December 1, 2019

"Anti-vaxxer" is Used as a Bigoted Epithet and a Smear, Why Are You Using It?

What do you call a woman who delivered a combined 77 doses of vaccine to her two sons?  An "anti-vaxxer."
What do you call a pediatrician who deliverers vaccines in his office every day?  An "anti-vaxxer."

What do you call the Princeton/Harvard educated father of a disabled daughter who works to improve vaccine safety science and policy?  An "anti-vaxxer" who deserves to be hung.

I have written several vaccine safety reform bills, one of which that resulted in adding this page (https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/immunization/vaccine-safety.shtml) to the Maine.gov web site, to make sure that the state officially recognized and informed the public that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Exists.

So naturally by working to assure that the state, and its medical providers, know about federal vaccine safety and injury programs, I am opposed to vaccination in any and all forms, and should be tagged as an enemy of the people.

Someone last year said on Twitter that the bigoted moniker, "anti-vaxxer" was akin to calling someone the "N" word.  He was roundly attacked for the comparison, and with some good reason, as his idea was not yet thought through.  He was not quite right, but he was in the ballpark.  The hatred of anyone critical of any part of the vaccine program is not based on who they were at conception, as the "N" word is.

The term "anti-vaxxer" is a bigoted epithet.  Some bigoted smears are based on racism, hatred of someone for who they were born to be, and some are based on choices that people have made.  This term falls into the latter category.

There is a term that border patrol officers made up in the 1950s for those coming into the US illegally from Mexico, that described their appearance after swimming across the Rio Grande.  I don't need to write it, we know what it is, and it is cruel and devaluing.

There is a term that soldiers use when fighting in the middle east for those who choose to specific headwear.  I don't need to write it, we know what it is, and it is cruel and devaluing.

There are many terms that individuals use to describe those of other religions to extend cruelty to them, and to devalue them.  Often to justify their wholesale murder and genocide. They are too myriad for me to write here.  (And frankly I don't want to write any of these dark designations.)

These are terms that serve the purpose of turning those they find undesirable into "other."  To dehumanize them so that treating them poorly is made more palatable.

To belittle them, to minimize them, to marginalize them, to tag them as "less than."

And it is done every day in the press in the US to those who simply say, "I vaccinated my child and they had a reaction."

Here is the current search for the use of the term in mainstream media headlines:

Anti-vaxxer parents don't want their kids to be bitten by vampires, Russian ad campaign suggests

Newsweek|3 days ago
A new Russian ad campaign mockingly suggested that parents opposed to vaccinations are afraid to give the potentially life-saving inoculations to their children out of concern they could be ...

Anti-vaxxer footy WAG who boasts she doesn't immunise her children sparks outrage over 'fear-mongering' $2000 online 'wellness' program - despite having NO qualifications

MSN News|6 days ago
A controversial anti-vaxxer NRL WAG is facing more public backlash from health clinicians over the online wellness and lifestyle programs she promotes on social media.

Nazi Samoa: Anti-vaxxer Taylor Winsterstein's comments on measles crisis 'appalling'

MSN News|5 days ago
Her views must be condemned when children are dying of the disease writes Peter Williams.

These Parents Are Going to War With Anti-Vaxxers on Facebook

Vice|4 days ago
A new brand of pro-vaccination parents are heading to Facebook to do battle with anti-vaxx ideas at their source. Anti-vaxx activists have used Facebook and other social platforms for years ...
It is used without compunction by most mainstream outlets, and the message is clear... those they are talking about are stupid enough to think that vaccines are akin to vampire bites, have no qualifications to speak on vaccines, are Nazis, and it is ok to harass them, remove their rights and eject them and their children from school, camp, college, the medical profession, religious observances and public gatherings.

They are undesirables, they are dangerous, they are stupid, they are worthy of devaluation, they are undeserving of understanding, they are less than.  It is OK to call for their public execution.  They are worthy of brutalization.  Don't be one of them or we will say the same of you.

Do Newsweek, MSN or Vice us these kinds of terms when discussing South American immigration, or middle eastern enemies, or Jews, or Catholics, or Muslims or... anyone?

Why in the age of "self-identification" is anyone in any press outlet able to do this to anyone?

Even for those who are just picking up the term from other articles, it is lazy writing at best.

Why in the WORLD do they get away with doing it to parents of vaccine injured children, or those whose children died at the hands of the liability-free vaccine program that they trusted?

So next time you are reading an article on "anti-vaxxers" slide in one of those old, hateful appellations that would be anathema to anyone that cares about human beings and see how that sounds in your mind.  Or when you are reading an article on immigration, pick a bigoted phrase to replace the words "migrant" that no actual bigot in polite society could get away with using any longer, and see how hard and ugly that sounds in your head.

That is how hard the term "anti-vaxxer" sounds in my head when I read it as it is used on people like Sheila Ealey for showing the world her beautiful boy who crashed after his MMR and his struggles in his daily life.

Why do some of us use that horrid, demeaning term?  If that is your preferred term, that is certainly your choice, but it is not my choice to spend 15 years trying to make the vaccine program safer to be diminished as, "anti-vaxx."

Ginger Taylor,
Vaccine Safety & Choice Activist,
Vaccine Injury Mom,
Person Worthy of Being Treated with Dignity



July 17, 2019

I Am Blocked From Facebook for Seven Days for Posting St. Augustine's Correct Theology

Well it turns out the FB attack on Christianity is real, as it has declared the foundational doctrine of Original Sin is "hate speech."

When PJ media wrote that Facebook was blocking St. Augustine's discussion of the fallen nature of Man, which necessitated the self-sacrifice and resurrection of Christ for the spiritual salvation of humans, I didn't take it seriously.  Thought that they had done something silly in just one case, but it turns out the bloggers in their jammies knew what they were talking about.

Today, for posting the article and the quote, I have been blocked from posting on Facebook, or using messenger for 7 days.

Let's review the 2k year old gospel of Jesus Christ.

1.  The nature of humans is fallen.  All men have fallen short of the glory of God.  There is no one who is good, no not one, but Christ Himself.

2.  God so loved us anyway, that he became flesh, walked among us as The Christ, lived a perfect life, and gave his life to substitute His undeserved death for our deserved deaths.

3.  When we accept His offer of loving grace, and confess our fallen nature, and turn from it to follow Christ, we are forgiven for our fallen nature, and our repentance of sin and good works are proof of our new life in Christ.

Facebook has decided Step 1 of the Gospel is "Hate Speech."  It has therefore invalidated the entire Gospel.

No original sin, no sin nature, no need for forgiveness, no need for Christ's death or resurrection, no need for any kind of God.

Jeremiah 17:9 is brutal in it's clarity and description of the human heart:
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

And all the way back in the book of Numbers 5:5-7, we were taught to repent of our sin:
"Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, ‘When a man or woman commits any of the sins of mankind, acting unfaithfully against the Lord, and that person is guilty, then he shall confess his sins which he has committed, and he shall make restitution in full for his wrong and add to it one-fifth of it, and give it to him whom he has wronged. "
This is the way we taught it to our children.  Hey kids, when you do something wrong...

1.  Stop doing it.
2.  Admit to what you did wrong.
3.  Clean up your mess and leave it a little better than before you messed it up.

But all of that is predicated on the, "WHEN you do something wrong..."

Because ALL MORTALS DO WRONG THINGS.

Search my comments and I often say that there are two kinds of people in the world.  Sinners and repentant sinners.  Everyone is broken, and some of those broken people who do broken things try to clean up what they broke and not break things any more.

But no one can completely, because people are broken, and will continue to break things.

Augustine correctly observed:
"Let us never assume that if we live good lives we will be without sin; our lives should be praised only when we continue to beg for pardon. But men are hopeless creatures, and the less they concentrate on their own sins, the more interested they become in the sins of others. They seek to criticize, not to correct. Unable to excuse themselves, they are ready to accuse others."
But Ginger... I know you and you are a good person!

No.  No I am not.  I have met me.  I know me.   I am shocked at the terribleness that I have been capable of.  But because I love God, live in gratitude for his grace, and want to obey and become more like him, I have decided to live a life of repentance.  There are two kinds of people in this world, sinners and repentant sinners.

I am either the former or the latter, but again... the entire gospel is predicated that we are all sinners.

As Paul reminds us in Romans 3:

"9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

There is no one righteous, not even one;
11     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14     “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16     ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

Have I made the case yet that Christianity is predicated on the fact that the nature of humans is "human nature?"

Paul spends Romans 7 contemplating his own sin spiral that he cannot escape, and then Romans 8 REJOICING that God loves him and saved him anyway!  If you know anything about me, and my relationship with God, you know how important these two chapters are to me.
7:24 "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
And then he calls me a co-heir with Christ!
"12 So then, brothers,[e] we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."
Which is a big deal given the fact that I am broken and can't stop breaking things.  Which I am and I do, because that is the nature of a human.  Which I am.

All I can do is continue to try to clean up after myself and do better next time, and depend on the free gift of salvation that God gave me.

So FB has declared the Christian view of human nature verboten on their platform.  Will they block people for posting any of the scripture that I have posted here?  ANY scripture on our fallen nature, or need for forgiveness, or any scripture at all?

Where does the attack on Christian theology end if it starts with doctrine of the sinful nature of man?

This week I will spend my time exploring and developing my other social media profiles.

THIS JUST IN: FB repents of sin, commutes sentence to time served after I posted this blog.

UPDATE 7/18: And the Facebook persecution of those who quote St. Augustine continues! Yesterday  my friend Yvette shared my post, and the Augustine quote, adding, "Being accountable for your own faults is now hate speech!!!!"

This morning she was banned from posting on facebook for 3 days and her post is gone.



May 3, 2019

My Chats with Time and The Daily Beast

So I have had a LOT of huge media inquires lately from such notables as Daily Beast, Time, Reuters, blah blah blah who don't know I am not the head of MCVC anymore. I turn them down because 1. I am not the head of MCVC any more and 2. They lie so reflexively, that even when I turn them down they turn it into a lie and put it in their story.
This was my turn down to the Daily Beast and what they did with it:

Subject: momentum? Date:Thu, 21 Mar 2019 20:18:54 +0000 From:Jackie Kucinich <Jackie.Kucinich@thedailybeast.com> To: Ginger Taylor Hi there – I’m putting together a story about the vaccine choice movement specifically how it seems to be more organized and well-funded than ever. Is this your experience? Given the recent demonstrations in Maine regarding attempts to repeal non-medical exemptions, it certainly seems like there is momentum. Thank you so much for any thoughts you have on this topic. Best regards, Jackie Jackie Kucinich Washington Bureau Chief The Daily Beast (202) 210-4090 @JFKucinich

You're joking, right? Broke families of vaccine injured children up against a $30B a year liability-free pharmaceutical sector? What funding? Ginger Taylor, MS

Hi Ginger, I should have been more clear - I was looking at 990s and noticed an uptick/ Children’s Health Defense has been raising more money as well, which usually indicates interest in a cause. Would you have time to chat tomorrow? Thanks, Jackie

Jackie, when you start taking vaccine injury seriously, I will start taking you and your outlet seriously. Not interested in an interview. Ginger Taylor, MS
First off, why is she contacting me about CHD? Second, that exchange turned into the following in her article: "Not every group in the anti-vaccine movement says it is seeing growth. Ginger Taylor, director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, said her organization was struggling for funding, especially when they were battling “a $30 billion a year liability-free pharmaceutical sector.” Meanwhile the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice had DOUBLED in size in 4 months. And note that she called me "vaccine choice" to my face and "anti-vaccine" in the article. Also note that she filed her story under the heading "Ruh Roh."

She says this too: "Experts say the anti-vaccine or vaccine choice groups, as they commonly refer to themselves,..." So what we identify as doesn't matter? Wow.

At least she quoted, “a $30 billion a year liability-free pharmaceutical sector.”
Noted fake news person Jeffrey Kluger Editor at Large of Time, has contacted me twice this week. Here are samples of his work: How to Change an Anti-Vaxxer's Mind, Aug 3, 2015
Meet the Heroes and the Villains of Vaccine Injury, July 29, 2015
Jim Carrey, Please Shut Up About Vaccines, Jul 1, 2015
Meet the Latest Driver of the Anti-Vaccine Clown Car, Jan 30, 2015
RFK Jr. Joins the Anti-Vaccine Fringe, July 21, 2014
That Moment When You Must Have a Word With Jenny McCarthy, Apr 12, 2014
Here’s How the Anti-Vaxxers’ Strongest Argument Falls Apart Aug 19, 2015
Kluger: "I am Editor at Large for Time magazine, and I’m working with two colleagues on a piece about groups like Maine for Vaccine Choice and their political and legislative efforts in the various states. I’m very much hoping to come to Maine, visit with your group, and learn about the work you’re doing. I’d be very interested in meeting and talking with some activist parents as well. As Time is hoping to close this story by May 15, I would very much like to schedule any visit for as soon as possible.If you have followed Time’s vaccine coverage, it’s no secret that I am very supportive of childhood vaccinations and have written quite a bit about their safety and efficacy. Often my coverage has been sharp in tone. I stand by my belief in the science, but what I hope to report here is the politics—the increasing influence groups like yours have and how you’ve succeeded in building a nationwide network. It’s a phenomenon that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention and I think it would interest readers. Please let me know if my visiting soon is a possibility and thanks in advance for your time and attention."

Me: "I am not longer the Director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice thus I do not speak for them.I forwarded your phone message to them...If you want a quote from me for your story: "In 1986, Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, giving liability protection to vaccine makers for injury and death from their products, and planting the seeds of the vaccine injury epidemic. In the 1990s, as the vaccine injury epidemic began to bloom, parents asked Public Health for treatment for their injured children, but they refused to provide it. In the 2000s, as the vaccine injury epidemic came into full swing, parents asked Public Health for vaccine safety reform, but instead they made the vaccine program more aggressive. In the 2010s, as the vaccine injury epidemic began to decimate child health and public systems, parents gave up on previous requests, instead demanding vaccine choice in order to get away from the abusive vaccine program, and now public health is telling them they cannot leave their abuser. I believe that in the coming decade, because the Public Health will not admit to its failure that is crippling the country, the vaccine program will collapse under the weight of its own corruption. And it will be the vaccine program's own fault, because it simply will not admit to being exactly what the 1986 Act called it when the law was passed 33 ago. "Unavoidably Unsafe." Thank you for your time,Ginger Taylor"

Jeffrey Kluger: "Thank you for getting back to me.I'm familiar with the history and the arguments. No need for follow-up."
The mainstream media is a disaster.

October 2, 2018

Paul Offit Reports that "Vaccination is a Violent Act."

"Vaccinations arn't easy. This isn't an easy thing to do. We ask a lot of our citizens. To get as many as 26 inoculations in the first few years of life, and five shots at one time. It's hard to do that, especially given that vaccination is a violent act, you pin the child down, you give them this biological agent against their will. The biological agent generally isn’t understood well by the parent, and to some extent not understood all that well by the physician." –Paul Offit
The history of Paul Offit's comments and pronouncements are as bizarre as they are varied. The defacto salesman for the global vaccine industry regularly issues mistruths about vaccine safety and efficacy, attacks both vaccine injured families and those who have learned from them how to protect their families from such a fate, and occasionally says something reasonable. It is the latter moments, when Offit tells the truth, that highlight how unreasonable he is in his usual missives. Today, such a message was brought to my attention. In March of 2011, the Mütter Museum of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia interviewed Paul Offit and Seth Mnookin about their books attacking vaccine injured families and those who have stopped vaccinating because of the corruption and risk in the vaccine program. Offit actually validates vaccine risk aware parents by admitting to the inherent violence in vaccination:
"Guest host, George Wohlreich, MD, Director and CEO of The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, interviews Paul Offit, MD and Seth Mnookin. The History of Vaccines brought the two authors to The College for a lecture on March 1. For more, see http://www.historyofvaccines.org" Link to full interview. As always, Offit's faux compassion for vaccine injury families is not born out in his behavior. His true disdain for those who are opting out of the products he makes a living promoting are reflected both in the title of his book that he was selling at the time, "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All," and in his on camera treatment of the father of a child paralyzed by vaccines who approached him for an interview.
So in summation, Paul Offit's message to you is that if you choose not to vaccinate, it is reasonable, given that vaccination is violent and we are asking a lot of you to participate in such an aggressive schedule, even though it is safe for an infant to recieve 100,000 vaccines at one time, however, you are a threat to us all, and if you want to talk about it, get the fuck out of here. He doesn't want to talk to you. h/t 2ndfor1st

September 20, 2018

Lawyer Benjamin J. Horwich "Proud" of Removing Your Right To Sue Vaccine Makers Who Kill Your Children

Hey kids... wanna read something super gross?

This is the evil PR murder goo that slimed out of gates of hell to praise the tool of the Devil that "won" Wyeth's case in SCOTUS so that no vaccine injured family could ever access their 7th Amendment right to sue when a vaccine kills or disables their child.

Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com
Rising Star: Munger Tolles’ Benjamin Horwich
Law360, Los Angeles (April 11, 2016, 4:00 PM ET) -- Benjamin J. Horwich’s career achievements include helping convince the U.S. Supreme Court to effectively prevent drug companies from exiting the vaccine market, a critical matter of public policy, earning the Munger Tolles & Olson LLP partner a spot on Law360’s list of the top six appellate attorneys under age 40.
Horwich, who recently turned 39, was named a partner in January, just 17 months after he joined the firm. He attributes part of his success as a Rising Star to being exposed to an enormous number of different legal issues through his time as Assistant to the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as clerkships in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Third Circuit and the Northern District of California.
“As an appellate lawyer, there is really no substitute for having a broad base of areas of the law where you have some familiarity,” Horwich said. “Our stock in trade is talking to generalist judges who tend not to have extremely deep knowledge of any single subject matter but rather a desire to fit the pieces of the law together in a harmonious way. Coming to an appellate court with that common ground is really valuable.”
During his more than five years with the U.S. Solicitor General, Horwich was able to argue 10 cases before the nation’s highest court. One of the most memorable and rewarding cases, he said, was Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, a 2011 ruling that held the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts design-defect tort claims against vaccine manufacturers.
Horwich, who argued on behalf of the federal government as a friend of the  court siding with the drugmakers, said it was important because it helped prevent pharmaceutical companies from exiting the less than lucrative vaccine market due to tort liability.
“The law stands as one of the most ingenious and successful pieces of tort reform ever,” Horwich said.  “I’m certainly proud of being a part of delivering on the promise that Congress sought out to make in the 1980s and certainly take only the smallest amount of credit.”
Horwich said he uses that experience and many others, as well as his time clerking for Justices Samuel A. Alito and Sandra Day O’Connor, to help him in his practice. His ability to “marry the understanding of the local courts with the long view of what a case looks like if it’s impacted by the Supreme Court” brings value to his firm’s clients, he said.
In advising Swedish telecom equipment maker Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Inc. in its patent licensing dispute with tech giant Apple Inc., one of the biggest mobile tech cases of the past year, Horwich said they were preparing to address the unresolved issue of how courts will assess damages for standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, terms.
“That’s an issue at the forefront of the intersection of IP and antitrust law,” Horwich said.  While the issue wasn’t decided due to a global settlement reached between the parties in December, Horwich said his appellate experience provides him with a key long-term outlook at the trial level.
“Understanding how precedent develops in appellate court gives you an advantage at trial court, where you’re building that record,” he said. “Bringing that long-term perspective is valuable to a client who is interested in the sound development of the law that governs its business activity.”
One piece of advice that he offers young lawyers looking to advance their careers is to distinguish yourself from other attorneys.
“The background I have developed is something distinctive,” Horwich said. “Being able to explain what you as an attorney can offer that is distinctive is the path to success, because it puts yourself in the best position to tell clients, ‘I’m the right person for this job.’”
--Editing by Emily Kokoll.
All Content © 2003-2016, Portfolio Media, Inc.



Super, super gross.

He is "PROUD" to have left hundreds of thousands of people without the right to walk into a courtroom and tell their story to a jury, or compel anyone in the entire $30B per year industry to testify under oath on product safety... or even hand over one single document.

Totally disgusting.

He believes that gutting the 7th amendment to protect a business that kills babies by chemical poisoning, even when they are still in the safety of their mother's womb is "ingenious."  And of course that the massive violation of the Bill of Rights to make open fraud that has resulted tricking parents into destroying the health of their own precious children, decimating more than one generation of children, is a "success."

Well, to be fair, he is not wrong on that last point.  NCVIA and VICP are the most successful frauds in US history.  No one has ever managed the consiquence free murder and maiming of children for profit like the post 1986 US National Immunization Program.

"But, Ginger," you may say, "Why attack him personally... he is just a lawyer doing his job, right?"

Nope.  He "takes only the smallest amount of credit" for my lack of ability to hold Sanofi responsible for lying about the safety of the vaccine that gave my son brain damage, and prevent any other children from suffering what my son did, but he has taken credit none the less.  So...

Meet Ben Horwich.  The smiling face of evil.  At your service for the right price.  Not even the slaughter of innnocent babies will stop him from getting you the money and power you want.

HIRE HIM TODAY!



September 1, 2018

Meet Frank DeStefano


So today I heard the one millionth politician say another version of, "The benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks," and got my panties in a huge bunch, repeatedly hammering "DATA PLEASE!!!" into my poor keyboard. And then the politician sitting next to her became the one quintillionth to say a version of, "I just refuse to believe that all the public health professionals and scientists and doctors and nurses in all the land everywhere in perpetuity would be in a conspiracy to....,"and it is just driving me crazy.

So I took a deep breath and I am writing this to respond to those who repeat what they have been told with out critical thought. I will not name them, as they have agreed to meet with and listen to some of our moms (pray that normal reason guides the conversation), but I am writing this response to them as a primer to people who are stuck in the "that conspiracy is not possible" paradigm.

OK... great point. Conspiracies fall apart faster the larger they get, and if all people involved in vaccination were part of a conspiracy, it would have burned itself out by now.

But can you believe a group of people I can count on my fingers might decide to tell big giant lies to keep themselves from getting in trouble? How about just ONE GUY? Would one guy try to get away with it, if for example, he had allowed bad policy, corporate influence, arrogance and flat out laziness to create THE most rampant epidemic of neurological damage in American history? Would that one guy try to lie and cover it up?

And do you believe that a top down profession like medicine, would simply believe that ONE GUY, if he was supposed to be the NATIONAL EXPERT entrusted with issuing stances on such matters that all those in medicine had to carry out, or be shoved out of the profession?

Let's meet Frank DeStefano. 

Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, FACPM is a medical epidemiologist and researcher at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he is director of the Immunization Safety Office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_DeStefano

Frank is in charge of telling everyone in the country whether or not vaccines are linked to autism.

Here is what Frank tells us, and the whole wide world, on this critical matter on vaccine safety:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

"Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism"
"There is no link between vaccines and autism."
"Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism."

Simple, straightforward, emphatic statements.

But wait... here is what Frank told Sharyl Attkisson about that very same issue:


"He acknowledged the prospect that vaccines might rarely trigger autism."
“I guess, that, that is a possibility,” said DeStefano. “It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities.”

That is NOT AT ALL even remotely like what he said in is official position that ALL MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THE COUNTRY HAVE TO RELY ON.

So why would Frank say that it is a possibility that vaccines can cause autism?

Because Frank already KNOWS that vaccines can cause autism. He found out in 1999 the first time he looked into it.

You see, Frank screwed up.

In 1988, when CDC began to jack up the number of vaccines from 23 given in the 70s and 80s, to the 70ish doses given now, they created the largest epidemic of life long neurological damage in US history. The autism rate went from 1 in 10,000ish to now 1 in 68ish (but probably really 1 in 36ish.  we can't get CDC to give us a straight answer.)

This started becoming apparent at the end of the 1990s, when one woman at the CDC issued a memo that said, "Hey guys... do you realize we have delivered truck loads of mercury into babies by giving them 8 vaccines at a time now?" Well clearly it was not a problem, because vaccines are the best thing ever and can't hurt anyone, but Frank's job was to look at that stuff, so he kinda had to look into it.

And that is when The Frank Squad found out that Team CDC was delivering 250 times the daily limit of mercury to babies, and babies getting the most mercury in their vaccines had a 600% higher chance of getting autism than babies getting no mercury.

Frank had a choice. Admit to what he had done, or lie.

Frank decided to lie.

He decided NOT to publish what he found, instead having his squad spend four years trying to unfind what they found. They couldn't. So they added on some garbage, published it, called it a "neutral study" and then a dude wrote a New York Times best selling book on the fraud. Which Frank, and everyone else at CDC, ignored.


But they had to ignore it, because they had charted their course and could not turn back now!  Once you commit the first fraud, you have to keep on frauding or you are super busted.

Plus they had already published their second fraud. Because they had also looked into the idea that MMR was linked to autism, and found that IT WAS. In two different groups. One of the black males given the MMR under age 3. Of course they didn't publish that either, but literally held meetings with a garbage can in the room to throw out cases that they had to get rid of to make the research to fit the narrative.

Of course parents of MMR injured kids knew the paper was BS, but no one could prove it for 10 years, when one of Frank's boys admitted to Congress that they found the links and covered them up.


http://canaryparty.org/commentary/timeline-of-events-in-the-william-thompson-cdcwhistleblower-scandal/

Which is why Frank FINALLY had to admit to Attkisson that it was in the realm possibility that vaccines can cause autism.

But he never bothered changing the CDC page emphatically claiming that vaccines don't cause autism.


Now for above referenced politicians, there is a LOT MORE ON ALL THIS. But I am going to stop here because it only gets more complicated.  But I have laid out so basics.  Do you see how, even from a 30,000 foot level, there is an obvious problem??

I ask you to consider this....

Yeah...  of course.... you can't keep a conspiracy quiet when millions are involved.

But when the leader of an organization, given total power over what US vaccine safety policy is, decides to lie and commit fraud, and everyone inside his organization has to live by his pronouncements, and in the medical profession has to work according to CDC pronouncements, you see how a very small conspiracy can come to rule the medical profession?

They become participants in the fraud, either knowing or unknowing... either willing or unwilling... but they HAVE to participate in the fraud in order to keep their jobs.  They have to tow the line, (so it is best no to look to closely at the issue, because what if parents are right?)

Now factor in the legal liability protection that the 30 Billion dollar vaccine industry has for vaccine induced autism, and every other adverse vaccine reaction, and the number of very smooth lobbyists that the 30 Billion dollar per year vaccine industry has to lie to politicians on a daily basis, and you see how the medical professionals might be believing a lie...

...without being involved in any conspiracy what so ever?

I appreciate you agreeing to meet with moms. If you could also invite Frank DeStefano to attend, so we can ask him direct questions on his work and conflicting public stances, it may clarify what is really happening in this very controversial issue very quickly.

Also, if you could invite a judge to swear him in, under oath, I think you will come to understand our complaints about the veracity and trustworthiness of vaccine safety claims with crystal clarity.

Bring a stenographer and a video camera.

This is not a vast conspiracy.  It is a small one, reinforced by those who need to believe it to keep their jobs, and those who refuse to listen to parents and investigate the charges that they make.

And every time you parrot "I can't believe that all doctors would participate in a conspiracy to cover up vaccine damage."  Pretend you just said, "I can't believe that all catholics would participate in a conspiracy to cover up child molestation."

Because the reason that both have persisted decade after decade, is because you and people like you "refused" to take reports of injured children seriously.

Usually because it is such a monstrous thought that no one wants to entertain the possibility that it could be true.

So see, I don't really have a problem with you.  I have a problem with Frank.  And with those who helped and protected Frank knowing full well Frank was committing one of the most massive frauds in medical history.

But I can't get to Frank.  Frank does not talk to people like me.  Frank has security guards and laws that prevent me from forcing Frank to answer questions under oath.

And because you, unknowingly are running interference for Frank by dismissing Frank's massive fraud when parents like me report it to you, WE (you and I) end up having a problem.

But there is a line for everyone in this discussion, when dealing with super loud moms like me, that when crossed turns sincere ignorance on the fraud into willful ignorance.  Have you crossed that line yet?  If you are still willing to listen to moms, then probably not.  Be careful of crossing it.

Finally.... seriously... why are you letting Frank use you as a human shield?  Respectfully... you guys don't actually know what you are talking about on vaccine safety, and you are not actually responsible for the false claims Frank DeStefano Inc. are spitting out.  You didn't do the research.  You have not even read the research, much less understood the criticisms of it.  Why don't you just step out of the way and make FRANK answer for the fraud that he has perpetrated on the American public, and the world.

Stop protecting Frank DeStefano.  It is not your job.

August 9, 2018

My Apology For My Denial And Failure To Offer You Informed Consent


I have done something very wrong for a very long time.

When I learned that some vaccines were made from aborted fetal cells, and still contained those children's biological material, I was so upset that I shut it out of my mind and work and life.

I pretended in my heart to unknow what I knew, and not say it out loud so I would not have to know it is true.

And I didn't include it in many of the warnings to parents when I was offering them information to give them greater informed consent on vaccination. People whose religion or world view may have precluded them from getting such shots.  Even while purporting to do my best to offer them informed consent on vaccination. 

I didn't even tell all my fellow Christians.

That was wrong. And it was done out of fear. Because I didn't want to deal with the horrid truth that I had administered these things to my children, and had administered to me.

So here I repent. I am sorry. Everyone is due that information and I didn't give it to everyone.

So I won't leave that out any more just because it is upsetting. Because it is so upsetting.

If you were one of the parents I should have warned, I am sorry.

"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." - Ephesians 5:11