Dr. Toni Bark simply schools Washington Legislators

[Islander]

What follows is a pubic hearing before the House Health Care & Wellness Committee in Washington State. Dr Bark spoke against the proposed law that would eliminate personal belief exemptions to vaccinations for children to attend school. I read somewhere that the venue was so crowded that they had to open additional rooms and pipe her testimony in.

Watch the video, about 3 1/2 minutes of dynamite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viqb0Q6xIuU

[Pattypans]

Thank you, Islander. I have definitely never read or heard any important vaccine truth stated in such a short amount of time, or so succintly. How I wish every single parent would listen to Dr. Bark's testimony before allowing their baby to get his or her first measles vaccine--or any other vaccine, for that matter.

Bravo, Dr. Bark.

[Pattypans]

I hope it's okay for me to provide in written form a few gems from Dr. Bark's testimony. She gives other information that is just as important as these, so I hope everybody who reads this will also watch the video. I tried to transcribe her words exactly. I am sorely tempted to emphasize a few of her words with bold-face type, but I'm not sure I'm allowed. (Times are approximate.)

@1:05 "This is not a one-in-a-million type issue. So there can be maybe up to 10 or 15% of people that are quite susceptible to different vaccines."

@1:22 "While it sounds good and well that vaccines are 'safe and effective,' just so you understand that they are legally classified as unavoidably unsafe."

@ 1:48 "While there's only been 2 deaths from measles in this country since 2003, there's been at least 400-and-some-odd children who have died from the vaccine."

@ 2:20 "The majority of measles cases in the country are actually in the vaccinated."

[Islander]

Agree, those are critical. Another statement that grabbed my attention is one I'll have to paraphrase: the role of epigenetics in affecting certain children with a severe, perhaps deadly intolerance to vaccines — which is impossible to diagnose or predict.

[Pattypans]

I agree with you. And notice that the principle applies to all vaccines.

[Mr. Wizard]

Clearly, vaccines are not "safe & effective" for everyone, as Dr. Bark stated. Want proof? Take a look at the Vaccine Injury Compensation Report. Since 1988, the Vaccine Injury Program has paid out about $4 Billion, compensating more than 6,350 petitioners injured by vaccines. And, get this....70% of the 6,350 claims (or 4,450) were paid by settlement. This means the evidence of injury was so clear the government did not see the need for the case to go to Vaccine Court. So, the government just settled, including paying all attorney fees for the injured parties. Want proof all vaccines are not "safe & effective," well...there you have it.

[Julieanne]

It is far better for companies to settle, as it doesn't go to a public trial. This means no publicity, so most people are not aware of it. Why the hell is the government paying for this and not the companies that made the vaccines?

[Islander]

If true (as the language suggests), that's a damn good question, Julieanne!

[Mr. Wizard]

......"Why the hell is the government paying for this and not the companies that made the vaccines?"

Great question, Julieanne. Welcome back. You were missed!!
Actually, the government isn't paying. Payments are made from a "Vaccine Injury Trust Fund," which is sustained by charging every vaccine purchaser an extra excise tax of 0.75 cents "per dose." So, for ex., the price of a single dose of the MMR vaccine includes an extra $2.25 that goes to supporting the fund (75 cents each for the Measle, Mumps, & Rubella vaccine). Given the billions of vaccine doses sold since 1988, the trust fund as of Sept. 2018 has grown to over $8 Billion. Part of the fund is invested by Treasury Dept. It appears that the interest alone from investing part of the fund yields about $12 million a year. So, minus the initial $110 million congressional appropriation in 1988 to get the fund started, it appears the 75 cents per dose excise tax is more than sustaining the program. Also, the fund will continue to thrive as long as the Program continues to reject about 55% of claims filed. Since 1988, about 11,300 of the total 20,300 claims filed for compensation were rejected. Incidentally, almost all of the more than 5,000 claims for vaccine-related autism have been rejected.

[Julieanne]

So the taxpayer pays, either way. Government money comes from taxpayers, the Trust Fund money comes from taxpayers - my question still stands. The vaccine companies are not paying for compensation, which is wrong in my opinion.

[Mr. Wizard]

I think I get your point, but "technically" I view it slightly differently. When I think of the taxpayer, I think about something we all have to pay, like taxes on our income. But, with vaccines, not all taxpayers pay the tax, just the people who purchase vaccines. If you don't purchase vaccines, you don't pay the tax. As for vaccine manufacturers not paying, the whole objective of the 1986 law was to indemnify them to keep them from going out of business. In the early 1980s, several manufacturers of the DPT vaccines were sued heavily and threatened to stop manufacturing the DPT vaccine. Congress stepped in to protect them. I agree this is wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe--under special circumstances--it is still possible to sue a vaccine manufacturer in civil court, if your claim in denied by the federal Vaccine Court. But, I agree with your larger point that vaccine manufacturers should have to pay for damage their vaccines cause.

[Islander]

A complex (and not ideal) situation.

[Julieanne]

Thanks for the explanation Mr Wiz. I always learn something new from your posts!

[Mr. Wizard]

Julieanne, thanks to the enlightening, informative posts you and Islander provide every day, I feel I'm the one who learns something new every time I log in to HH. Thanks for your diligence.

[Islander]

I have to echo Julieanne, Mr. Wizard. Just yesterday I had to look up the two types of vitamin E that you mentioned in a post weeks ago, in order to make up my own cost-effective formulation of the costly macular degeneration OTC that my doctor recommended. They must prey on fear to keep the price of a preventive supplement that high, because most of the ingredients are cheaper than dirt.