Search Results

Back VAERS Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Report an adverse event here : VAERS was created in 1990. If you've had an adverse reaction to a vaccine, you can or your healthcare provider is required to report it to VAERS. The system was created to monitor, analyze and keep records of potential safety problems within the vaccine program. "Although most common side effects of a vaccine are identified in studies before the vaccine is licensed, rare adverse events may not be detected in these studies. Therefore the U.S. vaccine safety system continuously monitors the adverse events (possible side effects) after a vaccine is licensed. " ​ -Ensuring The Safety of Vaccines in the US. Ensuring the Safety of Vaccines in the United States ​ (click image for pdf) Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) ​ Performing Organization: Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. Project Officer: Steve Bernstein National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report Updated 09/01/2020 Petitions Filed, Compensated and Dismissed, by Alleged Vaccine, Since the Beginning of VICP, 10/01/1988 through 09/01/2020 The primary objectives of VAERS are to: Detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events Monitor increases in known adverse events Identify potential patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events Assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines Determine and address possible reporting clusters (e.g., suspected localized [temporally or geographically] or product-/batch-/lot-specific adverse event reporting) Recognize persistent safe-use problems and administration errors Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program. " https://vaers.hhs.gov/about.html

POTUS Presidential Documents Executive Orders The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders. After the President signs an Executive order, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). Proclamations The President of the United States communicates information on holidays, commemorations, special observances, trade, and policy through Proclamations. After the President signs a Proclamation, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). Other Presidential Documents The President of the United States issues other types of documents, including but not limited to; memoranda, notices, determinations, letters, messages, and orders. After they are signed, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

IG Archive Due to the censorship on instagram, I deleted my main IG account and uploaded the posts here. 1 2 9 1 1/9 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 1 1/1 1 2 1 1/2 1 1 1/1 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 6 1 1/6 1 2 7 1 1/7 1 1 1/1 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 5 1 1/5 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 1 1/2 Part 2 Video 1 2 6 1 1/6 1 1 1/1 1 2 9 1 1/9 1 2 9 1 1/9 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 5 1 1/5 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 7 1 1/7 1 1 1/1 @SAFFRONJADEANDLEMONADE @SAFFRONJADEANDLEMONADE 1/1 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 9 1 1/9 ©2021 | Saffron Jade and Lemonade | All Rights Reserved Part 2 Video 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 9 1 1/9 Part 10 Video 1 2 10 1 1/10 1 2 5 1 1/5 1 2 8 1 1/8 1 2 10 1 1/10

Organ Donation/Harvesting Horrifying Facts About Organ Donation Procedures and U.S. Laws LINKS The Inconvenient Truth About Organ Donations Execution in a New York hospital Lawsuit Against Donor Network Alleges Organs Taken From Living Patients The Beating Heart Donors Pope Francis meets a group of transplant surgeons; including the mayor of Rome Additional articles by Dr. Byrne Dead or Alive? Battle of Ideas 2012 00:00 / 01:04 Battle of Ideas 2012, 21st October, Barbican, London The Greek philosopher Epicurus said 'as far as death is concerned, we men live in a city without walls'. No doubt it comes as certainly as we pay taxes, but are we so sure what it actually is? Can we put our finger on that dividing line between life and non-life? Seeking moral certainty about the big question is more than philosophical idling. The ethics of organ transplantation are largely based on 'brain death' - the certainty that brain activity is irreversibly over - to allow harvesting of organs from the cadaver while the heart is still beating. But, apart from divergences of scientific opinion as to just what counts as an irreversible loss of consciousness, there is considerable debate about what the ability of the body to survive such a loss might mean for the ethics of organ transplantation. There are cases, after all, in which the brain may be dead but the body survives. Some pregnant women have been declared dead by neurological criteria yet sustained the pregnancy for several weeks. Are we confident in saying that these living bodies are dead? Confident enough to harvest unpaired vital organs from them? Even to presume consent for donation in these cases? And what about cases in which medical opinion is convinced that the brain is going to die but has not yet? Might it ever be ethical to take much-needed organs in such cases or would it conflict with the requirement that doctors act only to save or at least extend life? Might it amount to a disguised form of euthanasia? Central to this issue of course is just what we mean by being human and how we value autonomy and free will. If the state presumes our consent with respect to organ donation might it simultaneously contribute to an under-valuing of our ability to make free choices and to act altruistically? Is it a way of avoiding the hard arguments necessary to convince potential donors? Might it even lead to stigmatising the choice to opt out? Much of our morality rests on a feeling that we should treat a human as an end, never as a means, certainly not as a bag of spare parts. Who is it that should pronounce on matters of life and death? Do we trust doctors enough to make the decision for us? Medical ethics boards? Public opinion? Philosophers, theologians, politicians? At just what point is it safe to say we can become a means for someone else's ends? At what point does death intervene and you end being an end? SPEAKERS: Dr Stuart Derbyshire reader in psychology, University of Birmingham; associate editor, Psychosomatic Medicine and Pain Steven Edwards professor of philosophy of healthcare, Swansea University Professor David Jones director, Anscombe Bioethics Centre; co-editor, Chimera's Children: Ethical, Philosophical and Religious Perspectives on Human-Nonhuman Experimentation Dr Sir Peter Simpson chairman, UK Donation Ethics Committee Hugh Whittall director, Nuffield Council on Bioethics Chair: Helen Birtwistle PGCE history teacher; former resources and communications manager, Debating Matters Competition FACTS ABOUT BEING AN ORGAN DONOR By Paul A. Byrne, M.D. ​ You’ve probably heard and read a great deal of positive publicity about the benefits of the organ donor program – information which is provided by those in the medical profession deeply involved in the so-called “gift of life”. But when presenting their information they deliberately leave us believing the donor is already truly dead before the organs are taken. They intentionally omit the in-depth explanation of the necessary procedure a donor must undergo WHILE STILL ALIVE. ​ ​ “BRAIN DEATH”- The new “Pretend Death” is not True Death By Paul A. Byrne, M.D. ​ Prior to 1968 a person was declared dead only after their breathing and heart stopped for a determinate period of time. The current terminology "Brain Death" was unheard of. When surgeons realized they had the capability of taking organs from one seemingly “close to death” person and implanting them into another person to keep the recipient alive longer, a "Pandora’s Box" was opened. ​ In the beginning, through trial and error, they discovered it was not possible to perform this "miraculous" surgery with organs taken from someone truly dead--even if the donor was without circulation for merely a few minutes - because organ damage occurs within a very brief time after circulation stops. ​ To justify their experimental procedures it was necessary for them to come up with a solution which is how the term "Brain Death" was contrived. To verify the determination of "brain death" they developed more than 30 different sets of criteria to declare “brain death” (DBD) published from 1968–1978. Every new set was less strict than previous sets–now there are many more. Dear reader, those criteria are flawed. ​ Recently we read and heard about the young man in Oklahoma declared "brain dead," but his cousin, a nurse, recognized response during the 4 hours of preparation to take his organs. The transplant was not done. This young man is living proof that “brain death” is not true death. If his organs had been taken, he would have been killed. ​ He even attested to being able to hear and understand what was taking place but was unable to speak in his own defense as a result of his brain injury. Most frighteningly, he could not cry out "STOP!" when it came to the harvesting of his own organs. IMPORTANT: This is not an isolated case. ​ More recently, when there is a desire to get organs while the donor still has obvious brain activity, a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) is obtained to stop the life support. When the donor is pulseless for as short as 75 seconds (but the heart is still beating) the organs are taken – this is called Donation by Cardiac Death (DCD). When a heart is taken for transplantation, after about 1 hour of operating, while the heart is beating and blood pressure and circulation are normal, the heart is stopped by the transplant surgeon. Then the surgeon lifts the heart from the donor’s chest. ORGAN REMOVAL IS PERFORMED WHILE THE PATIENT IS GIVEN ONLY A PARALYZING AGENT BUT NO ANESTHETIC! ​ REMOVAL OF THE ORGANS By Paul A. Byrne, M.D. Once DBD or DCD has been verified and permission extracted from distraught family members (in cases where relatives cannot be located the government often now makes the determination on our behalf) the "organ donor" undergoes hours, sometimes days, of torturous treatment utilized to protect and preserve the body-container of "spare parts!" The "organ donor" is forced to endure the excruciating painful and ongoing chemical treatment in preparation for organ excising. Literally the "donor" is now an organ warehouse and used for the sole purpose of organ preservation until a compatible recipient can be located. The truth of the horrific treatment and DEATH OF THE "DONOR" Organ removal is performed while the patient is given only a paralyzing agent but no anesthetic! Multi-organ excision, on the average, takes three to four hours of operating during which time the heart is beating, the blood pressure is normal and respiration is occurring albeit the patient is on a ventilator. Each organ is cut out until finally the beating heart is stopped, a moment before removal. It is well documented the heart rate and blood pressure go up when the incision is made. This is the very response the anesthesiologist often observes in everyday surgery when the anesthetic is insufficient. But, as stated above, organ donors are not anesthetized. There are growing numbers of protesters among nurses and anesthesiologists, who react strongly to the movements of the supposed "corpse." These movements are sometimes so violent it makes it impossible to continue the taking of organs. Resulting from their personal experiences and attestations, many in the medical profession have removed themselves from this program altogether and/or are having second thoughts about the donor being factually or truly dead. THE REQUEST TO FAMILY MEMBERS By Paul A. Byrne, M.D. The federal government has been deeply involved in promoting vital organ transplantation. A federal mandate issued in 1998 states that physicians, nurses, chaplains, and other health care workers may not speak to a family of a potential organ donor without first obtaining approval from the regional organ retrieval system. Only a “designated requester” trained to approach family members is allowed to discuss the matter with them. Why? Because studies show that these "specialists" have greater success in obtaining permission. They are trained to "sell" the concept of organ donation, using emotionally-laden phrases such as "giving the gift of life," "your loved one’s heart will live on in someone else," and other similar platitudes - all empty of true meaning. Don’t forget that the donation and transplant industry is a multibillion dollar enterprise. In 1996, Forbes Magazine ran an informative series on this issue, but as a rule it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain solid financial data. One thing, however, is clear: donor families do not receive any monetary benefit from their "gift of life." In the midst of trauma and shock the anguishing family/loved ones of the patient are subjected to immense pressures by those seeking to obtain approval for taking the organs. Incapable of making a decision based on factual and sound information, “consent” is obtained through coercive measures. “No hope” for recovery is the first step in this process followed by the false declaration of death—“brain death.” Relatives are not only persuaded to “consent” and participate in organ donation, but also they are made to feel obligated. Fully “informed consent” is not part of the organ donation process. The truth of the death of the organ donor, the gruesome facts of which are often not learned until after the procedure has been completed, leaves family members/loved ones isolated in their guilt, pain and horror. So popularized, "the gift of life" campaign has successfully excluded these suffering in their grief and deep remorse of having been deceived. The reality of having been forced to participate in making a decision, of which they were not fully informed or physically, mentally or emotionally capable, leaves the deceased’s family with the incredible burden of having given permission for something which they accepted as only good, but discovered too late that if the donor had been truly dead the heart and liver would not have been suitable for transplantation. Some cannot be consoled and are immersed in deep depression ever seeking to escape their intense heartache as the mere thought of the tortuous death of their loved one continuously haunts them. Left in utter despair, and complete solitude and chaos, peace is not found in the death of their loved one! Few are offered the compassion and counsel necessary as "the gift of life" is not revealed for what it really is, thus no counsel is available to them. LIFE GUARDIAN FOUNDATION is an organization that began with mothers who had experienced the heartbreak of having been deceived and having lost their children. They wish to warn others by sharing their own suffering and knowledge gained thereof, offering others hope of the blessings of restored health and the continuation of life. The website is: www.thelifeguardian.org

FAQ Vaccine Issues FAQs ​ Adoption » Attorneys Directory » Specializing in Vaccine Law & Injury Compensation Autism » Child Custody & Divorce » FERPA Privacy Information » Harassment & Vaccine Schedules » Infant Hepatitis B Vaccine » Refusal, Coercion & Child Abuse/Neglect Immigration » Informed Consent » International Memorial for Vaccine Victims » Mercury (Thimerosal) in Vaccines » Military Personnel Vaccine Concerns » Daycare, Exemptions, Reaction Reports, etc. Pet Vaccines » Physician Referral » Proof of Immunity » Protecting & Expanding State Vaccine Exemptions » Adult Mandates in the Workplace » School & Daycare Vaccination » Requirements & Exemption Information Shaken Baby Syndrome & Child Abuse » Travel Vaccines & Visa Requirements » Vaccine Exemption Information » Vaccine Injury Compensation » Vaccine Reactions » Vaccine Safety & Immunity » Vaccines & Infectious Disease » Frequently Asked Questions About NVIC »

Knowledge is an antidote to fear. Your Strawman HERE The Church of Allopathy HERE Quantum HERE The Illuminati Bloodlines HERE George Soros HERE C!A.gov PDF's HERE Freemasonry HERE 5G HERE Organ Donation HERE Geoengineering HERE Operation COVID-19 HERE Europa: The Last Battle HERE

Back ACIP Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) "The CDC no longer permits members of its vaccine advisory committee to vote on issues involving any company with whom they have a financial relationship. But they can participate in discussions--which allows them to continue influencing policy. Minutes of a June 1995 CDC advisory committee meeting, at which members voted to delay recommending use of a safer polio vaccine, show that five of the nine members present had financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. (emphasis added)." --Money Magazine ACIP Vaccine Recommendations and Guidelines Vaccine-Specific ACIP Recommendations Vaccine-Specific Recommendations (by Date Published) ACIP Evidence to Recommendations Framework U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Handbook for Developing Evidence-based Recommendations

Inner Healing + Exploring The Road Less Traveled Welcome to Saffron Jade and Lemonade, my very own passion project serving as a vessel to project my thoughts, my research, and clues in my loyal readers as to what inspires me in this world and onward. ​ Enjoy. SJ+L Jul 27, 2018 7 min Understanding The Hidden Dangers Of An Unbalanced pH: A Breakdown Humans were created with very specific systems to maintain the body's overall survival. When it comes down to the human body and the... SJ+L Jul 12, 2018 6 min How Cheating Destroys Your Mental And Physical Health What does the word "Cheat" mean to you? What five words come to mind when you sit and think of the word and its true meaning? I think of...

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST Submit Thanks for submitting!

Log In New to this site? Sign Up Forgot password? If an error occurs, a message will show here. Log In or Log In with