RFK Jr. and the Lessons of the Nuremberg Code
By Anne Dachel
"They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country."
As one might imagine, this drew all kinds of criticism and Kennedy issued an immediate apology. Any reference to the Holocaust is understandably a very sensitive issue to Jewish Americans. The story was covered by most major new sources. Most published Kennedy's explanation without comment, but there was some criticism.
Read more at SacBee here.
April 13, 215, Robert Kennedy Jr. apologizes for likening vaccine effects to ... Los Angeles Times
'I employed the term during an impromptu speech as I struggled to find an expression to convey the catastrophic tragedy of autism, which has now destroyed the lives of over 20 million children and shattered their families.
'I am acutely aware of the profound power attached to that word, and I will find other terms to describe the autism crisis in the future.'
April 13, 2015, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. apologizes for "holocaust" comment in ... CBS News
'The word holocaust should never be used as a flippant throwaway line to make a point in a debate,' said Assemblyman Marc Levine, vice chair of the Legislative Jewish Caucus, during a Holocaust remembrance event on Monday in the California Assembly.
April 14, 2015, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. apologizes for 'holocaust' remark in speech against ... Fox News
Robert Kennedy Jr. on Monday apologized for describing the number of children injured by vaccines as "a holocaust" during a film screening last week.
The nephew of President John F. Kennedy and son of former U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy used the term last week at a screening in Sacramento of the film "Trace Amounts." The movie links autism to a vaccine preservative, even though the medical community says such claims have been scientifically disproved.
Kennedy said he was struggling for a way to convey the effects of autism on children and their families.
The New York Times however used this as an opportunity to slam Kennedy and the movie he was promoting, "Trace Amounts," without bothering to include the name of the film.
April 15, 2015,Why California's Approach to Tightening Vaccine Rules Has Potential to Backfire
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine leader, compared the issue to the Holocaust in comments in Sacramento before the screening of a scientifically unsubstantiated anti-vaccine film last week.
One Jewish news source incorrectly reported that Kennedy compared 'vaccinating children in the U.S.' to the Holocaust, when he was clearly was talking about healthy children who suddenly lost learned skills and regressed into autism after being vaccinated.
April 14, 2015, HomeRobert F. Kennedy Jr. Calls Mandatory Vaccines 'Holocaust' Jewish Daily Forward
"We object to Robert Kennedy Jr.'s insensitive and inappropriate comment that vaccinating children in the U.S. constitutes a 'Holocaust.'," Deborah Lauter, the ADL's director of civil rights, said in a statement to JTA.
"Six million Jews and countless others were systematically slaughtered by the Nazis under Hitler," Lauter said. "Such inappropriate analogies only serve to trivialize the Holocaust and are deeply offensive to Jews and other survivors, as well as those Americans who fought valiantly against the Nazis in World War II."
A couple weeks later the Nazi era was again in news reports about vaccine exemptions, this time in Maine. On May 4, 2015, the Bangor Daily News ran the story, Auburn legislator compares forced vaccination to 'horrors of Nazi Germany'.
Rep. David Sawicki, R-Auburn, is asking Maine lawmakers to approve a bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against any person who decides to forgo certain vaccinations.
Sawicki is the sponsor of LD 950, An Act to Prohibit Discrimination against a Person Who Is Not Vaccinated.
Sawicki said Monday that his bill is simple, in that if a person or the parent of a child decided against vaccinations for any reason, he or she could not be discriminated against by a school, employer or any other entity.
While Maine already allows for a "philosophical exemption," Sawicki said his measure strengthens that and would make it difficult for the state to ever rollback that exemption.
Sawicki doesn't share in the belief of many in government that the need for "herd immunity" overrides personal choice.
Sawicki said his bill is about the ability to maintain the rights of informed consent for Mainers who are opposed to vaccines or who are concerned they may be the cause for other conditions or ailments including Type 1 diabetes and autism.
"I present LD 950 to this committee to protect all Mainers' rights to informed consent when it comes to the choices we as consumers make for what we decide to put into our bodies, or, conversely, have removed from our bodies, because that is what we choose to do medically as free human beings," Sawicki said. "The right to choose."
Sawicki expressed his concern over the safety of vaccines and parental choice in no uncertain terms.
He also said the idea that people could be forced to take a vaccine they don't want conjured visions of "the horrors of Nazi Germany, forced sterilization, interment, execution and involuntary medical experimentation."
This made me think about all the times I'd heard about the lack of safety testing on vaccine ingredients, especially the use of toxic mercury (thimerosal) and aluminum.
"Ten Lies" Told About Mercury in Vaccines - Trace Amounts
Thimerosal has never undergone even one modern safety test. It was developed in 1927 and patented by Eli Lilly in 1928. It was first tested on small animals and killed a variety of mice, rabbits and chicks. After the animals died from exposure to Thimerosal, the decision was made to administer it to 22 patients suffering from bacterial meningitis during an epidemic in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1929.
Of the 22 persons given Thimerosal, all died, most within a day or two of administration. The doctor overseeing the trial, on stipend from Eli Lilly, declared that the patients had all died of meningitis and that Thimerosal was not observed to have caused any problem when administered to his patients. With that declaration, and a subsequent one by Eli Lilly staff that Thimerosal has a low order of toxicity for man, even though it killed small animals, Thimerosal was introduced into the drug supply. Yet, despite warnings in the published scientific literature that Thimerosal was toxic, and despite opposition to its use in every decade since, Thimerosal has remained in the drug supply.
(That quote is from the website for the movie, "Trace Amounts," which the NY Times said was "a scientifically unsubstantiated anti-vaccine film.")
This is what Robert Kennedy, Jr wrote about in his book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak. A book the New York Times and every other news source refused to honestly and thoroughly review.
The shoddy history of mercury use in vaccines has even been acknowledged by U.S. health officials. In 2004, acting director of the FDA William Egan was called to testify before Rep. Dan Burton's subcommittee in Washington.
Congressman Burton: "Has thimerosal ever been tested by our health agencies?"
William Egan: "Only those early tests that were done by Lilly--"
Burton: "And when was that done? That was done in 1929. . . . Let me follow up on that. In 1929, they tested this on 27 [sic] people who were dying of meningitis. All of those people died of meningitis, and so they said there was no correlation between their deaths and the mercury in the vaccines. That is the only test that has ever been on thimerosal, that I know of. Can you think of any other. "
Egan: "In people, no, except for accidental exposure."
Burton: "So we have mercury that's being put into people's bodies in the form of this preservative and has been since the 30s, and it's never been tested by our health agencies. And yet you folks come here and you testify that there's no conclusive evidence--conclusive evidence, and the IOM says, 'They favor'--get it. They don't say they're sure. 'They favor rejection of a causal relationship between mercury and autism and other neurological disorders.
"Mr. Egan, can you say to me right now that that amount of mercury being injected into a baby will not hurt it?"
Egan: "It's impossible to make those categorical statements on hundred percent."
Burton: "That's right.. . . . So it is possible that the amount of mercury being injected, even in trace amounts, could damage a child neurologically, right?"
Egan: "I don't think it has that capacity."
Burton: "But you can't say categorically, can you?"
Egan: "Do I have evidence for every single child, for every possible dose, the answer is no."
Burton: "There you go. We've been after this for eight years. . . ."
And as far as the use of aluminum in our children's vaccines, the story is just as bleak. Seven years ago I wrote the piece, Is Aluminum the New Mercury for Age of Autism. Here I pointed out that nationally known pediatrician Dr. Robert Sears tried to investigate the safety testing on aluminum in vaccines, and he couldn't find any studies that had been done.
All this should be very concerning to parents and a huge embarrassment for doctors and health officials who continually tell us that our vaccines have been exhaustively tested and their safety is assured. (And it needs to be said that the numerous population studies conducted seventy years after thimerosal was first used in vaccines aren't proof of safety. These are the weakest form of science, known to result in false and misleading findings.)
This gets me back to David Sawicki's comment about forced vaccination and the Nazis. It should be pointed out that their atrocities led to establishment of the Nuremberg Code in 1947.
This is the description right from the HHS website. It called for informed consent for any medical experiment.
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
Barbara Loe Fisher laid out the meaning of the Nuremberg Code in her article, The Moral Right to Conscientious, Philosophical and Personal Belief Exemption to Vaccination.
Out of the Doctors Trial in Nuremberg came the Nuremberg Code, of which Yale law professor, physician and ethicist Jay Katz has said "if not explicitly then at least implicitly, commanded that the principle of the advancement of science bow to a higher principle: protection of individual inviolability. The rights of individuals to thoroughgoing self-determination and autonomy must come first. Scientific advances may be impeded, perhaps even become impossible at times, but this is a price worth paying."
In another article, Dr. Katz said that the judges of the Nuremberg tribunal, overwhelmed by what they had learned, "envisioned a world in which free women and men, after careful explanation, could make their own good or bad decisions, but not decisions unknowingly imposed on them by the authority of the state, science, or medicine."
Bioethicist Arthur Caplan concurred when he said, "The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them."
The First Principle of the Nuremberg Code is "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."
The Nuremberg Code, which speaks most specifically to the use of human beings in medical research but also has been viewed by bioethicists and U.S. courts as the basis for the right to informed consent to medical procedures carrying a risk of injury or death, was followed by the passage in 1964 of the Helsinki Declarations by the World Medical Association. Like the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declarations emphasized the human right to voluntary, informed consent to participation in medical research that may or may not benefit the individual patient, science or humanity.
Untested vaccine ingredients constitute a medical experiment whenever anyone is vaccinated. The fact that there has never been a study of fully vaccinated and never vaccinated children to prove that both groups have the same health issues means that there are unknown risks. Doctors never tell this to parents. There is no informed consent.
I can only add that forcing anyone to be vaccinated against their will violates both medical ethics and international law. The legislators around the country who are currently considering laws that would force children to be vaccinated in order to attend school need to recognize that basic human rights are at stake here.
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism and author of The Big Autism Cover-Up: How and Why the Media Is Lying to the American Public, which is on sale now from Skyhorse Publishing.
The word "Holocaust" with all its specificity to Jewish experience may not apply to the vaccine epidemic, however the barring of Jews in the Middle Ages from universities and crafts does. Recently I was traveling in Europe and I saw a "ghetto" that was by choice in Padua, Italy because Jews could attend the University of Padua and so they flocked to this one city to take advantage of the education that was denied to them everywhere else. Now with SB277 passing through the California Senate we are facing a similar situation with children of families who for reasons of religion, or a difference of opinion on vaccine science, or because a sibling was vaccine injured are going to become educational outcasts, not unlike the Jewish experience in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. How ironic that we condemn the leaders of those societies for their discrimination against minority groups and yet the very same situation is developing right under our noses.
Posted by: kapoore | May 15, 2015 at 04:13 PM
@john Stone
I too defend the right for people 'not to be bullied by semantics'. Say what you feel and to hell with it. And don't apologise! Stuff of the heart is what matters. But what amuses me now is the latest attempts by some in the media to find a newer and more definitive language to describe parents who choose not to vaccinate.
Take this patronising article which appears to be drowning in the search for originality.
http://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.scientificamerican.com%2Fguest-blog%2Fvilifying-parents-who-don-t-vaccinate-their-kids-is-counterproductive%2F&ei=wLtRVb_LMMLpUuv1gKAE&usg=AFQjCNEBS48Igo1_hmIqF8AzcHsHudGWRQ&sig2=-ggtala4SjfKOVbGOP1_fw
Vaccine Refusers. Vaccine Hesitants. Not too strident is now the media's new message? Why, I ask?
Posted by: patricia | May 12, 2015 at 05:01 AM
Exactly Barry!
Posted by: Benedetta | May 11, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Barry,
You are so right.
Posted by: Linda1 | May 11, 2015 at 08:35 PM
My point is simple :
"They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country."
Anyone who can read these two sentences, and get more upset about the second one, than the first one… is never going to give a shit about whats happening to our children. No matter what we call it.
Posted by: Barry | May 11, 2015 at 07:08 PM
I honestly do not know anything about this blogger (below) but I think this quote sums up this entire 'holocaust' controversy brilliantly:
"One reason I'm not interested in too fine a parsing of what should be called a holocaust is that I have an ulterior motive: to save lives. For a variety of reasons the Holocaust of the Jews has name-recognition. Vast numbers of people know about that holocaust and consider it a symbol of a great evil that should have been prevented. Most other mass murders are not nearly as salient and they don't have names. Adolf Hitler famously asked: "Who remembers the Armenians?". His example was good up to a point, in that the memory of the Armenian genocide did little to prevent others, but in a way it was necessarily an imperfect example: he had to choose an example that his audience would recognize. If he had asked: "Who remembers the Dzungarians?", few people would have known what he was talking about.
Because the Jewish Holocaust has name-recognition, assimilating other mass murders to it by using the same term for them serves to make them more salient, more familiar, and more horrible, which, I hope, stimulates action against them. If extending the term holocaust to what is happening in Darfur brings people to equate the Janjaweed with the Nazis and the people of Darfur with the Jews and helps to overcome the attitude that what is happening is too remote and is happening to people who are too different from us for us to feel more than nominal sympathy for them, that's a good thing. Speaking from a Jewish point of view, faced with the decision whether to emphasize the uniqueness of our holocaust or to emphasize its universality, if the latter might save even a single life, there is no question as to what choice to make."
Source: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002564.html
Posted by: Donna L. | May 11, 2015 at 01:39 PM
What Cherry said. Going forward I hope no one apologizes for referring to autism as a growing "problem," holocaust or whatever. Because gee, increased wandering and drowning deaths (children with autism have a 4times greater risk of elopement), shorter lives for those with autism (mortality risk twice that of general population), caregiver burnout, cost in education, living (40% of children with autism do not speak). We are not on the defence. They are. In fact I wish Kennedy had never apologized. No more pandering to this!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Educator | May 11, 2015 at 01:00 PM
Kapoore reports:-
"Already, the birth rate is plummeting to the lowest in history. I'm not sure why? It could be sociological but it could also be because woman are unhealthy, infertile, or completely terrified of giving birth to a child that might never be well."
An interesting observation Kapoore. Young would-be Western parents, are apparently becoming afraid to take on the huge responsibilities of parenthood, and who can blame them, when states take control of important vaccine and other medical decisions, whilst at the same time failing to take any responsibility for children damaged by compulsory vaccinations. The tortuous, bureaucratic and hideously expensive so called 'vaccine damage compensation schemes' are a bad joke.
The saddest ever videos and photos are of normal laughing babies and toddlers, pre-vaccinations, sometimes administered up to 9 at a time, a legacy of ignorant Offit's assertion 10,000 vaccines are safe to administer all at once.
Facebook has a gallery of dead babies, all lying in silk lined little coffins, all dead within days of vaccinations, all deaths strongly denied as vaccine caused, by their respective medical 'establishments'. If potential parents are choosing to be childless, rather than risk the catastrophe of a dead or damaged child, who can blame them?
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 11, 2015 at 04:55 AM
I think the term "Holocaust" is inappropriate only in that holocaust means burnt offering, but in the popular use of the term as a tragedy beyond imagination the term is appropriate. What could be more devastating than what has happened to a generation of children. The Holocaust lasted four years and this has been going on for nearly four decades. I actually think there are adults in their forties who are sick with autoimmune diseases that might be vaccine related, but clearly the big epidemic hit in the Nineties. This vaccine epidemic is comparable in devastation (that is worldwide devastation) to the Bubonic plague. When it ends (and I pray every day for that awakening) and the final toll is given, we may have lost two thirds of our children either to autism, chronic illness, life threatening allergies, and cancers. If the aluminum adjuvant debacle turns out to be as bad as some fear, the real damage to the immune system of babies who were injected with huge amounts of aluminum may not be known for years to come... we could have large clusters of children dying in their twenties from vaccines they received as babies. Already, the birth rate is plummeting to the lowest in history. I'm not sure why? It could be sociological but it could also be because woman are unhealthy, infertile, or completely terrified of giving birth to a child that might never be well.
Posted by: kapoore | May 10, 2015 at 07:43 PM
I am reposting my comment on another thread yesterday because it is just as relevant here but only to remark also how we have collectively been boxed into a corner: people who were and are good citizens.
The real extremists in all of this are the vaccine lobby because of what they want (an endlessly expanded compulsory schedule without real monitoring) and how they behave (trashing everybody in sight who disagrees with them). A few weeks ago I responded to an article by Scientific American journalist John Horgan republished on DavidHealy.org. Horgan maintained he had some well informed concerns about the vaccine schedule while declaring his superiority over "anti-vaccination activist Jenny McCarthy". This is a game where very moderate people are being labelled by very immoderate people (and by people who are simply taken in). My response to Horgan below:
http://davidhealy.org/everyone-has-the-right-to-challenge-scientific-experts/#comment-117636
"There [are] some interesting points here but it largely mistakes the issue. Crucially, in the context, Jenny McCarthy is not, was never, an anti-vaccinationist – she was a celebrity mother who witnessed vaccine injury to her child and became a campaigner for vaccine safety (actually she has been more or less forced into silence on the matter for several years). It has been part of the gambit of government and industry to characterise parents campaigning for vaccine safety as “anti-vaxxers” when for the most part they were parents or grandparents who had witnessed damage to their children from products they had been persuaded to use: it is true that recently the mistrust between such parents and “public health” has become so great that many have become radicalised into anti-vaccinationists, but it is not where it started and not what Jenny McCarthy is.
"And of course this is not for the most part about science at all but about denying damage. If Jenny wants to talk about what happened to her kid they will make it very difficult for her to work (hate material will appear in Time magazine, even NY Times and Washington Post reminding people shock-horror that she was a Playboy Centrefold)). And what people like Mooney, Mnookin and Gorski (Goldacre too) are doing is ad-hominem with bells on. This is not about hard headed science at all, it is about making people shut up, and marginalising them socially and professionally: it is about skewing the data by socially repressive techniques (even if some of the participants are too stupid to realise what they are doing). On the Sense About Science website there used to be an article about the necessity of driving people talking about vaccine damage out of the mainstream media (a project in which they have long since succeeded).
"And what we are talking about is not like physics at all (or the bits of physics that have stood the test of time): there is no central unchanging law of human imunity which underpins the project – there are only industrial products injected or sometimes swallowed, which may not be as effective or safe as the manufacturers would have us believe, and the evidence is usually of a statistical kind which can be distorted or lied about (there would be an unending supply of documentable examples), while the bodies that license and prescribe them are in bed with the industry. It is quite true that it should not need a scientist to penetrate this farago: any competent investigative journalist could do it.
"Meanwhile, it is kind of obvious that vaccines can cause encephalopathies and other types of organic damage (to the gut for example) and that insufficient care is taken. These are the cruise missiles and drone helicopters of the war on the diseases, billions of them are deployed each year and the people in charge don’t want to know about the collateral damage. If you actually care about science the data in vaccinology is let’s face it mostly junk.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/02/a-reminder-dr-julie-gerberding-.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/01/the-washington-post-whips-up-fear-and-blames-andrew-wakefield.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/07/best-of-aofa-naked-cdc-truth-about-mmr.html
Posted by: John Stone | May 10, 2015 at 01:58 PM
A word about semantics...
Vaccine safety, vaccine injury, anti-vaccine, pro- vaccine. these are all the words we seem sadly to have at our disposal and they are the words of anger, frustration and provocation. They don't heal, they don't bring opposing sides together, they are divisive and not where we should be, if indeed we are a protest group.
From what I understand (and I am not a medic or science related but an artist, from another much nicer planet) that we are on the brink of a paradigm shift in the war against infectious diseases. The brutal injection of toxins into infants and adults with its devastating results for some will become known as the old medicine. Vaccines were wonderful in their day, but their day will soon be gone. They will become obsolete, they will be the old medicine.
lets look forward to that day. Let's use the language of the future. Let's talk about the 'new medicine'. Lets hear more about it. The patches that will deliver individually genetically modified and therefore safe drugs. Let's say we are waiting for 'the death of vaccines'.
And say 'no thank you', while we still have the right to do so! 'I'll wait.....'.
Posted by: patricia | May 10, 2015 at 12:39 PM
As Hera states (below)
"Every voice is a chance to save our right to medical freedom and protect our children."
********
I couldn't agree more.
And what my voice is saying, is that the best way to protect children from vaccine injury, is choosing not to give them any vaccines at all.
Posted by: Barry | May 10, 2015 at 12:35 PM
@Barry "Attack, denigrate and undermine…..? Jeesh, you really have a flair for the dramatic.I'm not doing anything to promote vaccine safety, and I never will. Because I know there is no such thing as a safe and effective vaccine. And the last thing I want to see, is the next generation having to suffer through the same vaccine induced misery that our children have. All because a sleep walking public is too arrogant to admit that they've been fooled."
Congratulations Barry on achieving -absolutely NOTHING- to improve vaccine safety or prevent "vaccine induced misery" occurring in the next generation. At least you have the honesty to admit it. For the record I have NEVER, on this or any other thread, stated I 'believe' all or any vaccines are safe, and I resent your attributing 'beliefs' to me which I don't have. Some people might call these lies. I have zero tolerance to personal slurs like these.
Quote:-
"If you want to cling to the notion that vaccines are safe, and that 1 in 50 American kids just happen to be running in to the 'dangerous' ones.... then by all means, you keep on believing that.But I think it's long past time that people like you realize, that this isn't about you. It's about children, innocent who are being hurt by medications that are supposed to be preserving their health, not destroying it."
I spend a lot of time trying to improve vaccine safety, and make no apology for targetting certain vaccines and issues. No one person can cover everything. I resent time wasted defending myself from personal slurs like these, coming from persons allegedly on the same side. As Hera states (below)
"Every voice is a chance to save our right to medical freedom and protect our children."
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 10, 2015 at 12:01 PM
Apart from your past and present efforts to verbally attack (yes you do), denigrate and undermine many of the persons on this thread, what exactly are YOU doing to promote vaccine safety and accountability?
*******
Attack, denigrate and undermine…..? Jeesh, you really have a flair for the dramatic.
I'm not doing anything to promote vaccine safety, and I never will. Because I know there is no such thing as a safe and effective vaccine.
Doing my part to help get that truth to the public, is all I'm trying to do. Because that's about all I can do. And the last thing I want to see, is the next generation having to suffer through the same vaccine induced misery that our children have. All because a sleep walking public is too arrogant to admit that they've been fooled.
When people with our experience defend vaccines, then WE are the ones who are ensuring that no-one is ever held accountable for this horrible crime.
Posted by: Barry | May 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM
Barry, Jenny - I love you both!
Vaccine injuries are for the most part invisible - but once you see them besides in just autism - hmmmmm.
You two are on the same side, we will come together on this - because we must. Patience with each other as we both grow and change and rethink things.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 10, 2015 at 09:45 AM
@ Barry( directed at me) "I never attacked anyone.I'm not trying to change your mind, nor do I really care what you choose to believe. But if you want to do something useful, how about directing some of that indignation towards the people responsible for hurting our children. Instead of directing it other people here who disagree with your point of view."
Thanks a bundle Barry!! I'm sure all those other persons, on this thread and elsewhere, campaigning hard for vaccine safety, and political and corporate accountability for vaccine damage, will be very pleased to know they are doing nothing 'useful', unless they agree with your extreme anti-anti vax views.
Apart from your past and present efforts to verbally attack (yes you do), denigrate and undermine many of the persons on this thread, what exactly are YOU doing to promote vaccine safety and accountability?
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 10, 2015 at 05:36 AM
Barry- The comment you quoted, and I repeat below, was from Robert J. Krakow. I happen to agree with his sentiments. I too am a "vaccine safety advocate" and proud of it. You may not be(quote)"not here to be a vaccine safety advocate! And would seriously hope that none else comes here for that reason.", but you have no right to verbally attack other commenters, just because you happen to disagree with their views.
****************
I never attacked anyone.
If you want to cling to the notion that vaccines are safe, and that 1 in 50 American kids just happen to be running in to the 'dangerous' ones.... then by all means, you keep on believing that.
But I think it's long past time that people like you realize, that this isn't about you. It's about children, innocent who are being hurt by medications that are supposed to be preserving their health, not destroying it.
I'm not trying to change your mind, nor do I really care what you choose to believe. But if you want to do something useful, how about directing some of that indignation towards the people responsible for hurting our children. Instead of directing it other people here who disagree with your point of view.
Posted by: Barry | May 09, 2015 at 08:17 PM
I want to urge everyone to not go crazy here. We share the denigrated idea that vaccine injury is the most frequent cause of autism. I want to sound an alarm: let us get our heads and hearts out of the sand. The minutiae of responding to every attack about the holocaust (who is nuts enough to deny the holocaust? Well, certain young people should learn the real history! It really happened!) And, yes, the Inquisition burned, over hundreds of years, Europe's (primarily female) healers.
But, guess what folks? It's coming around again. Totalitarianism and Oligarchy are coming around again. In other words: it's not just about us and our vaccine injured children! Please God, let people see and realize as Americans, and as human beings around the world: we have to join together before then next stage begins.
Posted by: Denise Anderstrom Douglass | May 09, 2015 at 07:27 PM
@ Bob Krakow- Some prefer offense and some prefer defense. I think many of us seem to be tired of taking the defense. I , myself am beginning to think that it is even worth it to be outrageous sometimes to bring attention to this issue.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | May 09, 2015 at 01:59 PM
It is interesting that The Holocaust started with a roundup and murder of disabled and brain damaged people. They are scarely ever mentioned these days as you hear overwhelmingly about Jewish people, gypsies and homosexuals. It seems like it is easy to erase the history of those with disabilities. Is this generation going to be a new chapter of this phenomenon?
It seems like it has been easy in only the recent past to put mentally ill patients out of hospitals into the street. Would this be acceptable with, say, cancer patients? Is the next plan to do the same with autistic adults? Well something similar was part of the original The Holocaust.
Posted by: Leah | May 09, 2015 at 01:55 PM
The people who dont like the word Holocaust probably imagine all autistic people as contented Rainmen in ivy covered buildings on green campuses Any person who understands the terrible suffering of some autistic kids and their families will not mind the term. Jewish people should be proud to see that the suffering of their ancestors has not gone in vain. Some people , at least, now refuse to stand as spectators and facilitators to the mistreatment of fellow human beings. Let us not be divided Let us all stand together to protect the helpless.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | May 09, 2015 at 01:23 PM
I agree with Barry. As I've posted before there is no such thing as a safe vaccine. They are in fact "unavoidably unsafe". At least congress got that one right. If you tear the label "vaccine" off of it and just look at what you have sitting there by it's ingredients (or excipients as they say) what you really have is a load of horrifying toxic garbage. Who is actually going to believe that their health will be made better by injecting that into their bodies multiple times? This is why its never talked about for what it really is. Maybe we need a term new medical term to describe it accurately like poly-toxic neurodegenerative injections. Vaccine safety, what a joke. True health doesn't come from a needle. It comes from fueling the body nutrient dense food while avoiding the displacing foods of modern commerce (to borrow a term from Weston A Price DDS), getting enough exercise, avoiding toxins, getting plenty of sleep and reducing stress. Thats how it works. There is no short cut. This is where I think most people want vaccine safety to be true. We want a magic bullet. We don't want to change. We want everything to be easy. This is our downfall. We have to get over that. We have to accept responsibility for doing our due diligence. We need to call spade a spade. Vaccines are actually poisonous. Just because you survived vaccination with no apparent problems yet, doesn't make it safe and certainly doesn't mean that it didn't have devastating consequences for someone else.
So if being against the injection of toxic chemicals and foreign biologics into my child or anyone else makes me an anti-vaxxer then yes I am. I just have to ask, Do you know what a vaccine actually is?
Posted by: Adam Mortenson | May 09, 2015 at 12:29 PM
"Holocausting" American children by forced toxic vaccinations is a very accurate wording for what US regime colluding with pharma mafia is doing. In fact, there is no better word for this crime against humanity.
Posted by: no-vac | May 09, 2015 at 07:15 AM
We need 1000 Laura Condon's - tipping my hat to Laura (proper activism)
http://gantdaily.com/2015/04/15/8-takeaways-from-chris-christies-new-hampshire-town-hall/
Posted by: Where is William Thompson | May 09, 2015 at 05:21 AM
A holocaust is a highly emotive and powerful word to have chosen to use and RFK knew this. Having myself searched for a synonym of such equal dramatic effect I cannot come up with anything more powerful, except that in my own view I believe we should be using the language of the military instead, because undeniably there is a covert militaristic operation taking place within this vaccine arena today.
Those chilling words, collateral damage, say it all to me. and how can anyone deny that this is precisely what is happening to some of our children. Vaccines are a weapon of War, a war against disease and some of the victims are being regarded as nothing more or less than collateral damage. RFK please note if you are passing through. I love your passion and your search for the language of truth, don't feel you have to apologise for using the word holocaust, many admire you for doing so. Carry on searching for the right words, the right phrases, that tell the whole truth, and blow those lies right out of the water.
Posted by: patricia | May 09, 2015 at 04:50 AM
Right now, with rights to medical choice being taken away and possible forced vaccination of American children,with more children getting vaccine injured every day, anyone who will stand up and say this is wrong is my friend.
If they use the word "holocaust" if they use the word "vaccine safety advocate", or a friend of mine who doesn't care much about vaccines, but is interested in preventing big government intrusion into peoples' right to make choices; it does not matter.
Every voice is a chance to save our right to medical freedom and protect our children.
To quote an old Arabic saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And I feel I have a lot of friends here.
If your voice helps protect others, and prevent these laws being passed, then imo please feel free to describe yourself; and vaccine injured children, in whatever terms resonate the best for you.
We all need each other right now.
Posted by: Hera | May 09, 2015 at 04:32 AM
Barry- The comment you quoted, and I repeat below, was from Robert J. Krakow. I happen to agree with his sentiments. I too am a "vaccine safety advocate" and proud of it. You may not be(quote)"not here to be a vaccine safety advocate! And would seriously hope that none else comes here for that reason.", but you have no right to verbally attack other commenters, just because you happen to disagree with their views.
Those of us with vaccine damaged children, (a grandchild in my case), cannot turn the clock back, but we can and should campaign to prevent the same damage happening to other children. There's no such thing as a 100% safe vaccine (or ANY medicine), but Governments which insist on mandatory child vaccines MUST ensure vaccines are as safe as possible.
I believe those in the corridors of power are well aware of the terrible widespread damage inflicted by SOME child vaccines, and are working 'behind the scenes' on 'facesaving solutions'. Those responsible for the vaccine 'holocaust' -small 'h', are afraid of public fury and repercussions. The vaccine manufacturers are totally reliant on present and future vaccines, for their profits.
When pro vax pushers like Gorski on ScienceBlogs, keep attacking persons like Robert Kennedy Jnr, who have had the courage to speak out publicly, and write numerous repeating articles 'explaining' why persons with moderate vaccine safety views are all 'anti-vaxxers' and enemies of the state, then I just KNOW the vaccine safety issues and the overwhelming REAL scientific evidence of vax harm, are the 'hole in the dyke'. The flood is coming.
Robert J. Krakow's comment below:-
"Those of us who are vaccine safety advocates should learn to stop leading with our chin so that we do not provide our adversaries with easy opportunities to focus on side issues. Mass injury to children by vaccines is not the" holocaust" and it is not "genocide"; it is its own modern form of atrocity that requires and merits its own language."
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 09, 2015 at 02:01 AM
It is a holocaust. The word holocaust is a noun and it's ordinary use is a generic one. It is lunacy to think this word can only now be used to describe one single event in history. I wish RFK would have dismissed this criticism out of hand. I would have thrown it right back in the face of the press and said what would you call the wholesale destruction of the lives of millions (millions!) of innocent children?
If anyone doubts this us a holocaust, they need to watch the film about Alex Spordoloukis.
Posted by: Shannon Epstein | May 08, 2015 at 11:57 PM
See Linda - I know you never made such bad mistakes
lost - was suppose to be close.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 08, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Of course genocide is more against a certain race - I am not sure an age group would count
So we could call it infantcaust caust should be in there some where since it has to do with burnt - and that is too lost to what the vaccines are doing -- inflammation - inflamming and all that.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 08, 2015 at 09:49 PM
Linda LOL- Don't worry - I am still the champ for doing that.
Next: I don't think the Jewish people own that word unless it is spelled with a Capitol letter. According to all the dictionaries
It means: a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire.
2.
a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3.
(usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually preceded by the).
4.
any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.
And it does not originate in the Middle east even.
Origin of HOLOCAUST
Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn — more at caustic
First Known Use: 13th century
That said and all; It is nothing but Useless chatter, and off the subject. Which is the point I presume.
How about calling it Appalachian Spring -as all of America become homogenized to resemble that area , And for the children killed outright as in SIDS or heart failure, what ever - then that could be called genocaust! Spelled with a capitol G
Posted by: Benedetta | May 08, 2015 at 09:43 PM
Oh so I guess one of the fastest growing and most tragic problems, with attendant wandering deaths, caregiver burnout, economic burden etc. is some kind of f'g walk in the park? We should never allow their renunciation of the problem to be steered towards this kind of stupid 'thought policing or political correctness.' That would be a mistake on our part. Oh, and I looked up holocaust in the dictionary and its usage in this case, especially since he said 'a' holocaust, is more than appropriate. I do not even think it deserves discussion or justification. Again, we cannot let them dictate how we see the problem. they are the ones who are on the defensive. Leave it at that.
Posted by: Educator | May 08, 2015 at 07:28 PM
What Barry said.
If we want this epidemic to continue until we get to the point at which one in two children have 'autism', then do let's try to come up with a prettier way to refer to this medical catastrophe. Holocaust is such an ugly word. Makes you think people are deliberately trashing the lives of other people.
"Six million Jews and countless others were systematically slaughtered by the Nazis under Hitler," Lauter said. "Such inappropriate analogies only serve to trivialize the Holocaust..."
As the mother of a child whose severe autism is a direct result of vaccine injury, I find this comment offensive. How on earth is the systematic, government approved/mandated, unchecked medical experiment known as the current vaccine schedule, which is resulting in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of infants' and children's lives via vaccine injury trivializing the Holocaust? To make such a claim is, to me, inferring that the lives of Holocaust victims hold more value than the lives of our vaccine-injured children.
Hasn't the whole point of including the study of the Holocaust in education programs worldwide, in museums and memorials worldwide, in art and literature worldwide, been to not only increase awareness of what actually happened there but also to ensure that something like that never happens again?
Could a holocaust -- any holocaust -- go on right under people's noses and be swept under the rug, ignored or outright denied? You bet it could. And who should know this better than the Jewish community?
To claim that what is happening to our children does not qualify as a holocaust because you do not believe that the unspeakable is being conducted everyday under the guise of public health and 'the greater good' is the epitome of irony. I swear, if Hitler were alive and well today he would have a field day in 21st century America. Who on earth would stop him?
Posted by: Donna L. | May 08, 2015 at 07:09 PM
Those of us who are vaccine safety advocates should learn to stop leading with our chin so that we do not provide our adversaries with easy opportunities to focus on side issues. Mass injury to children by vaccines is not the" holocaust" and it is not "genocide"; it is its own modern form of atrocity that requires and merits its own language.
*******
I'm not here to be a vaccine safety advocate! And i would seriously hope that none else comes here for that reason.
Like most people, I'm here because my child was horribbly injured by vaccines. And it's ridiculous to think that there's a safe version of ANYTHING, that is capable of inflicting this much damage to a human being.
The first sentence of RFK Jr.'s quote reads
"They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone."
THAT is the crux of this issue. Not some bleeding heart notion that 'safe' vaccines are even possible, much less the answer to this ongoing devastation.
The atrocities committed against Jewish people during WWII was a holocaust. And the mass vaccine poisoning of a generation of children, is also a holocaust.
The biggest difference i can see is that one ended in 1945, and the other one is still happening.
if you're not willing to lead with your chin on an issue this serious, and push back on people who try to derail you with nonsense… then please, stop calling yourself an advocate for children like mine.
Posted by: Barry | May 08, 2015 at 06:40 PM
Dear Robert,
When I talked about "slow genocide" in my letter to Collins against the background it was in reference to the fact that more than half of US children were chronicly ill and 1 in 6 had a developmental disorder. I was thinking that this was a generation which in significant population terms would likely die young, would not have children of their own - whose lives were being taken away before they could grow up, before they could even have a proper childhood they were being poisoned. I think one of reasons why we don't think in terms of "genocide" is because the process is so slow. But of course what is being done is being done en masse, through food, through vaccines, through medicines, through toxic environments. I wonder, are the perpetrators entirely deluding themselves?
On a historical perspective there were of course terrible genocides in the twentieth century and terrible genocides before that. Perhaps the term Holocaust has become too specific and we should avoid it. We should certainly avoid giving unnecessary offence but we also have to address the gravity of these surreptitiously inflicted horrors. It is definitely tricky but we also have to find powerful language.
John
Posted by: John Stone | May 08, 2015 at 03:55 PM
That last comment was not for Joel Harrison. I hate it when I do that.
Posted by: Linda1 | May 08, 2015 at 03:49 PM
For what its worth in my opinion RFK is right to use the word. This does not detract from the horror committed on the Jewish victim's during the world war anything but. Both my uncles fought right through the war with the Scottish 52nd Reg and one of my uncles got killed by a sniper 6 days after the war had finished in Caen France as the German soldiers tried to retreat. Anyone can use the word sniper feel free because that's what killed him a lone sniper. Sniper was out and used long before my uncle got killed and so was the word holocaust before "The Holocaust" atrocity.
Again I agree it gives some journos room to detract of the subject matter.
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | May 08, 2015 at 03:47 PM
Robert Krakow,
I could not disagree more. Vaccine injury is an atrocity exactly like the atrocities of the past, and it should be called what it is. No new language. Again, treating vaccines as special, as other, as above. No, the people who refuse to acknowledge the harm, who refuse to do the proper studies, who push these drugs on innocents, deserve to be outed as criminals and not given special treatment because their weapon happens to be vaccines. No new terminology is needed. The deliberate sacrifice of millions of children, health and lives, is a holocaust, not less than the holocaust that occurred during WWII. Not less. Let's stop pretending and call it what it is.
Posted by: Linda1 for Joel Harrison | May 08, 2015 at 03:45 PM
Thank you, Donna K!
We made the correction!
Best, Anne
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | May 08, 2015 at 03:40 PM
I think if our children could speak -- if they could stop seizing and stimming and biting their hands and bashing their heads, if they could play and read and write and drive and work and marry and live happily ever after -- and if they could SPEAK, they might say this was and still is a holocaust. And you know what? I would believe them.
Posted by: Donna L. | May 08, 2015 at 03:39 PM
Thank you for spelling out some ways informed consent is violated in our vaccine practices, soon to be "mandated" if some have their way, as if they weren't already essentially mandated in the minds of most, and from that high compliance it seems our authorities haven't been able to obtain good product (vaccine recommendations) promoting data--they have to lock it up in a private partnership, safe from FOIA, and continually censor and attack vaccine concerns and roll out tobacco science. So, never mind the Nuremberg Code, we're mandating the status quo continue?
Governments (often with corporate aid) in the 20th century slaughtered hundreds of millions in deliberate acts of democide (many of the true facilitators and perpetrators go unpunished today), not that I want to diminish the mindset that allows such and particularly allowed the Holocaust specifically, but we cannot assume we're somehow safe from life-diminishing and life-shortening harm from decisions, even "protective" ones, of our current governments-merged-with-corporations today, no matter what their own media venues say. I don't want to marginalize through overuse of the word the meaning and understanding of the Holocaust, possibly facilitating a repeat of history. I actually think many in the autism community, particularly those aware of iatrogenic contributions, are concerned a repeat of such history is happening on some scale, but I am at a loss for words, few enough words anyway, to convey what I see happening to our health, especially our immune & neurological health, and it's almost like collectively we're too unwell to confront it.
So, I have to ask, even if there is not willful intent involved, does that make the current course and results acceptable, because it's not THE Holocaust? Will the possibly-vaccine-injured-but-don't-care-to-know and the possibly-vaccine-benefited masses look into what William Thompson has to say, call for his subpoena from Congress so he can testify under oath, demand true scientific study of never-vaccinated health, fund independent study of vaccine components and combinations, boycott their lying media, demand the same scrutiny of other harms in their environment, flouride, GMOs, "smart" meters, and so on, to get helpful answers to prevent disabling and start healing "the few?"
At the very least, if it's too difficult to monitor the corporate beast and spend our lives distrusting everything it rolls out (because we're all enslaved to it and have to live check to check and don't have much time after we run to the pharmacy to fill a prescription for our "genetic" condition that would kill us if we didn't have our doctor's help, etc., though they haven't found the gene(s) and natural selection is appearing to be a rather weak force in nature despite having millennia to perfect things... or something like that consumes our time and energies), if at the very least because some new exposure in the future will likely harm another "genetically susceptible" minority, and then another, and another, we should respect and protect the right to refuse every exposure, for the true greater good.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | May 08, 2015 at 03:11 PM
To the Editor,
I have been saying for years - 13 years to be precise - that the use of the word "holocaust" in the vaccine injury/safety discussion is a mistake, if only because the word is associated with a traumatic historical event that justifiably evokes intense emotion. Every time I have observed the word's use I cautioned that it will be perceived as insensitive and, for that reason alone, it should be avoided. It is equally insensitive to say "the Jewish people don't own the word holocaust" or that the "Jewish press" as an entity is taking any particular position, as one commenter stated.
The "holocaust" analogy is inapt in the vaccine discussion and its use is poor advocacy. Injuries caused by vaccines require their own vocabulary and reliance on the words "genocide" and "holocaust" simultaneously trivializes and distorts both the mass killing of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Russians, Poles and others during WWII and the mass injuries caused to children by the increased and accelerated use of vaccination over the last 30 years.
It is not too burdensome to discuss the vaccine injury issue with the use of newly minted language appropriate to the subject. Doing so possesses the virtues both of making people think about the vaccine injury in new ways while avoiding hyperbolic analogies to unrelated and emotionally charged controversies that muddy the discussion.
Robert Kennedy has for a decade been a valued and brave advocate for the vaccine injured. His use of the word "holocaust" was generic and clearly not intended to diminish its meaning related to the WWII genocide. That some have focused on the word's use to opportunistically criticize Mr. Kennedy betrays the agenda of those who seize any and every opportunity to attack vaccine safety advocates. The attack on Mr. Kennedy for use of the word "holocaust" is disingenuous and an offense graver than the inappropriate use of the word.
Those of us who are vaccine safety advocates should learn to stop leading with our chin so that we do not provide our adversaries with easy opportunities to focus on side issues. Mass injury to children by vaccines is not the" holocaust" and it is not "genocide"; it is its own modern form of atrocity that requires and merits its own language.
Robert J. Krakow
Posted by: Robert J. Krakow | May 08, 2015 at 03:07 PM
Anne,
In your second to last paragraph is the sentence "The fact that there has been a study of fully vaccinated and never vaccinated...". I believe you meant to write "The fact that there has never been a study...".
Posted by: Donna K | May 08, 2015 at 01:56 PM
I think arguing over the use of the word "holocaust" would qualify .. as Sharyl Attkission describes as .. "deflection" .. wherein the media and vested interests focus on a single word "holocaust" .. that immediately puts RFK on the "defensive" .. causing him to issue an apology .. while at the very same time .. that same media completely ignores RFK's main point .. which was .. government regulatory and vaccine industry corruption.
Gotta give 'em credit .. they are very accomplished "deflecting" any and all comments onto other .. less inconvenient topics.
Posted by: Bob moffitt | May 08, 2015 at 01:47 PM
Parsing words, splitting hairs - anything to avoid the actual topic. Usually the tactic of the NDs and other vaccine defenders. A holocaust is different from THE holocaust, as others have pointed out in the comments. Mass orchestrated government mandated medical injury without regard to personal rights sure sounds like a holocaust to me.
Posted by: Stagmom | May 08, 2015 at 12:36 PM
As a Jewish American, I feel that holocaust may not be a strong enough word.
Posted by: Linda1 for Joel Harrison | May 08, 2015 at 12:34 PM
My husband just pointed out
"We are putting these children on a train and not caring where they end up"
Yes. That is a analogous to a holocaust.
Posted by: Anita Donnelly | May 08, 2015 at 12:17 PM
VACCINES ARE SO SAFE WE DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT'S IN THEM....
It seems that parents don't have the right to even informed consent when it comes to vaccinations. Someone put this on Facebook this morning.
May 6, 2013 Health and Human Services Committee votes against requiring doctors to tell parents ingredients of vaccines
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/06/politics/state-house/health-and-human-services-committee-votes-against-requiring-doctors-to-tell-parents-ingredients-of-vaccines/?ref=relatedBox
The Legislature's Health and Human Services Committee on Monday split along party lines on a bill that would require doctors and their staff members disclose vaccine ingredients to parents before they agree to have their children immunized.
The committee voted 6-4 against the bill, LD 754, after a debate that centered on concerns that such a requirement could turn parents off to vaccinating their children and parents' right to know what's being injected into their children's bodies.
The Health and Human Services Committee weighed the disclosure requirement a week after the proposal, sponsored by Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, ran into stiff opposition from doctors at a public hearing. . . .
Opponents on Monday said parents who want the information can ask their children's doctors or look up the information online. Rep. Richard Farnsworth, D-Portland, said the required disclosure of ingredients - whose meaning is unknown to most people without specialized education - could raise unnecessary alarm among parents. . . .
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | May 08, 2015 at 12:11 PM
I think people should be allowed to express their view that evil things are happening and not be bullied over semantics. There are some people who may just feel sensitive over the terrible events of the past and there are others who simply use it to prevent people from speaking up about the covert violence of the present.
Posted by: John Stone | May 08, 2015 at 11:34 AM
I believe this destruction of lives should be called a holocaust and genocide. Perhaps we should remember that Jewish adults and children are among those being affected by this 21st century holocaust.
Posted by: Grace Green | May 08, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Burton: "There you go. We've been after this for eight years. . . ."
That was eleven years ago...
Posted by: PANDAS Mom | May 08, 2015 at 10:42 AM
Re: H.R.1636 (listed above by John Skurnowicz): https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1636
I noticed this much-needed bill was listed as having only a "1%" chance of passing." That's disgraceful!
Unbelievable that they get away with not doing this most basic study, decade after decade!
We all need to keep the pressure on our Congressmen to support this, and support our right to choose.
I always thought the vaccine-autism controversy would be settled by the US (they eventually exposed the Tobacco science after all).
However, so many of our Congressmen are either bought off or just plain spineless, I don't believe they have the guts to tackle this (people like Bill Posey, Dan Burton, etc, seem to be the exception, but hopefully their conviction with give others strength to speak up).
It's so much easier for politicians to ram through unjust legislation, take their blood money, and kick this can down the road. Unfortunately, the cover-up is always worse than the crime (which is horrendous enough in this case).
We all need to keep pushing this issue as hard as we can.
At some point, even the "spineless" politicians will see this genie is not going back in the bottle and will jump sides. It will likely be an act of cowardice/self-preservation on their part, when they see the truth is finally being exposed, but that day will eventually come (hopefully before we have 1-in-2 children with an autism diagnosis!).
I want those who are responsible for this disaster to be exposed and held accountable, but mostly I just want the damage to innocent children to finally end. I want the vaccine injuries acknowledged, and research focused on treating those who are suffering inexcusably for following the bloated CDC vaccine schedule.
We are in the darkest chapter of US medical history (seriously, what country poisons a significant percentage of their own, probably most gifted, citizens?). This has to end!
Personally, I think the term Holocaust is incredibly appropriate, and am so thankful for RFK Jr. for speaking up about this tragedy!
Posted by: AnneJ | May 08, 2015 at 10:13 AM
They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country."
**************
How brutally ironic, that the Jewish press is screaming "insensitive" about the second sentence in the above paragraph. Yet they are completely ignoring the horrific truth of the first sentence.
Atrocities committed against Jewish people during WWII were horrific, and should never be forgotten. But the Jewish people don't own the word holocaust.
And objecting to the use of the word holocaust, in a paragraph that uses it to describe the mass destruction of children... is the epitome of insensitivity!
Posted by: Barry | May 08, 2015 at 09:41 AM
I think it would be perfectly appropriate to call it genocide. I called it a slow genocide in my open letter to Francis Collins in 2011.
PS I would also say that Collins and Insel look like a pair of clowns.
Posted by: John Stone | May 08, 2015 at 08:58 AM
H.R.1636: Vaccine Safety Study Act introduced Mar 25, 2015 and referred to committee sponsored by Congressman Bill Posey and co-sponsors Mrs. Carolyn Maloney of New York and John J. Duncan of Tennessee could be a starting point.
See https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1636
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1636
Posted by: John Skurnowicz | May 08, 2015 at 08:53 AM
Way over-reaction and false reporting by the Jewish Press.
'a Holocaust', which is what JRK said, is defined as a catastrophic destruction.
'The Holocaust' however has now become understandably, and historically, the property of the Jewish population.
What a difference a definite article can make.
Posted by: patricia | May 08, 2015 at 08:16 AM