Home > Uncategorized > Newspaper Official Ignores Vaccine Risks

Newspaper Official Ignores Vaccine Risks

A recent editorial in my local paper recommended that its subscribers get the flu shots being pushed by Washington.  Given that this paper is, in this writer’s view, similar to the Fox News Channel in much of its reporting (fair and balanced), I was displeased to see it toe the line the feds, Big Pharma and county and state health departments are taking.  As such, I do what I do fairly often when the paper advocates something I oppose (and amazingly it isn’t too often – unlike the vast majority of newspapers in America, it endorsed McCain for president instead of Obama last fall) and that is write the editorial board (or the reporter) on its position.  And so I did here.

Only one of the 6 members of the board, Doug Ross, took it upon himself to write back (he’s usually the only one who does and though usually brief, he is always polite and professional).  Below is what I originally wrote to the board with Doug’s response and my subsequent reply which has not yet garnered a second response from him.

(I am editing some of my original letter, Doug’s response and my subsequent response.  The edits are not relevant to the content – some of it pertained to the paper’s position on the Olympics, which I also disagreed with.)

Here’s my original letter, again with the irrelevant portions edited out:


Now I want to move onto a more urgent matter and that is your editorial urging health care workers and Hoosiers to get the swine flu and regular flu shot. This is so outrageous, especially after I sent your reporter Sarah Tompkins, who has been covering this issue (Nedd’s note to my readers – here and here are her articles on it), extensive links to the dangers associated with those who take the shot.  This is so dangerous that as far as I’m concerned, the paper, by virtue of its editorial, is willing to put people’s health and even lives in jeopardy by its promotion of this shot.  Putting it mildly, this is journalistic malpractice being committed by Times staff and I don’t say that lightly.  Hear me out.

I appreciate the paper posting my letter to the editor but apparently no one at the Times bothered to investigate the research I quoted in my piece.

As reported by the British Medical Journal, roughly half the doctors in the UK and half the doctors and nurses in Hong Kong are refusing to take the shot.  An Australian group is warning against taking it. Reasons for doing so include insufficient testing, insufficient proof of the swine flu being deadly (no worse than a bad cold as reported by some), insufficient numbers of people affected by it and the many side effects associated with it.

Here’s a link to one article – http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/aug26_1/b3461.

Many credible people point out that even those who get the swine flu end up building a new and natural immunity to the illness so it won’t occur again.  Those who get the shot end up being at more risk of getting it than those who don’t.

Are you aware that the New York Nurses Association oppose the mandatory vaccination and are fighting the state on it in court?  Is it really safe?  What about the ingredients in the vaccine?  Are the pharmaceutical companies financially benefiting from governments at the expense of its citizens who may be the guinea pigs from receiving such injections? Why is it that some doctors are speaking out against the shot while the CDC, Health & Human Services Dept. in DC and numerous state health boards calling H1N1 safe?  Why have you said nothing about informed consent?  You’re doing a disservice to your readership by your support of the vaccine without considerations for their health.

I would check out sites like MaryTocco.com (she’s coming to Schererville a week from Saturday) and theflucase.com.  Google Jane Burgermeister to read of this Austrian journalist’s findings on the swine flu vaccine.  She is charging the federal government, the WHO and UN with criminal attempts of world mass murder.  While I think there is some healthy skepticism on the part of the readers at Jane’s site, it would be utter madness to dismiss everything linked there.  There are links to mainstream websites as well as ones that are viewed by some (like me) as questionable.

Perhaps you should read a document from the White House as to what may lie aheadhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/PCAST_H1N1_Report.pdf.  You should note the name John Holdren on page 3, Resident Obama’s science guy who advocated poisoning water system in the name of birth control.  Check it out – http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.  The writer is a so-called pro-choice guy but he has read Holdren’s stuff, quotes in his piece and makes it clear that this guy’s views should frighten any sane American.

Look at Obama: pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-infanticide; Kathy Sebelius, Health & Human Services Secretary – pro-abortion, close friend of one of America’s worst (now deceased) abortionists (George Tiller); John Holdren – see above; Cass Sunstein, Regulatory czar, has no problem cloning infant children

And you don’t think that, from reading the White House report and all of Obama’s pro-death appointments, that this swine flu shot might not be used on the American people and maim and even kill them?  Maybe it seems far fetched but when you put all the pieces together, I wouldn’t rule it out.  I am frightened by this scenario. This administration wants us dead.  And I’m very rational in saying it.

And I have just scratched the surface.

You have an obligation to report to your readers the facts.  To do so is a gross injustice.

So please tell me why you aren’t telling the other side of the swine flu vaccine.  Are Obama and his thugs threatening you in some manner if you tell the truth?  I really want to know and so should the public.  If they are intimidating you in some capacity, you have an obligation to tell your readers.  They pay your salaries.  They have a right to know.

Your competitor is the Post-Tribune.  You know what tribune means?  It means a defender of the rights of the people.  Your paper may not be named “Tribune” but the function of your paper should be just that.  You should be skeptical of the government (like you are on a number of fronts, such as the city of Gary) and speak out to defend your readers when stuff emanates that is not factual.  You have no business urging anyone to get a flu or swine flu shot in the face of the medical dangers associated with it.

I have an autistic child, thanks to vaccinations he received at 3½ years of age.  The mercury in his system has made him to be who he is.  And it has been miserable living with him for the last 10 years.  For his sake, if nothing else, you need to speak out and at least provide a modicum of information as to the potentially risky nature of these shots.  If you don’t do so, I will cancel my subscription.  It’s one thing to editorialize and take a position based on political views. It’s quite another when the position you take is contrary to sound medicine but in the favor of the federal government whose position is potentially lethal.  I would not trust Big Pharma nor Resident Obama with my life.  If you want to, that’s your business.  But I don’t. So cover BOTH sides of the vaccine debate and let the people decide, fair enough?  Who knows, you might save a life from sickness or God forbid much worse.

Here’s Doug’s response, again with the irrelevant portions edited out:

Thank you for your note about the Olympics and the flu vaccine. Obviously, we disagree on these two issues.

On the vaccination issue, I’m very sorry to hear about your child. It is unfortunate that any child must suffer for any reason. Despite the risks, however, we believe vaccinations have provided an overall improvement to public health. Vaccinations are among the reasons people tend to live longer.

Here’s my subsequent reply from this morning:

Thank you, Doug, for your reply.  Obviously the point on the Olympics is moot now.  But I stand by what I said about the vaccines and frankly, you guys, with all due respect, are willing to ignore all the preponderance of data which suggests how dangerous this vaccine potentially is.  You haven’t cited any sources to back up your claims.  Have you forgotten 1976?  I’m sure you were alive back then as I was.

If health care workers in New York, Washington state and other place, not to mention doctors in Britain, Hong Kong and other places have serious problems with it, how could and any other backers of vaccines on the editorial board continue with their position in favor it?  Are they all that stupid?  I’m not inclined to think so.  I don’t get the impression these people are sacrificing common sense in this serious matter.

As I said in the e-mail, it is journalistic malpractice to continue with the paper’s stance when presented with honest and even rigorous data showing the serious problems with the ingredients in the vaccine (including tissue from aborted babies – doesn’t that trouble you – look it up).

Methinks someone in Obama’s camp is watching what the Times is saying and using thuggish tactics to keep the negative from being posted (albeit you at least are fair in the publishing of the many letters to the editor).

If one comes from the view as I do that God created our bodies and put an immune system in place to ward off ailments (yes, I know about those who were born otherwise but more often than not I believe it was passed on), then to inject something in us essentially states that our bodies when developed are insufficient, an argument I used to agree with but no more.

Just take a look at some of the stories out there of credible sources who are now saying (and documenting) that those who have gotten flu and swine flu shots are more at risk of getting the flu again than those who haven’t had the shot.

And if you don’t want to believe that, how about the Times getting a reporter to do a story on how the Amish are among the healthiest people out there and they never get vaccinated?  They don’t live too terribly far away from here in Northwest Indiana – you see their buggies out there.

As one whose son has ceased from having shots since he was 5 years old (he’s 13 now), he has had two or three years of perfect attendance and only once was he ever out of school for more than a week due to illness. Healthy kids don’t necessarily get shots.  We didn’t have them for the most part until the 1950s.

The lid is gradually being blown off on this and people are slowly but surely figuring it out that their government has been subtly attempting to kill its people and are resisting the shots.  They have an ally in Sheriff Richard Mack in Arizona – http://www.sheriffmack.com.  The government and Big Pharma are doing this for money.  Think about it and research it when you have time.

I haven’t gotten a reply back but since I sent it out earlier today, it’s too soon to expect one.  I imagine I won’t get one but it’s just stunning how you can provide mounds of evidence on this issue and get a weak response like this.  It does make me wonder if the paper’s opinion was “nudged” by Obama and his thugs.  I don’t know.  The other 5 members of the board didn’t respond.

I suppose I could post Doug’s e-mail address here but I’m not sure we can change his mind.  However, I encourage you, my readers, to try this with your paper’s editorial boards and see what you get.  If you get any favorable responses from your paper, please share them here.

And be sure to watch for my next piece – WWJD – and it’s not “What Would Jesus Do”.  Want to know more?  Check back in a couple days or so and find out.  Two hints, though – it will be beyond any piece you probably have read on the Internet and it will cover the vaccine issue.

Stay tuned.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. October 3, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    H1N1 Vaccines and Your Children: The details are in the fine print! http://wp.me/pC1DX-34

    WARNING: Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers or children <6 months of age. References included below from the CDC. Seeing is believing so take a look not only for yourself, but for your family as well. You will not believe what your own eyes tell you!

    What this means to me:

    I've received a surprising amount of heat from my colleagues, support and lot's o support from many, many areas for posting on swine flu vaccine dangers, and I honestly wonder if the professional smack-down will be delivered to me soon from the "powers that be". My twitter account has already been turned off and I can't access it or any of the addresses in there to get the word out. Sadly, given the current standards, statements regarding questions of vaccine safety are viewed by many as quite heretical and even dangerous. Up is down, and right is wrong!

    For me this a question of: Can we as individuals make our own choices in this world? Can I as a man think deeply about an unclear situation (vaccines and H1N1) and choose what I feel is best for me and my family?

    The REALLY big question is where are the studies documenting the safety of vaccines in Healthy Children? Seriously. Where are all of the safety studies of flu vaccines and children? We're going to be vaccinating millions of them and there are legitimate safety concerns. Nobody is promising families that this vaccination program is safe or won't harm their kids. Flu shots = money, not safety. Additionally, none of the patient inserts from the vaccine manufacturers claim the vaccine will prevent us from getting the H1N1 Swine Flu. Parents will be able to read this for themselves and see that there are no claims for either safety or effectiveness in the handout. This is not a conspiracy. Families want and need to know this information.

    I personally do not plan to take the vaccine myself as nobody can promise me that it's safe and won't harm me. Vaccination is a medical intervention performed on a healthy person that has the ability to result in injury or death of that person. I do not want any medicine that could kill me, especially when I'm not sick. How does that make any sense? The flu at least I know is relatively safe and won't permanently damage me.

    The dangers of vaccinations to us, or our children's long-term health and longevity far outweigh any potential benefits touted by the pharmaceutical industry for vaccines. Vaccines often don't work, plus they have very dangerous side-effects. I would at least think twice before getting one.

    Many Physicians opposing swine flu vaccination. Flu shots = money, not safety. Don't believe the hype!

    There is no way that these corporations can assure any one individual of the safety or effectiveness of H1N1 Vaccine. Nor are they doing it. Read the fine print! The evidence comes directly from the manufacturers in their own words (see CDC links below).

    Novartis vaccine http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182242.pdf
    Directly rom the Novartis Patient Handout page 2:
    • Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children less than 4 years of age. (8.1, 8.3, 8.4)
    • Antibody responses to the trivalent seasonal Influenza Virus Vaccine manufactured by Novartis (FLUVIRIN) were lower in the geriatric population

    Sanofi Pasteur Vaccine: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182404.pdf
    Directly from the Sanofi Vaccine Patient Handout page 2:
    Information in this section is based on seasonal trivalent Influenza Virus Vaccine manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. (Fluzone vaccine).
    – Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers or children <6 months of age. (8.1, 8.3, 8.4)
    -Antibody responses to Fluzone vaccine were lower in the geriatric population than in younger adults.

    CSL Biotherapeutics: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182404.pdf
    Directly from the CSL Biotherapeutics Vaccine Patient Handout, page 2:
    Information in this section is based on seasonal trivalent Influenza Virus Vaccine manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. (Fluzone vaccine).
    – Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers or children <6 months of age. (8.1, 8.3, 8.4)
    – Antibody responses to Fluzone vaccine were lower in the geriatric population than in younger adults.

    Medimmune LLC Live Nasal: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182406.pdf
    Directly from the Medimmune Live Nasal Vaccine Patient Handout, page 2
    • Safety and effectiveness of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal have not been studied in pregnant women or nursing mothers. (8.1, 8.3)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: