Inform Yourself

There is an Ocean of Information out there

It is difficult to find accurate, reliable information and resources on the web. There is an overwhelming amount of information coming from many different sources. Identifying fact from fiction is a very difficult task. Especially when both official sources and non official sources can sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong.

Because of this the right to Informed Consent must always be protected.
It must always be left to the individual to make the best decisions possible regarding you and your family's health.

Below IC4IC has put together categories containing links that are meant as a starting point to educate and inform yourself. These resources and links are only meant for you to come to your own conclusion. IC4IC supports all informed choices and does not promote or oppose any individual choice. We only strive to provide the best information we can in order for everyone to feel they are making the best choice possible.

What sources should we believe and trust?

What makes the information coming from an "official source" legitimate information?

What even makes a source "official" or not?

 

What are you looking for information about?

??
??

Vaccine Information

CDC Measles Cases and Outbreaks

CDC Polio

"Since 1986, with the exception of one imported wild-type poliomyelitis case in 1993, all reported cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States have been vaccine-associated."

All Vaccine Package Inserts

Supreme Court Ruling Vaccines Unavoidably Unsafe


GMO's

 

What is a GMO? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

 

Moms Across America

Moms Across America is group dedicated to raising awareness about GMOs and toxic exposure, empower leadership, and create healthy communities. They support local activities, initiate campaigns and share solutions nationwide to improve our health and freedoms.


Infant Vitamin K

AquaMEPHYTON® (PHYTONADIONE) made by Merck & Co., Inc.

AquaMEPHYTON contains a FDA Black Boxed Warning

This type of warning is also commonly referred to as a “black box warning.” It appears on a prescription drug’s label and is designed to call attention to serious or life-threatening risks.

IDPH Newborn Screening Practitioner’s Manual

See page 6 (PDF pg. 10) for Refusal of Newborn Screening exemption.


 

Refusing Infant Vitamin K & Eye Ointment

Many hospitals in Illinois have been reporting parents to DCFS for refusing Vitamin K & Eye Ointment at birth. Currently there is no Vitamin K mandate law, yet hospitals are still wrongly reporting parents to DCFS, causing unnecessary action against these parents.

In the 'Hospital Licensing Act' there is no NO mention of vitamin K or eye ointment application. In the Administrative Rules to this Act it only states that the department shall adopt hospital standards (just like schools, daycares, doctor offices, etc) in order to make sure everything is available for every patient.

So, there is NO law for vitamin K and it's only MENTIONED in the Adminstrative Rules. Just stating the staff has to apply, but it still cannot override, the rights of the patient (parent).

So, per the 'Hospital Licensing Act', Administrative Rules and 'Medical Patient Rights Act' it clearly states patients have the right to decline anything that is not permitted by law. Therefore vitamin K can be declined for philosophical reasons.

If you plan to decline these two interventions, we suggest understanding the Hospital Licensing Act, Administrative Rules and the Medical Patient Rights Act., in order to try and defend your choice.

Currently there is work underway to help fix this issue of parents being reported to DCFS.

 

 

Who do we trust?

We constantly see people asking for “reliable resources”, "official sources". Especially when it comes to the health industry. Of course this is totally understandable. It seems logical to want to read information from a trustworthy source. But we must ask ourselves...

What makes a reliable resource, reliable?

When it comes to health there is a LOT of information out there. Some true, some false… on both sides of just about any topic that may affect your health. There are a lot of players involved and it’s not easy to know who to believe. There are often financial benefits that play into how a source promotes or impedes something. There is no one article or study that can, or should, influence anyone on any topic. There is just too much information.

This brings us to the multitude of opinions about where information is coming from. There are lots of sources out there. Some are considered official and others are not.

Who to believe?

What makes one source legitimate or not?

In regards to scientific research there are two medical journals that many look to, and rely on, for sound, honest, legitimate research. These are the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Can we trust these publications?

You will need to answer that question yourself.

Below are two statements from two Editors In Chief of two of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. Both came out with claims that corruption is destroying basic science. Their claims are very profound, but sadly were kept very hush in the mainstream. Their statements deserve to be heard and should make everyone understand that there honestly is no truly reliable source. It’s going to have to be left up to all of us to find the truth.

First, the editor of the Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton wrote in 2015 (this is just a portion of his journal entry):

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct."

He goes on to write:

“Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science
help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research red-tape.”

Article:

Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False

Arjun Walia May 16, 2015


Similarly, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in 2009:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
In her must-read essay, Dr. Angell skewers drug companies, university medical departments, and medical groups which set the criteria for diagnosis and treatment as being rotten with corruption and conflicts of interest.
And we’ve previously documented that the government sometimes uses raw power to cover up corruption in the medical and scientific fields."

Postscript: "Corruption is not limited to the medical or scientific fields. Instead, corruption has become systemic throughout every profession … and is so pervasive that it is destroying the very fabric of America.”

Acticle:

The Illusion Called Medical Journalism: the deep secret.

Posted on November 21, 2016 by Jon Rappoport

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research…”

So here we are with some unbelievable claims from two very high ranking individuals, and left with a huge question...

Who do we trust if, potentially our doctors can not even trust the scientific information that gets passed down to them?

The answer to this question must be... Everyone must be allowed to make the choices they see best for themselves and family. We must all work together to maintain the right to choose.

IC4IC's hope is that everyone, on any side of a debate, can see the importance of striving to protect the ability to make choices. Everyone should always remain vigilant and compassionate to the idea of protecting the right to choose or decline ANY medical intervention.

Science is never settled, always evolving, sometimes advancing and sometimes falling back. It has often taken much time and many people being hurt before realizing that something once thought to be safe and effective is later found not to be.