Sent: October 23, 2018 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Vaccinations & Autism, a break-through moment?
There have been numerous studies on immunization and autism. You seem to see a correlation although you have no data even for a correlation. Even if there were a significant correlation it doesn’t prove a cause-effect conclusion. A fact doesn’t change just because you don’t believe it.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
From: Sandra Finley
Sent: October 24, 2018 1:13 PM
I understand what you are saying, Alicia.
In this case, the testimony of the specialists (the doctors who provided the facts) was manipulated, misrepresented, and lied about, by the two Dept of Justice (DOJ, U.S.) lawyers. The lies became the basis for the court decisions that established “There is no link …”.
This is according to the evidence provided in the “Request for an Investigation”, which is worth reading. A proper investigation would establish whether the facts provided to the courts were lies or facts.
The APPENDED elaboration may be helpful. The couple mentioned will be moving to California from Germany, for 3 years (related to their business). They are expecting a baby, their first, in March.
The vaccination schedule in the U.S. is heavier than it is in Germany. It starts on day 1 of arrival on Earth. The parents might, for instance, want the birth to be in Germany, under the German schedule, instead of in the U.S.. If they have information, they have a choice.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Sent: October 24, 2018 3:57 PM
I want “cause-effect” experimental data, not what someone “feels” or “believes”.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
From: Sandra Finley
Sent: October 25, 2018 2:08 PM
The CDC had “cause-effect” experimental data. The data said “There is a link”. The top four scientists in the research were assembled and directed to manipulate the data to get a different outcome. All copies of the original data sets were ordered to be destroyed. One of the scientists did not comply with the order, and later blew the whistle.
So then we come to the whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson.
Thompson is named in the Request for Investigation, the fourth paragraph from the end.
I think it likely he will be subpoenaed and cross-examined (as should happen), if the Investigation happens.
From the Request for Investigation:
Justice Scalia had no idea at that time that the government’s epidemiological judgments were the work of Dr. William Thompson (whistleblower) who has confessed to having committed fraud, Dr. Thorsen who the DOJ subsequently indicted for stealing $1 million of vaccine autism research funds, and Thomas Verstraeten, who has disavowed CDC’s characterization of his own study. At the time the Supreme Court decided this issue, Dr. Thorsen had not yet been indicted, Dr. Thompson had not yet come forward as a whistleblower and the myriad irregularities of the Verstraeten study were still a well-kept secret.
There is a video clip of Thompson in this posting:
Earlier postings about Thompson:
There is important information in this posting – – you can easily verify, for example, that borax is an ingredient in some vaccines. And the news alert from Health Canada to reduce all exposure of children to borax because of its toxicity. But they put it in vaccines.
It is not my intention to change your mind about vaccines.
You present an argument: I want “cause-effect” experimental data, not what someone “feels” or “believes”.
I respect you. I think it is incumbent upon me to respond if I know that the CDC DID carry out large-scale data analysis. Thompson’s subsequent whistle-blowing on the efforts that then went into removing some of the data (one of the tactics), in order to obviate the link between the vaccinations and autism are important.
I do not have more to offer. I think the very best thing that can happen: a transparent, honest Investigation done by competent people.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
As per our conversation.
Martina and Hermann may be interested. I am not saying that I know the answers. I am offering up questions/information they may not be aware of.
It is up to you – – to them, to do your own evaluation.
- Widely known and accepted, you confirmed: the vaccine schedule in the U.S. is different than in other countries (variables such as number of vaccinations received in total, age of infant when vaccinations are started, number of different vaccinations administered at one time, . . . ).
- I mentioned to you the question I had about maturity of immune system, the liver specifically and what I found: 2017-11-02 How long does it take for a newborn’s liver to mature? What are the consequences of a damaged liver? Why do the Americans administer the Hepatitis B vaccine on day 1 of life on this planet?
(the source of the “Hep B on day 1” and so on, is the official vaccination schedule. The links to the sources are provided.)
- The URL below is the document I recommend you read, the Request for an Investigation (fraud and obstruction of justice).
The first reference to the “Vaccine Court” is in the second paragraph. The U.S. has a “Vaccine Court”; its purpose is to deal with vaccine injuries. The rules under which it operates are not the same as in a regular court of law. Every one of the G-7 countries, except Canada, has some kind of legal process for dealing with vaccine injuries.
The Request for an Investigation quickly gets into the role the different rules in their Vaccine Court played. It’s “interesting” – – except that, to my way of thinking, (not intentionally) the different rules enabled the fraud, that culminated in “there is no link . . . “.
The Request for an Investigation is by Robert F Kennedy Jr (as mentioned), and Rolf Hazelhurst (the name I didn’t remember). Hazelhurst’s son, Yates, was vaccine-injured; there are before and after home videos of Yates. Rolf Hazelhurst is an assistant attorney general from Tennessee.
I searched for the above bit of information – – Hazelhurst’s profession – – found it in a document that includes a pretty good description of the Vaccine Court, see APPENDED. It answers your question about who was prosecuting who, and why.
As I say, Martina and Hermann may want to know about the vaccine situation in the U.S.
Also, California passed a law in the last few years, similar to some other U.S. states. I do not know if there are challenges to it, or if it is being circumvented in some ways: children may not attend school, public or private, if they have not been fully vaccinated, according to the State’s Schedule of Vaccinations.
The “Vaccine Court”
If vaccines cause autism, you’d think “vaccine court” would be a great place to find the evidence for it. Compensated claims typically include extensive details about timelines, medical tests, and doctors’ opinions. They read more like case reports in medical journals than legal settlements.
Established through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the original purpose of the vaccine court (officially called the United States Court of Federal Claims special masters) was to quickly and expeditiously pay any claims made by American citizens for vaccine injury. The vaccine court is buried within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and when you petition the vaccine court because of a vaccine injury, you’re actually suing the federal government, and the lawyer representing the government (and therefore opposing your claim) will be a Department of Justice lawyer. Due process in vaccine court is nonexistent. there’s no jury, just a single court-appointed “special master” who hears your case and makes a decision.
Since 1989, when the vaccine court began to operate, these special masters have awarded more than $3.8 billion to vaccine-injured Americans (children and adults).4 Of the total cases filed since the court came into existence in 1998, there have been twelve hundred claims filed for death and eighteen thousand filed for injury. The DTP vaccine is the most common vaccine for claims to be filed against, with MMR in second place. Of the people who file claims with the court, approximately 34 percent end up receiving compensation; 2017 was actually the single biggest year for claims paid, with just over $282 million.
Rolf Hazlehurst, an assistant attorney general from Tennessee, has been an outspoken critic of the vaccine court, particularly since he had to fight his way through it as a claimant on behalf of his son Yates, who he believes developed autism as a result of his vaccinations. In a memorandum to the US Congress in 2013, Rolf Hazlehurst described the court:
Vaccine court is not a court of law. It is an administrative proceeding in which the most basic rules of law do not apply. In vaccine court, the Rules of Discovery, Evidence and Civil Procedure do not apply. There is also no judge or jury. In vaccine court, the American legal system has been replaced by what is known as a special master. A special master is an appointed government attorney.5
Why Does the Vaccine Court Exist?
This may seem like an elementary question, but it’s not. The purpose of the vaccine court is to protect the vaccine program, not to monitor vaccine safety or mete out justice. The year the vaccine court began operating—1989—is important to this story, because that’s also the birth year many point to as the beginning of a meteoric rise in the number of children with autism. Three other potentially monumental things happened in 1989: the hepatitis B vaccine was licensed, the Hib vaccine was licensed, and, for the first time, a second dose of the MMR vaccine was recommended for all American children.
When the vaccine court was established in 1986, there were only three vaccines given in the United States—DTP, polio, and MMR—and vaccination rates hovered between 50 and 60 percent nationally.6 Today, there are eleven vaccines for children, given in multiple doses, with vaccination rates hovering around 90 percent nationally. There is an enormous difference between the market the vaccine court was created to “protect” and the market today. In raw numbers there are nearly four times as many vaccine doses given each year to children than there were in 1986, even though the US population has only grown by 0.3 in that same time period.
Beginning in 1989, the US vaccine schedule quickly morphed from the one the vaccine court was created to support to a far larger schedule with more complexity. This isn’t a coincidence; the vaccine court removed all liability from vaccine makers, greatly altering the risk/reward calculation in their favor.