Don’t California my [Insert State Here]: The egregious injustice of SB276 and its trailer bill, which solidified sweeping vaccine legislation into law, was enacted under the false pretenses of fraudulent exemptions, targets medically fragile children, and will usher in an age of medical tyranny
“They came first for philosophical exemptions and I said nothing, because my kids are in private school. Then they came for religious exemptions and I said nothing, because I am not that kind of religious. Then they came for our medical freedom and I said nothing, because I could still home school. Then they came for me and took my children. And no one was left to speak up.”
– Lavenda Memory
How a bill becomes a law: apparently, by enough good people who know better–doing nothing, saying nothing.
Yesterday, both SB276 and its trailer bill, SB714 passed through the California Assembly and Senate and were signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, catapulting the next civil rights movement into full swing, and setting the stage for a sweeping wave of medical tyranny and government overreach.
Medical freedom fighters came out in droves to decry the draconian bill SB276, peacefully occupying the assembly and the senate, until threatened with arrest and ordered to disperse from the latter.
Despite mainstream media portrayal, SB276 opponents are by and large not anti-vaxxers, but rather, ex-vaxxers and vaccine-hesitant mothers (and a few courageous fathers) with documented adverse reactions in themselves or their children that by the testimony of their own doctors has rendered them ineligible for further vaccinations.
Despite lack of coverage by every major media outlet, some of the California legislators who voted no and supported the protestors relayed to SB276 opponents that this was the largest outpouring of activism that they had ever witnessed for any bill during their political tenure.
In spite of the widespread opposition to the bill at the California Capitol, the viral #JUSTASKING and #SOS social media campaigns that lit up Governor Gavin Newsom’s Instagram page in yellow, and vocal outcries by parents across the nation, the bills were signed into law amongst pleas from medical freedom fighters, “No segregation–no discrimination–yes on education, for all!”.
Voting was divided squarely down party lines.These bills were passed thanks to unanimous yes votes by Democrats, revealing that their allegiance unequivocally lies with corporate interests over the constituents to which they are beholden on this issue.
Republicans voted no across the board, with some assembly members, such as Waldron, Mathis, and Melendez, cheering on the protestors as they chanted, “Moms know best!”from the rafters.
“It is quite stunning to watch liberals applauding censorship, particularly the muzzling of the bullied mothers of injured children in order to protect pharmaceutical products from criticism”.
-Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In the video above, RFK Jr. responds to the passing of SB 276 on the steps of the Capitol on Monday to a crowd of onlookers.
Medically Fragile Children Made the Sacrificial Lamb
The momentum behind the passage of SB276, which affects less than 1% of school-aged children–those who have experienced documented vaccine reactions in themselves or their family members, or who have medical conditions or family histories that preclude vaccination–only showcases the magnitude of the monetary incentive of the pharmaceutical industry at play that it is motivated to target such a minority of the population at the legislative level.
Under the trailer bill, there will be grandfathering in of medical exemptions (ME), however, periodic reapproval of exemptions based upon the restrictive list of CDC/ACIP/AAP Contraindications will be required, such that 99% of all children with existing exemptions will not qualify and will therefore be ineligible for public school when the new criteria are enacted.
The language is ambiguous; however, under the passage of this law, it appears that the only sure-fire qualifying CDC contraindications for medical exemption are anaphylaxis, encephalopathy, anaphylactic allergies to egg or yeast, severe immunodeficiency (ie. cancer, organ transplant) and intussusception (for rotavirus vaccine only). Known vaccine reactions, according to FDA Vaccine Package Inserts for Childhood Vaccines on the CDC Recommended Schedule, that will likely not qualify as CDC contraindications, include the following:
These are real possibilities post-vaccination, as a sizable fraction of the population has genetic polymorphisms (SNPs) that render them susceptible to vaccine injury via a compromised ability to excrete toxicants contained within vaccines. In fact, this novel field of inquiry is only now being characterized by the field of adversomics, which delves into vaccine adverse reactions using immunogenomics and systems biology approaches.
Yet now, in order to attend public school, most vaccine-injured California residents must forcibly submit to medical procedures deemed “unavoidably unsafe” by the Supreme Court in 2011.
A Manufactured Crisis Spurs SB276
This flagrant act of government overstep, authored by Democratic Senator Richard Pan–who has accepted over $152,000 in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry–was buttressed under his false assertion that its intention was to stop unscrupulous doctors from writing so-called “fraudulent” and “invalid” medical exemptions, despite the fact that not one doctor has been found guilty of this practice.
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request reinforced the notion that SB276 has been promulgated as a solution to an entirely manufactured crisis. Bill author Richard Pan put forth the notion that California doctors needed to be policed in the interest of public health in response to supposed claims about these exemptions by consumers.
As was revealed in a press conference on September 5, 2019 with human rights attorney Leigh Dundas, however, a multi-year rogue astroturf operation to illegally obtain private medical records was led by Santa Barbara Health Department Chief Health Officer Dr. Charity Dean, which included county health officers as well as medical doctors, some of whom were associates of Pan.
As part of these efforts, spearheaded by Dean, a letter was sent to every school and daycare center directing personnel to immediately fax over all medical exemptions, in direct violation of federal law and FERPA, which protects immunization records from release in situations barring emergency. In other words, without parental consent, non-redacted student health files were being disclosed and sent around the state.
As Dundas discussed, records of round-table meetings headed by Dr. Dean revealed that county health officials considered it a “systems level opportunity” to “smoke out their physicians,” going so far as to suggest “investigations that we can conduct at anytime or through cobbling together unwarranted referrals to the medical board” against the children’s doctors in order to avoid the stymying efforts of interference by the children’s parents. To circumvent fall out from a public records request, they proposed co-opting their county council to open permanent ongoing investigations against doctors which they would “just never close” such that their “entire string” of actions would “never be revealed”.
During the meeting, one of the county health officers even remarked that it is “fun to be sued by those whackjobs,” presumably referring to the parents of the medically compromised and disabled children whose medical records they were planning to invade. This FOI request information suggests not only that the medical privacy of California’s most vulnerable children–those with standing medical exemptions–was needlessly, recklessly, and irreversibly violated, but that Dean, Pan, and others were involved in astroturfing and conspiracy–leading Dundas to call for a federal investigation.
It also brought to light that no legitimate consumer complaints were established against doctors writing medical exemptions. Nonetheless, Dr. Dean was still appointed as Assistant Director of the California Department of Public Health despite her involvement in this scheme.
These findings, in other words, reinforce the fact that some SB276 proponents have been falsely motivated to support it based upon the erroneous grounds that this very small minority of medically fragile children have been granted “fradulent” exemptions, such that policing of exemptions was in order. Doctors desperate to climb the political ladder acted in direct violation of FERPA and HIPAA, with the Medical Board of California acting as puppets of pharma.
As articulated by California freedom fighter Samantha Lynn, “If SB276 passes, it will be under verbally false pretenses and conspiracy which speaks volumesabout just how low corrupt politicians, public health authorities, and pharmaceutical companies will go to obfuscate justice and to breach the doctor-patient relationship in favor of vaccinating every last person in this country no matter the cost”.
Not only did their passage violate the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, interjecting a state review board into the health destiny of the child, but it rendered physicians writing medical exemptions the object of intense scrutiny, making obtaining a new medical exemption virtually impossible.
With the spotlight on doctors who write more than 5 exemptions in one year, obtaining exemptions will be exceedingly difficult. In one experiment, a group of parents called 882 doctors to explore the ease of acquiring a medical exemption for a case of previous anaphylaxis to prior vaccination, and every last doctor turned down the request.
The Deafening Silence of Allies
Perhaps most deafening was not the character assassination to which advocates for body autonomy, informed consent, and medical freedom were subject, but the deafening silence of closeted allies, who are too afraid to risk their personal safety, bottom line, or public backlash to speak out against what is sure to usher in medical tyranny of epic proportions, especially with the introduction of bills like HR2527, or the “Vaccinate All Children Act of 2019”.
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends”
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
And so we ask, where were you, believe-women proponents? Does the advocacy for taking women at their word stop at vaccine injury?
Where were you, pro-lifers? Why overlook the fact that some vaccines contain cell lines derived from fetal tissues harvested from elective abortions?
Where were you, my-body-my-choicers? Does this sentiment apply in every circumstance except mandatory injectable medical procedures?
Where were you, vegans? Why champion for animal rights but support products with residual debris from animal cell cultures?
Where were you, science-is-real evangelists? Why worship at the altar of evidence based medicine yet elevate a product for which there is no true saline placebo-controlled trial–for which synergistic toxicity testing has never been performed–which has never been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential?
Where were you, gun control activists? Have you forgotten about those who die in the name of herd immunity?
Where were you, low-toxers, organic consumers, better-beauty-industry advocates? Why ignore the fact that documented neurotoxins like mercury and aluminum, that carcinogens like formaldehyde are explicitly included in vaccinations?
Where were you, functional medicine doctors, who privately object to the fact that total vaccine doses have increased from 5 in 1962 to 72 in 2019, yet you won’t publicly take a stand for fear of alienation from allopathy.
Where were you, critical thinkers? If vaccines are safe and effective why has NVICP paid out over 4 billion dollars to vaccine-injured families?
Where were you, free thinkers? Why defend a product that is legally exempt from liability?
Where are you, stalwart champions of first amendment rights?Does freedom of expression apply in all cases except when it comes to crusaders for informed consent?
Check your hypocrisy.
Regardless of where you fall in the partisan divide, you will be affected by this issue, one of the defining issues of our time.
Now is not the time to sit silently on the sidelines or to lurk in the shadows, observing from a safe distance.
Those mothers arrested in peaceful protest at the capitol were fighting for your children, too.
The Future of California
The passage of these bills is nothing short of a nuclear bomb in the political landscape of California and will inevitably elicit a domino effect in surrounding states, as what happens there will set a precedent.
It will usher in countless technical lawsuits, as SB276 and its trailer bill violate basic human rights, which will lead advocates, citizens, and physicians to sue the state for trespassing upon HIPAA and the Final Conscience Rule. Liability lawsuits will also ensue, including class actions, brought forth by individuals who have suffered irreparable harm at the hands of vaccination.
The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act rendered vaccine manufacturers immune from criminal liability, instead establishing a dedicated vaccine court to be funded by a $0.75 cent tax on every vaccine administered (through which over $4.2 billion has been paid out since 1989 for vaccine injuries and deaths as part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, with a cap of $250,000 per vaccine injury, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration).
Individuals highly educated on the shortcomings of vaccine safety studies and on the corrupt misconduct that has granted vaccine companies legal immunity (remember, vaccine manufacturers are presently in court for bribing doctors and lying about vaccine safety) will set their sights on state accountability, transplanting the burden of criminality to the state.
It could likewise lead to mass exodus from the state, as articulated by California freedom fighter Danielle, “The vast majority who oppose SB276 are educated, of substantial means, and make significant contributions to the state’s economy. Say bye, bye to tax revenue”. As stated at a press conference yesterday by RFK Jr.,
“We are going to sue them in the state courts. We are going to sue them in the federal courts. We are going to sue them in the appellate courts. And if we need to, we are going to sue them in the Supreme Court…Don’t complain, don’t whine, don’t cry, organize…We are an insurgency. They cannot stop us now. We are not going to go away.”
– Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
We Can No Longer Turn a Blind Eye
What happens in California won’t stay in California, but it will precipitate a domino effect and tide of medical tyranny across the nation as other states fall in line.
This is a defining moment in time, where we will either be remembered for turning a blind eye or for standing up and fighting for what’s ethical, moral, and right.
By observing idly by in the sidelines, we are complicit to a gross violation of our first amendment rights, our personal liberties, and our medical freedoms.
By claiming to have no dog in the fight, we are ignoring the systematic dismantling of our rights that is a byproduct of a multibillion dollar industry–which will profiteer not only off of childhood vaccine mandates but upon the compulsory adult mandates which will inevitably be next in the pipeline.
By being quick to yell “shame” and “how could they” when it comes to historical atrocities yet plugging our ears and putting our heads in the sand when it comes to this modern day epidemic of suffering, we are relaying a signal of consent.
By failing to speak out that science is never “settled,” that no medical procedure is 100% safe nor effective, and that many of the conditions for which exemptions will be revoked are documented side effects of these pharmaceutical products, per vaccine package inserts–we are doing an immeasurable disservice to our future generations.
Our silence is complicity.
Our silence will speak volumes more than our words ever could.
“Let me ask you one question – Is your money that good? Will it buy you forgiveness? Do you think that it could?
“I think you will find when your death takes its toll all the money you made will never buy back your soul”.
– Bob Dylan
Looking to take a stand for health freedom? Join the newly created non-profit, health freedom organization focused on removing barriers to access and influence your elected officials: Stand for Health Freedom, a 501c4.
Whitaker, J.A., Ovsyannikova, I.G., & Poland, G.A. (2015). Adversomics: a new paradigm for vaccine safety and design. Expert Reviews in Vaccines, 14(7), 935-947.
Ali Le Vere holds dual Bachelor of Science degrees in Human Biology and Psychology, minors in Health Promotion and in Bioethics, Humanities, and Society, and is a Master of Science in Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine candidate. Having contended with chronic illness, her mission is to educate the public about the transformative potential of therapeutic nutrition and to disseminate information on evidence-based, empirically rooted holistic healing modalities. Read more at @empoweredautoimmune on Instagram and atwww.EmpoweredAutoimmune.com: Science-based natural remedies for autoimmune disease, dysautonomia, Lyme disease, and other chronic, inflammatory illnesses.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
_______________
**Comment**
I post information on vaccines for two reasons: 1) it’s important the public becomes educated about anything put inside the human body 2) Lyme/MSIDS patients are particularly vulnerable due to a cytokine cascade of unimaginable proportions. They are inesssence in a perfect storm of events making their bodies weak and defenseless.
Understanding what vaccines do and how they work is imperative for every citizen.
A recent report in the Sacbee reveals that California lawmakers received millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry, with Senator Pan (sponsor of SB 276) top on the list:
Sen. Richard Pan* D-Sacramento $95,150
Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins D-San Diego $90,250
Sen. Ed Hernandez* D-Azusa $67,750
Sen. Holly Mitchell* D-Los Angeles $60,107
Assemblyman Brian Maienschein* R-San Diego $59,879
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León D-Los Angeles $56,648
Sen. Isadore Hall D-Compton $52,400
Sen. Jerry Hill D-San Mateo $50,209
Assemblyman Henry Perea D-Fresno $49,550
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber D-San Diego $47,000
Assemblyman Mike Gatto D-Los Angeles $46,491
Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla* D-Concord $45,600
Sen. Andy Vidak R-Hanford $42,800
Assemblyman Tom Daly D-Anaheim $40,300
Assemblyman Kevin Mullin D-South San Francisco $38,400
The CDC’s 1999 Verstraeten study, which clearly inculpated thimerosal as the principle culprit behind the autism epidemic, was buried for years, and according to Robert F. Kennedy, the data was tortured for four years, removing all the unvaccinated children, to create a sanitized result to placate the public over safety.
This week, we celebrate our annual Mercury Awareness week, during which we ask for your continued financial support to put an end to the use of dental mercury worldwide
Mercola.com will match your donations, dollar for dollar, up to $150,000, given by August 31, 2019
In this interview, Charlie Brown shows how Consumers for Dental Choice is blazing four routes to victory for mercury-free dentistry: (1) the Chicago Declaration and its heated challenge to FDA; (2) the state rulemaking to require amalgam-using dentists to show proof they tell patients about amalgam’s mercury, its risks and its alternatives; (3) the phase-out amalgam campaign in Europe that is now spreading across Africa and Asia; and (4) the upcoming Amalgam phase-out amendment battle at the Minamata Convention on Mercury
To make amalgam a business loser, consumers should patronize mercury-free dentists only. Many dentists have seen the light and abandoned amalgam; it’s time for the others to feel the heat
Dr. Mercola raises his match by 20% this year. He asks both health professionals and consumers to consider doing the same!
In this interview, Charlie Brown, former state attorney general of West Virginia and executive director of Consumers for Dental Choice, provides us with an update to the global mercury-free dentistry campaign you’ve so generously helped us support through the past nine years.
We are now incredibly close to the ultimate finish line, thanks to Brown’s persistent and dedicated efforts and your unrelenting financial support. I want to extend a personal thank you to all who have contributed to this mission in the past, and are considering doing so now.
Brown has made it his life’s mission to remove mercury from dentistry across the world, which will also put an end to a large portion of mercury outflow into our environment. This week, we celebrate our annual Mercury Awareness week, during which we ask for your continued financial support to put an end to the use of this pernicious neurotoxin.
“The campaign for mercury-free dentistry has real wins, thanks to the grassroots help of Mercola.com readers,” Brown says. “We are toe-to-toe with the American Dental Association (ADA) and its million-dollar lobbyists across the country and around the world. We are advancing, and the ADA is retreating. Together, we will throw dental mercury into the hazardous waste bins of history.”
Pressure on US Food and Drug Administration is paying off
Over the past year, Consumers for Dental Choice has made advancements on multiple fronts by implementing a number of landmark strategies. In the U.S., Consumers for Dental Choice has applied pressure on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the likes of which the agency reportedly has never seen before.
In all, 50 groups, including the Sierra Club, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Greenpeace, signed the Chicago Declaration for Mercury-free Dentistry for America. “That really got FDA’s attention,” Brown says.
When the FDA invited public comment on how it’s doing on its medical devices, 80% of responses — four times that of all other devices combined — were about amalgam.
“People are sick and tired and they made it clear that the No. 1 public interest on medical device regulation is amalgam,” Brown says. “They’re sick and tired of FDA coddling up to the ADA, as it’s done this entire century.
Coming along too is the medical community … the National Medical Association (NMA) and the African-American physicians. They have gotten real interested in this. Their journal published a commentary about how amalgam is unfair to the children of color and other low-income children in this country.
Finally, the trade press is really biting at the heels of FDA. They’re really wanting to know why FDA is still not acting on amalgam. We now have information that FDA is going to move [on this issue].”
While it’s still too early for Brown to give specifics on what the FDA is planning to do, when available, I will bring him back for an update. As for the Consumers for Dental Choice petition to the FDA urging the agency to follow in Europe’s footsteps and eliminate dental mercury for pregnant women and children, more than 48,000 signatures have been received and delivered.
“The European Union, more than a year ago, ended amalgam for children under 15, and for pregnant and breastfeeding women. They required each member state — and there are 28 countries in the EU as of right now — to come up with a plan to go further.
We are saying to FDA, ‘Why are you lagging so far behind Europe? Why won’t you pay attention to the very treaty that the United States not only signed but was the first country in the world to ratify?’
As I said, the heat is building. We think we’re going to move, but they still have been way too close to the pro-mercury dentists. There’s no question. That’s the ADA. The ADA, however, doesn’t have the same clout they used to have because its own members are walking away.
Its own members are saying, ‘Why should I use amalgam just because you want me to? I don’t want to. My patients don’t want to. I don’t want to get people in my office sick.’”
Making amalgam a business loser is a winning strategy
This is undoubtedly a direct response to people following the advice given by Consumers for Dental Choice — the advice to not frequent any dentist who still uses mercury amalgam on ANY of his or her patients, even if it’s not you. By patients abandoning mercury-based dentists, more and more have recognized the folly of sticking with the ADA’s recommendation to keep using it.
“Basically, we are making amalgam into a business loser,” Brown says. We still have a way to go though, to get government-based dentists to follow suit and to get all insurance plans to cover mercury-free dentistry across the board, and not just in some instances.
Fortunately, as the dental amalgam market continues to shrink, amalgam manufacturers are also starting to follow the money and transition into making alternative filling materials instead.
“By making amalgam a business loser for the dentist and a business loser for the manufacturers, we are pursuing a success route,” Brown says. “We want FDA to change. But if FDA doesn’t change, we have a way to win regardless.”
Battleground Maine
In the U.S., Consumers for Dental Choice is also taking on Maine’s Dental Board. After filing a complaint, the board has agreed to create legislation requiring dentists to have informed consent before they can use mercury amalgam on a patient. Brown explains:
“Maine is our battleground state now … I’m in my element. I’ve been challenging dental boards for a long time. Years ago, we got rid of the gag rule. We won factsheet laws. We won disclosures. The Maine Dental Board is ignoring its duty to enforce the law on disclosure.
We have filed our petition, our protest, to the Maine Dental Board. They, in turn, have agreed to write a regulation, which will require the pro-mercury dentists to provide proof that they told the patients amalgam has problems … If they don’t do it, there’s going to be a discipline action against the amalgam-using dentists.”
In short, dentists using amalgam in Maine will be required to present patients with a factsheet detailing in clear language the adverse health effects of amalgam, and information on available alternatives.
Once given this information, patients are unlikely to choose amalgam, given the choice. It will undoubtedly also encourage more dentists to go mercury-free, as they have to admit, with documentation, that they’re putting toxic material into your mouth.
“When I started in this, the dental boards were prosecuting mercury-free dentists. Now we’ve turned the tables and said, ‘You’ve got to prosecute the pro-mercury dentists because they’re not following the law.’ We think with this success in Maine, we’re on the way.
They’re writing a rule. We’ve got a battle ahead this fall in 2019. It will be a prototype for other states. We’re going to prepare a kit for other states. If you want to get active in your state, you, the consumer, you, the dentist, you, the health professional, write me at Charlie@ToxicTeeth.org.
Write me, and I will work with you to get you the material so that in your state, you can parallel what we’re accomplishing in the state of Maine, our model state …
The good news is that the director of health, who wrote and approved that factsheet, her sister is now the governor of Maine. So, we think we’ve got support all the way to the top in Maine to get this thing done.”
Global progress
In addition to the success in the EU, Consumers for Dental Choice is also making great progress in the effort to eliminate dental mercury in Nigeria, Mauritius, Tanzania, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India.
“[The U.S.] Pentagon says they can’t afford the switch. They’re giving mercury fillings. The richest agency in the world — I’m sure — is not giving mercury-free dentistry to its soldiers and sailors, but Bangladesh is. India is.
India has the third biggest army in the world. Bangladesh is one of the poorer countries in the world. Yet no one in the Bangladesh Armed Forces gets amalgam. No one in their family gets it. They’ve gone completely mercury-free. Well, if Bangladesh can end using amalgam in their armed forces, so can the Pentagon,” Brown says.
Consumers for Dental Choice and its international allies were also instrumental in getting dental amalgam included in the Minamata Convention, which calls for significant reductions in mercury pollution from multiple sources.
“Things come to a head this November 2019,” Brown says. “During the last week of November, the governments from every country in the world will again convene. There are well over 140 countries to sign this Convention. Over 100 have ratified it. The United States was the first to ratify.
We will bring a team of people from the Americas, from the island states, from Africa, Asia and Europe — our dentists, engineers, lawyers, journalists and environmental leaders …
The governments, starting in Africa with the country of Gabon, and then a number of other countries, have proposed an amendment to the Minamata Convention: the amalgam amendment. It would phase out amalgam for children in two years, and phase it out for everybody else on a date that people would agree on.
That will be debated this November. We are mounting a full-fledged campaign. We’ve been asked by the African governments to lead civil society — lead the organizing from the outside while they work the inside and work the government.”
Much at stake in November
In the summer of 2019, four EU nations — Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland and Slovakia — followed in Sweden’s footsteps and phased out amalgam for all patients as of a specific date. During the November debate, Consumers for Dental Choice will fight to get all nations to agree to a complete phase-out.
“That’s going to be what they call the Third Conference of the Parties. This again has come, Dr. Mercola, because you dug in with us way back in 2011. You helped us put together this worldwide organization. You matched funds. You’re matching them again.
You’re matching them more than you ever have: $150,000. We hope to raise $150,000 dollars, which we’ll double with your funds to $300,000. We use it effectively. We use it efficiently …
Our staff size is the same as it was in 2011, when we started. Our money goes to the field. It went to the [creation of the] Chicago Declaration. It went to the Maine team that we organized to get front and center in our model state. It goes to some of the best environmental leaders I can imagine in Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America. We have founded centers and intermediaries.
There’s the Latin-American Center for Environmental Health in Montevideo, the Asian Center for Environmental Health in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the African Center for Environmental Health in Abidjan, Ivory Coast …
The European Center for Environmental Medicine in Berlin … These are headed by talented people. They run the campaigns for us … We’re pretty darn good at organizing. If people choose to donate funds to us, I think our track record is pretty clear. We get things done …
One of the priorities this November is bringing our team to Geneva and winning at the table and getting the countries to agree, yes, it’s time to set an end date for this plague, this horrible mistake of putting mercury in the mouth. Now, here comes the world’s chance to correct that mistake.”
Please consider making a donation to Consumers for Dental Choice right now, and I will match your gift dollar for dollar, up to $150,000. Mercury is difficult to get rid of once it’s in your body.
Clearly, preventing exposure is the best strategy, and dental amalgams is one of the biggest contributors to mercury toxicity. By donating to this cause, you can help prevent the poisoning of literally billions of people around the world. You’ll also help protect our global environment from mercury pollution, a significant source of which is mercury-based dentists. As noted by Brown:
“The symbol of the Minamata Convention was the fish, because we all agreed we don’t want mercury in the fish that children eat. It causes permanent brain damage to them. That mercury came from many sources. One of the major sources was amalgam.
You can’t tell where that mercury came from, but everybody agreed we’ve got to work on all major sources. That’s how we got amalgam [included] as an environmental issue. It was the right strategy to start the beginning of the end of amalgam.”
Future projections
June 3, 2020, the European Commission will decide whether to recommend the phasing out of amalgam for all. Brown believes they will. After all, several European countries have already done it. Other nations are down to between 1% and 4% use. Similarly, Zambia has expressed willingness to phase out amalgam by 2021.
“We’re seeing that in one country after another that I visit,” Brown says. “For the Minamata Convention itself, we have the phase-down requirement. We are trying to shift that to phase-out. We will make a huge effort at that. This November, we hope to succeed.
If we don’t succeed, they will meet again in two years. Our chance to get the victory is 2019. Failing that, we’ll take another turn at that in 2021. By then, I believe we will win … We are very near the finish line. Again, I urge people to stay with us, because we can put this mercury into the hazardous waste bins of history.”
If you’re watching this, I encourage you to participate in this annual donation drive, and make a donation — large or small — to this worthy cause. Remember, I will match donation dollar for dollar, so it’s a win-win for everyone.
I raised my match 20% this year, from $125,000 to $150,000. Please consider doing the same, and raising your gift, at whatever level you give, by 20% too.
As I said before, Brown runs a really lean, mean organization. He doesn’t waste a cent. Your donations — as history has proven — will be used wisely, judiciously, frugally yet effectively, to end the use of mercury through legislative capacity within the next couple of years in several nations, and the entire world within 10. It’s a great goal, and I hope you will decide to play a part in this historical effort.
Dr. Mercola will match your gift for mercury-free dentistry
On August 25 through August 31, we launch Mercury-Free Dentistry Week. Mercury is an incredibly potent neurotoxin; it doesn’t take much to cause serious damage because it’s an absolute poison, it should never be used in dentistry — which is why I partner with Consumers for Dental Choice to get it banned from the planet.
I am so passionate on this cause that I am raising my match cap by 20%! Instead of matching $125,000, I will match up to $150,000 for all donations during Mercury-Free Dentistry Awareness Week. When it comes to mercury-free dentistry, I am proud to put my money where my mouth is!
The sole mission of Consumers for Dental Choice and of its leader Charlie Brown (pictured with me above) is to end the use of mercury fillings. This nonprofit group busts down one barrier after another to shift an entire medical profession from reliance on mercury fillings to foreswearing mercury fillings — spurred forward by a massive shift in consumer demand and key changes in government policies. Well on its way to success, this Herculean undertaking must continue — and it will continue if donors like you and I step up together!
Three major accomplishments
Consumers for Dental Choice leads the campaign to transition the world to mercury-free dentistry. Their campaign is not just working — it’s accelerating!
Consumers for Dental Choice’s success at the Minamata Convention treaty talks resulted in a requirement that countries must reduce their amalgam use. Now, many countries want to go even further: they have proposed an amendment to phase OUT amalgam use.
Consumers for Dental Choice’s ongoing European campaign resulted in a ban on amalgam use in children under 15, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers in the EU. This summer four more EU countries — Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland and Slovakia — announced the full phase out of amalgam use on a timetable!
Consumers for Dental Choice is bringing the momentum of the Minamata Convention on Mercury home, igniting changes here in America:
The Chicago Declaration to End Mercury Use in the Dental Industry (2018), endorsed by more than 50 nonprofit groups including several environmental powerhouses, calls for the end of amalgam for children now, and the general phase-out with time-limited exceptions by 2020.
Uniting grassroots activism with mercury-free dentists, Consumers for Dental Choice is building the heat on the Food and Drug Administration. Almost 50,000 people signed the Consumers for Dental Choices petition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration demanding the end of amalgam use in children. And more than 80% of all comments that flooded to FDA in response to its request for patient preference information in medical devices focused on amalgam. See a recent Op-Ed by Charlie.
Via its campaign against the state dental boards, Consumers for Dental Choice freed up mercury-free dentists to advertise, advocate and advise mercury-free dentistry. This summer, putting the Maine dental board under fire for disregarding its duty to implement the fact sheet law, Consumers for Dental Choice took legal action to compel the board to enforce the law.
How you can help the campaign for mercury-free dentistry
Consumers for Dental Choice and its team have made amazing progress toward mercury-free dentistry. But there’s still hard work ahead as Consumers for Dental Choice is breaking barriers that limit consumer access to mercury-free dentistry, forcing federal and state government agencies to be accountable, and mobilizing synergistic campaigns around the world.
Please consider making a generous donation. If you donate between August 25 and August 31, 2019, I will match your gift dollar for dollar! This year, I am putting up the highest match amount I ever have tor this cause: $150,000.
To succeed in the battle against the FDA, they need to reach this goal — please push the “DONATE TODAY” button below. Or if you prefer, you may mail your donation to: Consumers for Dental Choice, 316 F Street N.E., Suite 210, Washington DC, 20002
All donations made from August 25 to August 31, 2019, are matched by Dr. Mercola (up to a cap of $150,000).
Americans Can Handle an Open Discussion on Vaccines—RFK, Jr. Responds to Criticism from His Family
CHD NOTE: In early May 2019, Politico Magazine published an article written by three of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s relatives, criticizing his advocacy for safe vaccines. After numerous requests, Politico magazine has refused to publish his response.
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Three of my Kennedy relatives recently published an article criticizing my advocacy for safe vaccines. Our contentious family dispute highlights the fierce national donnybrook over vaccinations that has divided communities and raised doubts about the Democratic Party’s commitment to some of its defining values: abhorrence of censorship, wariness toward excessive corporate power, support for free speech, religious freedom, and personal sovereignty over our bodies, and the rights of citizens (codified in the Nuremberg Code and other treaties to which we are signatories) to decline unwanted government-mandated medical interventions. The debate has also raised questions about the independence of our press and its role as a champion of free speech, and First Amendment rights as a bulwark against overreaching by government and corporations.
I love my family and sympathize with their anxieties when I call out government officials for corruption. The Kennedys have a long, close, and continuing relationship with public health agencies so it is understandably difficult for us to believe that powerful regulators would lie about vaccines. “All issues are simple,” the saw goes, “until you study them.”
Those conflicts motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science.
My skepticism
I’ve arrived at my skepticism after 15 years spent researching and litigating this issue. I have watched financial conflicts and institutional self-interest transform key sectors of our public health bureaucracies into appendages of the very pharmaceutical companies that Congress charged them to regulate.
Multiple investigations by Congress and the HHS Inspector General have consistently found that an overwhelming majority of the FDA officials directly charged with licensing vaccines, and the CDC officials who effectively mandate them for children, have personal financial entanglements with vaccine manufacturers. These public servants are often shareholders in, grant recipients from, and paid consultants to vaccine manufacturers, and, occasionally, patent holders of the very vaccines they vote to approve. Those conflicts motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science.
HHS partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales.
The pharmaceutical industry also enforces policy discipline through agency budgets. FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations. And CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patentsand buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget. Further, Pharma directly funds, populates and controls dozens of CDC programs through the CDC foundation. A British Medical Journal editorial excoriates CDC’s sweetheart relationship with pharma quotes UCLA Professor of Medicine Jerome R. Hoffman “most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry… It is outrageous that industry is apparently allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has potential to cut into profits.”
HHS partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales. HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on. For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties. Furthermore, under the 1986 Act that created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, HHS is the defendant in Vaccine Court and is legally obligated to defend against any claim that a vaccine causes injury. Despite high hurdles for recovery, HHS pays out hundreds of millions of dollars annually (over $4 billion total) to Americans injured by vaccines. Hence, if HHS publishes any study acknowledging that a vaccine causes a harm, claimants can use that study against HHS in Vaccine Court. In June 2009, a high-level HHS official, Tom Insel, killed a $16 million-dollar budget item to study the relationship between vaccines and autism by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Insel argued that petitioners would use these studies against HHS in vaccine court.
Such conflicts are a formula for “agency capture” on steroids. “Instead of a regulator and a regulated industry, we now have a partnership,” says Dr. Michael Carome, a former HHS employee who is now the director of the advocacy group Public Citizen. Carome says that these financial entanglements have tilted HHS “away from a public health perspective to an industry-friendly perspective.”
In 1986, Congress—awash in Pharma money (the pharmaceutical industry is number one for both political contributions and lobbying spending over the past 20 years) enacted a law granting vaccine makers blanket immunity from liability for injuries caused by vaccines. If vaccines were as safe as my family members claim, would we need to give pharmaceutical companies immunity for the injuries they cause? The subsequent gold rush by pharmaceutical companies boosted the number of recommended inoculations from twelve shots of five vaccines in 1986 to 54 shots of 13 vaccines today. A billion-dollar sideline grew into the $50 billion vaccine industry behemoth.
Since vaccines are liability-free—and effectively compulsory to a captive market of 76 million children—there is meager market incentive for companies to make them safe. The public must rely on the moral scruples of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Pfizer. But these companies have a long history of operating recklessly and dishonestly, even with products that they must market to the public and for which they can be sued for injuries. The four companies that make virtually all of the recommended vaccines are all convicted felons. Collectively they have paid over $35 billion since 2009 for defrauding regulators, lying to and bribing government officials and physicians, falsifying science, and leaving a trail of injuries and deaths from products they knew to be dangerous and sold under pretense of safety and efficacy.
Doesn’t it require a kind of cognitive dissonance to believe that vaccines are untainted by the greed, negligence, and corruption that bedevil every other pharmaceutical product?
For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.
No safety testing
Such concerns only deepen when one considers that, besides freedom from liability, vaccine makers enjoy another little-known lucrative loophole; vaccines are the only pharmaceutical or medical products that do not need to be rigorously safety tested. To win an FDA license, companies must safety test virtually every other drug for years in randomized comparisons against an inert placebo. Yet, not a single vaccine currently on the CDC schedule was tested against an inert placebo. Without placebo testing, regulators have no capacity to assess a medicine’s risks. During a January 2018 deposition, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the world’s most influential vaccinologist, acknowledged that researches who try to ascertain vaccine safety without a placebo are in “La La land”. According to Dr. Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, “It is the marketing department, not the science, that is driving the research.” It seems plain wrong to me that Democratic-controlled legislatures across the country are frantically passing coercive mandates for pharmaceutical products for which no one knows the risks.
Furthermore, safety testing, which typically requires five or more years for other medical products, often lasts only a few days with vaccines—not nearly long enough to spot cancers or chronic conditions like autoimmune disease (e.g., juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis), allergic illnesses (e.g., food allergies, allergic rhinitis, eczema, asthma), or neurological and neurodevelopmental injuries (e.g., ADD, ADHD, narcolepsy, epilepsy, seizure disorders, and autism). Manufacturers’ inserts accompanying every vial of mandated vaccines include warnings about these and over 400 other injuries including many serious immune, neurological, and chronic illnesses for which FDA suspects that vaccines may be the cause. Federal law requires that the package insert for each vaccine include “only those adverse events for which there is some basis to believe that there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.”
Many of these illnesses became epidemic in American children after 1986, coterminous with the exploding vaccine schedule. For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule. Evidence including HHS’s own surveillance reports, manufacturers’ inserts, and peer-reviewed studies link all of these injuries to vaccines. However, the associations are not definitive because CDC has failed to conduct the necessary randomized studies to prove or disprove causation.
HHS has directed the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) to oversee the CDC’s vaccine safety science. IOM has repeatedly rebuked the agency for failing to study whether vaccines are causing these epidemics. In my experience, vaccine proponents rarely cite specific peer-reviewed studies to support their assertions that all vaccines are safe, relying instead on appeals to authority; CDC, FDA, WHO, or the AAP. My relatives, for example, argue that vaccines are safe because WHO, HHS, CDC, and FDA say so. But HHS designated the IOM as the ultimate arbiter of vaccine safety. And IOM says that the existing scientific literature does not support these claims. Despite requests by the IOM, CDC has steadfastly refused to perform safety studies.
In total, three IOM reports (1991, 1994, and 2011/2012) investigated 231 adverse events associated with vaccines. For 34 conditions, IOM found that the evidence supported a causal connection between the vaccine and the adverse event. But for 184 adverse events, fully 80% of the conditions reviewed, the IOM found that HHS’s evidence was inadequate to accept or reject vaccine causation. How can our public health officials claim safety when there is no follow-up research on reported adverse events?
… the IOM [Institute of Medicine now the National Academy of Medicine] study and the follow-up HHS study in 2014 both say that CDC has never performed a study to support CDC’s claim that DTaP does not cause autism.
Autism has grown from about 1 in 2,500 prior to 1986 to one in 36 among vaccine generation children today. Why are we content with the CDC’s claim that the exponential explosion of autism is a mystery? CDC spares no expense systematically tracking the source of 800 measles cases. But when asked about the cataclysmic epidemic of upwards of 68,000 new autism cases annually, CDC shrugs. Why are we not demanding answers? “CDC is paralyzed right now when it comes to anything to do with autism,” explains former senior vaccine safety scientist Dr. William Thompson, who is still a CDC employee. Thompson told Congressman Bill Posey under oath that CDC bigwigs ordered him to destroy data that showed a link between autism and vaccines and to publish a fraudulent study dismissing the link. Today, he is remorseful, “When I see a family with a child with autism, I feel great shame because I have been part of the problem.”
… there are a hundredfold more adverse vaccine events than are reported.
We are killing children
HHS has also ignored its statutory obligations to study vaccine injuries and improve vaccine safety. In 1986, Congress—recognizing that drug companies no longer had any incentive to make vaccines safe—ordered HHS to study vaccine injuries, work to improve vaccine safety, and report to Congress on its progress every two years. A year ago, I brought a lawsuit that forced HHS to admit that in 36 years it had never performed any of those critical studies.
Post-licensure vaccine safety surveillance is also in shambles. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), to which doctors and patients may voluntarily report adverse vaccine events, received 58,381 reports in 2018, including 412 deaths, 1,237 permanent disabilities, and 4,217 hospitalizations. An HHS-funded review of VAERS concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” to VAERS. This suggests that there are a hundredfold more adverse vaccine events than are reported. The CDC has nonetheless refused to mandate or automate VAERS reporting.
Dr. Aaby was one of five co-authors of a 2017 study of the diphtheria tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, the most widely used vaccine on earth, which found that children who received DTP had ten times the risk of dying compared to DTP-unvaccinated children.
On March 9, 2019, Dr. Peter Aaby issued a scathing rebuke to the world’s public health agencies for continuing to allow pharmaceutical companies to sell vaccines without proper safety testing. Dr. Aaby, who has authored over 300 peer-reviewed studies, is one of world’s foremost authorities on WHO’s African vaccine program and the winner of Denmark’s highest honor for health care research. Dr. Aaby was one of five co-authors of a 2017 study of the diphtheria tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, the most widely used vaccine on earth, which found that children who received DTP had ten times the risk of dying compared to DTP-unvaccinated children. For thirty years, doctors, including Aaby, never noticed the danger because vaccinated children were succumbing to illnesses and infections apparently unrelated to the vaccine. It turns out that while the vaccine protected children from diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, it so badly weakened their immune systems that they were dying in droves from unrelated infections. The researchers concluded: “The DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.” In March, an alarmed Aaby plead for a policy change, “Most of you think we know what our vaccines are doing. But we don’t…. We are killing children.”
The world’s most aggressive vaccine schedule has not given our country the world’s healthiest children. We now rank 35th in overall health outcomes—just behind Costa Rica, making the U.S., by most measures, including infant mortality, the sickest in the developed world. In addition to those 400 chronic diseases and injuries that FDA suspects may be vaccine related, the vaccine generation suffers unprecedented levels of anxiety and depression and behavioral disorders running the gamut from aggression to anorexia. Peer-reviewed animal and human studies have linked all these symptoms to vaccines. The present generation is the first in a century to lose I.Q., having suffered an extraordinary drop of seven points. Researchers concluded that some environmental cause is the trigger. In the U.S., SAT and, more recently, bar exam scores are plummeting. Could these declines be the outcome of injecting virtually every child with multiple doses of two of the world’s most potent neurotoxins—mercury and aluminum—in bolus doses beginning on the day of birth? Shouldn’t we be doing the research to reject this hypothesis? The logical approach to doing so would be to compare health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. For years, public health officials, including the IOM, have urged CDC to conduct such studies.
In 2013, the IOM found that, “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes… between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children…. Furthermore, studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.” In a 2008 interview, former NIH Director Bernadette Healy explained that HHS refuses to perform safety studies out of fear that they will expose dangers, “that would scare the public away” from vaccines. Healy continued, “First of all, I think the public is smarter than that… I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.”
… the absence of press scrutiny leaves industry no incentive to improve vaccine safety.
Media malpractice
The suppression of critical safety science documented by the IOM would not be possible without a mass epidemic of media malpractice. Mainstream and social media outlets which collectively received $9.6 billion in revenues from pharmaceutical companies in 2016 have convinced themselves they are protecting public health by aggressively censoring criticism of these coercively mandated, zero liability, and untested pharmaceutical products. But, the absence of press scrutiny leaves industry no incentive to improve vaccine safety. Muzzling discussions of government corruption and deficient safety science and abolishing vaccine injuries by fiat is not a strategy that will solve the growing chronic disease epidemic.
The children who comprise this badly injured generation are now aging out of schools that needed to build quiet rooms and autism wings, install wobble chairs, hire security guards and hike special ed spending to 25% to accommodate them. They are landing on the social safety net which they threaten to sink. As Democratic lawmakers vote to mandate more vaccines and call for censorship of safety concerns, Democratic Presidential candidates argue about how to fix America’s straining health care system. If we don’t address the chronic disease epidemic, such proposals are like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The good news for Pharma is that many of these children have lifelong dependencies on blockbuster products like Adderall, Epi-Pens, asthma inhalers, and diabetes, arthritis, and anti-seizure meds made by the same companies that made the vaccines.
My uncle and my father argued that in a free and open society, the response to difficult questions should never be to shut down debate.
My belief that all or some of these injuries might be vaccine related has been the catalyst that wrenched so much of my focus away from the environmental and energy work that I love, and prompted me to become an advocate for vaccine safety. I have sacrificed friendships, income, credibility, and family relationships in an often-lonely campaign to force these companies to perform the tests that will definitively answer these questions.
People will vaccinate when they have confidence in regulators and industry. When public confidence fails, coercion and censorship became the final options. Silencing critics and deploying police powers to force untested medicines upon an unwilling public is not an optimal strategy in a democracy.
My uncle and my father argued that in a free and open society, the response to difficult questions should never be to shut down debate. What we need is science, not censorship. I am not anti-vax. I am pro-safety and pro-science. I want robust, transparent safety studies and independent regulators. These do not seem like the kind of radical demands that should divide our party or our families. As Americans and Kennedys, we ought to be able to have a civil, science-based debate about these legitimate concerns.
Former Merck Scientist Explains Why He Doesn’t Vaccinate His Children Due to Lack of Vaccine Safety Studies
by Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News
Del Bigtree, producer of the film VAXXED, and host of the weekly show HighWire, interviewed Jorge Araujo, a scientist who worked for the pharmaceutical company Merck as a lead supervisor on vaccine sterile quality this week.
Araujo’s wife is a nurse, and they didn’t even question the science behind vaccines until they were expecting their first child, when Araujo’s wife began asking him questions about vaccines.
Araujo relates that as he began to ask questions about vaccine efficacy and safety, the answers were not there. His research showed him that the robust science and quality controls present in regular drug manufacturing did not seem to be present with vaccine manufacturing.
So he and his wife decided not to vaccinate their children, and today they are all “super healthy.”
Araujo states that he is not alone in his skepticism regarding the lack of science and quality controls for vaccine manufacture, and that other scientists he knows who worked for Merck are also deciding not to vaccinate their children.
Jorge Araujo is friends with Nico LaHood, the criminal District Attorney in San Antonio, Texas, who was also interviewd by Del Bigtree on his HighWire show.
LaHood and his wife have one child on the autism spectrum, and he gave an interview with the VAXXED film crew back in 2016, where he stated:
So what I do, is I follow evidence. I am an empirical data guy.
I am here to tell you that vaccines can and do cause autism.
Brain Injured Girl in Virginia Diagnosed With ADEM After Flu Shot
by TVR Staff
Published July 31, 2019
In 2016, 14-month-old Kynslee Mullins of Spotsylvania County, Virginia was a healthy toddler who was just learning to walk and talk. The child’s health began to deteriorate shortly after receiving the influenza vaccine. One morning, Kynslee awakened “without the use of her entire body,” says her mother, Mary.1
Now nearly four and a half years old, Kynslee is reportedly unable to “sit up or hold up her head, roll over or crawl.” The child is “fed through a tube in her stomach, but spits up often and has so much trouble swallowing that choking is a constant concern.”1
According to a recent article in The Free Lance–Star, the “presumptive diagnosis” of what may have caused Kynsee’s condition is a rare neurological disorder known as Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM).1
The U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) describes ADEM as a “brief but widespread attack of inflammation in the brain and spinal cord that damages myelin–the protective covering of nerve fibers” and it says that ADEM “often follows viral or bacterial infections, or less often, vaccination for measles, mumps, or rubella.”12
The article in The Free Lance–Star reports that Kynslee’s parents believe that the “flu shot caused the damage.” It notes that the parents do not have “medical reports that connect [the flu shot] to their daughter’s condition.” However, this may be because, according to Kynslee’s father, Dan,
“doctors and nurses typically stop taking notes about Kynslee’s medical history when he mentions the flu shot.”1
The article in The Free Lance–Star quoted Mr. Mullins as saying, “We did it without even knowing this was a possibility. And everybody should know this is a possibility.”1
On Sept. 12, 2018, The Vaccine Reaction reported on the case of 14-year-old Christopher Bunch of Moline, Illinois who died of ADEM on Aug. 14, 2018, three weeks after getting the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine Gardasil. ADEM is a reported side effect of Gardasil. It is listed in the Gardasil package insert.3
The development of ADEM has long been associated with infections and vaccinations.45