The popular image-sharing social media website Pinterest is blocking pins that provide safety information about vaccines, or question whether or not legislation should be passed to mandate vaccines. When Health Impact News noticed that some of their pins were no longer showing, we contacted Pinterest to find out why. Someone named "Tina" from Pinterest Help emailed this to Health Impact News: "One or more of your Pins about vaccines has been highlighted as containing medical misinformation. Per our policy, this content will remain available to you, but it will be hidden from circulation on Pinterest as it contains claims that are considered to be misleading or inaccurate by the medical community." The fact is that the "medical community" is not at all unified on their views of vaccines, as increasingly more doctors, scientists and medical professionals are beginning to question the Big Pharma and Government extremist position on vaccines. The extremist pro-vaccine position on vaccine is: ALL vaccines are safe and effective and good for ALL people ALL of the time, by force if necessary. This extremist view probably represents very few in the medical community, as all 50 states currently allow vaccines exemptions be written by medical doctors. Pinterest's "Community Guidelines" was clearly written to protect the interests of Big Pharma: We’ll take action on content spreading medical misinformation that could lead to serious harm to Pinners - for example, claims of curing diseases currently considered by the medical community to be incurable. It would appear that the motivation behind such a policy is to prevent harm to Big Pharma and their profits, not Pinterest users and an informed public.
Dear Legislator: My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings. Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated? It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
Currently, vaccinations are not mandatory in the UK and, according to recent reports, the UK’s position on mandatory vaccination is unlikely to change. According to the British Medical Association, in 2003, the Department of Health issued guidelines clearly stating that none of the vaccinations available in the UK were compulsory and that they were all offered on a voluntary basis. These issues were once again debated by the British Medical Association (BMA) earlier this year, and once again, UK doctors voted against making vaccinations compulsory in the UK. This being the case, it is difficult to imagine why a so-called reputable university such as Cardiff would actively choose to dismiss a student physiotherapist from his course, simply because he refused to be vaccinated. In September 2015, Edward Thompson registered with Cardiff University to study for a Bachelor of Science degree (BSc) in physiotherapy. According to Mr. Thompson and his family, when he registered for the course, his vaccination status was not discussed and there was no mention of vaccinations being required, in either the university’s literature or at his interview. However, six weeks after his course had begun, Mr. Thompson was asked to attend an appointment with the Occupational Health Department, where the subject of vaccination was broached by the university for the first time.
Turning their backs on the human rights principle of voluntary informed consent memorialized in the Nuremberg Code after World War II, health authorities in France and Italy are fast-tracking involuntary vaccine mandates for school-age children. In Italy, millions of Italians have been demonstrating since June, protesting the infringements to parental rights. On July 28, industry-beholden Italian legislators voted 296-92 to pass a one-size-fits-all law that mandates multiple doses of ten vaccines for preschoolers through teenagers, imposing steep fines for parents who do not comply. Mainstream media outlets in both Italy and the US ignored the record protests against medical coercion. A recent survey found widespread doubts among Italian and French citizens about the importance and safety of vaccines. A cascade of recent scientific studies have described the emergence of new vaccine-related autoimmune illnesses and the inferior health status of vaccinated compared to unvaccinated children. Furthermore, a slate of films, news reports and government investigations have exposed widespread corruption among vaccine regulators, government efforts to hide serious vaccine-related adverse reactions and intimidation of scientists who publish data contrary to the orthodoxy that all vaccines are always safe for all children.
Do you know the difference between companies that sell cigarettes and companies that sell vaccines in America? When cigarettes injure or kill people, tobacco companies are financially liable in civil court. But when vaccines injure or kill people, drug companies are not. That’s right. If you get lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, you can sue the tobacco company. But if you or your child suffers brain damage or dies after getting a vaccine, the drug company cannot be sued. And you can’t hold any person who licensed, recommended, gave or voted to mandate the vaccine accountable in a court of law, either. Here is why: In 1986, Congress gave drug companies a partial civil liability shield for vaccine injuries and deaths. In 2011, the US Supreme Court effectively banned all vaccine injury lawsuits, ruling that vaccines are - quote - “unavoidably unsafe.” Then, in 2016, Congress lowered licensing standards for experimental vaccines so that drug companies can fast track them to market without conducting large clinical trials. Now, drug companies and their friends in medical trade are lobbying state legislatures to strip vaccine exemptions from state public health laws. That’s right. Even though drug companies and doctors have been given an unprecedented liability shield removing all responsibility for vaccine injuries and deaths, they want more. They want “no exceptions” vaccine laws forcing you and your children to use every dose of every government endorsed vaccine without your voluntary, informed consent.
Please immediately contact your Congressional Representative and 2 U.S. Senators to OPPOSE H.R 1313 Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act. This bill is sponsored by Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]. It is attempting to coerce employees into employer disease prevention wellness programs. Section 3 (a) 2 refers to “workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer.” The words disease prevention are concerning since not everyone agrees with the use of vaccines to prevent disease.
Gulf War Syndrome: Documents Prove UK and US Military Personnel were Injected with Untested Vaccines
Are today's military personnel lab rats for new and untested vaccines? As evidence continues to unfold regarding military experimental vaccines and Gulf War Syndrome, it appears that many military personnel have given up their lives for their country not in battle, but in support of pharmaceutical vaccine agenda. In this article we will reveal formerly classified documents along with testimonies, including a recent interview with a military whistleblower that is going viral on the Internet.
Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson recently reversed his opposition on mandatory childhood vaccination. When asked what caused him to make a U-turn and adopt what would seem to be an anti-libertarian position, he said, "I’ve come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective.…It’s dependent [on having]mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine." This line of argument is one of the main pillars behind forcing parents not only to vaccinate their kids but to do so on the government’s schedule, which includes more and more vaccines given on the same day, plus a vaccination at birth aimed to prevent a sexually transmitted illness. But is the herd immunity argument true? No.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), hugely funded by vaccine makers, calls for a police-state approach to vaccination. Action Alerts! Last month, the Academy, in a report titled “Countering Vaccine Hesitancy,” called for the elimination of all non-medical exemptions to vaccinations, including religious exemptions, on the model of California. Released alongside this report was another report, also from the AAP, bemoaning the increase in vaccine refusals. The report also endorsed doctors’ “firing” patients who refuse to follow the government’s precise vaccination schedule, and found the number of physicians who have adopted such a policy to have nearly doubled between 2006 and 2013.
Today, the American people are challenged, as they have never been before, to confront the expansion of government authority over our bodies and the bodies of our children, specifically the exercise of police power to take us into custody and isolate us without our consent whenever public health officials believe we are sick or could become sick. At stake is the preservation of human rights and cultural values that have been part of America since the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights defined civil liberties two centuries ago. Are public health officials getting ready to apprehend and quarantine you or your child if they believe you are, or could become, infected with measles or any other communicable disease they decide is a threat to the public health? Are they enlisting airline and other public transportation personnel to help them conduct a dragnet that will be easy for you to get caught up in when you travel? Once you are detained, can they hold you for 72 hours against your will until you agree to be vaccinated or they declare you are no longer a threat? Is this for real or not? You be the judge.