Truthstream Media: Free Speech and Shutting Down the Vaccine Debate (video)

I enjoy watching some of Joe Rogan's video interviews because he occasionally has some very interesting people on his show. He also has some real idiots and shills on his show and Peter Hotez is one of them.

Peter Hotez is vaccine industry proponent to the point of nausea. This guy is a real piece of industrialized trash whose goal seems to be to drug everyone on the planet. In an article titled 'Rescuing the bottom billion through control of neglected tropical diseases', Hotez promotes "preventive chemotherapy":

Here we outline low-cost opportunities to control the neglected tropical diseases through preventive chemotherapy, and propose financial innovations to provide poor individuals with essential drugs.

Who Peter Hotez really is and what he is about is addressed in this video by Aaron and Melissa Dykes of Truthstream Media, 'Free Speech and Shutting Down the Vaccine Debate':

Articles

Jump to: Health | History | Investigations | Product Reviews | Ramblings | Resources | Technology

Investigations

Technology

Product Reviews

Environment

Health

History

Ramblings

Resources

Vaccines - What You Need To Know: Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated

My research leaves me to conclude that unvaccinated children are generally healthier than those who have been vaccinated. This conclusion is partly founded in personal testimonies of many thousands of mothers who have vaccinated, unvaccinated, or partially vaccinated children, or a combination thereof, but also as a result of several studies where the health of unvaccinated children was directly compared to that of vaccinated children. Among the unvaccinated and lightly vaccinated there is a disproportionate lack of ailments such as rashes, compromised immune systems, allergies, viral infections, seizures, autism and many other health problems which are becoming exponentially more common today.

At the time this article was drafted there were over 1000 videos on the VAXXED-TV YouTube channel and nearly 7000 user submitted testimonials on the Vaxxed website, most of which are interviews conducted with parents across the U.S. who are adamant that their children were injured by vaccines. The VAXXED-TV YouTube channel has since been deleted by YouTube and as i readied this article for publishing, the number of testimonials from parents has reached  125,768. I highly recommend that every parent view the powerful documentary film, Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.

Despite the persistent and grounded appeals of many healthcare professionals and parents, the CDC has consistently refused to conduct a vaccinated verses unvaccinated study in which the general health between the two is compared. I think we have already outlined several of the reasons for this when we considered the amount of revenue generated by the sales of vaccines, the influence which the pharmaceutical industry wields in both government and the mainstream media and the conflicts of interest that exist at every level. Fortunately a vaccinated verses unvaccinated pilot study was finally conducted by the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI). The 2017 study, Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children, compared a broad variety of health issues among 666, 6 to 12 year old vaccinated, unvaccinated and partially vaccinated home-schooled children in the U.S.. The peer-reviewed study was published in the Journal of Translational Science. In the abstract section we read:

In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD [neurodevelopmental disorders] than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.

Further along in the introduction section, and interspersed among plenty of the 'how great vaccines are' rhetoric, we read:

Although short-term immunologic and safety testing is performed on vaccines prior to their approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the long-term effects of individual vaccines and of the vaccination program itself remain unknown [8]. Vaccines are acknowledged to carry risks of severe acute and chronic adverse effects, such as neurological complications and even death [9], but such risks are considered so rare that the vaccination program is believed to be safe and effective for virtually all children [10].

There are very few randomized trials on any existing vaccine recommended for children in terms of morbidity and mortality, in part because of ethical concerns involving withholding vaccines from children assigned to a control group. One exception, the high-titer measles vaccine, was withdrawn after several randomized trials in west Africa showed that it interacted with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine, resulting in a significant 33% increase in child mortality [11]. Evidence of safety from observational studies includes a limited number of vaccines, e.g., the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, and hepatitis B vaccine, but none on the childhood vaccination program itself. Knowledge is limited even for vaccines with a long record of safety and protection against contagious diseases [12]. The safe levels and long- term effects of vaccine ingredients such as adjuvants and preservatives are also unknown [13]. Other concerns include the safety and cost-effectiveness of newer vaccines against diseases that are potentially lethal for individuals but have a lesser impact on population health, such as the group B meningococcus vaccine [14].

Knowledge of adverse events following vaccinations is largely based on voluntary reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) by physicians and parents. However, the rate of
reporting of serious vaccine injuries is estimated to be <1% [15].

[...]

A possible contributory role for vaccines in the rise in NDD diagnoses remains unknown because data on the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children are lacking. The need for such studies is suggested by the fact that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid $3.2 billion in compensation for vaccine injury since its creation in 1986 [38]. A study of claims compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for vaccine-induced encephalopathy and seizure disorder found 83 claims that were acknowledged as being due to brain damage. In all cases it was noted by the Court of Federal Claims, or indicated in settlement agreements, that the children had autism or ASD [39].

As we move into the results section of the study, under the heading 'Chronic illness', more detail is revealed:

Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following: allergic rhinitis (10.4% vs. 0.4%, p <0.001; OR 30.1, 95% CI: 4.1, 219.3), other allergies (22.2% vs. 6.9%, p <0.001; OR 3.9, 95% CI: 2.3, 6.6), eczema/atopic dermatitis (9.5% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.035; OR 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.1), a learning disability (5.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.003; OR 5.2, 95% CI: 1.6, 17.4), ADHD (4.7% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.013; OR 4.2, 95% CI: 1.2, 14.5), ASD (4.7% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.013; OR 4.2, 95% CI: 1.2, 14.5), any neurodevelopmental disorder (i.e., learning disability, ADHD or ASD) (10.5% vs. 3.1%, p <0.001; OR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.7, 7.9) and any chronic illness (44.0% vs. 25.0%, p <0.001; OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.7, 3.3).

And a bit later under the heading 'Use of medications and health services', we discover that the vaccinated children in the study consumed significantly more medications than the unvaccinated children:

The vaccinated (combining the partially and fully vaccinated) were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to use medication for allergies (20.0% vs. 1.2%, p <0.001; OR 21.5, 95% CI: 6.7, 68.9), to have used antibiotics in the past 12 months (30.8% vs. 15.4%, p <0.001; OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.6, 3.6), and to have used fever medications at least once (90.7% vs. 67.8%, p <0.001; OR 4.6, 95% CI: 3.0, 7.1). The vaccinated were also more likely to have seen a doctor for a routine checkup in the past 12 months (57.6% vs. 37.2%, p <0.001; OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.7, 3.2), visited a dentist during the past year (89.4% vs. 80.5%, p <0.001; OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3, 3.2), visited a doctor or clinic due to illness in the past year (36.0% vs. 16.0%, p <0.001; OR 3.0, 95% CI: 2.0, 4.4), been fitted with ventilation ear tubes (3.0% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.018; OR 8.0, 95% CI: 1.0, 66.1), and spent one or more nights in a hospital (19.8% vs. 12.3%, p =0.012; OR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7) (Table 6)

Here is the same data expressed visually:

Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated U.S. children

In an article written by Suzanne Humphries, MD, titled Vaccination, we read:

There is a paucity of studies comparing never vaccinated children, with partially or fully vaccinated children. In terms of safety studies, a major issue is that most vaccine studies use another vaccine as the control placebo, or use the background substance of the vaccine. There is only one recent study (Cowling 2012) where a true saline placebo was used, rather than another vaccine or the carrier fluid containing everything except the main antigen.That study showed no difference in influenza viral infection between groups but astonishingly it revealed a 5-6 times higher rate of non-influenza viral infections in the vaccinated. It is no small wonder more true placebos are not used in vaccine research.

The title of the Cowling study that Dr. Humphries refers to is Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine. It is published on the Oxford Academic website. The study abstract reads:

We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had an increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses.

Dr. Humphries goes on to say:

Needless to say, giving untested vaccines which can often be unknowingly contaminated, and with unproven-effectiveness vaccination is a “medical experiment�, and in my opinion, violates the core principles of the Nuremberg Code (informed and unambiguous consent). Most vaccines have never undergone carcinogenicity testing for example, and likewise are rarely studied in pregnant women, which results in people taking vaccines, either by a proclaimed “emergency�; by a “public health� order from the WHO; or by threat of loss of rights over one’s children or of imprisonment; or by threat of being abandoned by the medical professionals supposedly providing care.

[...]

Some vaccine policies have robbed teenagers and adults of the opportunity to get re-exposed and continue with natural immunity. For example, in mothers who were vaccinated against measles, placental transfer of antibodies is limited to a few months instead of over a year in most naturally immune mothers.

Another study of 1,565 children, Health effects in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, with covariates for breastfeeding status and type of birth, was published in June, 2021, and it also reached a similar conclusion. From the abstract portion of the study we read:

Using survey data from respondents associated with three medical practices in the US, vaccinated children were compared to unvaccinated children for the incidence of severe allergies, autism, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, ADHD, and chronic ear infections. All diagnoses were based on parental reporting with chart review for confirmation of diagnoses. Cases were stratified with non-cases based on year of birth and sex, and compared using a logistic regression model which also accounted for breastfeeding status and type of birth (vaginal versus cesarean section). Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than unvaccinated children to be diagnosed with severe allergies (OR = 4.31, 95% CI 1.67 - 11.1), autism (OR = 5.03, 95% CI 1.64 - 15.5), gastrointestinal disorders (OR = 13.8, 95% CI 5.85 - 32.5), asthma (OR = 17.6, 95% CI 6.94 - 44.4), ADHD (OR = 20.8, 95% CI 4.74 - 91.2), and chronic ear infections (OR = 27.8, 95% CI 9.56 - 80.8). Vaccinated children were less likely to be diagnosed with chickenpox (OR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.029 - 0.36). Children who were "vaccinated and not breastfed" or "vaccinated and delivered via cesarean section" had the highest rates of adverse health outcomes. In this study, higher ORs were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups for several adverse health conditions. Further research is essential to understand the full scope of health effects associated with childhood vaccination.

Other studies of interest are Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders and Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination.

Vaccines - What You Need To Know: Final thoughts

Before subjecting yourself or your child to any vaccine:

  1. Determine if there is a genuine health risk.
  2. Determine if there are any safe and viable alternatives to the vaccine.
  3. Read the vaccine package insert.
  4. Learn what the ingredients are and whether they are acceptably safe.
  5. Search for credible information and studies that address both the pros and cons of the vaccine, including all of the potential side-effects of each of its ingredients. Children's Health Defense, a 501(c)3 non-profit, is a great resource and starting point.
  6. Use the Open Payments Data website to learn what companies may be wining and dining your doctor.
  7. Determine whether the risk is worth the reward.
  8. After arming yourself with knowledge, ask your doctor what they know about the vaccine.

 

Article index

Vaccines - What You Need To Know: 'Vaccine Court'

"For all the cases I've seen, I have never seen any medical provider report them to VAERS. I have filed VAERS reports. But I am the only nurse I have ever met that files VAERS reports. I also have never met a doctor that filed a VAERS report." -- A Nurse's Story - 'I have seen the cover up.' (source)

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was created in the 1980s for the purpose of absolving vaccine manufacturers of any liability. It accomplishes this by offloading the culpability of vaccine manufacturers to the U.S. government and, in turn, the tax payer. The NVICP forces claimants to bypass the traditional legal system in favor of a behind-the-curtain government "court" which severely handicaps claimants and withholds evidence from the public. If vaccines were safe, why would a such a system be created for the purpose of protecting one of the most lucrative industries on the planet?

From the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program page:

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions.

It was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases.

According to the document, Vaccine Injury Compensation Data for June 1, 2021, from the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) website, 4.5 billion dollars has been paid out since the programs inception:

Since 1988, over 24,084 petitions have been filed with the VICP. Over that 30-year time period, 19,867 petitions have been adjudicated, with 8,088 of those determined to be compensable, while 11,779 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $4.5 billion.

The $4.5 billion figure may only represent a tiny fraction of the amount which should have been paid out according to estimates which indicate that less than 1% of vaccine related injuries are actually reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). From a long overdue and the first study of its kind where the health of unvaccinated children was compared to that of vaccinated children, we read:

Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children

Knowledge of adverse events following vaccinations is largely based on voluntary reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) by physicians and parents. However, the rate of reporting of serious vaccine injuries is estimated to be <1% [15].

And from a report from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care we read:

Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS)

Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.

And from a report from the 106th Congress (1999-2000) we read:

H. Rept. 106-977 - The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Addressing Needs and Improving Practices

While the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System [VAERS]may be lauded as the "front line" of vaccine safety, the lack of enforcement provisions and effective monitoring of reporting practices preclude accurate assessments of the extent to which adverse events are actually reported. Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.

There are several crucial reasons for the severe underreporting of vaccine related injuries, including the fact that medical school students typically receive only a few hours of training regarding vaccines wherein they are not taught how to recognize many problems that any given vaccine may cause. They are simply told that vaccines are safe and effective and that they need to follow the CDC schedule. Also they are not properly educated regarding the highly toxic ingredients contained in many vaccines, including neurotoxins such as aluminum and thimerosal. Lastly, many medical doctors and nurses, some of which have practiced medicine for a decade or more, as well as very large portion of the general public, are not even aware of the existence of the VAERS reporting system.

From Congressional hearings before the Committee on Government Reform on 3-Oct-2000 we read:

THE ANTHRAX VACCINE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM--WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

We have systems that are supposedly designed to track information, like the VAERS system, but again testimony that we have heard suggests that people are discouraged from using systems.

[...]

Finally, adverse reactions are seriously underreported to FDA's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System [VAERS], which is, as you know, a passive system.

[...]

Moreover, there has been no systematic followup to obtain data on the clinical conditions. As you can see on slide four, 42 percent of the respondents reporting they had received one or more anthrax shots. Of those taking one or more shots, 86 percent reported experiencing some type of local and/or systemic reactions; 71 percent reported being unaware of VAERS itself.

Another study regarding the underreporting of vaccine injuries to the VAERS system found that 29% of healthcare providers (HCP) were not aware of the system and, of those that were, only 17% had ever filed a report:

Who is unlikely to report adverse events after vaccinations to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?

Results: Our survey response rate was 54.9%. The percentage of HCP aware of VAERS (71%) varied by occupation and primary care practice area. About 37% of HCP had identified at least one AEFI with only 17% of these indicating that they had ever reported to VAERS. More serious events were more likely to be reported. Factors associated with HCP not reporting AEFI included: HCP not familiar versus very familiar with filing a paper VAERS report (OR=12.84; p<0.0001), primary care practice area of internal medicine versus pediatrics (OR=4.22; p=0.0005), and HCP not familiar versus very familiar with when it was required to file a VAERS report (OR=5.52; p=0.0013).

Article index