If mandatory vaccinations are for the greater good, then shouldn't a healthy diet (organic pesticide and chemical free non-sugary whole foods) also be mandatory? Along with vitamins and supplements. And exercise.
Why should vaccinations be mandatory if those who are vaccinated are safe from those who aren't? And if the vaccinated are not safe, then obviously vaccines are not that effective (and this seems to be the case).
If everything is for the greater good, then smoking and drinking should be eliminated due to cancer second hand smoke and DUI deaths and injuries. Also drugs that may cause violent behaviors (such as school shootings, etc.).
After 60+ years of research on cancer, the only reason cancer has decreased is due to the corresponding decrease in smokers. Other than that, rates have actually gone up. Why are the causes not being eliminated (pesticides and environmental toxins, etc.)? Would that not be for the greater good?
Unfortunately, scientific studies that are quoted by those promoting this or that cause, can be manipulated to show whatever result someone wants to show. Which is why I like so called anecdotal evidence - talking with real people about real results (in the 20 years in retail vitamin and supplement sales, I've talked with about 30,000 people, and got lots of great feedback about health and nutrition).
What is the common denominator which answers everything? Money, always follow the Money. Vaccines bring in billions of dollars, as do the results of vaccine injuries (a lifetime of doctors and hospitals, assuming you weren't killed by the vaccine). As does cancer, drugs, etc. If a healthy diet with proper vitamins and supplements was mandatory, along with the elimination of environmental toxins, most of the other costs would be eliminated. Add exercise, stress reduction, proper sleep, and good hygiene, and I have little doubt that most drug companies and many doctors and hospitals would be out of business. There would be no need for vaccines. I was about to end this here, when I read the following this morning:
Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) said people needed to have choices based on scientific data.
“We need herd immunity in California,” she said, referring to the percentage of people who need to be vaccinated to protect those who are too young or too infirm to get immunized. “When it comes to personal liberty, it never includes the right to endanger other people; that’s what this bill is about.”
This was about CA SB277 (mandatory vaccination to attend school in CA). She said people needed to have choices based on scientific data - it would have been nice if she had actually done the research on all the scientific data. She said we need herd immunity - here is a link you should read (and so should she): Herd Immunity (note the references in the article). And finally, she said "it never includes the right to endanger other people....," yet that is exactly what this bill is doing, which she would have known had she done her research. When children are dying and getting brain damage from immunizations, are they not being endangered? Since when, in the U.S., is it OK to forcefully give medical procedures that may kill or permanently injure people?
There are always two sides to every story. Unfortunately, the media is only reporting one side. As is everyone who stands to make a profit from that side. The other side is thankfully included on the internet. After researching everything, you should be informed enough to make your own decision, whether it's about your diet, vaccinations, or whatever. But only you should have that freedom to choose, not have someone choose for you, especially when it comes to your well being.
No comments:
Post a Comment