Connect with us

News

Vaccines Have Risk and Require Informed Consent

Published

on

Vaccines Have Risk and Require Informed Consent

“There are many unknowns, and there are no certainties,” concludes Dr. Orient. “But the physician must strive to do no harm, not even in the form of serving the collective good.” Increasingly expansive and coercive vaccine mandates place the supposed collective good of society above the right of patients or their parents to give or withhold informed consent, writes Jane M. Orient, M.D., in a guest editorial in the Journal of American Physicians ‘ fall issue.

Public health officials are continually claiming “vaccines are secure and efficient,” and “vaccine hesitation” is a significant threat to worldwide government health.

No medical intervention, however, is either 100% secure or 100% efficient. Some complications may be “very common,” but, Dr. Orient writes, patients may not be willing to take the risk of death or catastrophic lifelong disability for a gain that they perceive as tiny.

In addition, the risk of damage may be significantly higher than reported. One research proposed that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the fast safety-signal detection scheme for rare adverse events from vaccines, could report only 1 percent of severe responses. Ten years later, we don’t have any other data on reporting completeness.

Adult vaccines are likely to be mandated more commonly in the near future, particularly in perspective of outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and mumps in fully vaccinated adults whose vaccine-induced immunity appears to have decreased. AAPS participants frequently complain about the need to work in hospitals or other health equipment for influenza vaccine. Due to a request to demonstrate immunity or latest vaccination against some 15 distinct illnesses, one doctor withdrew an request for consulting privileges.

The dogma is that “vaccines are secure and efficient,” and it is our responsibility to safeguard against vaccine-preventable diseases the “herd,” particularly susceptible, immunosuppressed kids. It is almost certain to raise any question about this to cause vitriolic allegations of being a risk to the society as an “anti-scientific anti-vaxxer.” However, severe issues need to be explored with an open, critical mind.

The philosophical question is how much risk a individual may be forced to take, even to save another’s life. Tort law does not create a “obligation to rescue.” Should we override a religious objection or reluctance to take a danger because an unvaccinated kid may get measles and may expose an unvaccinated kid if a measles epidemic occurs? Where do we draw a line once we put the collective over individual rights?

A case of 1905 that maintained a mandate for vaccination against smallpox, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, is the precedent used to promote all mandates for vaccines. The cautions of the judges regarding the abuse of police powers have been ignored, while judicial interpretations have expanded to include the implied power to avoid epidemics, not just to react to current ones.

There is an “epidemic of doubt” and an “epidemic of distrust,” which is only exacerbated by labeling all skeptics as “anti-vaxx” and “anti-science.” Dr. Orient points to severe, otherwise unexplained adverse events and problematic vaccine ingredients including fetal DNA, retroviruses and adjuvants. The latter are used to boost the immune system with the ability to trigger autoimmune conditions in order to improve the efficacy of the vaccine.

“There are many unknowns, and there are no certainties,” concludes Dr. Orient. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is released by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a domestic organisation that has been representing doctors in all specialties since 1943.

Read More: 7 Apps That Keep Your Health In Check

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Clinton’s defense attorney was the latest Kavanaugh Accuser

Published

on

Clinton's defense attorney was the latest Kavanaugh Accuser

Following a New York Times report detailing new allegations of sexual misconduct against Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court, evidence has emerged that the latest accuser, Max Stier, used to work for the Clintons.

The Times published a story on Saturday pushing questionable claims that the genitals of Kavanaugh were thrown into the hand of a woman while drunk at a college party.

The allegation was not substantiated, and the supposed victim’s friends deny having any memory of the case.

Max Stier, a lawyer who represented both Bill and Hillary Clinton when Bill Clinton was charged with revealing himself to a girl in the 1990s, is the guy who says he witnessed the incident.

After Paula Jones accused him of exposing himself to her in a hotel room, Stier, a Democrat, represented President Bill Clinton. Clinton settled for $850,000 with Jones and for five years lost his law license.

Stier also worked closely with David Kendall, representing Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater investigation against allegations of illegal processing of classified information. On the other hand of the Clinton impeachment fight, Kavanaugh worked with Ken Starr. Kavanaugh had accused his opponents of “vengeance on behalf of the Clintons” during his confirmation hearings. This allegation seems to verify that.

Saraacarter.com reports: In a significant twist, NYTimes editorial was forced to create a correction to its bombshell tale about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that the “presumed victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all.” Editors ‘ Note states: “An previous version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming novel, did not include one component of the novel. The book claims the woman student has refused to be interviewed and friends say she does not remember the incident. But NYTimes publishers also omitted another significant detail, that Max Stier, the accuser who “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his trousers down at another drunken college party, where friends pushed his penis into the hands of a female student,” worked as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation.

The only allegedly fresh statement created in the novel is not new and comes from Democrat lawyer Max Stier, a Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate with whom he has a lengthy and controversial history. During the Whitewater investigation in the 1990s when Kavanaugh worked for Independent Counsel Ken Starr, they were “matched” against each other in the words of the Yale Daily News. Stier defended President Bill Clinton, whose legal problems started when he was accused by a female of revealing herself to her in her hotel room. Clinton later settled for $850,000 with the lady and ended up losing his law license for five years due to a contempt of court summons for inaccurate testimony. Stier worked intimately with David Kendall, who continued to protect Hillary Clinton against accusations that classified information had been illegally handled. Kavanaugh’s reference to his opponents motivated by “vengeance on behalf of the Clintons” met with stupidity from the liberal media, despite the unusually big amount of Clinton-affiliated lawyers who continued to pop up during his confirmation hearings. (Excerpt from TheFederalist.com) NYTimes was forced to update its narrative only after The Federalist Mollie Hemingway flagged the omission of the article on Twitter: Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Julian Castro, among others, were quick to declare that Kavanaugh “must be impeached”

I was sitting through the hearings. Lied to the United States by Brett Kavanaugh. Senate and the American people most important. He was brought to court by a sham process and his position at the court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice.

Continue Reading

News

Trump: Hellbent Democrats to Eliminate ‘ God-given self-defense rights ‘

Published

on

Trump: Hellbent Democrats to Eliminate ' God-given self-defense rights '

President Trump slammed “radical” Democrats for attempting to remove weapons from law-abiding Americans.

During his rally in New Mexico on September 16, 2019, Trump warned of hellbent “radical left democrats” pushing laws, greater taxes, and free speech limitations.

He also advised that “Left Democrats want to confiscate your weapons and eliminate your God-given right to self-defense.” “As your president, I will never allow them to take away your freedom, your dignity,… and I will never, ever, enable them to take away your sacred right to bear weapons,” added Trump.

Reports from Breitbart.com: Breitbart News reported Trump’s warning on September 15, 2019 that Democrats want weapons to be “confiscated.”

CBS News quoted Trump as stating, “Democrats want to confiscate weapons from law-abiding Americans.” He added that any Democrat achievement in the confiscatory push means law-abiding people will be “completely defenseless when someone goes home with a gun.” On September 12, 2019, Breitbart News quoted Democrat presidential candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke as stating, “Hell yes, we’re going to bring yo with us.

Continue Reading

News

The Sex Tape Accuser Kevin Hart called him a Victim and Promised not to Sue.

Published

on

The sex tape accuser Kevin Hart called him a victim and promised not to sue.

Kevin Hart’s sex tape partner who lodged a lawsuit against him for $60 million said back when the tale broke first… Kevin was a victim, like her, and she wouldn’t sue him.

Montia Sabbag was on the side of lawyer Lisa Bloom as Bloom mentioned their case… That Kevin had no idea they were secretly filming their sexual liaison in a hotel suite in Las Vegas. Bloom also created the stance of Sabbag clear… She didn’t want Kevin’s cent— she wanted to hunt the perpetrator down and put him to justice.

Our sources claim a later Sabbag lawyer— her third— has lately made Kevin a secret economic demand… Asking for “low six figures,” it was dismissed by Kevin’s lawyer and offered no penny.

kevin

The story was broken by TMZ… That lawyer now replying to Sabbag has lodged a lawsuit against Hart and J.T for $60 million. Jackson— The former friend of Kevin who was detained for extortion and charged.

So, now Sabbag turned on Kevin, stating he was on it so he could get more advertising— odd, as even back then Kevin was one of the world’s largest film stars, and the last thing he required was media attention over cheating.

What’s more than that… First-hand information sources inform TMZ that Kevin has worked on the case with the District Attorney for two years. It seems strange that if he was secretly one of the perpetrators, he would be so engaged. “Kevin works a lot with the D.A. because J.T. f**ked him over,” as one source put it. We’re told Kevin, who’s recovering from horrific injuries as a result of his car crash, won’t pay Sabbag a penny. There is no going to be a settlement.

Continue Reading

News

UK Ban on Cats and Dogs blocked as ‘ offending ‘ Asian countries

Published

on

UK ban on cats and dogs blocked as ' offending ' Asian countries

The government has blocked a ban on eating dog and cat meat in the UK for fear of being’ culturally insensitive’ to South East Asian countries.

After a bill was drawn up to illegal dog or cat meat possession in the United Kingdom, civil servants jumped in to thwart the move.

The Ministry of Justice justified blocking the new rules, saying that telling other nations what they can and can not eat would be’ culturally insensitive’ to the British government, despite the reality that it would have no effect on South East Asian countries where dog and cat meat are eaten.

Summit News reported: “Dogs are creatures that accompany us. We don’t eat them, and that’s a very important message to send to the rest of the world, “Watling said.” It’s not culturally insensitive because we don’t tell them what to do–we’re just telling them what we’re doing, “he added, saying he was” amazed “by the objection from the MoJ.

Every year in China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, around 30 million animals are killed and consumed. Many are alive skinned and subjected to horrific torture.

Continue Reading

News

Tulsi Gabbard: Acting like ‘ B*tch ‘ of Saudi Arabia ‘

Published

on

Tulsi Gabbard: Acting like ' B*tch ' of Saudi Arabia '

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has criticized President Trump in reaction to the attacks on Saudi Arabia for threatening military action against Iran.

“Trump’s Saudi masters are awaiting instructions,” Gabbard tweeted.

“To have our nation behave as the bitch of Saudi Arabia is not’ America First.'” Mediaite.com reports: Gabbard’s tweet came in reaction to Trump stating the U.S. is “locked and loaded” in reaction to the Saudis assault.

“The supply of oil to Saudi Arabia has been assaulted,” Trump wrote. “There’s reason to think that we understand the guilty, that we’re locked and loaded based on the verification, but we’re waiting to hear from the Kingdom who they think was the cause of the assault, and how we’d continue!”The supply of oil to Saudi Arabia has been assaulted. There’s reason to think we understand the guilty, are locked and loaded depending on the verification, but we’re waiting to hear from the Kingdom who they think was the cause of this assault, and how we’d continue!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 15 September 2019 Gabbard’s own criticism of Middle East strategy has been addressed. In specific, for meeting the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in 2017, she has come under fire.

The representative from Hawaii was mired in the Democratic race at about one percent. She has not qualified for the third Democratic discussion and is presently searching outside for the next October discussion.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending