Immunizations continue to be at the forefront in federal government programs and in states that create legislation with mandates for vaccine compliance. Each state has vaccination requirements for children entering kindergarten, including Idaho, with some states requiring more vaccines than others. While all school immunization laws grant vaccine exemptions for medical reasons, many states are now creating legislation that would remove exemptions for philosophical or religious reasons such as California, Mississippi, and West Virginia. While retaining the medical exemption, California now has a new law that any physician writing a medical exemption order must submit it to the state for final approval. This is a pretty scary concept, a state interfering in a patient-physician relationship. Even though the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is allegedly a federal program, it created a strategic plan for global immunization, aligning with the UN World Health Organization (WHO) Immunization Agenda 2030, and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) immunization programme, considering vaccinations as a "right". As a result of the strategic plan, CDC now has a computerized database for collecting information on who has been given immunizations. Although voluntary at this point, when will it become mandatory? Working with WHO and UNICEF, CDC is in the process of developing its second phase of the 2021–2030 global immunization plan. The ultimate WHO goal is to "immunize more people, from infants to seniors, with a greater range of vaccines" which is part of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 3.8, Ensuring Healthy Lives and Promote Wellbeing For All at All Ages. New York University research scholar and law professor Mary Holland confronted the UN about government immunization policies, reminding them of medical atrocities during the Holocaust that led to the Nuremberg Code which states, “voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” and "no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (UNESCO), addressed medical rights by adopting the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights which states "any preventive…medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information." Ms. Holland received a standing ovation for her speech. However, in spite of its rhetoric, it is well known that the UN is a despot organization that is using deception by manipulating the truth and dismissing an educated public. Now, the UN, and our own government, has made citizens the target for not swallowing the immunization agenda, even assigning the insulting name anti-vaxxers to those who oppose vaccinations. Going even further, UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore states, “Misinformation about vaccines is as dangerous as a disease”, and "poses an imminent threat to public health”. At the same time the WHO Chief Scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, admitted that vaccines cause deaths for some patients, then immediately tossed out a more politically correct whitewashed version, uh, explanation. While Ms. Swaminathan dismisses a child's death from a vaccination as being "blown up by the media", that statement does nothing more than validate her cold indifference towards humans. The real truth is that these elitists are threatened by citizen intelligence. Dr. Lawrence Palevsky provided some significant information, and just a phenomenal explanation about vaccinations in a speech to the Connecticut Legislature in 2019. His overview of vaccine ingredients and the effects on children without appropriate studies on those effects, the lack of studies on vaccine safety, and virus mutations that occur secondary to vaccinations should be watched by every person with concerns about vaccinations. Ms. Swaminathan's statement about not having the necessary safety systems provides validation to Dr. Lawrence Palevsky's stating that no studies have been done on actual vaccine immunity or a cross comparison between the health of a vaccinated child versus one who is unvaccinated.
Research on the polio vaccine validates Dr. Palevsky's statement on virus mutation secondary to vaccination and causing vaccine-derived polio outbreaks. While it is often heard that polio is eradicated, that is not true. WHO researchers participated in a study that states, "In one out of every few million recipients, they (oral administration) cause polio paralysis. Immune-impaired individuals can become long-term shedders of the virus." The same is true in Pertussis "where vaccinated individuals can still transmit infection", Varicella, and Measles. In spite of virus shedding being a legitimate concern, even studied, those who understand its implications continue to be mocked. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at times attributed with "fearmongering and misinformation about vaccines", is an advocacy group regarding vaccine truths and public participation in decisions. This group has been monitoring the increase in state mandates on vaccinations, federal government threats to take control over vaccination laws, and the federal government prostituting a health issue for increased vaccination rates in states. WHO, UNICEF, and the CDC should feel threatened by citizens who challenge their vaccine propaganda and refusal to just simply tell the truth. It has to be acknowledged that there has been much benefit with disease reduction from vaccines, but that does not negate the risks and adverse events that are associated with them, or justify the mass agenda that forces citizens to receive every vaccine created. As more truth about vaccines is made available it is no wonder vaccination refusal rates have increased. It is because of a more educated public, not ignorance as suggested. These pompous elitist technocrats, who truly believe they are the only ones who are intelligent enough to make decisions for the populace, better be careful. Their aggressive action forcing vaccinations may just backfire on them, with more opposition and rejection of vaccinations.
0 Comments
In spite of all the technological advances in healthcare that have brought improved health to many, over the years there has a been a steady decline in patient care because of those advances. No longer is healthcare an interaction of compassion between humans, but rather one as a cold dictatorship of technocratic science imposed upon another human being.
Prior to the expansion of health insurance, creation of antibiotics, and technological advances such as x-rays, treating illness was using science in the art of medicine and relationships between a physician, patient, and their family. Care was primarily provided by the family at the patient's home under the physicians guidance. Payment for these visits were often on a barter system and limited to the treatment provided. Home visits gave a physician the opportunity to evaluate the home, interactions between family members and their health status, and the family's ability to provide the needed care, while continuing those relationships. Needless to say, medical treatment could be considered archaic compared to today's standards. Or is it? During this time hospitals also went through a transformative change. Public hospitals were often managed by various government entities or non-profit charities such as religious institutions. In the 1970's, corporations began buying hospitals, thus beginning the corporate business model for health care based on customer satisfaction and evidence based medicine, not the art of medicine. The government also began its regulatory intrusion into healthcare in 1965 when President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law. Thanks to our expanding technocratic world, the dynamic of physician patient relationships have transformed into a algorithmic and economic interaction, not between one human to another. The control individuals once had over their medical treatment has now been assigned to medical experts who willingly relinquish the use of their brains to a scientifically created data model, medical algorithm, and evidence based practices for treatment. Prior to even scheduling an appointment, determination of payment is necessary, what insurance with a reminder of co-pay amounts expected at time of visit, or self pay, Once at the visit, one is greeted with the cheery hello as is expected by any efficient business model for customer service and client satisfaction, and a request for proper identification. A stack of papers is then handed over for further data gathering. Aside from medical history, or what the current problem may be, important questions needing answers include gun ownership, living arrangements, eating habits, exercise routines, and other social issues of the day. Once finished, some basic measurements are gathered, weight, blood pressure, temperature, and oxygen level, all taken with technological equipment. No need for any human contact here, or even a question about how one is feeling. Finally, the wait to be seen is in a sterile and barren room for the individual who is identified as a provider. No longer is someone identified by their training level, but by a vague term that could mean any number of trained medical professionals, often with multiple initials behind their name signifying their credentialed importance as an expert. The provider enters, giving a short hello and their name, then it is down to business with the computer. With eyes focused on entering data, the provider asks questions based on answers given in the stack of papers, stopping occasionally to get more detailed data. How many vegetables and fruits a day, the type of exercise and how often, where is the gun located, how are those family relations and are there any safety concerns in the family, how many alcoholic drinks are consumed along with the amount of coffee each day. When will the inquiry about the health issue that prompted the visit begin? Upon filling in the computer blanks for the algorithmic requirements, a necessity for healthcare analytics, the provider begins an assessment, of sorts. Once the health problem that prompted this visit is explained, the provider determines this health issue will require ongoing contact, and makes it clear that it is necessary to become an established care patient, a slight bump up in reimbursement. The provider might also have some other thoughts going on, that is, keeping their own analytics intact in order to retain that client for life. To the umbrage of the provider, the client defers on becoming an established patient, instead just wanting the one health issue resolved. Unacceptable. As explained by the provider, there is a gamut of potential health complications from this health issue that requires established care as defined with evidence-based care. The provider is the expert here, the expectation is that their algorithms and procedures are to be followed, and as an established care patient, follow-up appointments are needed to scrutinize adherence to those orders. As part of this evidence-based care, the provider explains several tests are required for this health issue, and a preventive care plan be established that addresses the revamping of lifestyles such as eating more vegetables and fruits with less red meat, increasing exercise, getting up to date on those vaccines, and whatever else is necessary to improve quality of life. That is what the algorithm says, most assuredly part of value-based healthcare, which will reduce the need for more healthcare follow-up in the future, assist with living a normal, productive life as long as possible, and which in turn creates long term value. It is not necessary to ask this individual about their perception on their current quality of life, the algorithm will redefine it. An opportunity on how this visit is going far can be provided to the individual through the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM), part of the quality improvement business model. Once it is clear to the provider that offers of established care are rejected, meeting algorithmic requirements for boosting reimbursement begins with donning gloves for a short perfunctory exam, layering another barrier of touch between humans, another insult to someone who just wants help, and whose dignity has now been maligned. If all of this sounds implausible, it actually happened to a man who had enjoyed good health throughout his life, and prided himself on being independent. In spite of having insurance, he wanted to pay for his own treatment and have control over his care. The end result was that because of his not wanting to become an established patient, he was ushered out the door with no treatment provided, with a condition that left untreated could potentially cause more health problems. None of that mattered to the expert. Meeting the organizational requirements for data, following evidence based algorithms, and expectations that the subject of the visit follow the boxed algorithm were held as primary factors for any treatment. This visit occurred at a corporate owned clinic and hospital, a corporation which has clearly adopted a medical technocracy philosophy and business model for health care. Interactions are now between machines and humans, with barriers that eliminate basic human to human touch and interaction. After all, the assumption is made that the person to be touched might have a transmittable disease. Such a simple gesture, yet so powerful. A simple touch was used in the past to assess skin or temperature, trembling or sensations of fear, or just provide comfort. No machine can accomplish this task. Through technocracy, humans are being reduced to nothing more than a commodity of value. In this article, How Government Killed the Medical Profession, Jeffery A. Singer accurately describes the technocratic transformation of medical care to a robotic, algorithmic box. This is how medicine continues to be destroyed by technocracy, and why many physicians are being driven out of practice. As for the man, after driving to a nearby rural, non-corporate, medical clinic he was able to receive the care he needed, at half the cost, and is now doing well. There were no irrelevant social questions, no flaunting of importance, or demands of compliance. However, the most profound aspect of his visit was the assistant using a manual blood pressure cuff to check his blood pressure while cradling his arm in hers, without gloves. That touch alone provided the needed comfort that everything would be alright. Upcoming providers, whether physicians, physician assistants, or nurse practitioner, are being trained in these technocratic methods. The art of medicine, patient relationships, clinical decisions based on individual patients, and thinking outside of an algorithm are not taught. As technocracy continues its invasion into our healthcare so will human interactions be lost. It is the cold and scientific world of healthcare that science says must be done for good health and well-being. |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
|