Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has floated a seismic idea: adding autism to the list of conditions covered by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program, known as VICP, provides a system for families to file claims against vaccine providers in cases in which they experience severe side effects. Kennedy has also suggested broadening the definitions of two serious brain conditions — encephalopathy and encephalitis — so that autism cases could qualify.

Either move, experts warn, would unleash a flood of claims, threatening the program’s financial stability and handing vaccine opponents a powerful new talking point.

Legally, HHS “is required to undergo notice and comment rulemaking to revise the table,” said Richard Hughes, a law firm partner who teaches at George Washington University. The “table” is a list of specific injuries that the U.S. government accepts as presumed to be caused by a vaccine if those injuries occur within a certain time window. If someone can show they meet the criteria, they have a simpler path to securing compensation without having to prove fault. Autism is not in the table because a link between vaccines and autism has been thoroughly debunked.

If autism is added, Hughes explained, the VICP could face “an exorbitant number of claims that would threaten the viability of the program.”

Asked about its possible plans, an HHS spokesperson told CBS News the agency does not comment on future or potential policy decisions.

Carole Johnson, former administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, which oversees VICP, cautioned that the system is already overburdened: “The backlog is not just a function of management, it’s built into the statute itself. That’s important context for any conversation about adding new categories of claims.”

Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California College of the Law-San Francisco, said that any such change would be exploited: “This can, and likely will, be used to cast doubt on vaccines.”

Compensation Without Causation

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was born of crisis. In 1982, “Vaccine Roulette,” a television documentary, aired nationwide, alleging routine childhood shots were causing seizures, brain damage, and even sudden infant death. The program alarmed parents and triggered a surge of lawsuits against vaccine makers.

“That led to a flood of litigation against vaccine makers,” recalled Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and vaccine inventor at the University of Pennsylvania. “I mean, to the point that it drove them out of the business. … By the mid-1980s, there were $3.2 billion worth of lawsuits against these companies.”

Were it not for the VICP, Offit said, “We wouldn’t have vaccines for American children. The companies — it wasn’t worth it for them.”

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created a no-fault system. Families who believed a vaccine caused harm could file a claim; if the injury appeared on the table within a set time frame, compensation was automatic. If not, claimants could present medical evidence. The system had two purposes: provide compensation and protect the vaccine supply.

From the beginning, the table was understood not as a scientific document but as a legal tool.

“It’s a legal document and things can be included for policy reasons even if the causation evidence is weak,” Reiss said. She explained, “The program is designed to be generous, to compensate in cases of doubt.”

But, she said, “autism is not in that category. The science is clear. Adding it would be pure politics.”

This tension — between law, science, and public perception — has defined the program for nearly four decades.

What Expansion Would Mean in Practice

Since 1988, federal data shows more than 25,000 petitions to the VICP have been adjudicated; of those, 12,019 were granted compensation and 13,007 were dismissed. About 60% of compensated cases involved negotiated settlements in which HHS drew no conclusion about the cause. Over the same period, billions of vaccine doses were safely administered to millions of Americans.

Adding autism to the VICP table would change that picture overnight.

Federal estimates suggest up to 48,000 children could qualify immediately under a “profound autism” standard, with potential payouts averaging $2 million per case, at an initial cost of nearly $100 billion, followed by annual totals of about $30 billion a year — dwarfing the current $4 billion trust, a new analysis finds.

“Any case where the symptoms appeared in the past eight years and the parents blame vaccines,” Reiss said. “I don’t know how many that would be. The fund has a surplus of over $4 billion. One seriously disabled child’s care can cost millions, so a significant number, say 100,000 compensations, might exhaust it.”

Furthermore, with only eight special masters handling cases, the system would also be paralyzed by backlogs.

The stakes are not just fiscal. If the fund collapses under the weight of autism claims, vaccine makers may question whether producing vaccines for the U.S. market is worth the risk. That would mirror the crisis of the 1980s, which led to the establishment of the VICP.

Autism and the Courts

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Andrew Wakefield’s now-retracted paper alleging a link between the MMR vaccine and autism fueled a surge of VICP claims. By 2002, the VICP was swamped with petitions alleging vaccines had caused autism. The court consolidated thousands of cases into the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, selecting a handful of test cases to decide them all.

After years of hearings and expert testimony, the conclusion was unequivocal: vaccines do not cause autism. In 2010, the court ruled against petitioners on every theory of causation. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims affirmed, and the Court of Appeals upheld, the decision.

“That precedent is binding,” said Richard Hughes, a vaccine law expert at George Washington University and former VICP legal counsel. “Autism was litigated thoroughly and rejected. That still carries weight in the court today.”

The Ghost of Hannah Poling

Yet, the vaccine-autism debate has never quite faded. In 2008, the government conceded a case involving Hannah Poling, a girl with a rare mitochondrial disorder who developed autism-like symptoms after vaccination. Officials stressed the concession was specific to her condition, not evidence of a general link. But headlines told another story: “Family to Receive $1.5 Million in First-Ever Vaccine Autism Court Award.”

The Poling case fueled years of confusion.

Autism Science Today

The science is clearer than ever. Autism begins early in pregnancy, not in toddlerhood when most vaccines are given.

“Vaccinations … happened around the time families were recognizing symptoms of autism in their children,” said Catherine Lord, a UCLA clinical psychologist and specialist in autism diagnosis. “However, we now know that autism begins much earlier, likely as the fetus develops during pregnancy, so it cannot be an explanation.”

Peter Hotez, a pediatric infectious disease specialist and vaccine scientist at the Baylor College of Medicine who is also the father of a young adult with autism, underscores that point: “The drivers of autism are genetics and, in rare cases, environmental exposures during pregnancy, not vaccines. We’ve been over this ground for decades, and the evidence is overwhelming.”

Sarah Despres, former legal counsel to the secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration and now a consultant to nonprofit organizations on immunization policy, adds that the compensation program itself is often misunderstood.

“The table was originally written as a political document,” she said. “The purpose of the program was to be swift, generous, and fair. … There would be cases that may not be caused by the vaccine but would be compensated if you went through this table injury scheme, where you don’t have to prove causation.”

What’s at risk: Harm from the Diseases Themselves

The stakes are not abstract. Measles, one of the most contagious pathogens on Earth, spreads so efficiently that one infected child can transmit it to 90% of susceptible contacts. Before vaccinations began in the 1960s, measles sickened hundreds of thousands annually in the U.S., killing hundreds and causing thousands of cases of encephalitis and lifelong disability. Complications included pneumonia, brain swelling, and, in rare cases, a fatal degenerative brain disorder called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE, that can strike years later. This year, a school-age child in Los Angeles County died of SSPE after contracting measles in infancy, before being eligible for vaccination.

Mumps was once a near-universal childhood illness. Though often dismissed as mild, it can cause sterility in men, meningitis, and permanent hearing loss. Outbreaks on college campuses, as recently as the 2000s, showed how quickly it can return when vaccination rates slip.

Rubella, also known as German measles, is mild in most children, but can be devastating during pregnancy. Congenital Rubella Syndrome, or CRS, caused waves of tragedy before the development of the vaccine: Thousands of babies each year were born blind, deaf, with heart defects, or with intellectual disabilities. In medical texts, autism itself is listed as one of CRS’ sequelae, or possible consequences — proof that rubella infection, not vaccination, can contribute to developmental disorders.

Measles, mumps, and rubella “are not trivial,” said Walt Orenstein, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s immunization program. “Fever, high fever, is common … and they have frequent complications.”

And yet, as these diseases fade from living memory, a counternarrative has gained traction. On Sept. 29, the nonprofit Physicians for Informed Consent, a group that disputes the scientific consensus on vaccines, announced it had mailed its “Silver Booklet” on vaccine safety to every member of Congress, as well as to President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. The book claims that “vaccines are not proven to be safer than the diseases they intend to prevent,” and calls on federal leaders to punish states that restrict vaccine exemptions. (The booklet isn’t free. The group sells copies for $25 on Amazon.)

Scientists say this framing misrepresents the basic math of risk. “Measles is one of the most important infectious diseases in human history,” notes “Plotkin’s Vaccines,” the field’s authoritative textbook. “The widespread use of measles vaccines in the late 20th and early 21st centuries led to a further marked reduction in measles deaths. Measles vaccination averted an estimated 31.7 million deaths from 2000 to 2020.”

Kennedy’s possible move to expand the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program hinges on casting doubt — on suggesting that science is unsettled, that vaccines may be riskier than diseases.

“One tactic used to argue that vaccines cause autism is the use of compensation decisions from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to claim such a link,” said Reiss of UC Law-San Francisco. “Even the cases that most closely address the question of vaccines and autism do not show the link that opponents claim exists, and many of the cases used are misrepresented and misused.”

Offit underscores the danger on the perception side. “When people see the Vaccine Injury Compensation program, they assume that any money that is given is because there was a vaccine injury,” he said.

Kathryn Edwards, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases and vaccine safety at Vanderbilt University, said, “Expanding compensation for issues that are not clearly related to vaccines … suggests that these conditions are related to vaccines when they are not.” She compared it to the removal of thimerosal, a preservative dropped from most childhood vaccines to ease public fears, despite no evidence of harm. “Now, we are still suffering from that action.”

Public health experts stress that such narratives invert reality. The very diseases being downplayed once killed or disabled tens of thousands of American children each year. As pediatrician, psychiatrist, and medical historian Howard Markel put it: “Back a hundred years ago, everybody lost a kid or knew a kid who died of one of these diseases. … We never conquer germs, we wrestle them to a draw. That’s the best we do. And so this is a real … handicap to the other side, the microbes who live to infect.”

Families and the Future

The hardest voices to reckon with are those of families. Parents of autistic children often feel abandoned — unsupported by disability programs, exhausted by care needs, searching for answers. Kennedy’s appeal to them is emotional, not scientific.

Reiss noted that families deserve far more support but argues that it shouldn’t come through VICP.

“The program is to award compensation to those injured by vaccines,” she said. “We should have more direct support — disability funding, disability aid. Kennedy has been taking HHS in the opposite direction, cutting services where we need more.”

Despres made the same point: “The goal of the program really was if there’s a close call, we’re going to err on the side of compensation. … And it’s really important that everyone understands that compensation does not mean that the vaccine actually caused the injury. … And I think we have seen statistics around the compensation program misused by those who would want to sow distrust in vaccines, to say vaccines are unsafe, when in fact … that’s not what this is.”

UCLA’s Lord urged a shift in focus. “For the last 50 years, science has focused on the biological causes of autism, which has led to great progress, especially in genetics,” she said. Of Secretary Kennedy, she said, “He could help more by acknowledging the value of science, but also the need to better attend to the actual lives of autistic people and their families.”

What Comes Next?

If Kennedy decides to move forward with such a plan, HHS would need to draft a rule, open it to public comment, and then defend the change in court. The pushback will be fierce: from scientists, from public health leaders, and from families who fear being misled yet again.

The debate over adding autism to the Vaccine Injury Table is not just a policy debate. The program was built on the principle of compensation without causation, a fragile balance designed to sustain both trust and supply. Adding autism could collapse that distinction entirely.

[KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.]

The post Inside the High-Stakes Battle Over Vaccine Injury Compensation, Autism, and Public Trust appeared first on Medika Life.

So why are we dropping like flies and why are so many young and otherwise perfectly healthy people suffering conditions that usually affect the aged or overstressed, overweight over 40, business sector? It can only be one of two things. Either it’s the after-effects of Covid, or perhaps it’s the Covid vaccine we’ve been force-fed, or perhaps a two-for-one deal. Covid’s side effects amplified by the vaccine? All good questions that science will provide (hopefully) answers for going forward.

Public opinion is firmly on the side of the vaccines as the root cause. Are they right? That’s what we are going to explore in this article, and if you’ll forgive the tone, it’s a lighter one, albeit mostly serious..

The numbers game

I love the meme below, from Twitter, which pretty accurately reflects the current mood of the masses and who doesn’t need a smile to break the gloom, unless of course you’re one of the unfortunates who were forced into the vaccine through unofficial mandates. Yes, our governments didn’t actually have the balls to come right out and mandate the vaccines, they used pressure from third parties. Want to travel, eat, get medical attention, go to school, find housing, etc. etc. then you’ll need that vaccine. Sorry.

There is little doubt that the vaccines are related to serious adverse events and death and the numbers far exceed any previously acceptable safety levels for a vaccine, by a country mile. Globally, we are probably seeing thousands of vaccine related deaths a day. Before you roll your eyes and reject this hypothesis, remember we’ve vaccinated more than 13,156,047,747 people and that tally climbs daily, according to the WHO Covid dashboard.

That’s more than 13 billion people. Assume 10 thousand deaths a day (a hugely conservative estimate, in my opinion), many of which will fly under the radar and may not be associated with the vaccines – over the course of a year, and you arrive at 3.65 million people. A drop in the ocean in terms of 13 billion. to put it in percentage terms, 1% would represent 131 million people so it is less than 0.03% of that 1%.

In terms of risk for you personally, those numbers amount to 300 adverse reactions for every million shots based on my figures above. For every 3200 shots, someone, somewhere, will die. The current crude birth rate of the world is 16.9 per 1000 population and death rate is 8.8 per 1000 population, so for every 27 people who die per 3200, add on 1 more for the vaccine, or so the figures would suggest.

That sounds absolutely dire and when we look at the reality of these numbers, we wonder why anyone in their right mind would have lined up for the vaccine. [But, remember, in the earlier days of Covid – when we faced the original variant – things look terrifying.] I think what you have just read above, however, requires context. It isn’t as simple as assuming that all deaths post-vaccine are a direct consequence of the vaccine; it is far more nuanced. To form a clear picture of what’s going on we need to understand a few fundamental basics.

Grasping the basics brings the image into focus

Acceptable casualties

There is an important paradox that applies to vaccination (and drug development) that needs to be explained and it’s an unpleasant and harsh reality that applies to medicine. Create a new drug or treatment, and odds are, someone, somewhere will die from it. In many instances, more than one person will die and over the course of a vaccine’s lifetime, many people will be left with severe and permanent side effects, directly ascribed to the vaccine.

This is the cost of doing business with viruses and vaccines are the only currency we currently understand. The risk of the virus versus the risk of the solution. It’s a complex equation to balance, and one that easily tips in favor of the vaccine when we face a really nasty little pathogen, as we assumed in the case of Covid.

There is nothing malicious in this; instead, the complexity of our physiology and our individual medical “uniqueness” is to blame. Medicines cannot be developed to accommodate everyone, and for decades we have accepted these medical casualties as the cost of our attempts to control viruses. Where vaccines prevent disease, reduce transmission, and protect the general population, the cost is considered warranted. In effect, we sanction the loss of life for the group’s safety.

It is these side effects (referred to as SAE’s or adverse events) that have plagued the Covid vaccines remorselessly from day 1.

Separating fact from supposition

Welcome to the world of impossible tasks. To actually prove, beyond any doubt, why a person has suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack or stroke, we need to perform a forensic autopsy to establish the real cause of death. Yes, we know it’s the heart or brain, but why did these organs suddenly, and in the cases of healthy young adults and children, inexplicably, stop working.

There can be two explanations for this: Covid itself or the vaccine. Of course, people tend to look at the vaccines, given their abysmal track records, recorded instances of confirmed injury and death, a list of official SAEs as long as your arm, and the fact that in most instances, those dying have been vaccinated.

Proving this however requires the scientific will and desire to get to the bottom of the huge numbers of excess deaths recorded across the globe. That, and a lot of money, which in theory should be forthcoming from the vaccine manufacturers themselves, but oh, wait. We indemnified them when we defined these products as vaccines, didn’t we?

Where, then, should we turn? Public health-led science cannot help. It is unfortunately as compromised on the vaccine front as the manufacturers, having sold us out early in the pandemic, and asking science to help us validate the consequences of their betrayal, probably isn’t a great selling point. Our only hope rests with politicians. Now before you shake your head in despair and head off to look for a rope, I hope you’ll hear me out.

There is motivation here, political motivation, perhaps of an unprecedented scale. Proving parties guilty of this web of deception and profiteering would end any hopes of reelection for the incumbent politicians who were ensconced in positions of power during the pandemic. In the U.S., the blame rests evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Expose the Covid narrative and you expose the puppeteer. But, U.S. has grown tribal – each party – pointing fingers at the other, rather than rolling up their sleeves to come to an answer.

There is of course another potential explanation for the deaths we are seeing. They could be related to the actual virus. If that is indeed the case, or the main line of thought supported by science, then both industry and the scientific community would be invested up to the hilt in the problem, leaving no stone unturned to prove their science and medicines are not at fault.

Sometimes, not doing anything, is all the evidence one requires to decide where blame lies.

Establishing Covid’s Real Risk

It turns out the SARS-COV2 virus was a bit of a weak link when it comes to “end of world” pathogens. So were we. Unprepared, the planet plunged into chaos in the first few months of the outbreak, fed by a media frenzy warning us of almost certain death and the end of days. The media were, of course, spectacularly wrong and not acting of their own accord, as we’ll discover in the following article. The effects were, however, of the desired nature.

We all cowered in fear, locked away in our homes, waiting for the promised miracle of a vaccine, produced in months and forever immortalized in the Guinness Book of World records. The luxury of time has given us a much clearer picture of the dangers of the virus. The original strain did pose real risks to specific segments of our population. Like viruses do, it rapidly mutated, and Omicron, far more infectious and much less deadly, did in a few months what vaccines had failed to. It eradicated the original strain and rapidly spread a form of immunity and reduced risk throughout communities across the globe.

Omicron was nature’s way of ensuring the virus retained a population to circulate in, trading off its lethalness for infectiousness, and along the way, rendering the vaccines (which we now know were almost hopelessly inadequate) obsolete to all but a handful of people for whom the risk of the vaccine was justified.

The risk/benefit and risk/risk calculation for the mRNA vaccines and the virus’ variant evolution was never considered at any stage of the vaccination campaign. Had it been honestly evaluated, the vaccines would now be ancient history, stockpiled in small quantities for those who needed them. Had more doctors taken the time to research and evaluate the treatments they were offering their patients, far fewer patients would have been encouraged to participate, but doctors did what we did. They trusted the narrative, unlike the purebloods.

Now, lets get the Purebloods!

Not everyone fell for the panic or the panacea of the vaccines. Egged on by conspiracy nuts (some of whom history has vindicated), large groups formed their pandemic narratives, most of which shared one common thread. The vaccines weren’t vaccines (technically accurate) but instead genetic treatments to create a new lizard species, track you while you mow your lawn or sterilize your butt to prevent you from cooking up any more conspiracists. Far-fetched, but intriguing.

Interestingly, recent rumors have emerged from a Pfizer employee suggesting the mRNA vaccines may actually be impacting your ability to procreate. But that’s an as yet unproven allegation and Pfizer, for obvious reasons, is keeping mum and not commenting. The video below, showing an employee that Pfizer has confirmed was working for them, was trending under the hashtag #Pfertility. Gotta love the internet, unless, of course, you’re Albert Bourla.

So, in the closing months of the pandemic, the global goal of vaccinating everyone had failed, despite the best attempts to inject every person on the planet, often multiple times. Recently, in an effort to further use and deplete the vast stockpiles of vaccines the government finds itself stuck with (no refund policy sadly) children have now become the latest focal point, in a campaign supported with yet more scare press from the media and manufactured and mismanaged medical data.

Purebloods had won, or so they thought.

There is actually no escaping the impacts of the mRNA vaccine. Critical mass has been achieved. In other words, we’ve injected a sufficient number of arms to ensure that, in two generations time, everyone will carry traces of the original Covid vaccines in their system. Your pureblood children, or even you, if you’re so disposed, will comingle with the vaccinated and in the heat of the moment, vaccine status will be the last thing on your mind. Trust me.

Need blood? Well then, you’re in luck, as donors happen to donate on a regular basis. Are they screened for the vaccine? Absolutely not, that would be intrusive and an invasion of their privacy, asking for their vaccine status. What kind of world do you think we live in? Seriously. There is a huge and lucrative opportunity here for an “untainted” blood supplier to step into the market, but you didn’t hear it from me.

What many fail to realize is that the spike protein produced by the mRNA injection is a carbon copy of the virus’s spike protein. Assuming, and we are still waiting for science to step in on this, that this is the root cause for all the issues people have with Covid, then those that weren’t vaccinated but contracted Covid, are in exactly the same boat.

And then, lastly, you need to eat, don’t you. Keep a careful eye on that steak you wolf down every week. The label on your slab of beef will very soon display, in really fine print, advice about your dead cow’s treatment with, can you guess? mRNA will be introduced into your food supply and in many instances, you just wont know. Conspiracy? Perhaps, but we know now how those turn out and lets face it, cows are far less resistant to being jabbed than you are.

The point here is that by hook or crook, purebloods will be eradicated and in our technologically advanced society, we won’t have to resort to anything as crude as garlic, stakes (not the cow), or wizardly spells. The mudbloods are coming.

The post Sudden Death, “Purebloods,” Myocarditis and more appeared first on Medika Life.

Claim: The Covid Vaccines contain graphene and will enable people to track you.

There’s so much to unpack in just this one sentence. Just looking at it sounds alarm bells and shouts “conspiracy madness”. People have claimed and denied that the vaccines contain graphene and that they pose a risk to our health since their release. The vaccines, not the graphene. Articles have been published disputing the statement above as complete rubbish. False, they all yell, and yet, look at the following.

In 2022, the European Parliament were asked to respond to the claim of graphene in vaccines. The basic gist of the request went as follows.

A recent investigation by Dr Ricardo Delgado Martin and the technical report by Dr Pablo Campra ‘Detection of graphene in COVID vaccines by micro-Raman spectroscopy’ claim that the COVID-19 vaccines contain graphene. As reported by CORDIS in 2018, a team of researchers has proven that graphene is able to convert electronic signals into signals in the terahertz range, with trillions of cycles per second. The silicon-based electronic components we use today generate clock speeds in the GHz range, where 1 GHz is equal to 1 000 million cycles per second. The scientists showed that graphene can convert signals with these frequencies into signals with frequencies that are thousands of times higher than those created by silicon. Graphene is therefore able to absorb radiation, meaning that, if contained in a vaccine, it would be highly toxic and harmful to human health.

For those who’d like to see the widely disputed research that claimed to have found graphene in the Pfizer vaccine, you can follow this link to read the paper on Research Gate.

So how would anyone set about proving or disproving this claim? Of course, we turn to published peer-reviewed data and research, as well as referencing claims made by the manufacturer, ingredient lists and any other sources we can find. Right off the bat, you can see how using information provided by a party involved in the claim to invalidate it is equivalent to quoting the Bible to prove God’s existence.

Here is an example of how typical fact checking works, provided by Health Feedback disputing the above claim making use of the usual sources. And that, dear reader, is exactly the point at which the wheels come off for the fact checker.

Accepting published research and current medical opinion as gospel. The latter is shaped by the former and disagreeing with it can, in normal times have dire consequences for scientists and medical professionals. In the heat of the pandemic, disputing anything relating to the official Covid narrative was terminal.

In 2023, published scientific research relating to certain topics, notably anything vaccine, Covid or pandemic related, is often selling you a narrative, and it isn’t simply the pharma companies trying to convince you of the safety of their products, it includes scientists who wish to prove the exact opposite. Both camps frequently produce research that is designed to promote a particular viewpoint, rather than further the pursuit of science.

Research, that on closer inspection, is shown for what it is. Data manipulated to achieve a desired outcome with control groups that can, at best, be described as compromised. Again, there are sinners on both sides of the aisle. The problem then, is where does this leave the fact checker, who usually has neither the resources or the knowledge to assess the validity of the papers and research they use to validate or invalidate a claim.

This is a complex and nuanced situation and it is easy to make the wrong call, which is essentially what every fact checker does. Based on what are assumed to be facts, we dispute a claim as false. Been there, got the T-Shirt.

Most fact checkers choose to observe or conform to the status quo. Events transpiring in real time that conflict with published lore are usually ignored. The issue is further complicated by the fact that it is often the institutions with a vested interest in maintaining a narrative that perform the checking. This clear conflict of interest should be sufficient reason for most to dismiss their opinions of of hand.

The net effect, in most instances, is to bury, or at least attempt to bury, claims that may in fact have a basis in truth.

Pandemic fact checking, particularly where it relates to the virus, public health and the vaccines, can in many instances rather be referred to as establishment propaganda. Want an example? Did you know there is an association that regulates members who provide fact checking? Bet you didn’t. Called the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), they offer an extensive database of their members responses to pandemic claims.

Their Coronavirus page, from where you can access their database for the pandemic, boasts the following: 17000 fact checks in 110 countries in 40 languages. I decided to put the system to the test and entered the following text into their search box.

Vaccines do not prevent transmission

This was the response my search returned. The italics and emphasis below are added by the author to highlight just how wonderfully, when it chooses, science can dazzle with bullshit.

[Begin extract] Fact-checked by: Vistinomer

2021/04/19 | North Macedonia

FALSE: A Facebook post claims that vaccines do not protect, do not prevent coronavirus transmission and are experimental.

Explanation: Contrary to claims in the post, according to the World Health Organization, vaccination is a simple, safe, and effective way to protect people from harmful diseases before they come in contact with them. It is also incorrect to claim that vaccines do not prevent transmission. The well-established German epidemiological institute “Robert Koch” announced ten days ago that people vaccinated against the coronavirus are no longer transmitters of the virus. It is also incorrect to claim that vaccines are experimental. For vaccines that are approved by both the WHO and the national regulations of each country separately, their experimental phase is over and they are completely safe to use. [End extract]

You can see how quoting the World Health Organization to validate a claim about public health brings us back nicely to the Bible analogy. We knew, and have known, since the early release of the vaccines that they didn’t in fact prevent transmission. It was one of the primary reasons Medika petitioned aggressively against mandates. As far as “experimental status”, the vaccines definitely qualify.

Safety checking and trials were woefully inadequate, lacking proper controls and pushed through to accommodate panicking governments across the globe who sacrificed safety in exchange for expediency. mRNA is still in evaluation technology in the real world of medicine, and yes, you were unofficially “experimented” on. That is what happens when you participate in the largest global clinical trial ever undertaken.

So can we no longer trust the fact checker or were they acting in good faith on fraudulent information offered by the WHO, the Robert Koch Institute, governments and the vaccine companies? Was this real science or rushed science with flawed conclusions? All of the above or none or some? We don’t know, but time has allowed us to see through the lie. Not much use if you took the vaccine based on similar advice, only to discover later, you’d been misled.

Pity the Patient

It’s possibly the worst time in our societies history to be classified as a patient, and at some point in your life, that will apply to you, if it doesn’t yet. Over the course of the pandemic we were all considered patients, and in may aspects, we had the option of choice as far as treatments were concerned either removed, mandated or prescribed.

For those of us who tried to exercise critical thought and make informed choices with regards Covid treatments and vaccinations, we found ourselves mired in a pool of misinformation, fact-checking and the draconian public narrative. Nothing has changed. We still face this problem as we gradually emerge from three years of often self-inflicted viral misery, with society now fragmented by vaccine status and two very differing opinions on science.

So, dear patient, just where do you turn for help and advice. The truth is, I cannot tell you and anyone suggesting they have discovered the font of truth in 2023 should be avoided at all costs. Your best hope is to revert to good old fashioned critical thinking and apply it to as much information as you can find on a particular topic.

Oh, and if they’re trying to sell you something – RUN.

The post Fact Checking Vaccine Claims With Flawed Science: True appeared first on Medika Life.

Why we react to vaccines

Almost every medication that is dispensed has side effects that affect a very small percentage of people. This include OTC medications, but typically, the severity of reported and known side-effects tend to increase with the scheduling guidelines of a drug. The stricter the controls, the more severe the potential side effects become. 

Its not a hard a fast rule and even the common aspirin can potentially kill you, if you develop an allergic reaction. Vaccines are no exception, apart from one fundamental difference. We all get vaccinated. Many of us will never be exposed to cancer drugs, anti-depressants or experimental retro-virals to combat HIV and other diseases. 

We won’t need these medications as most will not develop the related diseases or conditions. Vaccines however are different. They are administered to everyone to prevent rather than treat disease and therein lies the moral dilemma faced by an industry whose raison d’être is “First do no harm”. Because of this increased exposure to a wider demographic, vaccines are more rigorously tested than any other drug and can take years to reach the marketplace.

Notwithstanding, the resultant side effects for those of us who are unfortunate enough to react to a vaccine can be debilitating. Anti-vaxers would have you believe this is reason enough to avoid having yourself or your children vaccinated. 

Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is because of vaccines that we have successfully eradicated diseases like polio and smallpox. To fully and adequately protect our children against a myriad of childhood diseases, we accept this minuscule risk and vaccinate. 

Sometimes, unavoidably and unfortunately, vaccination goes wrong. It isn’t however just children that bear the brunt. Teenagers and adults of all ages run a risk and can and do fall ill, or develop diseases from the administration of a vaccine. Exact figures are hard to come by as some instances are incorrectly diagnosed or direct causality is too tentative to ascribe with any degree of certainty.

Seeking redress for injury or death

Individuals within the borders and territories of the U.S. are able to seek compensation in one of two ways. 

• A lawsuit, which can be filed directly against the pharmaceutical manufacturer of a vaccine. This is a costly process that will require the ‘victim’ to meet legal costs, costs which may or may not be recovered as part of an agreed settlement or order of the courts. In certain instances, where others have experienced similar side effects, an existing ruling may offer relief, or a victim may join a class action brought on behalf of a group of patients who have suffered similar side effects.
• In the U.S. however, a unique fund exists, created in 1986 and referred to by its acronym, the NVICP, that offers alternative relief.

Who is the NVICP?

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) is a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system that allows for vaccine-injured petitioners to seek compensation when certain circumstances have been met. 

The initial goals of the Vaccine Program were to:

1. Ensure adequate supply of vaccines; and
2. Compensate individuals injured by vaccines.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the program, sourced from a $.75 excise tax imposed on each dose of those vaccines listed within the Vaccine Injury Table.

As part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the NVICP was created in response to civil lawsuits filed against healthcare providers and vaccine manufacturers, which resulted in manufacturers incurring significant financial liability. With the implementation of the NVICP, both vaccine manufacturers and private individuals are considered. The Program promotes public health interests while remaining prepared for negative outcomes in individual cases.

Which vaccines do the NVICP cover?

The Health Resources and Services Administration keeps an up to date list of vaccines covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The most recent list (revised March 21, 2017) can be found here.

• Diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (DTP, DTaP, Tdap, DT, Td, or TT)
• Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
• Hepatitis A (HAV)
• Hepatitis B (HBV)
• Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine
• Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR, MR, M, R)
• Meningococcal (conjugate & polysaccharide) (MCV4, MPSV4)
• Polio (IPV, OPV)
• Pneumococcal conjugate (PCV)
• Rotovirus (RV)
• Varicella (VZV)
• Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
• Any combination of above vaccines

Who can file in the NVICP?

Anyone can file a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, regardless of age or citizenship status, as long as the effects of the injury (1) lasted for more than 6 months after the vaccination, (2) resulted in inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention while hospitalized, or (3) resulted in death.

You may file a petition if:

• You received a covered vaccine and believe you have been injured as a result of this vaccination;
• You are the parent or legal guardian of a child or disabled adult whom you believe has been injured by a covered vaccine;
• You are the legal representative of the estate of a deceased person who you believe was injured by a covered vaccine and/or whose death you believe was a result of the covered vaccine.

The covered vaccine must have been administered in the United States or its territories unless:

1. The person who received the vaccine was, at the time of treatment, serving abroad as a member of the Armed Forces or as an U.S. Government employee, or is the dependent of such a citizen; or
2. The vaccine was manufactured in the United States and the person filing the petition returned to the United States within 6 months of the date of vaccination.

How do I file?

In cases of injury, petitions must be filed within 3 years of the first symptom or manifestation of the injury. In cases involving death, petitions must be filed within 2 years of death and within 4 years of the first symptom in cases where death resulted from the injury. 

In cases where a vaccine was added to the table of covered vaccinations, petitions must be filed within 2 years of the date of the table change, and injuries or death must have occurred within the 8 years prior to the table change. In order to petition for compensation through the NVICP, you must file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

 Because this is a legal process, many petitioners retain an attorney to assist them in this process.

How much will it cost?

Unlike traditional legal cases, petitioners who file claims in the NVICP do not pay any legal fees. Attorneys’ fees and costs can be paid by the NVICP, not the injured petitioners. Just as the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund is used to compensate those who suffer from vaccine-related injuries or death, these funds may be used to compensate legal counsel representing petitioners.

The process of selecting an attorney is also fraught with pitfalls and when in doubt, always look to larger established firms for safe and ethical representation. The firm Conway Homer, P.C. is the most experienced vaccine injury law firm in the United States. They represent clients from all 50 states and have advocated for landmark cases that have shaped the Vaccine Program. 

The post What Are Your Options When Vaccine Injury Changes Your Life appeared first on Medika Life.