Debating the Eugenics Behind Vaccinations

The following debate took place upon my post, “Over a Century of Vaccine Injuries and Deaths in Children

Rayn: Eugenics…

(Original post located here)

Jennifer H.: On which side?

Rayn: On the “official” side, like usual…

Rayn: Same target, as usual, too…

Jennifer H.: I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say. Can you clarify?

Rayn: Okay. Read the “product information sheet” for the MMR-II vaccine:

Pay special attention to the sections entitled, “Contraindications,” “Warnings,” “Precautions,” and “Adverse Reactions.”

Also, if you have been previously vaccinated at any time, exactly how many of those times were you, your parents, or guardian, given any sort of product insert to read over *before* making a final decision to “consent”? In my case, I can attest to receiving this information a full 0% of the time, over the course of a fifteen year period, spanning across doctor’s offices in three States, and through over a dozen needle jabs…

Jennifer H.: Literally every time, actually, because that’s what they’re for? I had to sign a consent form to get a flu shot.

Jennifer H.: Not sure what that has to do with eugenics but OK, at least I’m clear on what this is now.

Jennifer H.: If you choose not to read what you’re signing that’s on you. 💁🏼

Jennifer H.: So, out of curiosity, what exactly is using the threat of disability as a tool of fear called?

Jennifer H.: It sounds oddly familiar. Hmm…

Rayn: My parents never received one even once, not for myself, nor any of my three siblings. Can’t “choose not to read” what was never provided in two decades of vaccinations, across three States.

Jennifer H.: So the consent forms were…blank?

Jennifer H.: Still waiting for the answer to the original question, but I guess talking about package inserts is way easier than clarifying what “target” you’re talking about.

Jennifer H.: “If I derail enough, everyone will forget this was about eugenics!”

Jennifer H.: I wonder what letting people die of vaccine-preventable disease would be called. 🤔

Rayn: Using the threat of disability as a tool of fear? By all means, feel free to pontificate away…

Rayn.: “If I derail enough, everyone will forget this was about eugenics!” I knew you were speed-posting for a reason…

Rayn: Derail away… (Click Here to Continue Reading This Post)

Embrace the “Science” of “Herd Immunity,” or Reject it as Pseudo-Scientific, Human-Sacrificing Soft Eugenics?

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “But… Muh Herd Immunity!“…

Merck: Murking the Weak for the “Greater Good” of Humanity

Merck: Murking the Weak for the “Greater Good” of Humanity

Rayn: Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims:

But… but… muh herd immunity! :_(


Stacie T.

Stacie T.: I’ll take my chances. Death of children from these diseases had hit too close to home for me.

Rayn: Actually, there are three court cases mentioned in the article, and they were placed in order of occurrence and importance, for a reason, with the third one you choose to focus upon being the least relevant, the least substantiated, the least current, and the most controversial. It was likely reported only in the interest of noting the fact that Merck is being accused on many fronts. I was really only interested in sharing the latest “news” (the latest case, that is) but didn’t feel like navigating through the mainstream media monopoly’s efforts to trivialize it, as expected, since I’m using my phone to read and post, instead of my laptop, like I’ve done so often in past. Since I’m currently traveling, I’m not exactly in an ideal position to do the full-time-job’s worth of mental leg-work that so many others else avoid, like I usual do, and had hoped others would be able to do the filtering for themselves, occasionally. I stand corrected…

From the article, “The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck ‘fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].’

According to the whistleblowers’ court documents, Merck’s misconduct was far-ranging: It ‘failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing.’

These fraudulent activities, say the whistleblowers, were designed to produce test results that would meet the FDA’s requirement that the mumps vaccine was 95 per cent effective. To the whistleblowers’ delight, the judge dismissed Merck’s objections to the case proceeding, finding the whistleblowers had plausible grounds on all of the claims lodged against Merck.

If the whistleblowers win, it would represent more than a moral victory (they repeatedly tried to stop Merck while still in its employ). Under the False Claims Act, the whistleblowers would receive a share — likely 25 per cent to 30 per cent — of the amount the government recovers. Previous settlements involving extensive fraud by pharmaceutical companies under the False Claims Act have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and in some cases such as against GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, into the billions.

The second court case, Chatom Primary Care v. Merck & Co. relies on the same whistleblower evidence. This class action suit claims damages because Merck had fraudulently monopolized the mumps market. Doctors and medical practices in the suit would be able to obtain compensation for having been sold an overpriced monopolized product, and a defective one to boot, in that the mumps vaccine wasn’t effective (indeed, the suit alleged that Merck expected outbreaks to occur and, as predicted, they did — mumps epidemics occurred in 2006 in a highly vaccinated population and again in 2009-2010).

‘Plaintiffs have argued sufficient facts to sustain a claim for proximate causation, detailing the significant barriers that other companies would face to enter the mumps vaccine market,’ the court ruled.”

Stacie T.: There were other articles I found, but I am on my phone, as well. I posted one to show the ease at which you can find information to contradict the statements in this article. There is always a chance that a batch of medication produced will be faulty. There’s a chance that any product can have a faulty batch. I am not willing to write off all protection for my child based on speculation. There is so much propoganda against vaccines. I go with the research from a trusted toxicologist whom I know personally and her trusted partners. After seeing a close friend’s life ruined by her two year old’s death, I’d rather do what I can and hope for the best. Could it still happen? Yes. No immunity, including natural immunity, is 100%. (Click Here to Continue Reading This Post)

But… Muh Herd Immunity!

I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…

Merck: Murking the Weak for the “Greater Good” of Humanity

Merck: Murking the Weak for the “Greater Good” of Humanity

Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims:

(Huffington PostMerck, the pharmaceutical giant, is facing a slew of controversies over its Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine following numerous allegations of wrongdoing from different parties in the medical field, including two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers. A third whistleblower, this one a scientist at the Centers for Disease Control, also promises to bring Merck grief following his confession of misconduct involving the same MMR vaccine.

The controversies will find Merck defending itself and its vaccine in at least two federal court cases after a U.S. District judge earlier this month threw out Merck’s attempts at dismissal. Merck now faces federal charges of fraud from the whistleblowers, a vaccine competitor and doctors in New Jersey and New York. Merck could also need to defend itself in Congress: The staff of representative Bill Posey (R-Fla) — a longstanding critic of the CDC interested in an alleged link between vaccines and autism — is now reviewing some 1,000 documents that the CDC whistleblower turned over to them.

(Read entire article here…)

My Commentary: But… but… muh herd immunity! :_(