CLEVELAND, Ohio (PNN) - December 6, 2019 - Last January, the Medical Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute, medical doctor Daniel Neides, was fired due to an article he wrote questioning vaccine safety.
Dr. Neides became sick after receiving a flu shot, which caused him to examine more closely the ingredients included in the influenza vaccine.
“I, like everyone else, took the advice of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - the government - and received a flu shot,” said Neides. “I chose to receive the preservative free vaccine, thinking I did not want any thimerasol (i.e. mercury) that the “regular” flu vaccine contains.
“Makes sense, right? Why would any of us want to be injected with mercury if it can potentially cause harm? However, what I did not realize is that the preservative-free vaccine contains formaldehyde.
“How can you call it preservative-free, yet still put a preservative in it? Worse yet, formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. Yet here we are, being lined up like cattle and injected with an unsafe product. Within 12 hours of receiving the vaccine, I was in bed feeling miserable and missed two days of work with a terrible cough and body aches.”
Dr. Neides was almost instantly branded as an anti-science heretic, promoting “harmful myths and untruths about vaccinations,” in spite of the fact that he made it clear that he was not anti-vaccine.
So how does one rise to the position of “Medical Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute” while being a heretic and anti-science?
The Cleveland Clinic is world-renowned. They are known worldwide for providing research and thinking “outside the box” when it comes to healthcare. From their own website:
“We are a nonprofit multispecialty academic medical center that integrates clinical and hospital care with research and education. Cleveland Clinic is one of the largest and most respected hospitals in the country. Our mission is to provide better care of the sick, investigation into their problems, and further education of those who serve.”
Readers of Health Impact News are typically people who think for themselves, and recognize the corporate censorship of vital health information suppressed in corporate “mainstream” media.
So let me pose this question to our readers. Which scenario is more logical?
- Dr. Neides was a clever medical doctor who was able to successfully deceive his peers at one of the most respected medical institutions in the world for many years, until one day his true anti-science views were revealed in a single blog post where he questioned toxins contained in vaccines, revealing that he was actually a heretic who rejected evidence-based science.
- Dr. Neides is a brilliant medical doctor who thinks “outside the box” looking for causes of disease and is not afraid to travel down the road truth leads him, no matter what the cost, and therefore upset the political system in place to protect the multi-billion dollar vaccine market.
Which scenario is more likely? You decide.
Dr. Neides is another example of a medical doctor who is neither anti-vaccine nor 100% pro-vaccine, but simply wants an honest discussion about vaccine safety.