Why a President Trump is the only real hope for exposing the truth about vaccines (and prosecuting those who have conspired to murder our children)

Why a President Trump is the only real hope for exposing the truth about vaccines (and prosecuting those who have conspired to murder our children)

Wednesday, April 27, 2016



(NaturalNews) The mainstream media is hesitant to admit it, and establishment Republican officials – elected and self-appointed – continue to plot against him, but poll after poll shows that leading GOP presidential contender Donald Trump continues to gain momentum heading into the party's convention in Cleveland later this summer.

One of the major reasons for this is that Trump has managed to connect with tens of millions of voters who felt abandoned by their own respective parties, or who had dropped out of the political process altogether, assuming that it had been forever corrupted by special interests.

In addition, Trump is connecting because he has been willing to tackle some issues that other "professional politicians" like his presumed presidential opponent, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, either won't touch or are too compromised to address.

One of the issues is vaccines. Early on, Trump surprised many with his refreshingly honest take on the dangers of some vaccines, and how medical science ought to take another look at forcing so many vaccines on children at a time.

As we have pointed out, Trump is certainly no stranger to controversy, and that includes his stance on vaccines, a stand that has been vindicated by the admission of CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson, who has gone on record as a whistleblower, that he and other agency scientists hid the autism-vaccine link because they were told to do so.

Trump has said that he basically supports vaccination, but left no doubt about the autism-vaccine connection: "I'm in favor of vaccines; do them over a longer period of time, same amount but just in little sections and I think you're going to see a big impact on autism."

Of course he was pilloried in the press; his chief rival, Clinton, largely gets a pass for her ties to Big Pharma (and just about every other industry as well).

Hillary Clinton: Big Pharma's gal in government

Oh, Clinton has tried to make herself out to be one of the pharmaceutical industry's biggest enemies, but the reality is, she has received more donations from pharmaceutical companies than any other candidate currently in the race.

This isn't just blatant election-year hypocrisy with Clinton, it is her modus operandi; it's who she is. She and husband Bill both – via their "charity," the Clinton Family Foundation – are less about philanthropy, and more about selling access to monied interests, both foreign and domestic.

That's not a partisan opinion; that's a fact. As the Washington Times has reported, emails released by the State Department while Clinton was serving as the nation's top diplomat, note that multimillionaires and billionaires like George Soros, and vaccine advocate and global population deconstructionist Bill Gates, were given access that Soros said "impressed" him.

The Times reported further:

Other examples include special meetings with Bill and Melinda gates whose family foundation has donated more than $25 million to the Foundation; Victor Pinchuk whose foundation has donated more than $13 million to the Clinton Foundation; Susie Buell whose community foundation has donated over $10 million, and Haim Saban whose family foundation has donated more than $10 million. All the donations were made to the Clinton Foundation through 2015, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) said.

"There's a growing and disturbing narrative surrounding Clinton in the way in which she conducted business at the State Department," Matthew G. Whitaker, the director of FACT said in a statement. "Essentially, if someone wanted access to her, they needed to be a significant donor to her political campaigns or to her philanthropic endeavors, the kind of treatment that ordinary Americans would not have."

Which candidate is more likely to do the right thing with vaccines and other healthcare issues?

There's more. In recent days, as Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reported, former FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg – one of several people being targeted by a conspiracy and racketeering lawsuit – allegedly "bribed her way" to the top of the FDA, by making contributions to President Barack Obama's campaign and to the Clinton Family Foundation:

Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg was nominated as a result of huge political and other gratuities to Hillary Clinton and The Clinton Foundation, and at Mrs. Clinton's recommendation. During the confirmation process before Congress, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, acting in concert with her husband, Peter F. Brown and the other Defendants named in this Amended Complaint, at all material times the Co-CEO of a hedge fund named Renaissance Technologies, L.L.C., failed to disclose to Congress and other relevant authorities, her and her husband's clear-cut conflict of interest ...

... Defendant Hamburg, on behalf of all of the Defendants as part of this racketeering conspiracy, gave political contributions and gratuities to Hillary Clinton in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 to induce Mrs. Clinton to recommend and push for Defendant Hamburg to be nominated by President Obama.

With Clinton, the ironies – and hypocrisies – are unending. Plaintiffs in the suit are alleging that Hamburg, using her position as head of the Food & Drug Administration, conspired to generate millions of dollars in drug company profits for her husband's hedge fund firm through her approval of Levaquin, an extremely dangerous drug known to cause severe (and even deadly) side effects. Her husband's hedge fund held major positions at the time in Johnson & Johnson, the drug's manufacturer.

Whatever you think about Donald Trump, it is crystal clear that he holds the much better positions on issues like mandatory vaccination than his chief rival who, as president, would be more likely to consider federal legislation mandating vaccines because she is obviously too compromised to do the right thing.