I was thrilled to hear Dr Peter McCullough – a thoroughly mainstream cardiologist prior to the great covid reveal thrust upon the world beginning in 2020 – advise parents to forego all childhood vaccines.
This a a great step forward for medical professionals to be able to discuss the conflicts of interest long-held by regulatory bodies. The entire Covid event has overwhelmingly showed the world that there is a problem with vaccines, the regulatory bodies, and the companies that manufacture them. These facts have caused many extremely reputable doctors, like Dr Peter McCullough, to investigate the actual safety studies supporting the entire vaccine industry.
It’s a wake up call.
“Growing international concerns about vaccine regulatory processes and vaccine safety have emerged following the widespread regulatory failure of Covid-19 vaccines. The Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated that regulatory bodies, once public watchdogs, are now at best incompetent and at worst have been deeply corrupted by pharmaceutical industry interests.”
You can read the well formulated statement by the World Council for Health here. You can watch the interview with Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Tess Lawrie here. Both doctors agree that ALL childhood vaccines should be halted. Dr McCullough is clearly NOT an ‘anti-vaxxer’ as he considers himself like a pin cushion – having received 69 vaccines in his life, including 40 flu vaccines! I don’t think he’ll be getting any more vaccines for himself.
Now many may say – ‘but who is the World Council of Health?’ You can expect that they will be attacked. But can anyone provide coherent arguments against their statement? All personal attacks are signals that there is no logical way to debate; no rationale to support their ideas, so they attack their opponents.
There have been many hundreds of doctors who have spoken out revealing the dangers of vaccines, but there is a huge tide overflowing to a greater number than ever before AND giving those who have researched the topic for many years ever greater validity.
A big win for truth. Let everyone you know with children, or soon to have children. You can bet this will not be on the news!
Becky Hastings collects information on health and tries her best to discover and share truth. By God’s grace, through Jesus Christ, I was saved, blessed with a husband of over 40 years, and five precious babies all grown up. I now get to delight as ten grandchildren grow! Together we can help each other discover a healthy path in this crazy upside down world.
The CDC schedule is clear. Add them up for yourself. They want every child to receive 36 doses targeting 15 different diseases by the age of 15 months — in the hope that these injections will prevent illness in your baby. But, will following this recommendation produce a healthy baby?
I can’t show the entire schedule at once because it is so large, but take a look at this segment!
To inspect the entire schedule, as published by the CDC, go here.
Please note that the number, 36, is reached by
counting the DPaT and MMR as THREE because both of these shots contain 3 different concoctions added together.
does not include the number of injections recommended by the CDC for children in the hope of preventing influenza (aka flu). If you accept all of those (most parents do not) add three for a total of 39 by 15 months. After that, the recommendation is for an additional shot each and every year.
This chart only shows injections recommended up to the age of 15 months. There are plenty more the CDC recommends to get after that time. For the next portion of recommendations, go to this link and scroll down.
Studying this schedule creates many questions in my mind. How did children survive before receiving such a barrage of shots? Prior to 1986 there were far less shots being promoted. See the following chart comparing shots given in s1962, 1983 and 2018.
Another important question – and one that should be OBVIOUS: Has anyone ever studied in detail how this combination of shots will impact a baby? Has each shot added been tracked and followed in its entirety since it is given in combination with so many others? Searching for this information on-line has become challenging. Every search I tried brought me to yet another page by the CDC. The following diagram shows that the testing of every vaccine is based on the assumed safety of a vaccine that was older. Each vaccine added was not tested against a true placebo, but was tested against an older vaccine. When challenged by ICANdecide.org the CDC was unable to produce any safety trials showing that vaccines were tested by a true placebo. Additionally, CDC was unable to produce any evidence that the entire combination schedule of shots had been tested and proven to be safe.
‘Safety’ trials for all the vaccines added to the schedule built on supposed safety of previous shots
Another critically important question: Has the total amount of aluminum and other potential neurotoxins been considered in this bloated schedule? Aluminum is just one of the ingredients. There is no evidence of safety of aluminum in shots because it has never been tested for safety. Aluminum has been added to vaccines because it enhances the body’s response. It is called an adjuvant. From early days it that has been “GRAS” meaning, generally regarded as safe, despite no testing or evidence to support this categorization.
And finally, as a parent that is most concerned about a healthy happy baby who grows up to be a healthy teen and adult: Has there ever been a longterm thorough study of fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and non vaccinated children in regards to total health outcomes? Does accepting the vaccine schedule by the CDC lead to a longer, healthier life? Since we live in a time with skyrocketing allergies, neurologic disabilities of many types, and other serious health issues in childhood, this is a vitally important question to consider. It would be very easy for the CDC to do such a study — if they truly wanted to know the results.
Here is an idea to consider. If I offer you a milkshake — in your favorite flavor — how many rat turds can I put into it before you will reject it? If I put in one rat turd, and you can easily remove it with a spoon, will you still drink the milkshake? What about a handful of rat turds, mixed around? At what point will you refuse the milkshake?
The milkshake represents the CDCs credibility. Maybe they made a couple mistakes in the past. But how can they continue to recommend so many shots TO HEALTHY BABIES to this day? If any of their recommendations cannot stand — and the Hepatitis B shot for newborns is a great example – can I trust ANY of their recommendations?
You decide. Your baby’s health is in your hands. The most important part of your baby to protect is their brain.
Becky Hastings collects information on health and tries her best to discover and share truth. By God’s grace, through Jesus Christ, I was saved, blessed with a husband of over 40 years, and five precious babies all grown up. I now get to delight as ten grandchildren grow! Together we can help each other discover a healthy path in this crazy upside down world.
If car seats had warnings about causing my child encephalitis, anaphylactic shock, SIDS, febrile seizures, chronic illness, lifelong neurological impairment, etc., I wouldn’t use them.
If my doctor told me to use the same car seat for newborns, toddlers, older children and adults, regardless of size or medical status, I would remember we don’t treat other products or medications as one-size-fits-all and I wouldn’t try to put an infant into a seat too large for an adult.
If my doctor said the exact compilation of harnesses, the direction the car seat is facing, and the type of car it fits into, all make the car seat not only safe and effective but necessary to prevent death, and then I found out they’ve NEVER studied the multiple factors together, AND that the car seat manufacturers had no liability WHATSOEVER for their products, I would question the knowledge and loyalties of my doctor and not follow the recommendation.
If I asked for more information on the car seat and my doctor gave me two pages that said the car seat works great, but failed to give me the full data sheets that showed the car seats were actually quite dangerous, haven’t been studied in babies, and have contraindications in many of the groups doctors use them in, I would at the very least find a new doctor.
If I knew the U.S. Supreme Court clearly declared car seats ‘unavoidably unsafe’ I would wonder why they aren’t making car seat manufacturers accountable for injuries and death, and I certainly wouldn’t make usage mandatory.
If I knew car seat manufacturer whistleblowers had come forward to expose data manipulation that implicated the manufacturers and the government agencies that recommended them, I wouldn’t use them and I’d call for a federal investigation rather than allowing the complicit parties to ‘investigate’ themselves.
If car seat ads accounted for 85% of mainstream media ad revenue, I would understand that they can’t be impartial with their reporting, I wouldn’t blindly trust their recommendations, and I would question all information supplied by mainstream media.
If car seat manufacturers continually paid out billions in civil and criminal fines for manipulating safety data, injuring and killing people with their products, yet the products were not recalled, I wouldn’t use them.
If car seat manufacturers used aborted babies in their manufacturing process, I wouldn’t use them.
If car seats caused the accidents they were meant to protect against, I wouldn’t use them.
If my child had a worsening reaction and decline in health every time I put them in a car seat, I wouldn’t use them.
If my doctor got paid an additional $400 every time I used a car seat, couldn’t tell me anything specific about the car seat, and saw these negative reactions following car seat exposure, but said it was ‘just a coincidence’, I wouldn’t use them and I’d get a new doctor.
If the available car seats used ingredients and schedules that were banned in other safer/healthier countries, I wouldn’t use them.
If I knew that after using a car seat my child might seem fine at first, but that car seats may cause infertility, cancer, mutagenesis, neurological damage and autoimmune diseases, I wouldn’t use them.
If people who didn’t use car seats were consistently healthier, I would at least do my own research.
If we weren’t allowed to do actual thorough standard scientific tests for car seat safety or ask ANY questions about them, if all dissenting views on car seats are censored — even personal accounts from parents who are direct eye-witnesses to the car seat damage — but the public is still urged, coerced and/or forced to use them, I would think maybe I should do some digging for myself instead of blindly accepting the research of the companies profiting from products known to injure or kill and for which they face no liability at all.
You can bundle the healthiest ingredients with the best of intentions, wrap them in poison and they’re still just poison. When you make an extremely profitable product liability-free, the result is that there is no incentive to make sure the product is safe or effective.
Don’t exchange liberty for a fallacious sense of security, especially at the expense of our children.
Based on writing attributed to Kristi Miller
Becky Hastings collects information on health and tries her best to discover and share truth. By God’s grace, through Jesus Christ, I was saved, blessed with a husband of over 40 years, and five precious babies all grown up. I now get to delight as ten grandchildren grow! Together we can help each other discover a healthy path in this crazy upside down world.
A Q&A by David Maxfield from Crucial Skills: How to discuss immunizations with reluctant parents inspired me to write my own Q&A. I have a high regard for their work even though I hold an opposing view on this particular topic. His answer to a question posed by a vaccine promoting health care professional provides valuable insight on how to converse instead of argue. I pose a question from a vaccine informed parent and edited the wording he provided in his answer. If you visit the link please read my comment, and take a minute to leave your own respectful comment!
Dear David,
With the recent rise of hype in the media promoting vaccines and looming mandates, I am concerned children will be harmed as a result.
With 36 yrs exploring this topic, I am troubled by how many ‘experts’ are not more curious about vaccine safety. Has the belief that “vaccines are safe & effective & save millions of lives” been challenged with personal research review by those who hold this view? I don’t understand how they can push a point of view without a thorough examination of what exactly parents are objecting to and why. Parents who witness injury know the case for vaccines is extremely flawed. Many have become experts on vaccine risk, yet may find it difficult to hold a conversation because of their passion.
Public health officials seem more committed to getting vaccines into children than looking into the possible harm. How can I converse about this topic so that all parties involved can discover truth?
Concerned mother, grandmother, researcher, and writer
Dear concerned mother, grandmother, researcher, and writer,
It’s not just vaccines that cause communication breakdowns. We see breakdowns across our culture, which makes your question especially relevant. Some tips that may help your discussions:
You Can’t Win an Argument. It’s a paradox that it becomes harder, instead of easier, to convince someone when you are supremely confident in your own point of view. Many of us have firsthand experience with this reality. Dale Carnegie expanded this insight, “You can’t win an argument.” Here is how a conversation can turn into an argument:
I ask the parent/doctor/nurse why they want to give vaccines or question a vaccine promoter about vaccines.
Reasons are given in support of vaccines.
I attack their reasons and try to add information on vaccine harm.
They attack my points and defend theirs.
I attack theirs and defend mine.
Rinse and repeat.
No one wins
In trying to win an argument I’ve fallen into what’s called the Persuasion Trap. I have become the champion for my cause and pushed the other party into being a champion for the opposite cause. The result is an argumentative cycle no one seems to win – in fact, each person could finish with a strengthened view of his or her own position.
Motivational Interviewing. Motivational Interviewing is an approach that is designed to avoid the Persuasion Trap. Instead of taking sides, it helps the pro vaccine pusher explore and resolve the ambivalence they must feel regarding vaccines. It conveys respect while maintaining and holding the position that it’s the parent who will make the final judgment. The goal is to engage the vaccine promoter with his or her own intrinsic motivation. Below are a few principles you can use:
Ask for Permission. When you are told “It’s time for vaccines” or someone is providing pressure for you to give vaccines, don’t launch into an argument. Instead, ask permission to discuss it further. This helps avoid an argument and conveys respect.
Explore their Ambivalence. Most thoughtful experienced vaccine promoters must have some thoughts about the reality of vaccine injury. Make it safe for them to voice their possibly deeply hidden concerns. This establishes your role as educator, rather than opponent. Below are how these first two elements might sound in a conversation with a healthcare provider. You can imagine using a similar approach for family or friends:
YOU: Your said my child is due for a _____ vaccine today. Would it be okay if we discussed it?
PARENT: [I have no idea what they will say! Let’s go with] Okay.
YOU: Many of your peers feel vaccines are entirely safe and totally effective. Your training has launched your career as a health care provider and you see that vaccines play an integral part of providing that care. You are concerned about parents who refuse vaccines and worried that it will cause specific risk to that child and perhaps to a larger population because of one child not receiving vaccines. These are valid concerns. If I were in your shoes, I would probably share your views. What do you see as the pros and cons of a person not getting vaccines?
Perhaps draw a line down the middle of a piece of paper and write the pros on the left and cons on the right side of the line as they provide them. This helps the person turn their vague feelings and fears into a finite number of specific concerns—concerns that can be addressed.
Paraphrase to Ensure Understanding. Summarize each concern. This makes sure you understand it and also demonstrates that you are listening. “So, correct me if I’m wrong, but you are worried that a child who does not receive a measles vaccine will be at risk of death? You are concerned that if a few children don’t get the measles vaccine a widespread outbreak will result in many people getting sick and perhaps many dying? You have concerns that parents do not understand the gravity of their decision to avoid vaccines and that they are unnecessarily putting their child at risk? Is that right?”
Address Each Concern with Facts. But first, ask for permission (again), “Would you mind if I provided you with more information about the risk of vaccine injury from recently published sources?” Have a few salient facts memorized and offer to send the papers. Provide all clarifying information in a nonjudgmental way.
Consider the Messenger. Ask yourself whether you are the right person to provide the facts. If you are a parent who has personally witnessed vaccine injury, a person who has received compensation through VICP, or a person who has spent thousands of hours researching the topic, you may consider yourself credible, but beware that your listener may not see you as credible. A health professional will generally value information provided by other health professionals. If you have had multiple children and some are vaccine injured and others who did not receive vaccines are vibrantly healthy, you may want to share your own personal observations. It might sound like this: I understand my small data sample is not science, but after my first child was vaccine injured I didn’t give vaccines to my others. The thing that astounds me every single day is the vibrant health of my non vaccinated children. I am absolutely certain that health is not the result of getting an injection of so many chemicals on a regular basis.”
If you don’t think the person sees you as a credible messenger, then use information that comes from more credible sources. Provide a handout from Learn the Risk, Informed Consent Action Network, Children’s Health Defense, or NVIC. You may also encourage the person to investigate recent studies by Dr Aaby on long-term health after vaccines, Dr Theresa Deisher on DNA fragments in vaccines, or Dr Chris Exley and Dr Chris Shaw on aluminum in vaccines. Another resource for someone truly interested in exploring the topic is a video presentation by Dr Sam Eggertsen from Washington state focused on helping health care providers understand vaccine hesitant parents which answers the question “Why Do Parents Refuse To Vaccinate Their Children?” https://youtu.be/8LB-3xkeDAE
Final Affirmation/Acknowledgement. “I applaud you for having this discussion with me. I am happy to discuss anything further. I’m sure I don’t know as much as you. I don’t have your training and haven’t read all your medical textbooks, but I am 100% committed to finding the truth. I also want to help parents have healthy happy babies – which I am sure is also your goal. I believe we achieve the best health, as individuals and as communities, by boosting the innate immune system and the body’s own defense against infectious disease. Avoiding chemicals in our food, air, water, and what we inject into our body – all of which burden our natural detox system – seems a wise approach in the pursuit of health.”
Consider Multiple Influences. You asked how to have a conversation with a vaccine promoter. These conversations are important, but they’re only one aspect of a comprehensive influence strategy. If your mission is to inform the public and especially new parents of the reality of vaccine injury you could employ a combination of strategies at the Personal, Social, and Structural levels. These would include conversations, but also involve community leaders within schools, churches, and sports teams. They would also include discussions with lawmakers and policy makers. I pray this information will be helpful in getting people to thoroughly investigate the truth on this issue. Let me know if you try any of these suggestions, and how they work for you!
I sent this fax to the Senate Committee who meet on March 5, 2019 to discuss the measles ‘outbreak’. I have included all the members of the committee, along with their phone numbers and fax numbers. I called my state representative. I told him I had a one page fax for him and asked how I could get this information to all members of the committee in advance. The staffer offered to fax a copy to all the members on the committee after I faxed it to him. So, please contact your representative and prepare your own words so that they will be able to consider the true risk of harm from vaccines and the danger of vaccine mandates! There are FREE websites where you can send faxes.
From: Rebecca Hastings, Health Researcher & Author
Anderson, South Carolina
Please direct all responses to: beckyspd@gmail.com
To Senator Tim Scott
As per my telephone conversation with Kendrick on 1 March 2019, I would like every member of the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to receive this information prior to their committee meeting on 5 March 2019.
Regarding hearings on the recent measles outbreaks and vaccine mandates
Please consider:
The pubic has been told repeatedly that “vaccines are safe,” yet HHS has paid out over $4 billion since 1988 for proven vaccine injury and death after vaccines. The US Supreme Court has ruled vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe”. Vaccines pose a serious risk of adverse reactions.
The Nuremburg Code outlines the principles a free society must maintain on medical experimentation and the use of force or coercion in medical procedures. Individuals must retain the right to refuse any medical procedure.
The recent Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the HOR Committee on Energy & Commerce spent 90 minutes but received very one-sided input on this issue. All opinion holders on this controversial issue must be heard. Dr Theresa Deisher, Dr Chris Shaw, and Dr Toni Bark are just a few of many highly qualified individuals who have expertise to address the health concerns regarding vaccines. Additionally Physicians for Informed Consent (physiciansforinformedconsent.org) and Children’s Health Defense (www.childrenshealthdefense.org) can provide the committee with vital information on known risks of vaccines, and the danger of mandates for all citizens.
Vaccines are the only product where the manufacturers face no liability. Having a 100% liability free product mandated on most children via CDC recommendations is a bonanza. Every vaccine manufacturer has been found guilty of fraud for their other drugs. How can we trust that their vaccine divisions are free from fraud if we cannot hold them responsible? Pharmaceutical influence must be considered in this debate. Each member of this committee must disclose all financial ties to industry in order for full transparency. Individual health must not be coerced on the basis of the power of this industry protected from liability.
HHS received a mandate to ensure vaccine safety but has admitted that they have not fulfilled this mandate for over 30 years.
The FDA/CDC/NIH can produce no evidence that any vaccine has ever been tested against a true placebo. Further, none of these organizations can provide any evidence that the entire vaccine schedule recommended for children (72 doses of 16 vaccines from birth – 18 years) has ever been tested for safety.
Most vaccine package inserts state clearly that it has not been tested for carcinogenic (cancer causing) properties, mutagenic (mutation causing) properties, or teratogenic (developmental malformation causing) potential. To force these untested products on the population is unconscionable.
These are not ‘unverifiable facts,’ ‘internet rumors,’ or ‘fake news.’
