This is a policy move that is favored by the many corrupt supporters of the pro-vaccine community. Could it be that big pharma will be the ones that profit from the forced vaccinations upon every American? Our leaders are supposed to be protecting our freedoms and not exploiting our bodies to pharmaceutical experiments. Wouldn't it seem that mandatory vaccines would compromise the scientific integrity of our federal government, especially if big pharma would be reaping massive profits.
This move of making a vaccine mandatory should be a clear sign of where the true allegiance, and purpose, of our government lies. It does not rest in protecting the health and welfare of Americans. If the recommendation of the CDC were ever enforced, it would make the US the only nation in the world with mandatory flu vaccinations. How would our government force these vaccinations upon us? Would they send agents to our houses and drag us to the vaccination centers at gunpoint?
It should be clear to Americans (those who are awake and paying attention) that our Constitution is not what's shaping the drug and vaccine policies. What really shapes these policies are our health department, big pharma's tainted money, lobbyists, and corporate favors. This happens because of conflicts of interest in the advisory panels.
Corruption of Big Pharma
So-called experts who had financial conflicts of interest (Natural News) were allowed to sit on FDA advisory panels. These experts recommend to the FDA which drugs, diagnostic tests and medical devices that should be approved for use. The FDA usually accepts these recommendations. Medical research has a responsibility of serving the public's greater good. There needs to be an accountability of all those involved in the producing of new drugs and vaccines.
Some of these experts are as tainted as the drugs and vaccines they are trying to push off on the American people. It's the American public that's at risk to receive drugs and vaccines that do more harm then good. Some of these experts provide biased reviews and can't be objective because they have been funded by big pharma. Millions of American people are affected because they are the ones subject to clinical trials of new drugs.
Even the government's own National Institute of Health (NIH) are not open about their financial arrangements with the drug companies. (Natural News) Because of the cozy relationships that big pharma has with scientists, about their financial arrangements, it has created opportunities for corruption. Under the guise of confidentiality, abuses and conflicts of interest have cropped up with the scientists funded by big pharma.
"Doctors fear drug companies like bookies fear the mob."
According to a clinical investigation symposium called Conflicts of Interest presented by Vera Hassner Sharav, which was sponsored by U.S. Army Medical Department doctors fear reprisals by big pharma. This symposium revealed that researchers who finds do not fall in line with corporate interests soon find that academic freedom is no longer operational. For example one Canadian researcher faced intimidation by corporate sponsors and university administration officials.
In 1996 Dr. Nancy Oliveri found that a generic drug for thalassemia, manufactured by Apotex, were sponsors of clinical trials. Dr. Oliveri showed that this drug failed to sustain long-term efficacy. When she informed Apotex, and the chair of the institution's research ethics board (REB) about the drug's failure. Then when she went to inform the patients who were involved in the clinical trials of the drug she was met with the intimidation factor by Apotex.
Apotex upon being "educated" terminated the trials and threatened Dr. Oliveri with a lawsuit if she informed the patients or anyone else. Then Apotex contributed $13 million to The University of Toronto. Dr. Oliveri was going to publish her findings when Apotex used their Gestapo tactics and threatened to sue her for breach of confidentiality. The University basically sided with Apotex and did not defend Dr. Oliveri and the principles of research ethics or academic freedom.
The University threatened to dismiss Oliveri. They soon began a biased inquiry and knowingly relied on false accusations by company-funded investigators. The investigators were later discredited by an independent investigation by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. The findings of Oliveri were delayed for two years. This case shows the blatant conflicts of interests and the collision between corporate interests and the right of research subjects to be informed of any identified risks-as required by the principle of informed consent.
