Blue Cross/Blue Shield offers incentives for fully vaccinating 2
year old children. This is despite the lack of studies of the effects on
infants and in spite of data suggesting side effects both short and
long term.
It is hard not to see patterns in the various sources
of actions that are harmful to us and yet are encouraged by our
protectors. Somehow, the discussion of such matters with any of the masses entitles us to a Delusional Disorder diagnosis. We are the disease to be eradicated then.
https://wellnessandequality.com/tag/blue-cross-blue-shields-physician-incentive-program/
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
