by AL Whitney
Parents Against Mandatory Vaccines – Exposing and Opposing the Vaccination Agenda
MIGHT HAVE TO BE DECLARED . . . IN WRITING!
Last January 2017 a close family relative suffered a serious medical emergency requiring hospitalization. His condition was so critical his kidneys shut down. While in the hospital he was given extremely potent drugs in an attempt to stop life threatening abnormal heart beats. A week later his wife received a letter from his cardiologist’s office informing of the need to monitor his liver function via blood tests after his release. The drug he was receiving that required monitoring was Amiodarone.
We researched Amiodarone online and were shocked by what we discovered.
Amiodarone had been approved by the FDA WITHOUT ANY clinical trials.[1] In fact, the FDA had issued an alert in 2005 warning that it could cause severe (even lethal) pulmonary and or liver conditions and that it could worsen the arrhythmias it was being used to treat.[2] My relative’s cardiologist HAD NOT disclosed these all important facts to him or to his family. The drug was continued even though his chest x-rays revealed that he had newly developed pulmonary “infiltrates,” a lowered oxygen saturation level and was experiencing bouts of shortness of breath. When I informed my sick relative of these side effects, he discontinued the Amiodarone himself.
Then in February the same close family relative developed a post surgical blood clot. His doctor asked him to choose a blood thinning drug. Here are the choices he was given. They were written on the white board in his hospital room:
- Xarelto (FDA approved in spite of proven fraudulent clinical trials)
- Eliquis (FDA approved in spite of proven fraudulent clinical trials)
- Coumadin
By offering him three choices, the physician put both the decision and the liability onto him. The fact that both Xarelto & Eliquis have a common side effect of increasing blood creatinine – when his poorly functioning kidneys were already causing his creatinine level to be abnormally high – was neither considered nor revealed. If his choice resulted in his death, it could be said that he had been fully informed (which he had not), had consented (had chosen), and was therefore personally responsible for the outcome.
As the info provided to him by his physician was sketchy at best and he was in the hospital without access to detailed information about these drugs, I did the investigation for him. After reviewing the information I gave him, he chose Coumadin as it was the only one of the three with an anecdote – Vitamin K – and the only one without risk of increased damage to his already injured kidneys.
[My relative took the Coumadin for 10 weeks. Fortunately, he had no new blood clots, no incidence of bleeding, and his creatinine level did not worsen.]
While the American Hospital Association claims that all patients have the right to “informed consent”[3], they don’t disclose that the patient must inform himself of the benefits and risks prior to consenting or dissenting. This lack of reliable information regarding treatment risks also occurs across the country when it comes to vaccines and their many potential (even life threatening) adverse reactions.
My relative is recovering nicely because he exercised his patient right of “informed dissent”. However, he is no longer naive about physicians, the dangerous drugs they so casually prescribe, and their ignorance of contraindications, side effects and/or adverse reactions. He is now educating himself about “alternative” ways to improve and maintain his health.
The moral of the story is that Big Pharma profiteers now control a) clinical drug trials[4], b) the FDA approval process, c) the physician’s ‘belief’ as to what drugs are appropriate to prescribe for their patients[5], and d) the standards of care that physicians are required to adhere to.[6] We must never forget that Big Pharma has no fiduciary duty to “do no harm.” Its only mandate is to generate profit. Many drugs have severe – even lethal – adverse reactions. Physicians today are either naive or indifferent to this reality. Either way, they cannot be trusted to always act in the best interest of their patients.
From Dr. Daniela Drake’s article, Big Pharma is America’s new mafia:
“Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. Our drugs kill around 200,000 people in America every year, and half of these people die while they do what their doctors told them—so they die because of the side-effects,” said Dr. Gotzsche in his recent interview. “The other half die because of errors—and it’s often the doctors that make the errors because any drug may come with 20, 30 or 40 warnings, contraindications, precautions…and then the patients die.”
Sadly, it has become necessary for us to inform ourselves prior to consenting OR dissenting, however difficult that might be. Fortunately there are some excellent web sites, like Drugs.com, to help us. In fact our life may depend on us educating ourselves and competently exercising our right of “informed dissent.”
To protect ourselves and our right to informed consent/dissent, it might be wise to prepare a written Declaration of Patient’s Rights for your physician and/or hospital. Here is the one my family put together. It can be accessed online also: https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/patient-rights-medlineplus-blank-form.pdf
_________________________ ‘s DECLARATION OF PATIENT RIGHTS
Please insert this document into my medical record.
As the patient in our doctor-patient relationship, I am entitled to the right of informed consent.[1] To make an informed decision regarding the tests, treatment or medications I receive, I need to know both the benefits and the risks. This would include the side effects or adverse reactions of any medication – including vaccines – that you might prescribe.
I also reserve the right to seek a second opinion.
My refusal of any test, treatment or medication should not be charted as me being non-compliant, but as me denying my consent based on my right to assess both the benefits and risks.
NOTE
You can use this declaration to defend against any accusation of failure to adhere to the current “standard of care,” should I refuse any procedure or treatment considered “standard of care” – which many physicians have concluded[2] are not always the best course of action for ALL patients.
For your protection, keep a copy of this declaration in your personal files.
_____________________________ _____________
Print name capitalizing only the first letters date of birth
_____________________________ _____________
Signature Date
[1] For confirmation see: https://medlineplus.gov/patientrights.html
[2] For confirmation see: Modern Medicine at the Crossroads; Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2015; http://www.jpands.org/vol20no3/miller.pdf
ENDNOTES
[1] See: The Strange History of Amiodarone; https://www.verywell.com/the-strange-history-of-amiodarone-1745987
[2] See: Information for Healthcare Professionals: Amiodarone; https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/DrugSafetyInformationforHeathcareProfessionals/ucm084108.htm
[3] See: American Hospital Association’s The Patient Care Partnership; http://www.aha.org/content/00-10/pcp_english_030730.pdf
[4] See: Big Pharma’s Role in Clinical Trials; https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/clinical-trials-and-hidden-data/
[5] See: Why Most Published Research Findings are False; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/pdf/pmed.0020124.pdf
[6] See: Big pharma is America’s New Mafia; http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/21/big-pharma-is-america-s-new-mafia.html
Read the full article at ParentsAgainstMandatoryVaccines.net.
Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.
