patents. It sells about $4.6 billion of vaccines every year. And its primary metric for success in all the departments in the agency are vaccine sales. The groups, for example the Immunization Safety Office, where the scientists who are supposed to be looking at efficacy and safety in vaccines, they are no longer a public service…agency. They are subsumed in that metric: We have to sell as many of these things as possible. And so they do things to their science to make sure that nothing interferes—no information—interferes with sales. (Emphasis added)
And Mr. Kennedy echoes my own experience with vaccines:
“When I was a boy, I got three vaccines. My children got sixty-nine vaccines. It changed in 1989.”
“Why did it change in 1989?”
“Because in 1986, Congress, [was] drowning in pharmaceutical industry money—pharma puts more money into lobbying than any other industry—Pharmaceutical companies have more lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are Congress people.”
“Do you think oil and gas has big influence in the Capitol? Well, that’s the next biggest. The pharmaceutical industry puts twice into lobbying, double the amount that the oil and gas, and four times what defense and aero space put in. So they control Congress.”
“In 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Act, and there were good reasons for them to pass it. …At that time vaccine companies were being sued and were threatening to stop making vaccines. [Congress] said, okay, we’re going to insulate them from lawsuits. They made it illegal to sue a vaccine company in this country, no matter how reckless the behavior, no matter how negligent, no matter how toxic the product, no matter how grievous the injury to the child, you cannot sue.”
“You know how badly the pharmaceutical industry behaves when they are being sued, when there’s a whole bar of lawyers who spend their whole life looking for ways to sue the pharmaceutical industry and tell these stories to juries, and how many billions every year are won from that industry.”
“What do you think would happen if all of a sudden, all the lawyers disappeared, all the class action suits, all the multi district litigation, all the depositions, all the document searches, the discovery? Just gone. Nobody can sue. You can make anything you want.”
You can make anything you want. Let that sink in. This is not Mr. Trump and his right wing populist "deplorables" talking; this is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talking, hardly a right-winger and a populist. You can make anything you want, and not get sued: you can slip in a microchip for tracking (and other) purposes (like a "kill switch"?). You can slip in a "sneeze vaccine" and vaccinate others involuntarily against whatever it is you want to vaccinate against. You can turn children into autism victims thus requiring families to spend even more money on costly drugs from your company over the years. And maybe you could even combine "vaccines" and GMOs and have people eat their "disease prevention." And all this, let it be noted, with no real long term intergenerational science to back it up.
So does one want to get rid of Big Pharma altogether? Certainly not. There have been good things to come out of it. AIDS and leukemia used to be automatic death sentences. No more. But they have clearly crossed several lines. Their record is mixed. One way to fix these problems is to close the revolving door of personnel between corporations and government agencies. If you work for a government agency, then you cannot have come from a corporation. You can go to a corporation, but that should be a one-way door. And the other thing, of course, is to shut off the sluice gate of corporate funds to political candidates' coffers. And since under current law, corporations are persons, they should not be given special privileges, but should be sue-able just like everyone else.
Of course there are problems with these solutions, and I'm acutely aware of them. But, I think it's abundantly clear that they've overstepped the bounds of propriety, humanity, and even of science.
See you on the flip side...