When someone is a member of a cult that person believes what their leader tells them. Questioning is not allowed. It is ridiculed. What a person sees with his or her eyes can be questioned and denied. Doing something stupid like vaccinating all infants against sexually transmitted disease consequences can be considered normal. Even the doctors must not question what they are doing. What we have is a cult of vaccines.

If you question you are labeled a crazy anti-vax er, because everyone knows that vaccines are safe and have saved millions of lives. Repeat that again.

There should be knowledge and exemptions for anyone who does not want to take the risks associated with vaccines. But that might harm the cult of vaccines, which is unaccptable.

Otto, the climate change thingy- when all of our electric bills goes up, cause the electric company has to pay for making CO2 to another company - or most probably the government as in "Cap and Trade" and since ya believe -- Oh Faith my man, that CO2 holds heat - in the atmosphere which it don't -- I think it is only fair that you pay my part too since I think it is a scam just like the hole - holes - in the ozone - scare 20 years before the climate change scare.

Thanks so much, Laura!

Shawn Otto,

"who do you trust: an outlier with a personal agenda, who has lost his medical license and whose major paper has been retracted as fraudulent by the journal that published it, whose film selectively presents confirming information and makes emotionally powerful arguments?"

I would strongly suggest you read the 2014 book by Dr. David L. Lewis entitled Science for Sale. He documents his history at EPA as a whistleblower on the adverse health impacts from biosludge, including his eventual firing. He shows the collusion among Federal government, local government, industry, academic institutions, and research performers to suppress knowledge of these adverse effects from the public.

In Chapters 7 and 8, he examines the accusations made against Wakefield in more detail than you, myself, and probably every reader of this blog combined has done. He shows the level to which people were willing to prostitute themselves to cast negative aspersions on Wakefield. Basically, he shows that the whole case against Wakefield was a fraud.

There are relatively few people in this world with the guts of a Snowden, Manning, Assange, Ellsberg, Marcus, Lewis. Wakefield et al, who are willing to risk their careers, finances, and perhaps even their lives to uncover the truth for the public. Unfortunately, on the other side of the coin, there is no lack of people who are willing to prostitute themselves for a few crumbs from the rich and powerful. It is the latter who frame the debates, and allow and enable the former to be discounted by the gullible public. Unless we reverse this trend, we will destroy this planet from climate change, and in parallel, will destroy our health from unnecessary drugs, vaccines, chemicals, wireless radiation, and the myriad other pervasive causes of disease I identified in my eBook.

Ronald

Yes, I believe the omission is routine with vaccine products - after all it would take far too long and be far too expensive wouldn't it? And you don't know what you might find.

For Shawn Otto:
"...For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; . . . things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless, in short, are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding."

Please carefully and slowly re-read this quote that you submitted, and then think very long and hard about what you yourself believe and promulgate.

This is essentially why vaccines are getting such a free pass--people WANT to believe that modern medicine can protect us from death and disease. Medical doctors WANT to believe that they are protecting the health and welfare of the children they are vaccinating. Lazy journalists WANT to believe that they can trust what the "experts" at the CDC, FDA, and AMA have to say and there is no need to pay any attention to any dissenting opinions or information. Vaccine researchers WANT to believe that they are saving lives and never hurting anyone. And no one WANTS to believe that modern medicine and government could be so corrupted as to allow or mandate that people be harmed to protect profits.

I'd wager that no parent here WANTS to believe that they made a decision to allow a medical intervention that led to their child losing skills, intellect, and good health. Most, if not all, have only reached this heart-breaking conclusion based on what they have seen with their own eyes and upon many, many hours of careful reading with an intense desire to know the truth and hopefully find some clues about how to undo the devastating damages their children have suffered.

You would do well to listen to, and read carefully, with an open and enquiring mind, the words and research of those whose opinions and conclusions differ from yours--those who question the efficacy and safety of vaccines. That is what anyone who really wants to discover truth must do--regardless of the topic or level of controversy.

Ronald Kostoff,

I always appreciate your comments; I too have 50 years of accomplished science/engineering experience. That said, I would like to elaborate on your sentence "There are chronic diseases that tend to strike in the 60s and 70s, like Alzheimer's and dementia."

First, I think it highly more probable Alzheimer's and dementia are not "diseases" but instead they are toxic damage from whatever toxic chemicals, with vaccines being the most culpable, and more specifically the flu vaccine that has been foisted up our parents, grandparents, seniors the last 30 years, strongly pushed by the medical system. Many of these elderly DID progressively suffer "dementia" and "Alzheimer's", but in even older generations, Alzheimer's "disease" was very rare (to the best of my literature searching).

My mother and a great many of her friends lost their cognitive capabilities in tandem with 20 years of annual flu shots loaded with 25 micrograms of Hg (Thimerosal), Even today a "trace" of Hg (up to 1 microgram) still in some single-dose shots contains 3000 Trillion atoms of mercury.

I thank Judy Obradovic here on AoA for bringing up this "trace" topic a few years back in the forum.

Shawn Otto,

"Ronald, you seem like an intelligent guy. Do you really want to throw your lot in with people who argue that this is a supranational global conspiracy funded by the Gates? That the Council on Foreign Relations and GAVI are dictating to governments? It sounds like a conspiracy theory on the order of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or of that offered by climate deniers who assert the UN is driving the hoax of climate change."

RNK: Guilt by association is a weak argument. If Mussolini made the trains run on time, and I like the trains running on time, am I 'throwing in my lot' with Mussolini? If you've read any of my past comments on the AoA blog, I don't get into Gates' motives, or CFR, or..... I focus on the science, or what passes for science in the vaccine world.

"But the way science works is: you don't get to pick which conclusions you agree with and which you don't. If you agree that humans are causing climate change, also saying that vaccines are poisons is by definition antiscience, because you are rejecting evidence that is created by the same exact method of examination of nature and review by others."

RNK: If we had a world in which those who sponsored and performed research and development did so based only on curiosity and the search for the truth, I would agree with your first sentence. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. The motives of the sponsors (be they government, industry, foundations, etc) are not always so pure, nor are those of the performers. Until the motives and agendas of all parts of the R&D chain, from sponsors to performers, are well understood, one would be both foolish and irresponsible to accept 'scientific' results at face value. I address this issue of research distortion and under-reporting in my eBook published last year (https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/53714). Chapter 9, especially sections 9B-9E, describes the reasons for these distortions, and contains many examples.

Based on the message from my eBook, your last sentence above ("evidence that is created by the same exact method of examination of nature and review by others") is incorrect. The methods being used by most of the climate science researchers are not the 'same exact method' being used by the vaccine researchers or the wireless radiation researchers. They are different because the sponsors are different and their motivations are different. The performers, if they want to continue receiving grants, will modify their methods to achieve the results desired by the sponsors. The reason I injected 'most' when referring to climate science researchers is, as Brulle (Drexel) showed so well (http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/), the fossil energy companies and their handmaidens were willing to distort the science in order to benefit the companies.

"If you are unsure, I urge you to read The War on Science to understand my argument that science is the one force that underlies human and civil rights and bends the arc of the moral universe toward justice and freedom, by creating objective evidence. And if you are not a scientist, and even if you are, the best you can do is accept the peer-reviewed preponderance of the evidence as the most reliable source of knowledge we have in an uncertain world."

RNK: I am a scientist/engineer who spent over fifty years performing, evaluating, and sponsoring R&D, in many different disciplines, and have published over 200 peer-reviewed papers. I do not "accept the peer-reviewed preponderance of the evidence as the most reliable source of knowledge" without understanding the motivations, agendas, and conflicts of those who are sponsoring and performing the S&T. I question the validity of EVERY published paper that I read! Does that make my job more difficult; yes, by orders of magnitude.

You appear to have taken the easy road by blindly accepting the preponderance of 'evidence' (or, more accurately, the preponderance of the published literature) on the topics you describe. That is the approach of a non-scientist, and is exactly what the large pharmaceutical companies, the large telcoms, the large agrichems, etc, want to vast readership to do.

"And in this case, the preponderance, overwhelmingly, from many scientists in many countries over many decades, creating a very robust knowledge base, without any common vested interests, is that vaccines are humane lifesavers that have averted death and untold human misery since they have been invented. Are they imperfect? Yes. But have they averted horror? Undoubtedly, manyfold."

RNK: At best, your statement is only very partially true. As I have commented before on this blog, credible safety studies of vaccines have not been performed. In no other non-medical discipline would vaccine-type safety studies have any semblance of credibility. At the end of this comment, I have reproduced my previously posted comment on the Bexsero vaccine. These Bexsero comments are essentially applicable to all vaccines. Typically, only antibody titers are measured in the short term, and adverse effects MAY be tracked in the short-term. There is nothing resembling studies of long-term adverse impacts of the vaccine. For most, if not all vaccines, the Inserts state that the vaccines have not been tested for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, etc. Would you use toothpaste that contained such an Insert?

According to one variant of the Hygiene Hypothesis, suppression of the common childhood infectious diseases may predispose people to more serious diseases at a later time. But, since we don't do these long-term safety studies for vaccines, we can't identify these more serious effects presently.

"I understand that there are always credibility issues in any claim to knowledge, but then the issue is: who do you trust: an outlier with a personal agenda, who has lost his medical license and whose major paper has been retracted as fraudulent by the journal that published it, whose film selectively presents confirming information and makes emotionally powerful arguments? Or the vast preponderance of the evidence documented over decades by thousands of others who don't have that same axe to grind? The more it is replicated, the more reliable scientific knowledge becomes, and this is the case with vaccines. Are there outlier adverse reactions? Undoubtedly. Are they likely? No."

RNK: Interestingly, you made no mention of Dr. William Thompson, a CDC researcher who admitted that he and his research team deliberately omitted critical information that showed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism for particular sub-groups. He was senior author on two papers that had over 1000 citations, and senior author on other papers that had hundreds of citations. He was a hero when he supported studies that showed no links between vaccines and autism, and went quickly out of favor when he finally told the truth. But, I doubt that will dissuade you from parroting the results of those whose life ambition is to satisfy their Big Pharma sponsors or the Big Pharma surrogates in government.

"I wish you all the best on your intellectual journey grappling with this important issue."

RNK: I'm not 'grappling' with this issue. It is clear to me that the credible safety studies have not been performed. The Precautionary Principle would dictate that we would not move forward with such an untested new technology until safety has been demonstrated. Otherwise, we are playing Russian Roulette with our future!

BEXSERO VACCINE SAFETY
I searched the Web for clinical trials of Bexsero, and found a short list on the Meningitis Research Foundation site (http://www.meningitis.org/menb-vaccine). I checked these references in Medline. Most of the trials take the same approach. They will vary timing parameters, and check antibody levels after short periods of time. They may also check for side effects for relatively short periods, perhaps up to six-twelve months in length.

The EMA has a Web site listing reports of clinical trials (http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002333/human_med_001614.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124)

The earliest document, essentially the pre-approval report, can be found at:
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002333/WC500137883.pdf

From that report:
"There were no studies on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, which is in line with applicable guidelines" (p.22).
"The primary endpoint of studies contained within this dossier is to determine the proportion of subjects with hSBA titers equal to or above the threshold of 1:4 against each of three reference meningococcal serogroup B strains."
"Although the immune responses measured by SBA are expected to be protective, no efficacy data are available. This does not preclude the granting of the marketing authorisation based on immunogenicity data."

There are no long-term safety studies reported in any of the references I examined. In my eBook, I identified some papers showing medium- moderately long-term impacts from vaccines. Since that time, when I have posted some comments on AoA, I have found studies that address the protective nature of childhood infectious diseases and more serious chronic diseases later in life, and that raise the concern that vaccines could remove this protection.

The latency period for lung cancer from smoking is on the order of two-three decades. The latency period for certain cancers from EMF radiation is from one to two decades. I have seen reports of other cancer latencies up to five decades. There are chronic diseases that tend to strike in the 60s and 70s, like Alzheimer's and dementia. To what extent have vaccines contributed to these diseases? Insufficient time has passed to identify 1) serious diseases resulting from most vaccines (assuming serious tracking is being done for these vaccine-disease relationships) and 2) the latency periods associated with these vaccine-disease combinations. This is truly Russian Roulette in its highest form!

Shawn Otto,

What shoots down your argument are the millions of dead and critically injured children who would have been far better off to take their chances with measles, mumps, rubella, and even polio, diptheria, pertussis and tetanus without being poisoned by the vaccines that were supposed to protect them. You are trying to defend an ideology, a belief system, that is based on an unscientific, barbaric lie.

Andrew Wakefield is no outlier. What he is is a highly educated, ethical, brave man who will not back down from his moral duty to serve, despite all obstacles put in his way. He is a leader among men, and he is in good company, standing shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Laura Hayes and a growing army of warrior parents, honest intelligent journalists like Dan Olmsted, Kim Stagliano, Mark Blaxill and the entire AOA staff, Ben Swann, Sharyl Atkisson, and Del Bigtree who, once he examined the evidence, left his lucrative TV producer job to save lives by telling the public the truth, and many physicians and scientists, too numerous to list.

You're right that science doesn't lie. But the science doesn't say what you think it says. Take a close look. The science that is paraded around as proof is highly flawed and some is fraudulent. Here is a compilation of 126 studies linking vaccines to autism:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/126-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

See also Suzanne Humphries, her book and/or many youtube video lectures.

@ Shawn Otto,

You say about Dr. Andrew Wakefield: " who do you trust: an outlier with a personal agenda, who has lost his medical license and whose major paper has been retracted as fraudulent by the journal that published it --."

Mr. Otto, it is YOU that fraudulently slander Dr. Wakefield. His Lancet Paper (WITH 12 other esteemed medical professional signatories) has clearly been redeemed by a High Court in the UK that vindicated Wakefield's co-author Dr. Walker-Smith. Dr. Wakefield et al. were railroaded by the immense immoral power of the UK-Pharma Cabal -- if you don't know what being "railroaded" is, look it up.

I've got news for you: "Outlier(s)" have always been shunned because they go against embedded beliefs, but when they are finally shown to be correct, they are then lauded as heroes; all you have to do is learn about Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, one of Medicine's true giants who was hounded out of practice because he showed that medical doctors/nurses attending birthing mothers should wash up and wear clean clothing when attending the births.

Bringing up YOUR belief in the validity of "climate change" and comparing it to the gigantic carnage being wrought by an utterly dishonest vaccination schedule that destroys helpless infants (and adults like seniors coerced into countless toxic flu shots year after year) is insulting and a classic trick, but that's what people like you do: Lie and manipulate and contort.

@ Ronald, you seem like an intelligent guy. Do you really want to throw your lot in with people who argue that this is a supranational global conspiracy funded by the Gates? That the Council on Foreign Relations and GAVI are dictating to governments? It sounds like a conspiracy theory on the order of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or of that offered by climate deniers who assert the UN is driving the hoax of climate change. You say you accept the scientific evidence on climate change but not on vaccines. You say "in some cases, like climate science, he is correct (from my perspective, and the overwhelming weight of the evidence). In other cases, like the vaccines and fluoridation, even though the preponderance of evidence (or, more correctly, preponderance of publications in the 'prestigious' journals) does not show adverse health effects, the literature may not reflect reality." But the way science works is: you don't get to pick which conclusions you agree with and which you don't. If you agree that humans are causing climate change, also saying that vaccines are poisons is by definition antiscience, because you are rejecting evidence that is created by the same exact method of examination of nature and review by others. If you are unsure, I urge you to read The War on Science to understand my argument that science is the one force that underlies human and civil rights and bends the arc of the moral universe toward justice and freedom, by creating objective evidence. And if you are not a scientist, and even if you are, the best you can do is accept the peer-reviewed preponderance of the evidence as the most reliable source of knowledge we have in an uncertain world. And in this case, the preponderance, overwhelmingly, from many scientists in many countries over many decades, creating a very robust knowledge base, without any common vested interests, is that vaccines are humane lifesavers that have averted death and untold human misery since they have been invented. Are they imperfect? Yes. But have they averted horror? Undoubtedly, manyfold. I understand that there are always credibility issues in any claim to knowledge, but then the issue is: who do you trust: an outlier with a personal agenda, who has lost his medical license and whose major paper has been retracted as fraudulent by the journal that published it, whose film selectively presents confirming information and makes emotionally powerful arguments? Or the vast preponderance of the evidence documented over decades by thousands of others who don't have that same axe to grind? The more it is replicated, the more reliable scientific knowledge becomes, and this is the case with vaccines. Are there outlier adverse reactions? Undoubtedly. Are they likely? No. But no knowledge is certain, as no life is certain. The problem is we crave certainty, and wanting it steers us away from science and into faith and authoritarianism. Consider the wise words of Francis Bacon in 1620: "The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called 'sciences as one would.' For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; . . . things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless, in short, are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding." An honest man or woman will always question him- or herself in this light. I wish you all the best on your intellectual journey grappling with this important issue.

Thank You Laura -- Well said - as you always seem to be able to do.

Laura -

Thank you for putting together a concise, eloquent and forceful speech. It should be read verbatim to the public every chance we have so the message is loud and clear: Stop the mandates; Stop the vaccines; Stop the murder!

@ Joe - Your indictment of the CFR and Rockefeller agenda in general is spot on: This is a planned genocide of the children of the world to drastically reduce future population growth, and reduce the existing world's population to a mass of chronically ill humans who cannot fight back. All the evidence points to population reduction, as you have aptly noted by the mountains of evidence out there. It may also be a mass experiment to permanently alter our DNA, along with the every growing microwave radiation bombardment, chemical spraying, and high levels of immune system depressants in our food.

Let's build on this momentum that Vaxxed has created and become more visible, much louder, and more forceful - We cannot continue to be polite citizens accepting our demise.

More on the CFR and its plans for all of us. They are the driving force behind mass vaccination.

******CFR and the New World Order******

According to State Department Publication 2349, submitted by secretary of State and CFR member Edward Stettinius, a committee on "post-war problems" was set up before the end of 1939 at the suggestion of the CFR. In other words, two years before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the CFR was planning how to order the world after the war ended.

In 1946, the Rockefeller Foundation spent almost $140,000 to produce a history of how the United States entered World War II. This history was intended to counter "revisionist" historians who argued that the U.S. was "tricked" into the war by the Roosevelt Administration. The Rockefeller family has always taken a lead role in the CFR.

In the 1960s, while American men and women were dying in the jungles of Vietnam and while the military/industrial complex was sucking trillions of dollars out of American taxpayers' wallets, the Rockefeller dynasty was financing Vietnamese oil refineries and aluminum plants. If there had ever been a formal declaration of war, the Rockefellers could be tried for treason. Instead, they reaped dividends.

These are just a few of the abuses of power which demonstrate the results of the power elite's manipulations of our destiny as a society. If you've ever wondered why you don't hear about this network of power, just take a look at the CFR's membership roster (posted online in ParaScope). Many of the chief executives and newspeople at CBS, NBC/RCA, ABC, the Public Broadcast Service, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and many other key media outlets are CFR members.

Even if these members of the media's elite had the inclination to report on what they saw and heard at CFR meetings, they are prevented from doing so by the Non-Attribution Rule. To put this in perspective: many of the people who are trusted to provide information about national and world politics are deliberately withholding crucial information from the public because of membership in a secretive globalist organization.

This organization has taken it upon itself to participate in the manufacturing of a new vision for humanity, and dissidence will not be tolerated. If you believe the words of Carroll Quigley, all resistance is futile and doomed to failure. If you believe the rhetoric of internationalists in our own government, the current "trend towards isolationism" will result in a loss of American hegemony in the New World Order, leaving the United States a wrecked Third World wasteland.

World government can come in time, piece by piece, arrived at through the full participation and consensus of the human beings who will be affected by the negotiations. But the idea of the world's elite determining what path that the common herd should follow is repulsive to the human spirit. The story of the CFR goes far deeper than this brief report, and is interlocked with several other international power groups.

International power orgs depend on the masses remaining ignorant for their plans to come to fruition. It's up to you to do your own research and draw your own conclusion. But remember: there's a hell of a lot more to the story than Dan Rather will ever tell you. Educate yourself, or remain a passive consumer. The choice is entirely yours.

Thank you Laura Hayes for such a well-written summary of the vaccine disaster and slaughter. Millions of young people are now scheduled for chronic disability and death due to these forced school vaccine obligations.

The only suggestion I might make is that our opponent is not really Washington bureaucrats, nor SB277, nor the CDC, nor the FDA, nor The New York Times.

The enemy is much more sinister. It is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and GAVI. These are the INTERNATIONAL players that have a very sober, business-style approach to vaccinating everyone on the planet. They are answerable to no one, and make no mistake. They give the orders. Check the links:

http://www.cfr.org/pharmaceuticals-and-vaccines/vaccine-ignorance----deadly-contagious/p33672

http://www.gavi.org/

Gavi's pledging conference recently had Angela Merkel, PM of Germany, as their keynote speaker. And Germany didn't dictate the terms. GAVI did!

So it's clear governments are really the junior partner. They're taking orders from higher up. This is a worldwide agenda. Bill and Melinda Gates bankroll GAVI.

The elite billionaires want it that way.

Check the membership list in the CFR - you might recognize a few names:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations

Yes, it all needs to start with a true, grassroots resistance. But know your opponent well.

Laura, thank you for your courage and conviction to speak clearly and assertively about the destructiveness of vaccines. I agree with you completely. In order to undo this vicious assault on the human condition we need to be unwavering in our statements of the harm vaccines are doing to our children and to us.

I believe we need to go even further. Rather than fight to ban vaccine mandates, we need to fight to ban vaccines. It is clear to me this well organized and well funded assault by the "medical industry" is destructive and needs to end. This is the largest mass poisoning in human history. As currently designed, there are no safe vaccines and allowing anyone to produce and sell an unsafe and dangerous product is irresponsible and should be illegal.

Laura- What a powerful & truthful speech you gave to an audience who I am sure had their minds blown by the facts & statistics, lies & corruption depicted in Vaxxed!
In recent years the crusade (which began with Dr Rimland bringing parents, doctors & researchers together to unravel the mystery as to why more & more kids were being diagnosed with autism) diminished to individuals or small groups fighting this battle alone.
My hope is that this movie unites us once again into a mighty force that generates the type of societal uproar that results in parents in every state having the right to protect their own children's health & freedom.