Unavoidably unsafe: a dialogue on vaccine policy with Dr. Edward Geehr.

Publishing with permission from Dr. Geehr, because we both think it is a good subject for public debate on vaccines.

I was asked by a reader, Edward Geehr, MD to comment on his article which outlines a proposal for handling the public health crisis attributable to the forced vaccinations in the US:

It’s Time for a Childhood Vaccine Moratorium

Here is my response, somewhat expanded from the original email exchange with Dr. Geehr:

Hi Edward,

I hope you are doing well. I have read your article more carefully, here is my feedback. I of course agree with the moratorium on all vaccine mandates that you propose. I would like it to be permanent, but any moratorium is a good start.

Agree with your summary of all the problems with FDA/CDC fraud and capture, lack of adverse event reporting and of course the PREP Act, which is a license to kill, no requirements for clinical trials for EUA Countermeasures, etc. I wrote about these issues extensively, too. In fact, as a proposed policy, my preference would be to dismantle PREP Act and the Act of 1986 (liability immunity to all vax manufacturers) first.

Note: this post by Katherine Watt outlines the illegal, unconstitutional and evil public health laws that must be nullified to dismantle the US Government’s ability to kill and injure Americans under false pretenses of “public health measures/emergencies”:

States should nullify those federal laws, and also repeal their own state quarantine and 'public health emergency' management laws (MSEHPA).

It's important to understand that the seven statutes listed in the draft are the foundational laws for the 'public health emergency'-predicated mass murder programs that have become much more visible and better-understood since January 2020:

1. Quarantine and Inspection, 42 USC §264 to 272

2. Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, 50 USC §1511 to 1528

3. Licensing of Biological Products, 42 USC §262 to 263

4. Public health emergencies, 42 USC § 247d to 247d-12

5. National Vaccine Program and National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 USC §300aa-1 to 300aa-34

6. Expanded access to unapproved therapies and diagnostics program, 21 USC §360bbb to 360bbb-8d

7. National All-Hazards Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies, 42 USC §300hh-1 to 300hh-37

Nullification of those seven federal statutes would terminate the PHE mass murder programs in the states that nullify them.

However, there are 90+ years' worth of other 'emergency'-predicated federal abuse of power acts that also need to be nullified and/or repealed.

I see that your position mirrors that of ICAN, however, I have several ethical problems with what Del Bigtree and Aaron Siri propose. Specifically:

"As a result, we have arrived at a difficult, but we think inevitable conclusion: it is time for a childhood vaccine moratorium until they can be properly studied for safety and effectiveness in randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials or their equivalent."

The above quote is a very problematic position, in my opinion. I wrote about it in this post (I removed the paywall on it): https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/aaron-siri-testifies-that-mrna-vaccines

If one argues for a policy based on known, documented vaccine harms, it is not ethical to then propose to remedy this by a human-subject protected clinical trial, especially in children who cannot legally consent. And there is no scientific "equivalent" that can establish safety of something known to be toxic.

The argument that should be brought forward is that "public health" is not health. Health is an individual phenomenon, it's always subject-specific. “Public health” is a statistical data gathering exercise by bureaucrats, and it should stay there. It is not possible to prescribe one-size-fits-all treatment, we might as well cut off peoples legs to a prescribed length so that all population is the same height based on this Procrustean perversion.

Health is a personal matter, and it is something one can discuss with their doctor, but make their own informed choices. Vaccine mandates violate freedom of religion (personal freedom) that is enshrined in the US Constitution, and we must bring it back to the basics.

Finally, you recommend a new standard for informed consent - quoting from your article:

A New Standard for Informed Consent for Childhood Vaccination

We believe that a new standard for Informed Consent is required, one that shifts the burden of proof to the providers to convince parents that vaccines are both safe and effective.  Vaccines should not be considered routine, rather, the need for each vaccine should be carefully evaluated and documented before a decision is made to vaccinate a child. 

We propose that a minimum set of criteria be met to justify vaccination. Informed Consent should include documentation of the following factors for each child:

• Elevated risk of infection (e.g. underlying sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, impaired immune system, cancer, HepB+ mother, TB exposure, etc.)

• If infected, at high risk of serious illness (can be expected to develop more serious illness compared to other children due to an underlying condition)

• Absence of preexisting immunity or prior history of infection (no natural immune system protection)

• No effective therapies or other preventive measures, including off-label use of medications (all alternative therapies should be considered)

• No known or suspected contraindications to the vaccine or excipients (allergies, etc.)

• Review of vaccine risks and benefits as provided in the FDA-approved vaccine package insert (CDC’s Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) considered inadequate as a baseline source of information)

Only after review and discussion of this information with the provider should a parent or guardian authorize (or withhold) written Informed Consent on behalf of the child.

I agree that it is necessary to re-educate the public and medical professionals about what true, "uncoerced consent that freely given" means.

I mostly agree with your bullet points, but I strongly disagree with this:

"Absence of preexisting immunity or prior history of infection (no natural immune system protection)"

A concept of "preexisting immunity due to prior infection" is a false notion. There is no evidence that antibodies (the only way this is measured today) mean immunity, and many people do not have detectable antibodies after "infection" nor after "vaccination" (I know people like that personally). In addition, this invites, again, the mandatory "show your vax papers or your antibodies" to participate in society.

I also disagree with the implied wholesale presumption that someone in a fragile state of health due to existing illnesses would benefit from vaccination. This has never been demonstrated conclusively in science, and we know from the past 4 years of covid atrocities that this was used as an excuse to murder the vulnerable/disabled/elderly and coerce the young and healthy into poisoning by vaccines - “save grandma!” by injecting yourself with poison, while the government is murdering the grandma in the nursing home or a hospital.

I would add to your list of proposed informed consent components a mandatory % of time/content that a healthcare provided is obligated to discuss known harms associated with a particular vaccine from a public database like VAERS, but use something better than VAERS. The US Gov has 11+ databases to track harms that they keep secret and unavailable and we need to have them opened up. We need images like this to be posted alongside vax propaganda in doctors' offices, just like they do on cigarette packs. I know this family from Oklahoma and I testified with them in front of 11 lawmakers in OK senate:

Best Regards,

Sasha

Art for today: Sunset near Yountville Cross, watercolor, 9x12 in.