FOLLOW-UP: INCENTIVES TO PHYSICIANS WHO FULLY VACCINATE CHILDREN

I recently posted an article (https://www.facebook.com/Guido.Fawkes.TI/posts/339857939828901) that points out the fact that physician's are paid incentives for vaccinating children. A reader asked me to supply a supporting citation in order to solidify the claims made. This post should provide the support required.

In the linked article, Gina Kolata and Reed Abelson point out that doctor incentives are a part of a growing trend in 2005. Incentives for physicians are in and of themselves not particularly conspiratorial. What is conspiratorial relates to preventative treatments such as vaccines which are not fully tested being forced onto newborns and infants for profit. 

The formulation of vaccines seems like a straight forward process. You put a deactivated virus or bacteria into a person which triggers the autoimmune response and prevents that disease in the future. It's not that simple.

By themselves, the dead virus and bacteria contained in vaccines will not cause the human autoimmune response required to protect it from future infections. In order to illicit that response adjuvants are used. An adjuvant is a substance that increases the immune systems response. Here is a quote from a PubMed.gov article by Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA entitled "Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?":


"Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine
benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue." 

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886)

Clearly, the use of Aluminum as an adjuvant is controversial at best within the medical community. So why use it? An even better question is why is there a fanatical effort to vaccinate all newborns and infants with vaccines that contain a possible neurotoxin? One that also is known to cause autoimmune disorders? Why suppress research that questions its use? 

There is enough doubt about the use of Aluminum adjuvants to warrant FULL studies on their safety. However, the lack of full safety studies prior to the wholesale vaccination of everyone including infants with adjuvants that are potentially harmful is premature at best and detrimental at least.

Evidence (which I will not post here) points to rising levels of autoimmune disease and Autism in society. While the proof of links to vaccines containing harmful adjuvants remains to be proven, wouldn't it be prudent to prove their safety before using them? This fundamental lack of commonsense in the safety process amounts to criminality. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/business/a-bonus-for-health-payable-to-the-doctor.html