Denial Author Mark Blaxill at The Children's March for Humanity
Mark co-authored a new book from Skyhorse Publishing called "Denial: How Refusing to Face the Facts about Our Autism Epidemic Hurts Children, Families, and Our Future" with Age of Autism Founder and Editor Dan Olmsted, who passed away in January. Pre-ordering would be a fine way to honor Dan's life and commitment to exposing the inner workings of the autism epidemic. Thank you to Joshua Coleman for the video. His YouTube channel is a must bookmark site.
Excerpts from Mark's speech:
"It's not just about autism; children with autism are the canaries in the coal mine... 50% of American children are diagnosed with a chronic health condition – ‘diagnosed.’
"This new exploded vaccine schedule – once we removed liability from the doctors that administer them and the corporations that make them, we have seen an explosion in the exposure of children to vaccines. And it's a wildly uncontrolled experiment on a generation of children, and I believe, honestly, if you look around at children and young adults, is that those children that received the recommended CDC vaccine schedule, there is a probably a rate of injury that's pretty much 100 percent. Not just the 50% with a diagnosed condition.
"They talk about now 'triggering events' on college campuses, and 'safe spaces'... they use this language to talk about children with autism, that we don’t want to trigger them... It's now endemic in American youth and young adults... And in the midst of this, there’s no sense of alarm... To listen to the orthodox narrative of the network news and the CDC and the NIH, you wouldn't have a hint that anything was going on.
"And worse than that, the science that's supposed to be the sentinel, the guardian, the watchtower on the biology of injury and illness, that science has become corrupted. There's fraud, there's self-interest. I've participated in the scientific process; I've published a number of articles. And I can tell you, it's not a pretty picture. It's political, and ultimately the contest for the interpretation of the truth is about power. It's about money.
"And a lot of us who started out trying to be good citizens, who believed in the system, believed in scientific institutions and medical institutions, have lost faith in those institutions to do the right thing. And so we have to become political. It has become a political process. We need to be here on the mall, talking to our representatives, speaking the truth to power."
"If good science ever prevails, vaccines will be abolished from the face of the earth."
Barry/Hans,
I am inclined to agree. Once governments stop propping up vaccines in so many ways, they will have to stand on their own merit, and that is looking very unlikely.
I could see homeoprophylaxis passing the market test, but not today's pharma vaccines.
Posted by: David Weiner | July 05, 2017 at 11:15 AM
Posted by: Barry | July 03, 2017 at 06:12 PM
I agree with all Barrys comments .
Vaccination is a gigantic hoax (Archie Kalokerinos\Linus Pauling)
Posted by: Hans Hitten | July 04, 2017 at 04:25 AM
We need a separation of vaccines and state. Only under these circumstances can we expect good science and medical practice to prevail.
*******
If good science ever prevails, vaccines will be abolished from the face of the earth.
And vaccine injured children will finally get the medical attention that they so desperately need.
Posted by: Barry | July 03, 2017 at 06:12 PM
Vaccines have always been politicized.
When you have the government evaluating vaccine research, promoting vaccines, mandating them, subsidizing them, conducting its own research, and granting liability exemptions, then vaccines are about as political as they possibly can be. There is no reason to believe that good science or medicine will prevail under such circumstances.
This is why I have always said that the government vaccine program (see elements above) needs to be abolished entirely. We need a separation of vaccines and state. Only under these circumstances can we expect good science and medical practice to prevail.
Posted by: David Weiner | July 03, 2017 at 01:23 PM
Grace,
The older I get, the more I realize that the history is not exactly or even close to what happened. We may never know the truth of what Chaffetz did or didn't do and why.
Posted by: Linda1 | July 02, 2017 at 09:47 AM
Linda 1 and Aimee, I saw a video of Chaffetz speaking on this subject and he seemed to understand the issue perfectly well. There are many others, politicians, lawyers, doctors, nurses, and even Pharma employees, who haven't allowed themselves to be "stopped". We can draw our own conclusions. In short, he will go down in history as someone who had the knowledge, had the power, but chose to walk away.
Posted by: Grace Green | July 02, 2017 at 06:19 AM
Aimee,
I don't know. But I'd guess it had something to do with the crime network that is behind the death of about 60 holistic doctors in the past couple of years and the deeply rooted corruption in both political parties and regulatory agencies.
Posted by: Linda1 | July 01, 2017 at 09:36 PM
@Linda1 -
Who do you think stopped Chaffetz from doing anything? The government oversight committee was chaired by a Republican, with a Republican majority. This was true, not just in the present Republican administration, but in the previous Democratic administration. He certainly could have held hearings, but he chose not to. I don't understand why his Republican constituents didn't press him vigorously on this issue.
Posted by: Aimee Doyle | July 01, 2017 at 07:19 PM
Barry, I think Mark Blaxill is saying that the entire recommended CDC schedule causes 100% injury whereas he would recommend a reduced schedule. I wouldn't agree with that position myself, but I suppose it's a reasonable case to make.
*****
Can you think of one other instance, where recommending less of something that causes 100% injury in children ... is a reasonable case to make?
Posted by: Barry | July 01, 2017 at 09:44 AM
Arawn,
I have a feeling that Chaffetz was stopped from doing anything for us. Probably the reason for his abrupt exit.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 30, 2017 at 03:21 PM
Mark Blaxill’s book on cautious vaccinating may not go as far as anti-vax folks justifiably want, but the text is written for a different target audience new to these issues — such as saying “no” to their doctors. Which they’ll have to at some point, with hundreds of vaccines in the production pipeline.
Every outlier movement requires voices of moderation to help bridge others' old thought patterns to new ways of thinking. People who choose bikes over cars or vegetables over meat, avoid microwaves and wi-fi are most effective at converting others when they suggest weaning off toxic technologies of convenience instead of removing them immediately and entirely.
This bumper sticker would give a nudge, not a shove:
START SEEING
VACCINE INJURY
Posted by: nhokkanen | June 30, 2017 at 01:45 PM
Speaking of the swamp, Jason Chaffetz quits Congress today... after having done nothing for us on the vaccine front.
Posted by: arawn | June 30, 2017 at 01:09 PM
@Barry, you make a reasonable criticism re Blaxill's prior book Vaccines 2.0 saying several vaccinations are OK. However in his Mall speech he referred to the (entire) Immunization Schedule, if given, badly affects 100% of babies/kids, whereas his 2.0 book states a limited few shots are acceptable.
I agree with you there is NO safe vaccine, and I'd guess Mark Blaxill would concur that ALL the 2.0 book shots carry significant risk.
Posted by: david m burd | June 30, 2017 at 12:16 PM
Just pre ordered. I'm really looking forward to this book.
Thank you Mark!
Posted by: Anna Quandt | June 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM
Barry, I think Mark Blaxill is saying that the entire recommended CDC schedule causes 100% injury whereas he would recommend a reduced schedule. I wouldn't agree with that position myself, but I suppose it's a reasonable case to make.
Posted by: Grace Green | June 30, 2017 at 10:14 AM
@ Barry
"How can you safely guide anyone, through something that you believe carries a 100% rate of injury .. and ... how can we ever expect to be taken seriously by anyone, when our so called 'leaders' can't even stick to one side of the argument??"
With all due respect .. admittedly I haven't read Mark's co-authored book .. "Vaccines 2.0: The Careful Parent's Guide to Making Safe Vaccination Choices for Your Family" .. in a long while ... but ... I think Mark's comment of "100% of injury" applied ONLY to those "children and adults that received the FULL .. "recommended CDC vaccine schedule" .. while the book tried to warn parents the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule could not be trusted .. as many .. (if not MOST) .. of the CDC's vaccine schedule ... if administered as recommended and approved ... would put the overall health of their child at unnecessary RISK.
In other words .. if I remember correctly .. Mark and Dan recommended and approved a FEW vaccines they believed had some merit with less risk .. which I believe ... is precisely the position of RFK, President Trump, Dr Ben Carson and Dr. Wakefield .. among others.
None-the-less .. I personally disagree with THEIR position ... as I strongly believe there is no such thing as a "one size fits all vaccine" .. that is as "safe and effective" for everyone who receives it.
I think a majority of the Supreme Court got it right .. vaccines .. are by their very nature ... UNAVOIDBLY UNSAFE.
Posted by: bob moffit | June 30, 2017 at 10:07 AM
Barry,
I think the answer is that Mark doesn't recommend the CDC schedule.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 30, 2017 at 09:52 AM
Oh, and on one of those news shows back in the 70s - Probably 60 minutes; they said that the DTP was affecting 100 percent of the kids.
Now imagine what has happened after additional, and dangerous vaccines have been added.
Has to be all on purpose to reduce the population.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 30, 2017 at 09:45 AM
Barry;
I am going to defend Mark and Dan on that book.
I think they agonized over it and even said that even with in the readership of AOA, Generation Rescue, TACA that know their kids have been vaccine injured, there are still those that have not turned against the idea of vaccines 100 percent.
I admit to my shame that I was one of them. I so embraced it when my kids were small, and even when they were teen agers and young adults, I kept thinking but there are some that are needed. I was an idiot. For us really slow ones; like me; it took almost a life time. Or are we so programmed from birth and education that it takes so long to : What is the word that they use when a prisoner of war, or a spy, or a cult gets a hold of person and turns them - to turn them back?
.
In their book Mark and Dan; just go through each vaccine and tells the risk and benefits.
It is a good title to drag a lot of my friends to at least look.
I bought a copy for my husband and my very best friends, that we have known from our college years. They are lucky enough to be going to have a grandchild this Fall. My friend, she too noticed the high fevers of the DPT vaccine. Their other son, is so wrapped up into academia, super smart; but there is something there.
She said one time that if they had suffered as very young children from a vaccine/minor brain injury, how would she know? She might think it was just part of their personality. I think she was thinking about her second son.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 30, 2017 at 09:43 AM
Great speech, Mark.
Posted by: Catherine Mbinya | June 30, 2017 at 09:15 AM
And it's a wildly uncontrolled experiment on a generation of children, and I believe, honestly, if you look around at children and young adults, is that those children that received the recommended CDC vaccine schedule, there is a probably a rate of injury that's pretty much 100 percent
**********
Wait a minute. In the copied text above, Mark Blaxill is acknowledging a 100% rate of injury form childhood vaccines.
Yet in Skyhorse publishing book list on the right of this page, there's a Mark Blaxill co-authored book called "Vaccines 2.0: The Careful Parent's Guide to Making Safe Vaccination Choices for Your Family"
How can you safely guide anyone, through something that you believe carries a 100% rate of injury??
And how can we ever expect to be taken seriously by anyone, when our so called 'leaders' can't even stick to one side of the argument??
Posted by: Barry | June 30, 2017 at 07:39 AM
Amen.
Posted by: Dan E. Burns | June 30, 2017 at 07:29 AM
"And worse than that, the science that's supposed to be the sentinel, the guardian, the watchtower on the biology of injury and illness, that science has become corrupted .. its fraud .. it's political, and ultimately the contest for the interpretation of the truth is about power. It's about money."
In a nutshell .. science has willing immersed itself in the SWAMP .. a corrupt, unethical, immoral SWAMP ... that desperately needs draining.
Posted by: bob moffit | June 30, 2017 at 07:01 AM