Vaccination: Fraud & Dishonest Mistakes

One of the greatest lies of Big Pharma is finally being exposed – Don’t Expose Your Children to Vaccines!

Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines

 

by Sayer Ji

 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system."[i] This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to "boost" immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.

And yet, newly publish research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.

Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, "B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity," researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of "neutralizing" antibodies against VSV.[ii]

The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were "neither needed nor sufficient for protection."  These findings, according to the study authors, "…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV."

The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections.  For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease.  A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.[iii]

These research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges.  Presently, it is a commonly held view that during viral infections, innate immunity must activate adaptive responses in order to achieve effective immunity.  It is believed that this is why the immune system has developed a series of innate defenses, including complement, type I interferon, and other "stopgap measures," which work immediately to lower pathogen burden and "buy time" for the much slower adaptive immune response to develop.  

This view, however, has been called into question by the new study:  "Although this concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this cytopathic virus, innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune contributions."

Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC's focus on using vaccines to "boost" immunity?

Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching.  In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as "vaccine efficacy," without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.

The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc.  – all of which are intrinsically toxic substances -- will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing  they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity.   To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.

Here is another way of understanding vaccine-induced antibody elevations….

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a beehive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way ensured; to the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected, or disproportionate to the threat.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A,* so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection - and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.  One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child, by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc. 

We leave the reader with a series of quotes addressing the inherent weaknesses of the antibody theory of immunity:

"Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."- Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57.

"The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody." - Magda Taylor, Informed Parent

"Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."- Private Eye 24/1/2002

"Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same?  No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3."- Ted Koren DC

*PubMed Health

---

[i] CDC.gov, Basics and Common Questions: Immunity Types

[ii] B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity. Immunity. 2012 Mar 23 ;36(3):415-26. Epub 2012 Mar 1. PMID: 22386268

[iii] Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers. Neurology. 1992 Apr ;42(4):761-4. PMID: 1565228

From Green Media Info @ http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-disproves-cdcs-primary-justification-vaccination

Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated

by Mike Adams

 

For several years, NaturalNews has maintained that many vaccines actually cause the very infectious diseases they claim to prevent. Measles vaccines, for example, actually cause measles. And flu shot vaccines actually increase susceptibility to the flu. (See sources below.)

Now we have an open admission of precisely this point.

New research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

As Reuters reports: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832...)

In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough -- the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. "We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention."

This same article also admits that these vaccines have never been tested for long-term effectiveness:

"GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine's protection after the shot given to four- to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said. Dr. Joel Ward at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute said it's still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn't provide lasting protection from whooping cough."

Huh? So let me get this straight:

• Whooping cough infections are MORE common among children already vaccinated against whooping cough than unvaccinated children.

• The whooping cough vaccines have NEVER been tested for long-term efficacy.

• Doctors openly admit the vaccine "doesn't provide lasting protection" against the disease.

• But doctors and government authorities mindlessly push the vaccine anyway?!

That's essentially like saying, "We know these vaccines don't really work, but everybody should get vaccinated anyway."

 

 Whooping cough outbreak? Demand everybody be vaccinated!

 

Despite the fact that the whooping cough vaccines actually cause an increase in the risk of being infected with whooping cough, every time a whooping cough outbreak occurs, there's a mad rush of everybody screaming, "Vaccinate! Vaccinate! Vaccinate!"

For example, this mindless article in The Seattle Times typifies the kind of brain-dead journalism observed across the mainstream media: "Whooping cough spreading fast in state; vaccinations urged." (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017902210_whoopingco...)

This mindless, irrational cry for vaccinations utterly contradicts scientific truth, but it get published over and over again with zero skepticism and no intelligent questioning by anyone in the (whored-out) mainstream media.

Whooping cough vaccines, it turns out, do nothing to reduce the rate of whooping cough infections. But they do accomplish something else that's even more important for Big Pharma. Care to guess what that is?

You guessed it: Whooping cough vaccines keep whooping cough in circulation! The vaccines cause the very disease they claim to treat, so the more kids get vaccinated, the more outbreaks occur! This then results in more people calling for more vaccines, which causes even more whooping cough outbreaks to occur, and this sick profiteering cycle of vaccine quackery repeats itself over and over until children are pumped full of useless vaccines while the drug companies bank on record profits and all the parents are living in fear.

The drug companies figured it out a long time ago, see? The best way to SELL a vaccine that claims to treat a disease is to make sure the vaccine contains the disease! Thus, the vaccination itself becomes the pathway to re-infection and repeat business!

Want to make money in the cancer industry? Put cancer viruses into the vaccines! Oops, Merck already did that, didn't they? Here's an admission by a Merck scientist of exactly this point:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html

 

How the media is trying to spin these shocking revelations about the failure of vaccines

 

The media is trying to spin this revelation, of course, claiming that the whooping cough vaccine merely "wears out" or "fades over time." While that alone is an admission of total vaccine failure, it's actually much worse: The findings show that vaccines make children MORE vulnerable to infection than the unvaccinated children.

Virtually nowhere in the lamestream media will you see any real admission that whooping cough vaccines are based entirely on scientific fraud because they simply don't work. That simple truth is just not allowed to be printed anywhere except places like NaturalNews, where we haven't sold out to Big Pharma's corporate interests. The fact that even a hint of this has appeared in Reuters is astonishing, and I suspect they will pull their story as quickly as possible before it starts getting too much attention.

 

If vaccines "fade out" then they don't work!

 

The bedrock of vaccination theory is that when your body is exposed to a weakened virus, it will build up its supply of antibodies that will forever recognize that virus and defend your body against it. Sound familiar? That's the fairy tale told to every parent and child by a vaccine-wielding brainwashed doctor.

The key element of the story is that your body is supposed to keep those antibodies forever, right? Just like if you get the chicken pox one time, you won't ever get it again because your body is immune to the chicken pox, right?

But wait: Now they're saying vaccines fade out over time. Somehow your body "forgets" the antibodies, they now admit, so you need a booster shot, what else? (Repeat sales, anyone?)

So then, vaccines don't really invoke lifetime antibodies at all, do they? And if that's the case, then the entire vaccine mythology crumbles. No lifetime antibodies means the vaccines aren't really working like real infections (such as the chicken pox). Something doesn't add up here, especially when you figure that vaccines make children MORE susceptible to future infections.

 

Healthy kids are not vaccinated kids

 

Want to find the healthiest children in America? Find families who follow these rules:
#1) They live on small farms and their children play in the dirt (they have contact with nature).
#2) Their children are all home schooled.
#3) None of their children are vaccinated.
#4) They drink raw milk and eat farm fresh foods.

As you will readily find, these are the healthiest, smartest kids in America! They don't have problems with autism, allergies, cancer or ADHD. They are bright, healthy, and easily capable of surviving an infection of chicken pox.

The least healthy children in America are vaccinated children who eat public school food (GMOs) and never spend time in nature. These are the asthmatics, the diabetics, the ADHD cases, the suicidal psych drug takers. They're vaccine damaged and nutritionally depleted, and they catch every cold every winter, it seems, you know what I mean?

Media lies about vaccine effectiveness (written by brain-dead journalists)

The media, you see, is so steeped in lies about vaccines that they are now utterly unable to recognize the truth. In the Seattle Times article mentioned above, for example, you'll find this mysterious sentence in the story: "Pertussis vaccines are about 85 percent effective overall..."

And yet I'll bet you twenty bucks there's not a single journalist on the entire Seattle Times staff who even understands what that number means and where it came from. They probably think it means that for every 100 people vaccinated with the whooping cough vaccine, 85 percent of them will be completely protected against the disease even if they are exposed to it. (Insert laughter here...)

But it's nothing like that at all. This number is simply made up. It is invented from fabricated relative statistics cherry-picked out of distorted clinical trials funded by drug companies. It's sort of like the CDC's completely fabricated number of "35,000 people die each year from the flu" -- a bald-faced conjuration of pure fiction that's repeated as if it were fact across every paper in the country. And even if you believe the 85 percent number, it was probably derived from something more like this: For every 1,000 children in America, only 1 catches the whooping cough, but if those 1,000 children are vaccinated (says the corporate-funded study), then only 0.15 children out of 1,000 will catch the whooping cough.

Thus, in other words, using these numbers you'd have to vaccinate 1,000 children in order to prevent less than one child from getting the whooping cough -- and meanwhile, out of those 1,000 children perhaps 10 - 20 of them suffer vaccine damage in other ways that are far serious, including autism.

Lamestream media journalists who work for these rag papers just don't have any real ability to exercise critical thinking anymore. They don't know how to read scientific studies. They don't understand numbers. And you know why? Because they've been over-vaccinated! And vaccines cause neurological damage, which is why the most brain-dead people you'll find in the country are the ones who line up every year to receive annual flu shots.

When it comes to vaccines, the only thing mainstream newspapers know how to do is rephrase corporate press releases and spout vaccine propaganda that ends up harming, maiming and often killing more innocent children.

That's why NaturalNews continues to tell the truth about vaccine fraud -- because it saves lives by protecting children against bad science and stupid journalism.

 

From http://www.naturalnews.com/035466_whooping_cough_vaccines_outbreaks.html

 

 

Merck vaccine fraud exposed by two Merck virologists; company faked mumps vaccine efficacy results for over a decade, says lawsuit

 

by Mike Adams

 

According to two Merck scientists who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010 -- a complaint which has just now been unsealed -- vaccine manufacturer Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood samples with animal antibodies, sold a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks, and ripped off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was "95% effective."

See that False Claims Act document at:
www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Merck-False-Claims-Act.pdf

According to Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, both former Merck virologists, the Merck company engaged in all the following behavior:

• Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate."

• In order to do this, Merck spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies. As reported in CourthouseNews.com:

Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life ... virus neutralization in vaccinated people," according to the complaint. (http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47851.htm)

• Merck then used the falsified trial results to swindle the U.S. government out of "hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization."

• Merck's vaccine fraud has actually contributed to the continuation of mumps across America, causing more children to become infected with mumps. (Gee, really? This is what NaturalNews has been reporting for years... vaccines are actually formulated to keep the outbreaks going because it's great for repeat business!)

• Merck used its false claims of "95 percent effectiveness" to monopolize the vaccine market and eliminate possible competitors.

• The Merck vaccine fraud has been going on since the late 1990's, say the Merck virologists.

• Testing of Merck's vaccine was never done against "real-world" mumps viruses in the wild. Instead, test results were simply falsified to achieve the desired outcome.

• This entire fraud took place "with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior management."

• Merck scientists "witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings," according to court documents (see below).

 

US government chose to ignore the 2010 False Claims Act!

 

Rather than taking action on this false claims act, the U.S. government simply ignored it, thereby protecting Merck's market monopoly instead of properly serving justice. This demonstrates the conspiracy of fraud between the U.S. government, FDA regulators and the vaccine industry.

 

Chatom Primary Care sues Merck for Sherman Act monopolization, breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection laws

 

Following the unsealing of this 2010 False Claims Act, Chatom Primary Care, based in Alabama, smelled something rotten. Three days ago, Chatom filed a lawsuit against Merck. That lawsuit record is available here:
www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Chatom-Lawsuit-Merck-Mumps.pdf

It alleges, among other shocking things:

[Merck engaged in] ...a decade-long scheme to falsify and misrepresent the true efficacy of its vaccine.

Merck fraudulently represented and continues to falsely represent in its labeling and elsewhere that its Mumps Vaccine has an efficacy rate of 95 percent of higher.

In reality, Merck knows and has taken affirmative steps to conceal -- by using improper testing techniques and falsifying test data -- that its Mumps Vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999, far less than 95 percent effective.

Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck's desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study's findings.

...incorporating the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results...

...destroying evidence of the falsified data and then lying to an FDA investigator...

...threatened a virologist in Merck's vaccine division with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA...

...the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection. And while this is a disease that, according to the Centers for Disease Control ('CDC'), was supposed to be eradicated by now, the failure in Merck's vaccine has allowed this disease to linger, with significant outbreaks continuing to occur.

Chatom Primary Care also alleges that the fraudulent Merck vaccine contributed to the 2006 mumps outbreak in the Midwest, and a 2009 outbreak elsewhere. It says, "there has remained a significant risk of a resurgence of mumps outbreaks..."

 

This investigation is only beginning

 

NaturalNews has only begun to investigate this incredible breaking news about Merck and the vaccine industry. We are pouring through the court documents to identify additional information that may be relevant to this case, and we plan to bring you that information soon.

For the record, Merck denies all allegations. Is anyone surprised?

Sources for this article:
NaturalNews wishes to thank CourthouseNews.com for its coverage of this story. Original article at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47851.htm

Chatom Lawsuit against Merck
www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Chatom-Lawsuit-Merck-Mumps.pdf

2010 False Claims Act against Merck, by two Merck virologists
www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Merck-False-Claims-Act.pdf

Announcement of the lawsuit in the media:
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/lawsuit-claims-merck-overstated-mumps-v...

 

From http://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mumps_vaccine_False_Claims_Act.html#ixzz20BVtbUmQ

 

 

Vaccine bombshell: Baby monkeys given standard doses of popular vaccines develop autism symptoms

by: Ethan A. Huff

If vaccines play absolutely no role in the development of childhood autism, a claim made by many medical authorities today, then why are some of the most popular vaccines commonly administered to children demonstrably causing autism in animal primates? This is the question many people are now asking after a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh (UP) in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research developed autism symptoms.

For their analysis, Laura Hewitson and her colleagues at UP conducted the type of proper safety research on typical childhood vaccination schedules that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) should have conducted -- but never has -- for such regimens. And what this brave team discovered was groundbreaking, as it completely deconstructs the mainstream myth that vaccines are safe and pose no risk of autism.

Presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, the findings revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys' sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Their unvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

Included in the mix were several vaccines containing the toxic additive Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound that has been phased out of some vaccines, but is still present in batch-size influenza vaccines and a few others. Also administered was the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which has been linked time and time again to causing autism and various other serious, and often irreversible, health problems in children (http://www.greenhealthwatch.com)

"This research underscores the critical need for more investigation into immunizations, mercury, and the alterations seen in autistic children," said Lyn Redwood, director of SafeMinds, a public safety group working to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. "SafeMinds calls for large scale, unbiased studies that look at autism medical conditions and the effects of vaccines given as a regimen."

 

Vaccine oversight needs to be taken from CDC and given to independent agency, says vaccine safety advocate

 

Adding to the sentiment, Theresa Wrangham, president of SafeMinds called out the CDC for failing to require proper safety studies of its recommended vaccination schedules. Unlike all other drugs, which must at least undergo a basic round of safety testing prior to approval and recommendation, vaccinations and vaccine schedules in particular do not have to be proven safe or effective before hitting the market.

"The full implications of this primate study await publication of the research in a scientific journal," said Wrangham. "But we can say that it demonstrates how the CDC evaded their responsibility to investigate vaccine safety questions. Vaccine safety oversight should be removed from the CDC and given to an independent agency."

Be sure to read this thorough analysis of the study by Catherine J. Frompovich of VacTruth.com:
http://vactruth.com/2012/04/29/monkeys-get-autism/

From http://www.naturalnews.com/035787_vaccines_autism_monkeys.html

Vaccine Exemptions: Do They Really Put Others at Risk?

by Alan Phillips, J.D. Attorney and Counselor at Law

     
Parents who exercise a vaccine exemption for their children are often ridiculed for putting their own children and others at risk. However, legally and medically, unvaccinated children do not pose a significant health risk to themselves or anyone else. Alternative vaccine views support this assertion, but the reasoning in this article comes straight from mainstream vaccine beliefs, accepted medical practice and current law.

     First, from the legal perspective, forty-eight state legislatures, federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services), and all U.S. territories offer religious exemptions to immunizations. The state legislatures and federal agencies providing these exemptions are presumed to have considered whether or not the exercise of these exemptions would pose a significant health risk. They would not have enacted these exemption laws if their exercise would pose a significant health risk. Thus, there is a legal presumption that the exercise of a vaccine exemption does not pose a significant risk to anyone.

     This legal presumption is not a mere exercise in semantics or logic. It is based on the widely accepted herd immunity theory, which tells us that so long as most of the members of a population are immune, all members of the population are protected. Indeed, current vaccine policy necessarily depends on this theory. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says: "No vaccine is 100% effective. Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients. For reasons related to the individual, some will not develop immunity." (It’s curious that they blame the "individual" and not the vaccines. Regardless, the CDC admits that this is why the majority of outbreaks occur in vaccinated children.) In contrast, national exemption rates run about 1% - 2.5% on average. Furthermore, just as vaccinated children are not necessarily immune, exempt children aren’t necessarily lacking immunity. Many exempt children develop natural immunity, and according to the CDC, they don’t have to get sick for that to happen. The bottom line is, you can’t determine the immunity status of any given individual child by the child’s vaccination status alone. But with the herd immunity theory, we don’t need to; we need only be concerned with a populations’ immune status collectively.

     Not only do non-immune children (vaccinated or not) not pose a significant health risk now, they pose no potential future risk, as protective laws and procedures have been put into place to account for them. For example, most states require exempt children to stay home from school during a local outbreak, for the duration of the incubation period of the outbreak disease. (Of course, since most non-immune children are vaccinated and they are not required to stay home, this practice discriminates against exempt children, but it is common policy around the U.S.) Most states also have laws that can require emergency vaccines and throw exemptions out the window and/or quarantine of unvaccinated persons in a declared, infectious disease emergency. So, neither exempt children nor their non-immune, vaccinated peers pose a significant health risk—now, or at any time in the future.

     A related issue concerns school administrators who fear that they risk liability if they allow exemptions, particularly in private schools. The short answer is that parents do not place themselves or anyone else at risk of liability for exercising a lawful exemption. By definition, liability occurs only when a law is breached. If all concerned are complying with the law, there won’t be a liability risk. Again, there is a legal presumption; here, that the proper exercise of a legal exemption does not create a significant liability risk—or else the exemption law would not have been enacted in the first place.

      Myths about vaccines and infectious disease persist, despite voluminous information refuting them, probably because fear is more powerful than reason. As the above reveals, this is true even within the world of vaccine mainstream beliefs. One of the more common mistakes comes from trying to apply concepts to individuals that really only apply to groups—that is the flawed basis for discriminating against exempt children and their parents. Those uncomfortable with this article have recourse with the state legislatures and promulgating regulatory agencies; that is, they can pursue changes in the law. Absent that, legally and medically, the exercise of a lawful vaccine exemption is, necessarily, a reasonably safe option that poses no significant health risk to anyone.

---

This article is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute medical or legal advice.

For the purposes of this article, I am putting aside the fact that the herd immunity has been disproven many times over in the medical literature, and the fact that antibody production, the measure of vaccine immunity, is not a reliable indicator of actual immunity, according to the medical literature. For cites, see Dispelling Vaccination Myths, http://www.vaccinerights.com/pdf/DispellingVaccinationMythsx.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and Immunizations, Misconception #2. The majority of people who get disease have been vaccinated, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

Non-medical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements, The Journal of the American Medical Association, http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/296/14/1757.full.

See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and Immunizations, Glossary, "Asymptomatic infection: The presence of an infection without symptoms. Also known as inapparent or subclinical infection," http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm

---

For additional related research on GreenmedInfo.com read "The Shocking LACK of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines," and peruse our Vaccine Research Database which focuses on collating data from the National Library of Medicine on the underreported, adverse effects of vaccines.

Alan Phillips, J.D. is a nationally recognized legal expert on vaccine rights issues. He helps clients, activists and other attorneys nationally with vaccine rights issues and legislative initiatives. Learn more at www.vaccinerights.com
From http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccine-exemptions-do-they-really-put-others-risk



 
New Illuminati comments: The majority of modern docterds only entered the field of medicine because they are greedy, selfish control freaks; exceptions are few and far between. If you want to stay healthy avoid docterds whenever possible and educate yourself – learn how your body works, where and what your organs are, and how to heal yourself and others – and don’t learn from docterds!

For more telling information on this topic see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/vaccination
 and http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=5CFDF83B1169A047F532A3C4717A9513 

Help This Unique Independent Site Survive

Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

Just press the button -

Xtra Image by David Dees via http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/July20101/whovac_dees.jpg

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)

This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Arrogance, Abuse, Fraud, and Medical Malpractice

Arrogance, Abuse, Fraud, and Medical Malpractice:

How Some Physicians Beg for Law Suits

by MC Kean

Our health care system is much sicker than even Michael Moore understands. Greedy physicians addicted to money are literally abusing and battering patients for the sake of profit.

Physicians and mass media often depict patients and their lawyers who file lawsuits against Doctors as greedy, money-grubbing opportunist. 1 

It turns out this is more projection than reality. A 1990 study by Harvard researchers of 31,000 medical records subjected to evaluation by practicing doctors and nurses, “found that doctors were injuring one out of every 25 patients (latter studies put that figure closer to one out of every seven patients), and that only 4 percent of these injured patients sued.” 2 

Another Harvard study of 1,452 malpractice lawsuits found that more than 90 percent of the claims evidence supported medical injury and 25 percent of the time the patient died, 60% of these injuries resulted from physician wrongdoing. The study also found when “baseless” malpractice suits were brought they were “efficiently thrown out.” Only 145 of 515 patients suffering injury, but where physician fault was unclear received compensation. On the other hand, 236 cases were thrown out of court despite evidence of injury and physician error. 3. 

While there is no evidence that malpractice claims are being driven by greedy patients and lawyers, there is an abundance of evidence that greed is driving the malpractice suits. Not the greed of the patients, but the greed of the medical practitioners themselves. In other words, physicians are the greedy, money-grubbing opportunists, and the patients and their lawyers are just fighting back against an arrogant disregard for patient’s rights, dignity, and health, against incompetence and even fraud. In a real way, a vast body of Doctors have waged war on patients, arrogantly imposing their will and their interest against the patients’ will and best interest. Laws, Medical Licensing Boards, even lawsuits have largely failed to discourage profitable, but reckless and abusive practices. Below are a several examples of how Physicians abuse patients for personal profit, a brief analysis of patient protections, followed by some suggestions for fighting back.

1. Kickback driven medicine: An overwhelming number of physicians get kickbacks and other economic incentives from pharmaceutical companies, not only for being willing to prescribe a drug, or implant a devise, but also for research. Often, physicians also get kickbacks from other Physicians, hospitals, and imaging facilities to which they refer patients. Physicians even get kickbacks for implant devises. Influenced by a greed for these kickbacks, many physicians prescribe medications and procedures they know are NOT the most effective response to a problem, or may even be for a problem you do not have. 4. 

In one study one third of the Doctors interviewed, “admitted they would order unnecessary MRI scans and 25% referred patients to an imaging center where they had a financial interest.” 20.

2. Promoting unnecessary surgeries: Physicians often fail to tell a patient of less radical alternatives, fail to disclose and even mislead patients about risks, and encourage a patient to elect surgeries that are not good for their health. “While it is difficult to distinguish "necessary" from "unnecessary" surgeries, some estimates put the latter at 2.5 million a year, resulting in 11,600 deaths a year as well as severe pain and disability for many of the survivors.” 5. 

Breast implants are just one example. Implants are never permanent. Most will require another surgery within five years, virtually 100% fail within 10 years. 6.

 

Reconstruction after a mastectomy requires multiple surgeries (including one on the healthy breast), and thus provides a whole string of opportunities for surgeons to make big bucks. For women with cancer this is particularly cruel even murderous as evidence indicates that physical trauma the like of multiple surgeries can encourage the spread of cancer. 7. 

Surgeons virtually never reveal this trauma induced cancer growth risk. Even women’s magazines have described new “perky” breasts, and perhaps even a tummy tuck, as a couple among ten reasons to “be glad you have breast cancer.” 8.

 

While plastic surgeons claim options for such reconstruction are, “essential to women’s self-esteem“, there are less dangerous roads to dealing with self-esteem issues, patients are not well informed of risks, and surgeons literally peddle reconstruction. The only unsolicited call I ever remember receiving from my breast cancer surgeon was to inquire as to why I would turn down reconstruction. (Wonder if she was to get a kickback from the plastic surgeon, who acted as if he got kickbacks for implants.) 

3. Bait and switch: You do a little research, meet and agree to a surgery by a certain physician, chosen for various reasons, experience, sex, bedside manor, temperament; then, once under anesthesia, your surgeon pulls a bait and switch. The person actually performing the surgery is much less experienced, or this may even be their first surgery, or first surgery of this type. Sometimes the surgeon you thought was performing is in attendance supervising. Your life threatening surgery is being used as training and you are an unwitting breathing cadaver. 9 

Other times the person you thought was performing the surgery has moved on to a high paying client and left you with a resident under no supervision. The surgeon you thought was performing is paid for miraculously doing two surgeries at once in two different locations. 10 The resident is on salary. 

Once limited to teaching hospitals this sort of medical fraud is now infiltrating private practices. While you are never told, while misleading language is used, while students are hidden, and even while out right lies are employed to cover this bait and switch, physicians argue that any reasonable person should know that in teaching facilities students are participating in their care, including the performance of major life threatening surgeries. Patients may or may not know a hospital is a teaching hospital; and the average patient does not know their physician will lie; we are not told the relationship is an adversarial one, rather than fiduciary (one where the physician’s primary concern is our health). 

 

4. Unnecessary procedures and exams for the sake of training: Extending anesthesia and resulting in physical trauma, excessive bruising, bleeding, and increased infections of patients, physicians often take the opportunity provided by anesthesia to parade in a line of students to perform exams. Although research indicates that 87% of patients would allow training if asked, making this sort of medical fraud unnecessary, it would take time to explain to the patient and the patient might set terms or limitations, such as on the number of trainees to be performing a procedure. 10. 

Informed patients while often willing to accept one or two trainees, are less likely, for example, to consent to their pelvic or anus being penetrated multiple times by multiple people. This gang bang approach to teaching is very abusive. While many argue it does not rise to the level of rape as there is no sexual intent, this argument is again invalid. 11

 

One could argue with such logic that the physical touching and penetration of a prisoner might be torture, but not rape as the intent was not sexual but rather investigative. Statistics indicate that such practices are risking patient health. While Teaching facilities want you to think that you will get superior up to date care at such facilities, this is just not the case. Oregon Health Sciences University is one example. OHSU patient safety ratings reveal a below average raiying for: 

1. prevention of death in procedures where mortality is usually very low,

2. absence of foreign body left in during procedure,

3. avoidance of excessive bruising or bleeding as a consequence of a procedure or surgery. 

These stats indicate many physicians are prioritizing teaching over patient health and safety. Simply put you are more likely to die from a relatively simple and safe procedure, and will likely suffer greater trauma and pain from procedures performed at OHSU, than non-teaching facilities. The surprise is not that, OHSU is sued on average of 23 times a year, but that this figure is not much higher. One reason may be OHSU has access to the PDX VA. While the V.A. would like vets to think the big teaching facilities are better than the smaller VA facilities; the history of the V.A. also reveals unacceptable abuse and risk of patients for the sake of training. 12. 

Again, while cancer patients provide a host of opportunity in this regard the trauma from such practices can feed cancer. Furthermore, physicians do not seem to give any special consideration to a subject already in pain from recent surgeries, and show no qualms about subjecting such patients to more trauma from multiple penetrations by inexperienced students/trainees. No more than teaching hospitals they take pity on the crying children, as a line of students enter their rooms to practice arterial blood gasses, as was described to me by an asthmatic patient who spent their childhood in hospitals.

5. Physicians will lie. Telling your Doctor what you do and do not want to happen to you or your body while under anesthesia is no protection. Physicians often do as they please and simply lie before and after the fact no matter what preferences, you might have expressed. After all, they know even better than the date rapist how effective these drugs are at ensuring their violations of your rights, your body, your health, and their oath remain unknown to you. If you complain, a physician may flag your chart, “don’t ask”. This does not mean they will not seize the opportunity anesthesia provides to violate you, just that they will employ a “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy in relationship to your care. 13.

 

Doctors are often arrogant and indifferent to the very concept of informed consent. Physicians patronizingly claim to know what is best for patients, while they fail to listen or respond to expressed needs, violate patients expressed will, and even do things to patients they would not allow be done to themselves. 14. 

Surely not all the staff is going to go along with this? I have listened to countless stories of this sort of abuse over the last two months, not only from patients, but also from nurses and other physicians I have interviewed. Most indicated that while they did not agree with what was done they did not report violations of consent, or even sexual assault, (such as an anesthesiologist who awakens women from anesthesia by pinching their nipples.) Mind you, I know some of these confessors well, the only reason I can see for their silence is a culture of such silence. 15.

6. Physicians target the poor: Physicians target the poor, mentally disabled, and seriously ill patients who are heavily dependent upon the medical access they receive, as they are less likely to file lawsuits. Veterans have historically been part of this pool of the abused poor as many large V.A. Medical facilities are linked to Medical Schools and economic incentives for lawyers to represent victims are minimal. In many cases the awards will not cover the costs of litigation. This is about to get much worse. As physicians look for more ways to avoid State legislation regarding teaching, as physicians look for ever more disempowered patients, as the government looks for ways to cut the costs of caring for veterans, ALL V.A. facilities are about to become teaching facilities. A physician can come from anywhere in the country (or world) to be trained on any vet in any state disregarding the state laws and often Federal Laws as well. The V.A. even employees unlicensed practitioners, and has a history of failing to check credentials. 16.

 

Now, one will say, the vet can get medical care elsewhere; but illness breeds poverty, and war breeds illness, and you are often not told, mislead, even blatantly lied to as to who provided what care, who did what including what unnecessary penetrations to your body. 

Women are particularly vulnerable. Women are relatively few in number within the V.A. system and thus scarce relative to the demand for training specific to women’s health. Female Vets are subject to a sort of intensified trauma resulting from both more frequent and intense abuses by physicians, and for many patients this in conjunction with a history of military sexual trauma. “The problems with sexual harassment, assault and rape are systemic in the military beginning with recruiters, military academies, carrying on through service and at the Veterans Administrations.” 17.

Refusing to respect these women’s requests for female practitioners, pulling the old bait and switch tactic, and using women as vending machines for training multiple students results in not only physical harm, but also serious psychological harm. These practices also increase women’s risk of sexual assault. 

 

Creating Opportunities for Rape: A woman has a fundamental right to protect herself from sexual assault or rape as she sees fit. The physician undermines this right when the patient is not allowed to exclude, limit, and/or negotiate the terms of male participation from certain types of care and while under anesthesia. Failing to acquire informed consent and refusing full disclosure in a Federal facility is a violation of a patient’s civil rights and should be prosecuted accordingly. While physicians would like you to think, they as a class are above such crimes as sexual assault this is simply not the case. 

A Times investigation found 55 licensed practitioners in the state of Washington alone who had rap sheets for sex crimes.” 18. Sexual misconduct is a common problem and protection against offenders practicing in the medical field is insufficient to non-existent. 

0nce you are put under anesthesia you have no way of knowing what is being done to you by whom. Medical staff seems to think nothing of leaving women alone under sedation with a man, a stranger to these patients; not something a reasonable woman would ever tolerate if told the truth. Physician’s response to reasonable requests by reasonable women is to simply lie. I know this from personal experience. 

Complaining to the V.A. about violations of my requests for, and promises made of, female only staff during procedures like colonoscopies, oophorectomies, and a mastectomy, complaining about being left in the care of men while under anesthesia, and requests for explanations for symptoms synonymous with sexual assault for which the physician claimed to have no medical explanation, has gotten me nothing more than a “don’t ask; don’t tell” flag in my chart by that same Doctor. 

It seems many physicians are unwilling to give up even a small fraction of their income, many hospitals unwilling to spend a fraction more, to ensure the safety of women under anesthesia, or even respect women‘s own attempts to protect themselves. It took a movement to get women into the medical profession, and the rest of us were promised the comfort and security of female care only to be betrayed by petty greedy women the likes of those who have betrayed this reporter/patient. 

If physicians are willing to lie to patients, to put patients at an unreasonable risk, to seek all sorts of ways to avoid any sort of meaningful informed consent, to even engage in outright medical fraud, how is a patient to have confidence in a diagnosis? How can a patent feel confident that the diagnosis is not motivated more by the need to teach this or that procedure than a thorough analysis of medical history and data? How can a patient know that a prescription or surgical suggestion from their physician is motivated by concern for their well being rather than personal profit? You cannot! 

In June 2002, for example, a Chicago cardiologist was sentenced to 12-1/2 years in federal prison and was ordered to pay $16.5 million in fines and restitution after pleading guilty to performing 750 medically unnecessary heart catheterizations, along with unnecessary angioplasties and other tests as part of a 10-year fraud scheme. 19 My own significant other suffered an unnecessary heart catheterization.

What protection does a patient have?

Medical Licensing Boards are little help. Sanctions are rarely proportionate to the offense. Physicians are often given no more than a few months of limitations on practice or short suspensions. Even in the most repetitive and/or grievous abuses such as sexual assaults while a patient is under anesthesia or performing high risk unnecessary surgeries, physicians are often given little more than limitations on patient demographics and mandatory counseling. At worse they may receive two to five years suspensions with mandatory counseling followed by reinstatement with temporary supervision. 

These disciplinary actions are too lenient and too few to make a difference. “A D.C.-based advocacy group found only 33% of doctors who made 10 or more malpractice payments were disciplined by their state medical board; some—with as many as 31 payments—have never been disciplined.”  20. 

Laws are not effective. When laws are changed to help protect patients, the old, “do not ask, does not tell” tactic is employed. This was the case with California consent laws relating to informed consent and using patients under anesthesia as teaching tools for pelvic exams. 21. Illinois followed. 22 

At first, many hospitals voluntarily conformed, then after a few big teaching hospitals and their Physician’s thumb their nose at the law, reminded legislatures that the patients are under anesthesia and therefore make lousy witnesses, interest in conforming to the law seemed to fade and continued abuse has to date gone unchallenged. 23

Lawsuits do not work. Rather than clean up their act to reduce risks of suits, many physicians have retaliated against malpractice lawyers and their family members refusing them care or firing their nursing spouses. Patients who sue one physician are refused care by others. Even some Physicians who have testified as expert witnesses on behalf of plaintiffs have suffered retaliation from employing hospitals and State Medical boards. 

In Florida, Tampa General Hospital revised its employee "code of conduct" to prohibit staff from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs. (They may testify as witnesses for hospitals and doctors.) “In Jersey City, the medical staff at Christ Hospital voted to remove George Ciechanowski as chief of staff, according to news accounts, because he backed malpractice legislation that many of his colleagues opposed.”, 24. 

Regardless of awards and even if insurance companies refuse to insure repeat offenders, this does not seem to slow down the abuse. Awards are not proportional to the injury, nor large enough relative to income achieved through such abuses to discourage the practices. In spite of lawsuits, sanctions, and payouts, patient abuse remains profitable. 25 

Research and empirical evidence has done little to change attitudes. Research indicates that listening to and respecting patient wishes in conjunction with honesty and early confession and apology for error reduces litigation. A few hospitals that have revamped policies and practices in response to this research have reduced malpractice payouts by 85% 26 Unfortunately, such evidence fails to persuade physician attitudes, who claim they have, “No time to listen and talk to patients.” 27.

What is to be done?

When patients’ health and well-being are no longer the top priority of physicians the system is no longer trust worthy and should be radically reconstructed to once again serve the interests of equal protection and security of ALL patients. Piecemeal socialization or V.A. type medical care within an overarching for profit system only tends to subject the poor who do manage to access medical care to the sort of abuses described above. 

I heard a wise person suggest that if all the Physicians and other medical staff who worked at the V.A. had to use the V.A. themselves for medical care, things would change. Likewise, only in a one-payer system that treats ALL citizens who seek medical care the same, will some of us not be subjected to such abuse in the interest of others. Only in a one-payer system will physicians and other medical staff find their interests in common with the patient’s interest. 

What can we as patients needing care do in the meantime? 

1. Demand a single payer system,

2. While seeking the bulk of your health care on the margins outside of the mainstream of large corporate medicine. There are many ailments that can be effectively treated by Chinese Physicians and naturopathic doctors.

3. Demand family member presence while under anesthesia.

4. Read all consent documents, and do not be afraid to alter those documents or bring your own for the physician to sign.

5. Ask if trainees will be involved in your care at the time you make an appointment. Record the conversation.

6. Be ready to refuse care or be turned away and find care elsewhere.

7. Lobby your state and federal representatives for greater protective legislation. Add a clause to consent forms in facilities such as the V.A. regarding adherence to state regulations they are not otherwise obligated to follow.

8. Be suspicious of Physicians who make multiple referrals, use coercive tactics to convince you to do things, respond to every concern you may express with another scan, MRI, or other test, seem to have more patients than can be properly cared for without many residents and trainees helping out, lie to you even once.

9. Educate yourself and become wise about how you access medical care before you discover you have been abused. Remember, no medical care, or delayed medical care can, in many cases, be better than bad medical care.

10. Be a skeptic. Expect your Doctor to lie to you. Remember their Hippocratic Oath has more to do with P.R. propaganda than having any real meaning to many physicians.

11. When you find a Doctor has abused you; let the rest of us know. Post flyers, post adds, get the word out about that Doctor. Start an Abusive Doctor boycott list web site in your area. As we boycott those physicians and seek care with more ethical practitioners incentives may shift a bit. 

[New Illuminati - And avoid them like the plague. And call them 'dog turds' to avoid falling into the trap of respecting this filth]

- MC Kean

1. The following two articles represent a very small fraction of the propaganda concerning lawsuits and medical malpractice.

A Confederacy of Boobs, by Michael Fumento Reason, October 1995

Medical Malpractice Suits Are Dividing the Nation!, by Marcel Votlucka , The Stony Brook Press, December 8, 2005

2. Study Casts Doubt on Claims That the Medical Malpractice System Is Plagued By Frivolous Lawsuits, Harvard School of Public Health, May 10, 2006

3. Too Many Malpractice Suits, Or Not Enough?, By Solange De Santis, ConsumerAffairs.Com, October 18, 2004

Also see,

Medical Malpractice in TX: is one of many articles, facts, and research published by, Public Citizen, regarding lawsuit propaganda.

The Medical Malpractice Myth: Forget tort reform. The Democrats have a better diagnosis, by Ezra Klein, Slate, Tuesday, July 11, 2006

4. Prescription Drug Scams, by Dean Baker, Thruthout, June 29, 2006

Drug Trials Hide Conflicts for Doctors , by KURT EICHENWALD and GINA KOLATA, May 16, 1999

Insurers Pay Doctors to Switch to Generics, by Joe Mantone, The Wall Street Journal Health Blog, Jan 24, 2008.

Med-tech perks for doctors questioned, by JANET MOORE, Star Tribune, Feb 28, 2008

Is Something Rotten in the State of Radiology?, by Leonard Berlin, MD, FACR, Imaging Economics, March 2007

5. Profit-Seekers, by Payne Hertz, Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Also see,

Needless Surgery, Reprinted from Consumer Reports on Health (March 1998)
© 1998 Consumers Union*

To Go Under the Knife--or Not?, by Kate Murphy, Business Week, July 7 2003

Health Department Fines Parkway Hospital $32,000 for Performing Unnecessary Surgeries on Patients from Leben Home, state of New York Department of Health, 7/16/01

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans File $30 Million Lawsuit Alleging "Rent a Patient" Fraud in Southern California, Summary by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, BMC Cancer. 2005; 5: 94. Published online 2005 August 4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-5-94.

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Atrocity, Elizabeth Eugenia James-LaBozetta

Central Ohio Patient's-rights Service (C.O.P.S.) and Citizens for Medical Safety

6. High Rate of Failure Estimated for Silicone Breast Implants, by GARDINER HARRIS, New York Times, Published: April 7, 2005

7. Breast surgery accelerates recurrences in some women., Heatlh Facts, Nov 5, 200

Trauma-associated growth of suspected dormant micrometastasis

, Nagi S El Saghir,¹ Ihab I Elhajj,¹ Fady B Geara,² and Mukbil H Hourani³ BMC Cancer. 2005; 5: 94. Published online 2005 August 4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-5-94.

STRESS HORMONES MAY PLAY NEW ROLE IN SPEEDING UP CANCER GROWTH, Cancer Research, Nov. 1, 2006 republished OHSU Research News

Tumor dormancy: not so sleepy after all, by Cliff Murray, Nature Medicine, 1, 117 - 118 (1995)

Does surgery unfavorably perturb the “natural history” of early breast cancer by accelerating the appearance of distant metastases?,European Journal of Cancer, Volume 41, Issue 4, Pages 508-515 M. Baum, R. Demicheli, W. Hrushesky, M. Retsky

Wounding from Biopsy and Breast cancer progression, Ritsky etal, The Lancet, Vol 357, March 31, 2001

HOW SCIENTIFIC ARE ORTHODOX CANCER TREATMENTS?

, by Walter Last

8. Top 10 Reasons to Be Glad You Have Breast Cancer, by  PJ Hamel
Monday, May 7, 2007

Breast Cancer Sells, by Lucinda Marshall, AlterNet. Posted October 24, 2007.

9. Are Med Students Practicing on You?, By: Suz Redfearn, Mens Heatlh

10.VA uses unsupervised residents and other practices that would not be accepted elsewhereBy JOAN MAZZOLINI, THE PLAIN DEALER Cleveland, Ohio Sunday, January 28, 2001

11. Not Rape, but Still Not Right: Hospitals Should Get Clearer
Consent Before Med Students Probe Anesthetized Women, Evan Schulz, LEGAL TIMES, Mar. 17, 2003, 54;

Also see,

Using tort law to secure patient dignity, by
JOHN DUNCAN
Independent
ROBIN FRETWELL WILSON
Washington and Lee University - School of Law
DAN LUGINBILL
Ness, Jett & Tanner, LLC
MATTHEW RICHARDSON
Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, PA

U of Maryland Legal Studies Paper No. 2004-24

Training Intrusive and Needs Patient Consent, Activists Say, WASH. POST, May 10,
2003, at A1; Darin L. Passer, Medical Students Respect Their Patients, THE STATE,
July 19, 2003

Having obstetric/gynecological surgery anytime soon at one of the hundreds of teaching hospitals around the country?, by Melissa Waters, Concurring Opinions, July 24, 2007

12. V.A. Malpractice info website.

13. Don't Ask, Don't Tell: A Change in Medical Student Attitudes After Obstetrics/Gynecology Clerkships Toward Seeking Consent for Pelvic Examinations on an Anesthetized Patient, Peter Ubel 188 AM. J. OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 575 (2003).

14.Informed consent in public hospitals, by SP Kalantri, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Oct - Dec 2000

15. “Nearly half of doctors in a recent survey admit to witnessing a serious medical error but not reporting it.” How Professional Is Your Doctor?, Tara Parker Pope, The New York Times, December 3, 2007,

16. V.A. Malpractice info website.

17. Rape Nation, By Kari Lydersen, for AlterNet, July 2, 2004.

18. Gregoire pledges to reform health-care licensing, by Michael J. Berens, Seattle Times staff reporter April 30, 2006

19. The Problem of Health Care Fraud, National Health Care Anti Fraud Association

20. Phoenix Doctor's Picture Taking Latest Sad Tale of Medical Malpractice, |by Parker Waichman Alonso LLP

Also see,

Public Citizen Releases Database With Names of 1,112 "Questionable Doctors" in Pennsylvania, Oct. 29, 2003

Also see,

The story of Dr. John York and the Calif. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, by Al Schallau

Bad doctors get slapped on the wrist

, by Janet Kornblum, USA Today, Aug, 30, 2006

21. NON-CONSENSUAL PELVIC EXAMINATIONS, By: John Kasprak, Senior Attorney, ORL Research Report, June 22, 2004

22. First State Law in Nation Protecting Women From Unauthorized Pelvic Exams Takes Effect January 1st, Office of Assemblywoman Sally J. Lieber, Dec 19, 2003

23. Pelvic exams on unconscious women? More hospitals say no

, A.P. March 11, 2003

Using tort law to secure patient dignity: often used as teaching tools for medical students, unauthorized pelvic exams erode patient rights. Litigation can reinstate them., Duncan, John ; Luginbill, Dan ; Richardson, Matthew ; Wilson, Robin Fretwell , Trial, OCT 1, 2004

24. Medical-malpractice battle gets personal, By Laura Parker, USA TODAY, June 13, 2004

Also see,

How Malpractice Suits Keep My Profession Honest, by Bernard Sussman, Washington Post, April 24, 2005; Page B02

Doctors Take the Offensive. More-Aggressive Tack Used to Cut Frivolous Malpractice Claims, By RACHEL EMMA SILVERMAN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL March 23, 2004

The Medical Malpractice Myth, by Tom Baker, University Of Chicago Press, December 1, 2005

Law and the Life Sciences: Doctors Sue Lawyers: Malpractice inside out, George J. Annas The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Oct., 1977), pp. 15-16
doi:10.2307/3560717

25. Lax oversight favors doctors over patients: Doctors keep licenses despite lawsuits, sexual assaults, even patient deaths, , By GINA BARTON, JOURNAL SENTINEL WATCHDOG REPORT, : Jan. 26, 2008

26. Listening and talking to patients. A remedy for malpractice suits?, G W Lester and S G Smith University of Saint Thomas, Houston, Texas. 1993 and,

Apology a tool to avoid malpractice suits, By Lindsey Tanner, A.P., The Boston Globe, Nov. 12, 2004

27. “No time to listen and talk to patients.” by A W Wirtzer (al. Lester 268, or Western Journal of Medicine, June, 1993 pg 639)

From Patrick Dodd and Friends: Lab Rats n Cadavers

Images - http://www.albany.com/wellness-blog/Medical-Malpractice-Lawsuits.jpg

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/medical-malpractice-222x300.jpg

http://zoo.parkingspa.com/dspa/hcimages/nonadult/society-47-law-malpractice/main.jpg 

For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

 http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559  

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com