WHEN SILENCE SUGGESTS THE NEED FOR BETTER LISTENING

Health care, and the safety upon which it is based, mandates an unbiased hawkish viewing by independent sources. This provides better safeguards for the public than relying on governmental agencies with conflicting biased interests. The following 2 minute video provides a quick and simple explanation why answers to important questions regarding YOUR HEALTH need further evaluation.

Please view this FIRST before reading the rest of this article.

As consumers, we like to hear authoritative figures (DOCTORS) tell us their knowledge protects our health. It is important to understand that these DOCTORS are the same people that assured us before THOROUGH studies were INDEPENDENTLY performed that:

1. Cigarette smoking was “good for us” and improved lung function.

2. DDT sprayed directly on our children provided important health benefits to protect them.

In the United States, individual liberties and freedoms are values our country was founded upon. To permit the health care system to override these important values by forcing families to participate in decisions they vehemently oppose is a very dangerous precedent. This is especially true when the policies they are attempting to mandate may create long term complications they are unwilling to properly investigate. How many American lives must be sacrificed before we decide to change protocols and implement policies based on integrity and quality research standards designed to create universal support? Currently, too many unanswered questions are being ignored. By challenging today’s truths we add better and more credible evidence to improving our future health care recommendations.

Whether you choose to participate or not participate in the vaccination program it is important to seek out honest and complete information to make the best informed decision possible. Your doctor’s recommendation should certainly be included in this process, but should NOT BE THE SOLE FACTOR IN MAKING YOUR DECISION.

This is a responsibility every parent owes their child.

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Chris Shaw’s research entitled, “Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.

As long as silence remains the policy and response to Dr. Shaw’s research (as well as many other research scientists seeking truth) , we must remain skeptical and continue to challenge today’s health care recommendations. It is our ethical and moral responsibility as doctors, parents and citizens to do so.

 

Tags: children, clinical trials, disease, doctor, ethics, health