Pharmocratization of America
Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: Mistakes, They’ve Made a Few

Manufactured Medical Consent Versus Informed Consent

Suzanne-headshot-2By Anne Dachel

(Dr.  Suzanne Humphries has long been outspoken about her views on vaccines and the health of our children.  And if you think that Disneyland and measles, SB277, and vilification of non-vaxxers are just random events, think again!  There is a worldwide plan in play here and it's been around for decades.)

Informed consent. We’ve all heard about it. It’s the simple concept that with any medical product or procedure, an individual should have full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.

Most people would readily acknowledge that it’s the only fair and ethical thing to do.

Webster’s Dictionary defines medical informed consent as: a formal agreement that a patient signs to give permission for a medical procedure (such as surgery) after having been told about the risks, benefits, etc.

Informed Consent on the website of the American Medical Association

The patient’s right of self-decision can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an informed choice. The patient should make his or her own determination about treatment. The physician's obligation is to present the medical facts accurately to the patient or to the individual responsible for the patient’s care and to make recommendations for management in accordance with good medical practice. The physician has an ethical obligation to help the patient make choices from among the therapeutic alternatives consistent with good medical practice. Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor, unless the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of consenting and harm from failure to treat is imminent.

So do we have real informed consent when it comes to vaccinating our children?

Dr. Suzanne Humphries explained the reality of this concept as it applies to vaccines in a talk in Copenhagen, Denmark called, “Manufactured Consent,” given in November, 2015.


Dr. Humphries began her presentation by describing how “the medical system attempts to get people to behave and conform."  She continued, "You would think, as with other medical procedures, that solid science would be at the core of patient information consent. The reality is that the choices you make medically have never been on the basis of informed consent. In 2015, informed consent is even less likely to happen than it would have been 10 or even 30 years ago.

“In 1997, the World Health Organization formulated a strategy which was put into a book called, The Strategic Plan, which laid out a map to completely change the way people thought about vaccines.

“The plan had key points which were: using the media to structure messages that shaped public opinion to co-opt or persuade key opinion people in all levels of society—medical, lay and entertainment; to get pro-vaccine spokespeople at every level conveying one message, and one message only. This plan emphasized private/public partnership and philanthropy with the aim to make vaccines the core topic in society. …”

Humphries focused on the role of Bill Gates in promoting worldwide vaccination. “In 2010, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $10 billion to make 2010 to 2020, ‘the decade of vaccines.’”

How has this played out?

Humphries explained that in 2015 in the U.S. the goals are: “making vaccines mandatory for all people,… making vaccines a lifestyle event for all people from cradle to grave, and broadening the appeal of live-viral vaccines for their immune system benefits, not just for their disease-preventing benefits.”

This plan by the WHO goes back almost 25 years, with updates along the way, according to Humphries. It involves the partnership of “a computer software billionaire, the pharmaceutical industry, academia, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the World Health Organization—all speaking and working in unison toward the same goal.” She said that their goal is global medical tyranny. We’ve seen it in the “war against a new public menace: the vaccine hesitant.” Evidence of this includes the Disneyland measles outbreak, SB277 ending personal exemptions in California, and similar bills being pushed in other states.

Humphries cited an article from Forbes back in August, 2015 called, “How Do You Change An Anti-Vaccine Parent's Mind? Scare The Crap Out Of Them,” by Tara Haelle

Humphries: In order to ‘scare the crap of them,’ they have to restrict information, “because when doctors and parents have all facts and make the connections between their children’s sickness and vaccines, they want to know more, and they’ll start looking for themselves.”

“Journalists have to be censored.” Humphries cited Dr. Paul Offit and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, both of whom called for an end to fair and balanced coverage of the vaccine debate by the media. There have even been articles in Forbes demanding that doctors who speak out negatively about any aspect of vaccination have their licenses revoked and non-vaccinating parents be sued.

What about the people who are coming down with diseases they’ve been vaccinated against? Humphries discussed natural vs. vaccine immunity and waning efficacy. She explained how the vaccine history the public receives is cherry-picked information that excludes serious concerns.

Very disturbing was the account by Humphries of the changes she witnessed in the health of children.

“It looked like sickness normally started in adulthood. In my pediatric rotations decades before, I saw what normal was then, but 20 years later, what’s considered ‘normal’ is a lot sicker than it was back then. …

“Parents notice their kids get sick after vaccination and they’re tired of hearing that it’s just coincidence.”

In her own medical practice Humphries had the opportunity to see unvaccinated children. Their health outcomes were markedly different from the general population. Doctors should be interested in these healthy kids and want to study them, but they aren’t and they don’t want to. She referred to her education on vaccines as “an oppressive form of religion, preached as gospel by leading authorities who act as if their narrow truth is the only righteous belief. Explaining the broader concepts…is akin to heresy.”

Humphries cited Dr. Greg Poland, a leading vaccine expert in the U.S. who actually said, ‘I like to say it this way: You can think of influenza and rubella vaccines as anti-autism vaccines.’ Mayo Clinic doctors like Poland are allowed by Google to determine “what is vaccine fact and what is vaccine fiction.” This is an attempt to restrict the information the public receives on vaccines. She also mentioned that Paul defended the use of aluminum in vaccines as playing “an important role in the development of a healthy fetus,” and he claimed that a baby can tolerate 10,000 to 100,000 vaccines at once. Furthermore, she noted the role of Poul Thorsen, a “wanted health care fugitive,” who’s walking the streets in Denmark. His research on vaccines is used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to disprove a link between vaccines and autism. She said that an arrest warrant has been issued for Thorsen, but officials don’t seem interested in enforcing it. He has been accused of wire fraud and money laundering but continues to publish medical articles. He’s still doing research with his name on published studies—funded by the CDC!

“Corruption within top governmental institutions”

Humphries described the revelations by the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson and how he continues to work at the CDC, “just like Thorsen continues to be funded by the CDC.”


Humphries noted that doctors are not inclined to want to speak out because of what has happened to Andrew Wakefield, the British doctor who linked the MMR vaccine to GI disease and autism in his patients, a result she called, being “Wakefielded.”

Humphries ended her talk saying that the facts are coming to light for parents. They’re realizing that phony science is being used to defend medical tyranny when it comes to vaccination, and doctors are using fear to force parents to vaccinate and condemning them if they refuse.

Thus ended part one. (The rest of Suzanne’s talk can be found on the links on the sidebar.)


Dorie Southern

Informed consent and a mandated requirement are two different things. They are incompatible.


Dr. Humphries is a national treasure. The good news is that people like her exist.
My elderly father was recently hospitalized after a stroke. I called the billing department of the hospital when he got home to get some, well, billing information. Astonishingly, the clerical or billing worker asked me repeatedly, "Has he gotten a flu shot?" I was flabbergasted. They even have the billing department pushing vaccines. It almost sounds like a joke but it really happened last month. What's next, the hospital gift shop? The Starbucks in the lobby?

Joy B

Of course "Healthy People™" is WHO's Orwellian term for "fully vaccinated".

And it is biological warfare.

Bob Moffit

Just received ..


1. Requires a minimum of 8 vaccines for hospital employees as a condition of employment: Influenza, Varicella, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (page 2 lines 13-16). READ BILL AND MORE…

Allows hospitals to fire employees who don’t receive the required vaccines (page 2 lines 38-42) and protects the hospital or agent from any liability for firing an individual over vaccination compliance (page 3 lines (9-13).

Removes the personal belief exemption

I suspect as we move forward toward 2020 .. the "Strategic Plan" of both .. WHO and US .. will become more and more intense until "informed consent" is but a memory of a better world in which we once lived.


As with all of Dr. Humphries' lectures, this is phenomenally informative and well referenced. I hope everyone takes the time to watch and share widely.

Ronald Kostoff


"have you read "Doubt Is Their Product" .. How industry's assault on science threatens your health .. by David Michaels?"

In a new paper, coming out in (hopefully) a couple of months, I reference both Merchants of Doubt and Doubt is their Product. Again, it's not only industry's assault on science that is important, but that of the government as well. The approaches in these two books to suppress, distort, and manufacture science are part of a far larger number of techniques to misinform the public about the results of science and technology.

Consider the following article in Microwave News on Junk Science ( I believe it is far closer to Business as Usual than an anomaly. It states, in part:
"In a major epidemiological study of electric utility workers, Miller found that when he took into account exposures to both electric and magnetic fields, he saw a much higher risk of developing leukemia than when he looked at magnetic fields alone: He reported increases that were up to 11 times the expected rate. "This study suggests that electric fields are potentially critical to cancer risk," Miller told Microwave News at the time (see MWN, J/A96, p.1).....the leaders of the French team, Marcel Goldberg and Pascal Guénel of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) in Paris, reported that.....they did find an up to sevenfold increase in brain cancer among those exposed to electric-fields for 25 years or more. This association, they said, was "remarkable" (MWN, J/F97, p.4).

Miller's findings caused a stir when they were published. "It's alarming," the head of the Power Workers' Union told a Canadian newspaper. He called "for immediate employer and government action to protect workers." Ruth Greey of Ontario Hydro, the local electric utility whose employers had been surveyed by Miller, tried to calm everyone down by promising more research on electric fields, and urging patience until Miller's results could be confirmed. "We would be irresponsible at this point to change anything or alarm anyone until the study is replicated," she said. EPRI issued its own statement stating, "further studies are needed."

Ontario Hydro never did a replication study."

So, even when the research is conducted honestly, if results emerge that are disadvantageous to the sponsor, they are suppressed and/or further studies are terminated.

Bob Moffit

@ Ron .. have you read "Doubt Is Their Product" .. How industry's assault on science threatens your health .. by David Michaels?

It more or less confirms everything you wrote .. including the introduction: "Sound Science" or "Sounds Like Science".

Bob Moffit

I am very encouraged to read Dr. Suzanne Humphries comments regarding the "World Health Organization's" 1997 book that outlines the formation of a "Strategic Plan" mapping out their strategy to completely change the way people thought about vaccines.

I had no idea the WHO has had a "strategic plan" in place since 1997 .. but .. I just wrote a column on AoA outlining the same "strategic plan" in the US .. updated in 2015 .. to achieve their stated goals to increase adult vaccination levels by the year 2020.

Here is the "Executive Summary" of their "goals 2020":

"Vaccination is considered one of the most important public health achievements of the 20th century and continues to offer great promise in the 21st century. Vaccines save lives and improve the quality of life by preventing serious diseases and their consequences. However, the benefits of vaccines are not realized equally across the U.S. population. Adult vaccination rates remain low in the United States, and significant racial and ethnic disparities also exist.

"The US Department of Health and Human Services National Vaccine Plan (NVP), released in 2010, is a road map for vaccines and immunization programs for the decade 2010-2020. While the NVP provides a vision for improving protections from vaccine preventable diseases across the lifespan, vaccination coverage levels among adults are not on track to meet Healthy People 2020 targets. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee and numerous stakeholder groups have emphasized the need for focused attention on adult vaccines and vaccinations."

Everyone should familiarize themselves with the identities of .. what they themselves describe as "wide ranging stakeholders" .. who will exercise their supposedly independent .. influential .. financial .. resources to achieve their stated goals ... COMPULSORY ADULT IMMUNIZATIONS BY 2020.

If successful .. "informed consent" will be a memory that no longer exists in the US .. or .. the world for that matter.

Ronald Kostoff


Dr. Humphries is correct, but the larger picture is even more serious. I came across the following article on 'science for sale' ( The article discusses companies that perform science for corporate interests, and alleges that the results almost universally support the perspective that the corporate sponsors want.

While the article is correct as far as it goes, it suffers from two main deficiencies, from my perspective. It gives the impression that the 'research' companies for hire are the main culprits, and the other groups of research performers are generating unbiased trustworthy research. However, as I point out in Chapter 9 of my book, and as Dr. David Lewis points out in his excellent book Science for Sale, there is effectively a Government-Industrial-Media Complex that controls most of the science and technology that impacts the public. The media controls the 'informed' component of 'informed consent' and the government controls the 'consent' component! The government and industry sponsor science and technology to primarily benefit the objectives of industry, and to secondarily benefit the objectives of some government operations as well. As Lewis points out, the government-industry sponsors have co-opted many of the research institutions and performers whose careers and livelihoods depend on continued funding. I amplify that point in Chapter 9. The media is, for all practical purposes, run by its (mainly) industry sponsors, although government plays a role in keeping the media in line.

While there are certainly many researchers in the larger community who are doing honest unbiased research, it is not clear to me that, collectively, the larger research community operates all that much differently from the organizations mentioned in the article referenced above. The readers of AoA know quite well how much of the orthodox mainstream research community has manipulated and perverted the results of vaccine safety research, and this manipulation and perversion applies undoubtedly to many of the communities related to the 800+ pervasive causes of disease mentioned in my book.

Additionally, the article referenced above makes it appear that some regulatory agencies like the EPA are focused solely on protecting the public, and are unable to evaluate more toxic substances due to lack of funding. If only they had the money, our worries from toxic substances would be over! While there are many researchers within the EPA who have done, and are doing, exemplary research to protect the public, nevertheless, there is another side. I have posted two examples of EPA researchers who were harassed and fired because they showed EPA results and rulings were manipulated to protect corporate interests over public interests. One was the example of Dr. Lewis who reported the adverse health effects of biosludge, and the other was the example of Dr. William Marcus who reported the carcinogenic effects of water fluoridation. These are the William Thompsons of EPA, and if anyone believes they are the only two isolated cases, good luck!

In summary, the referenced article shows only the small tip of a very large iceberg of how science and technology, or R&D, are being manipulated ACROSS THE BOARD to advance the interests of government and industry.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)