Association of American Physicians and Surgeons sent Congress a beautiful letter

The vaccine debate is wrought with emotion, opinion, bias, threats and intimidation.  However, I see this debate being a tool that far surpasses the medical issues and goes to the very core of freedom.  In late February the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) wrote a strongly worded letter to congress.  In my view, they nailed the issue and I applaud the beauty, simplicity and directness of the letter. 

source

I think it is a beautiful follow up to my last post where I discuss in detail the principles of authentic consent!  These principles are core to the foundations of freedom and liberty.  They form the roots of our Spiritual authority and power while we are here on Mother Earth.  If we don't figure this out soon, the tyrants will wipe us out with their blindness, lust for power and greed.  Fear is not a good reason to force our will upon others.  Here is the letter that AAPS wrote.  

To:  Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, House Energy and Commerce Committee Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

Re: Statement federal vaccine mandates

Feb. 26, 2019

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) strongly opposes federal interference in medical decisions, including mandated vaccines.  After being fully informed of the risks and benefits of a medical procedure, patients have the right to reject or accept that procedure.  The regulation of medical practice is a state function, not a federal one. Governmental preemption of patients’ or parents’ decisions  about accepting drugs or other medical interventions is a serious  intrusion into individual liberty, autonomy, and parental decisions  about child-rearing.

A public health threat is the rationale for the policy on mandatory vaccines. But how much of a threat is required to justify forcing people to accept government-imposed risks? Regulators may intervene to protect the public against a one-in-one million risk of a threat such as cancer from an involuntary exposure to a toxin, or-one-in 100,000 risk from a voluntary (e.g. occupational) exposure. What is the risk of death, cancer, or crippling complication from a vaccine? There are no rigorous safety studies of sufficient power to rule out a much lower risk of complications, even one in 10,000, for vaccines. Such studies would  require an adequate number of subjects, a long duration (years, not  days), an unvaccinated control group (“placebo” must be truly inactive such as saline, not the adjuvant or  everything-but-the-intended-antigen), and consideration of all adverse health events (including neurodevelopment disorders).

Vaccines are necessarily risky, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme  Court and by Congress. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid some $4 billion in damages, and high hurdles must be surmounted to collect compensation. The damage may be so devastating that most people would prefer restored function to a multimillion-dollar damage award.

The smallpox vaccine is so dangerous that you can’t get it now, despite the weaponization of smallpox. Rabies vaccine is given only after a suspected exposure or to high-risk persons such as veterinarians. The whole-cell pertussis vaccine was withdrawn from the U.S. market, a decade later than from the Japanese market, because of reports of severe permanent brain damage. The acellular vaccine that  replaced it is evidently safer, though somewhat less effective.

The risk: benefit ratio varies with the frequency and severity of disease, vaccine safety, and individual patient factors. These must be evaluated by patient and physician, not imposed by a government agency.

Measles is the much-publicized threat used to push for mandates, and is probably the worst threat among the vaccine-preventable illnesses because it is so highly contagious. There are occasional outbreaks,  generally starting with an infected individual coming from somewhere outside the U.S. The majority, but by no means all the people who catch the measles have not been vaccinated. Almost all make a full recovery, with robust, life-long immunity. The last measles death in the U.S.  occurred in 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC).  Are potential measles complications including death in persons who cannot be vaccinated due to immune deficiency a  justification for revoking the rights of all Americans and establishing a precedent for still greater restrictions on our right to give—or withhold—consent to medical interventions? Clearly not.

Many serious complications have followed MMR vaccination, and are listed in the manufacturers’ package insert, though a causal relationship may not have been proved. According to a 2012 report by the Cochrane Collaboration, “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely  inadequate” (cited by the National Vaccine Information Center).

Mandate advocates often assert a need for a 95% immunization rate to achieve herd immunity. However, Mary Holland and Chase Zachary of NYU  School of Law argue, in the Oregon Law Review, that because complete herd immunity and measles eradication are unachievable, the better goal is for herd effect and disease control. The best outcome would result, they argue, from informed consent, more open communication, and market-based approaches.

Even disregarding adverse vaccine effects, the results of near-universal vaccination have not been completely positive. Measles, when it does occur, is four to five times worse than in pre-vaccination  times, according to Lancet Infectious Diseases,  because of the changed age distribution: more adults, whose  vaccine-based immunity waned, and more infants, who no longer receive passive immunity from their naturally immune mother to protect them during their most vulnerable period.

Measles is a vexing problem, and more complete, forced vaccination will likely not solve it. Better public health measures—earlier  detection, contact tracing, and isolation; a more effective, safer  vaccine; or an effective treatment are all needed. Meanwhile, those who choose not to vaccinate now might do so in an outbreak, or they can be isolated. Immunosuppressed patients might choose isolation in any event  because vaccinated people can also possibly transmit measles even if not sick themselves.

Issues that Congress must consider:  

- Manufacturers are virtually immune from product liability, so the incentive to develop safer products is much diminished. Manufacturers may even refuse to make available a product believed to be safer, such as monovalent measles vaccine in preference to MMR  (measles-mumps-rubella). Consumer refusal is the only incentive to do better.

- There are enormous conflicts of interest involving lucrative relationships with vaccine purveyors.

- Research into possible vaccine adverse effects is being quashed, as is dissent by professionals.

- There are many theoretical mechanisms for adverse effects from vaccines, especially in children with developing brains and immune  systems. Note the devastating effects of Zika or rubella virus on  developing humans, even though adults may have mild or asymptomatic infections. Many vaccines contain live viruses intended to cause a mild infection. Children’s brains are developing rapidly—any interference with the complex developmental symphony could be ruinous.

- Vaccines are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective. Nor are they the only available means to control the spread of disease.

AAPS believes that liberty rights are unalienable. Patients and parents have the right to refuse vaccination, although potentially contagious persons can be restricted in their movements (e.g. as with  Ebola), as needed to protect others against a clear and present danger.  Unvaccinated persons with no exposure to a disease and no evidence of a disease are not a clear or present danger. AAPS represents thousands of physicians in all specialties nationwide. It was founded in 1943 to protect private medicine and the  patient-physician relationship.

Respectfully yours,
Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons 

When I read that letter I smiled and said 'holy shit'.  I love the letter and I'm very grateful that there are some people on this planet with some common sense.  To be VERY CLEAR, I have the right to chose what medical procedures I do to my vessel.  You or any body else has zero right to interfere with the spiritual sovereignty over my vessel!  I also have the right to protect my off spring, especially during critical developmental stages in the development of their vessels.  You or any body else has zero right to interfere with my responsibility to steward over my off spring.  

I love the fact that this letter confronts the greed, influence and power of the industry while confronting congress at the same time.  For all those people who need some external authority to tell them what is right or wrong, perhaps a detailed analysis of this letter may help shake the bias and dogmatic arguments from the debate.  If we ignore the principles of consent, then we might as well surrender and all be slaves to the state.  I refuse.  As such I support key principles outlined in this letter, specifically:

After being fully informed of the risks and benefits of a medical procedure, patients have the right to reject or accept that procedure.

 Governmental preemption of patients’ or parents’ decisions about accepting drugs or other medical interventions is a serious intrusion into individual liberty, autonomy, and parental decisions about child-rearing. 

We have seen this ugly truth even in Alberta where parents are being charged and jailed in the exercise of liberty in their decisions.  

[Is this] "a  justification for revoking the rights of all Americans and establishing a precedent for still greater restrictions on our right to give—or withhold—consent to medical interventions? Clearly not." 

The moment that we surrender our right to choose, no matter what the consequences of those choices are, we surrender our sovereignty as it is rooted in our capacity for consent and the deliberation of whether we have the choice to say 'yes' or 'no'.  No government agency can claim the authority to take away the right to chose.  I don't care who it is or what the consequences are.  In the end, the state should disappear as they continue to make these choices for people and that slippery slope continues to slid down into tyranny.  

If we want to protect ourselves and our children, it requires that parents have the support of their tribes.  That requires that we rebuild our tribes and walk away from the violent, abusive greed of the state and its corporate minions.  Yes, minions is a great term to describe all of these parasites that continue to scare the shit out of people in order for them to surrender to their tyranny.  The minions are willing and able to steal our youth for human trafficking, engaging in genocide at the same time.  The government masters are willing to protect their minions even when they get caught engaging in fraud and other abhorrent behaviours, much to Trudeau's dismay.

We can continue to bicker back and forth about the efficacy of vaccinations or we can focus on the root issue:  Government control of every aspects of our lives and how we surrender to it all.  This is the time in all of recorded history where we face the ultimate question:  Do we consent to their tyranny or do we learn how to govern ourselves?  The consequences of that one choice will either destroy us or liberate us completely.  That one choice is the difference between slavery and freedom.  It is within our own power and authority to stand up and save ourselves along with our youth or condemn them all.  

While these statement may seem sensational, the alternatives are ten fold more!  I get frustrated with the vaccination debate because most people are arguing about the wrong question.  This debate is about the right to chose, freedom and liberty vs slavery. 

I chose self-governance, freedom and liberty.  Anybody wishes to interfere in my right to chose which medical or health care treatments my body receives, will be confronted and I will defend myself from all forms of violence and tyranny.  There is a saying that rings true for me:

Over my dead body!!!