LEGAL UPDATE: Informed Consent Action Network
On July 29, 2020, after months of false claims and objections, the CDC finally conceded that it could not find a single study comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and that it “has not conducted a study of health outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.”
Parents, doctors, and scientists have, for decades, demanded that the CDC compare the health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. This is, in part, because as the increase in the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule over the last 30 years from 8 vaccine injections to 50 vaccine injections (plus 2 injections during pregnancy) has occurred in lockstep with the increase in the rate of autoimmune, developmental and neurological disorders in children from 12.8% to 54%.
The demand for this study has grown so great that even the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2013 issued a report stating that the CDC could and should perform this study, explaining that it “is possible to make this comparison [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as VSD [the Vaccine Safety Datalink paid for by the CDC].” Incredibly, the CDC then spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to have scientist, such as Dr. Stanley Plotkin, write a white paper, published in 2015, on how to conduct this simple study.
To find out if this study recommended by the IOM 7 years ago has been done, our legal team, headed by Aaron Siri, submitted a FOIA request to the CDC on June 26, 2020 demanding: “All documents in the CDC’s possession which compare the health outcomes of children that have received vaccines with children that have never received any vaccines.” That same day the CDC sent a letter stating it had placed this request on a “complex processing queue” because the CDC’s office processing this request “expects to receive and review voluminous records in response to your request.”
The CDC then issued another letter on July 6, 2020, this time objecting to the request as “Broad” and “Vague” because it “lacks the specificity needed to assist the agency [to] retrieve the information with a reasonable amount of effort,” thereby again indicating there are so many studies it cannot possibly compile them all. Our legal team sidestepped the CDC’s objection by responding that the CDC need “only provide the first twenty journal articles the CDC can identify which are responsive to the request.”
Incredibly, the CDC responded on July 9, 2020 by making yet another objection stating: “Your request for ‘…the first twenty…’ is not sufficiently quantified to allow the agency to conduct a reasonable and adequate search.”
Our attorneys were now about to have even more fun with the CDC. On July 13, 2020, they responded to the CDC by stating: “To clarify, we are seeking any responsive journal articles up to a quantity of 20 articles. … We have [therefore] now limited the request to up to a maximum of 20 journal articles in the CDC’s possession which compare the health outcomes of children that have received vaccines with children that have never received any vaccines.” Our attorneys also resubmitted the original request again with slightly different wording to make sure the CDC had no escape hatch.
Well, by August 3, 2020, it appears that the CDC had had enough and knowing that we will sue them, as we have done in the past, they capitulated. Behold their response in which they concede in black and white that they had nothing:
A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. The CDC has not conducted a study of health outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.
It is incredible that this simple study has not been published. Or maybe the CDC did conduct but not publish the study because it did not provide the results they wanted. Either way, the next time someone tells you that it is a “myth” or “hoax” to claim that the CDC has never conducted a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study, you can put this CDC response in their face.
The vaccines on the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule given to babies during the first six months of life include over 3,500 mcg of aluminum adjuvant, a known neurotoxic substance which can damage nerves and kills cells.
The dangers of aluminum based adjuvants have been well documented. Animals injected with aluminum adjuvant, for example, suffer various neurological deficits. In 2017, ICAN even published a white paper summarizing the science which explains how aluminum adjuvant can cause neurological impairment when administered to babies.
Given the foregoing concern, a FOIA request was submitted to the National Institute of Health (NIH) requesting “copies of any human or animal studies involving the subcutaneous or intramuscular injection of aluminum adjuvant relied upon by the NIH to establish the safety of injecting infants and children with aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate or amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate.”
The NIH engaged in an extensive search that included having the following institutes within the NIH search for responsive studies: the NIH Office of Intramural Research (OIR), the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human (NICHD).
But despite their extensive search, the NIH finally conceded that “no records responsive to your request were located.” This admission is incredible. Despite injecting babies with thousands of micrograms of this toxic substance, known to cause cellular and neuronal death, the scientific medical brain trust of this country, the NIH, does not have a single study involving the injection of this substance that would support its safety. This may be because all of the studies involving injection of aluminum adjuvant reflect its dangers.
How the mighty are beginning to fall, if slowly. Health care generally is the pits, what have they been doing all these years - not much. Certainly not taking responsibility for the health of the nation. I suppose those that pay for private treatment may have fared better in the past but there is evidence even there that things aren't what they used to be, although I suppose they will always have the edge. We have put them up so high on a pedestal for so long their time may just be up. Now about everything that emerges at the moment shows coverups galore and so much criminal practice that proves since the middle ages that life once again is cheap. Now a big mess and huge millstone round the gov. neck I wonder if the new game is being driven towards privatisation so they can bury all the carnage, shelve all responsibility. and walk away. Nothing to do with me guv.
Thanks for this great article, much appreciated. M
Thanks for this great article, much appreciated. M
And yet anyone who repeats this will be labelled a conspiracy theorist!