The One Conversation The Vaccine Industry Is Avoiding

A conversation of major significance happened recently in Atlanta, Georgia. According to the prevailing health perspective, vaccines are safe and effective and the science supporting their claims is one-hundred percent settled. Yet many inconsistencies, plain facts and increasing scientific evidence have shown another side of the story. Billed as a respectful public debate for leaders in health, medicine and research to demonstrate their arguments and points, Atlanta’s One Conversation was supposed to go off without a hitch. The event’s official panel was booked and details secured over a month before the debate was set to take place. Balanced with a spectrum of MDs and PhDs who represented a myriad of perspectives related to topics of public health and immunity, the viewers were anticipating a real discussion beyond the name calling and bumper sticker talking points often used in limited debate by media outlets. However, event organizers Dr. Shannon Kroner and Britney Valas assert that outside pressures and coercive measures taken from national medical organizations — the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics — along with medical professional peer and social media pressure, drove all committed panelists who supported mass vaccination to withdraw. Individuals refusing to debate included a vaccinologist, a neuroscientist, an OBGYN oncologist, an infectious disease MD, a neurologist, a professor of radiation oncology and a molecular virologist.

The last minute mass exit of all debaters set to represent the ‘settled science’ vaccination perspective served as a black eye for the pro-vax community. Why didn’t they show? Isn’t the science so robust and expansive to support the safety and need for vaccination? Surely anyone representing its side would have ample material facts to pull from to see them through a simple debate. Despite the forfeit from the ‘settled science’ crowd, the debate went forward at Hill Auditorium in Atlanta. The audience in attendance and global community watching via livestream was treated to a tour-de-force of information in the debate-turned-presentation. So compelling were the facts presented the neutral moderator, Atlanta’s 106.7 FM’s Shelley Wynter, stated, “I can see why they don’t want to debate in the same space” citing “a lack of fundamental common sense” due to the absence of science and the broad conclusions drawn from such a void on the part of those who profess vaccine safety.

To represent the arguments of the absent debaters, public comments were chosen from outspoken figures in the vaccine ‘settled science’ community such as Paul Offit, MD, Dr. Sajay Gupta, Peter Hotez, MD, Ph.D, Anne Schuchat, MD and many others.

The entire debate included major discussion around topics such as the safety and efficacy of vaccines, mandatory vaccination laws, herd immunity, the dangers of aluminum adjuvants, and much more.

The other half of debate participants, the ones who have questions and concerns about the ‘settled science’ of vaccines, treated viewers to fact-based presentations comprised using actual data, information and statements of regulatory agencies and vaccines manufacturers to make their argument. Present and open to discussion, the debaters/presenters calmly and respectfully fielded questions put to them from both the audience and moderator.

Are vaccine safe? A look through the studies and literature shows that vaccine safety science has violated the basic standard of research. In order to have a proper designed study, the vaccine being tested for safety must be compared against a completely inert placebo that will have no impact on the biosystem being studied and will not affect the study’s outcome. The double-blind, placebo-controlled study is simply missing from vaccine safety research. Instead, vaccine manufacturers doing the safety studies use other vaccines as the placebo, each having its own unique risk profile, or various adjuvants such as aluminum. Furthermore, the synergistic toxicity of the chemicals used in vaccines has never been tested nor has the safety of the entire CDC-recommended vaccine schedule. These were just some of the points made at the beginning of the presentations in Atlanta before the conversation moved onto several other topics of interest.

What became clear is that the vaccine industry, and the levels of health professionals who push their products without much question, have a problem on their hands. Far from settled, the vaccine safety science is in fact terribly incomplete. The lack of proper studies has forced regulatory agencies and healthcare workers to, in the words of vaccine luminary Dr. Stanley Plotkin, “assume safety.” What is rarely factored in however is that their assumption of safety is done at the expense of, and on the backs of, our children and families. The assumption of vaccine safety, as became clear in Atlanta recently, is nothing more than a hopeful specter used as a vacant placeholder to hoist vaccination onto an undeserved pedestal.

Atlanta’s recent One Conversation is now archived on Youtube as a one-stop shop reference containing several of the arguments and inconsistencies surrounding vaccination that refuse to be addressed or corrected by many health professionals. The distilled information stands as a universal cheatsheet for anyone with an open mind willing to understand the unscientific reality of the vaccine industry and its regulatory agency subsidiaries. The excuses to not report on the growing mountain of facts presented during Atlanta’s One Conversation has run out for media and news agencies. In addition, a gut-check moment for individual doctors and nurses is fast approaching. The information supporting a overhaul of the current vaccine paradigm, or perhaps a moratorium as many are suggesting, appears to be in-order. As the information continues to stack-up against the ‘settled science’ vaccine argument those in the medical community, much like the no-show pro-vax debaters, are going out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts about missing safety data and the lack of sound science supporting vaccination. Will you do your own research or place your health in the hands of someone who assumes safety?