Aplanetruth You Tube Channel
Aplanetruth You Tube Channel
So how much money do doctors really make from vaccines? The average American pediatrician has 1546 patients, though some pediatricians see many more. The vast majority of those patients are very young, perhaps because children transition to a family physician or stop visiting the doctor at all as they grow up. As they table above explains, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays pediatricians $400 per fully vaccinated child. If your pediatrician has just 100 fully-vaccinated patients turning 2 this year, that’s $40,000. Yes, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays your doctor a $40,000 bonus for fully vaccinating 100 patients under the age of 2. If your doctor manages to fully vaccinate 200 patients, that bonus jumps to $80,000.
But here’s the catch: Under Blue Cross Blue Shield’s rules, pediatricians lose the whole bonus unless at least 63% of patients are fully vaccinated, and that includes the flu vaccine. So it’s not just $400 on your child’s head–it could be the whole bonus. To your doctor, your decision to vaccinate your child might be worth $40,000, or much more, depending on the size of his or her practice.
If your pediatrician recommends that your child under the age of 2 receive the flu vaccine–even though the flu vaccine has never been studied in very young children and evidence suggests that the flu vaccine actually weakens a person’s immune system over the long term–ask yourself: Is my doctor more concerned with selling me vaccines to keep my child healthy or to send his child to private school?
Recent events again highlight the need for Americans to stand up for their right to know, and freedom to choose, when it comes to medical risk taking. The New York Court of Appeals not only has given the nod of approval to New York City’s health department requirement that all preschoolers must get annual flu shots, but the California legislature is also moving toward eliminating the personal belief vaccine exemption for families on welfare.
Aside from the loss of the human right to informed consent to medical risk taking, these decisions are all the more incomprehensible considering the lack of scientific evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of annual flu vaccination from cradle to grave and one-size-fits-all vaccination policies and laws. Again and again, we see vaccine policy built on lobbying dollars without real concern for human health and welfare.
As noted by National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) president Barbara Loe Fisher in her Independence Day commentary on zero tolerance vaccine laws,1 “Today, we are witnessing the erosion of core values that our constitutional democracy was founded upon. One example is a public campaign led by the medical establishment to demonize and discriminate against anyone opposing zero tolerance vaccine laws that violate human rights in the name of public health.”
Informed consent is a basic human right in which a person has the ability to voluntarily accept or reject a treatment or medical procedure, including use of pharmaceutical products, after being fully informed of all possible risks and benefits. According to the University of Washington School of Medicine,2 “The most important goal of informed consent is that the patient has an opportunity to be an informed participant in her health care decisions.”
It’s a simple enough premise, but throughout history we’ve seen cases where informed consent was not only challenged but completely ignored, and this trend not only exists to this day, it has flourished in recent years, with cities, states and federal government pushing for mandatory vaccine laws with no ability to opt out. As noted by Fisher:3
There are only two laws that require American citizens to risk their lives. The first is a federal law, the military draft, which requires all healthy male adults to risk their lives in a war declared by the government to protect national security. The second is a state law requiring all healthy children to risk their lives in a war that doctors declared on microbes two centuries ago.
However, unlike adults who are NOT punished for following their conscience and refusing to fight in a war to protect national security, parents CAN be punished for following their conscience and refusing to risk their children’s lives in a war to theoretically protect the public health.
State sanctions include segregation and loss of the unvaccinated child’s right to a school education or permitting pediatricians to deny medical care to children if their parents refuse one or more government recommended vaccinations.
Two different laws that require healthy Americans to risk injury or death: one conscripting adults in what government clearly defines as an emergency military action; and the other conscripting children in a mandatory vaccination program that is not defined as an emergency military action but is operated like one.
Case in point, June 28, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the New York City health department has the right to require flu vaccination for preschoolers. The requirement was initiated in 2013 by city public health officials.
The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has ruled in the measles virus trial. The First Civil Senate of the BGH has confirmed the judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) of the 16 February 2016. The sum of €100,000 which I had offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus does not have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.
Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.
Genetics falsifies thesis of existence
In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.
Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.
The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.
The OLG Stuttgart on 16 February 2016 overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from 16 February 2016.
The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.
Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.
Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.
In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has launched efforts to create a vaccine that would protect people from most flu strains, all at once, with a single shot.
Over the years, I’ve written many articles refuting claims that vaccines are safe and effective, but we’ll put all that aside for the moment and follow the bouncing ball.
Massachusetts Senator and big spender, Ed Markey, has introduced a bill that would shovel no less than a billion dollars toward the universal flu-vaccine project.
Here is a sentence from an NIAID press release that mentions one of several research approaches:
“NIAID Vaccine Research Center scientists have initiated Phase 1/2 studies of a universal flu vaccine strategy that includes an investigational DNA-based vaccine (called a DNA ‘prime’)…”
This is quite troubling, if you know what the phrase “DNA vaccine” means. It refers to what the experts are touting as the next generation of immunizations.
Instead of injecting a piece of a virus into a person, in order to stimulate the immune system, synthesized genes would be shot into the body. This isn’t traditional vaccination anymore. It’s gene therapy.
In any such method, where genes are edited, deleted, added, no matter what the pros say, there are always “unintended consequences,” to use their polite phrase. The ripple effects scramble the genetic structure in numerous unknown ways.
Here is the inconvenient truth about DNA vaccines—
They will permanently alter your DNA
The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research—the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:
“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”
“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was three years ago.]
“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”
Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”
Alteration of the human genetic makeup.
Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, he will live with that change—and all the ripple effects in his genetic makeup—for the rest of his life.
The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:
“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”
Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.
This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun. Anyone and everyone on Earth injected with a DNA vaccine will undergo permanent and unknown genetic changes…
And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans in far-reaching ways.
The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.
The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.
It means the right to preserve your inherent DNA.
(Natural News) Even the bestselling flu vaccine is only the fifth most popular vaccine in the United States. Prevnar, the vaccine used to prevent infection caused by pneumococcal bacteria; Gardasil, which supposedly prevents cervical cancer; PENTAct-HIB, given to tiny infants to stave off diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b; and Infanrix/Pediarix, a vaccine indicated for active immunization against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, infection caused by all known subtypes of hepatitis B virus, and poliomyelitis; are all far more popular than the flu vaccine.
Nonetheless, a report released in 2013 by the Department of Justice, shows that more than half of all claims settled by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, also known as the Vaccine Court, were for injuries caused by the influenza vaccine.
As reported by Health Impact News, during the period covering 16 August to 15 November 2013, 139 claims were settled by the Vaccine Court, 70 of which received compensation. Of these settled claims, 42 – or 60 percent – were for injuries caused by the flu vaccine. The remaining 40 percent were for injuries caused by 11 other vaccines.
The greatest number of injuries by far that were reported as a result of the flu vaccine were for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, or GBS, a condition which the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke describes as follows:
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. The first symptoms of this disorder include varying degrees of weakness or tingling sensations in the legs. In many instances the symmetrical weakness and abnormal sensations spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase in intensity until certain muscles cannot be used at all and, when severe, the person is almost totally paralyzed. In these cases the disorder is life threatening – potentially interfering with breathing and, at times, with blood pressure or heart rate – and is considered a medical emergency. Such an individual is often put on a ventilator to assist with breathing and is watched closely for problems such as an abnormal heart beat, infections, blood clots, and high or low blood pressure. Most individuals, however, have good recovery from even the most severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, although some continue to have a certain degree of weakness.