Vaccines are safe and effective until they are not. The transparent ‘safe and effective’ talking point becomes obvious for many once they see the total — over $3 billion — that has been paid out by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US. The fund was set up to funnel those, often vaccinated without full informed consent, who are injured by vaccines through to give legal and monetary cover to the monopolistic pharmaceutical companies.
The compensation program is deeply flawed leading many to ultimately label the experience a failed idea. The majority of health professionals have not been trained to know what vaccine injury looks like. In addition, some vaccine injury is a result of the accumulation of environmental toxins and adjuvants whose tipping point doesn’t manifest immediately. The establishment medical community’s public messaging regarding vaccines has been highly abusive and borderline sociopathic for years. Out of one collective side of its mouth, mainstream medicine can only parrot a few carefully selected public relations statements such as ‘safe and effective’ and ‘triumph of modern medicine.’ Yet all the while, billions are paid to the vaccine-injured, governments are floating bills to force vaccinate populations without consent, and rates of vaccine-related diseases and disorders have raced beyond epidemic proportions.
Many countries such as Ireland, Japan, Colombia, Italy and many others have no [broken] vaccine injury compensation mechanism like the US. Their populations, like many in the US who don’t make the NVICP cut or didn’t know that a vaccine caused their injury, are forced to seek out alternative medical practitioners and pay out of pocket in slim hopes of a recovery. Many governments and health agencies throughout the world have their hands tied concerning their populations growing vaccine injuries. In the case of Ireland for example, their national Health Service Executive (HSE) has refused to acknowledge that their vaccination program, in which the government purposely ordered informed consent be removed from, has caused even one injury. Colombia has also followed Ireland’s lead in official government denial. To acknowledge vaccine injury in countries without a US-type NVICP safety net opens the government, health professionals, and pharmaceutical industry up to a flood of legal troubles and possible Nuremburg-like human rights violation trials that would topple leaderships, quickly bankrupt health systems, and expose widespread corruption.
So what is the answer to the growing, global vaccine injury problem…that is not a problem because vaccines are safe and effective? The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has just floated a novel solution. Their new report calls for a Global Vaccine Injury Compensation System. A shocking Orwellian idea and title in a world where vaccine injury supposedly doesn’t officially exist according to the majority of global governments and health authorities. The opening sentence from the JAMA report, again, titled Global Vaccine Injury Compensation System reads “Vaccines are extremely safe and harm is rare.” The JAMA report is a masterful exercise in tiptoeing around and gently massaging the schizophrenic idea that vaccines are safe and effective, yet there are injuries but not many so don’t be alarmed.
Some past vaccine hoaxes are referenced in the JAMA report to lend proof that vaccines are safe and have saved the world from pandemics. The admittedly manufactured and fake H1N1 and the Zika scare are implied by JAMA authors to have been miracles yet “the specter of vaccine injury” kept the vaccines from being released to the public even earlier due to “compensation release of liability” from the manufacturers. The translation being, if it wasn’t for the pesky injury liability and legal repercussions caused by our knowingly dangerous products, we could sell more and distribute them quicker.
Operating either from an establishment medicine echo chamber or an inhuman, sociopathic view, the JAMA authors conclude the following regarding vaccine injury:
“The first approach, requiring individuals with vaccine injury to bear their own costs, is an extreme utilitarian version of the fundamental social contract supporting immunization. The benefits of vaccination so outweigh the risks that communities accept that some individuals will experience adverse events in return for herd immunity.”
Once the reader gets to the heart of the JAMA article the motives for floating the idea of a global vaccine injury compensation system become crystal clear. The authors state that requiring vaccine manufacturers to pay for the injury caused by their vaccines would produce “economic uncertainty.” It is in the following paragraph during the sales pitch for a global compensation program where the JAMA authors fully show their allegiance to big pharma by calling for a global solution because it “acknowledges that manufacturers are a critical part of vaccine access and that they must have a basic level of economic certainty.” The JAMA authors continue to call for the monetary and legal protection of their pharma masters by stating:
“Such a [global compensation] system would address barriers to vaccine manufacturers’ participation.”
The JAMA article concludes with the authors patting themselves on the back for unpacking their global solution to vaccine injury as they write:
“The ethical and policy rationales behind no-fault compensation systems for adverse events attributable to vaccination are clear. Principles of fairness justify compensation to those who are injured and remedy inequities that inhere in litigation…”
Have any of the authors personally experienced vaccine injury? Have any of the authors had to file a claim for themselves or their child through the NVICP? Assuming they have not, if they were made to experience the broken NVICP, would their idea and theory of “principles of fairness” be different? Would they have a different view on their idea that a [set up to fail] government program to address widespread vaccine injury could “remedy inequities?” How would those living in extreme poverty, the types of populations the Gates Foundation preys upon, recognize and be compensated for vaccine injury?
The compensation program is deeply flawed leading many to ultimately label the experience a failed idea. The majority of health professionals have not been trained to know what vaccine injury looks like. In addition, some vaccine injury is a result of the accumulation of environmental toxins and adjuvants whose tipping point doesn’t manifest immediately. The establishment medical community’s public messaging regarding vaccines has been highly abusive and borderline sociopathic for years. Out of one collective side of its mouth, mainstream medicine can only parrot a few carefully selected public relations statements such as ‘safe and effective’ and ‘triumph of modern medicine.’ Yet all the while, billions are paid to the vaccine-injured, governments are floating bills to force vaccinate populations without consent, and rates of vaccine-related diseases and disorders have raced beyond epidemic proportions.
Many countries such as Ireland, Japan, Colombia, Italy and many others have no [broken] vaccine injury compensation mechanism like the US. Their populations, like many in the US who don’t make the NVICP cut or didn’t know that a vaccine caused their injury, are forced to seek out alternative medical practitioners and pay out of pocket in slim hopes of a recovery. Many governments and health agencies throughout the world have their hands tied concerning their populations growing vaccine injuries. In the case of Ireland for example, their national Health Service Executive (HSE) has refused to acknowledge that their vaccination program, in which the government purposely ordered informed consent be removed from, has caused even one injury. Colombia has also followed Ireland’s lead in official government denial. To acknowledge vaccine injury in countries without a US-type NVICP safety net opens the government, health professionals, and pharmaceutical industry up to a flood of legal troubles and possible Nuremburg-like human rights violation trials that would topple leaderships, quickly bankrupt health systems, and expose widespread corruption.
So what is the answer to the growing, global vaccine injury problem…that is not a problem because vaccines are safe and effective? The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has just floated a novel solution. Their new report calls for a Global Vaccine Injury Compensation System. A shocking Orwellian idea and title in a world where vaccine injury supposedly doesn’t officially exist according to the majority of global governments and health authorities. The opening sentence from the JAMA report, again, titled Global Vaccine Injury Compensation System reads “Vaccines are extremely safe and harm is rare.” The JAMA report is a masterful exercise in tiptoeing around and gently massaging the schizophrenic idea that vaccines are safe and effective, yet there are injuries but not many so don’t be alarmed.
Some past vaccine hoaxes are referenced in the JAMA report to lend proof that vaccines are safe and have saved the world from pandemics. The admittedly manufactured and fake H1N1 and the Zika scare are implied by JAMA authors to have been miracles yet “the specter of vaccine injury” kept the vaccines from being released to the public even earlier due to “compensation release of liability” from the manufacturers. The translation being, if it wasn’t for the pesky injury liability and legal repercussions caused by our knowingly dangerous products, we could sell more and distribute them quicker.
Operating either from an establishment medicine echo chamber or an inhuman, sociopathic view, the JAMA authors conclude the following regarding vaccine injury:
“The first approach, requiring individuals with vaccine injury to bear their own costs, is an extreme utilitarian version of the fundamental social contract supporting immunization. The benefits of vaccination so outweigh the risks that communities accept that some individuals will experience adverse events in return for herd immunity.”
Once the reader gets to the heart of the JAMA article the motives for floating the idea of a global vaccine injury compensation system become crystal clear. The authors state that requiring vaccine manufacturers to pay for the injury caused by their vaccines would produce “economic uncertainty.” It is in the following paragraph during the sales pitch for a global compensation program where the JAMA authors fully show their allegiance to big pharma by calling for a global solution because it “acknowledges that manufacturers are a critical part of vaccine access and that they must have a basic level of economic certainty.” The JAMA authors continue to call for the monetary and legal protection of their pharma masters by stating:
“Such a [global compensation] system would address barriers to vaccine manufacturers’ participation.”
The JAMA article concludes with the authors patting themselves on the back for unpacking their global solution to vaccine injury as they write:
“The ethical and policy rationales behind no-fault compensation systems for adverse events attributable to vaccination are clear. Principles of fairness justify compensation to those who are injured and remedy inequities that inhere in litigation…”
Have any of the authors personally experienced vaccine injury? Have any of the authors had to file a claim for themselves or their child through the NVICP? Assuming they have not, if they were made to experience the broken NVICP, would their idea and theory of “principles of fairness” be different? Would they have a different view on their idea that a [set up to fail] government program to address widespread vaccine injury could “remedy inequities?” How would those living in extreme poverty, the types of populations the Gates Foundation preys upon, recognize and be compensated for vaccine injury?
|
|
RSS Feed