These posts always get longer than planned. But then, everyday as I read new articles, I get new insights to pass on. Hopefully, these insights will help others become more informed about what should be their choice on whether or not to vaccinate themselves and their children.
A few months ago I had no awareness about vaccines. Then on my FB timeline was a post that said those who don't vaccinate are "callously stupid." Well, I don't like name calling, bullying, generalizations, etc., so started doing some research to see if what she said was possibly true. What I found told me that those people are not only NOT callously stupid, but they are the informed ones, the educated ones. As is so often the case, those who call others names are guilty of those names themselves. If they would bother to check the facts and do the research, then they would hopefully find the truth, assuming they go to independent sites that do not contain conflicts of interest, that are not funded by those companies and products they are researching. Anyway, that is how I got started learning about this subject. My background in psychology, health, and nutrition helped me in my research (BA in psychology, minor in math, MS in Holistic Nutrition, plus over 20 years studying health and talking with thousands of people on that subject).
It seems to me that there are three categories of people regarding vaccines - pro (if you don't get vaccinated, it's your fault if I get sick and die), anti (vaccines kill and permanently injure so no one should ever get vaccinated), and informed (I know what vaccines can and cannot do, and I choose this for myself, and inform others of the pros and cons). The ones who are pro vaccine seem to think that anyone who is not pro is anti. That is not the case. Below is a rant from a pro vaccine person.
I just read an article by ABC news about a Mom who was "angry as hell" as the headline said. Because it was by ABC news (the media gets more than half its income from drug ads) I knew it would be extremely pro-vaccine. I was not disappointed. All the harm (death and permanent disability) caused by vaccines is never reported. But anyway, this women used the usual tactics. Her baby was exposed to measles at a doctors office visit. This is what she said, some paraphrased (her baby does not yet have measles, but if he/she gets it). She blames you if you're not vaccinated. And she then repeats that. I wonder what she would say if she got you to vaccinate your child and she or he died from it or received a permanent injury. Maybe that that is OK because he was supposed to protect my baby? The odds in the U.S. are greater for dying from a vaccine than what the vaccine is for, but I'm sure she doesn't know that. At least I hope not for her to make that statement. She may as well have said, "your baby's life doesn't matter, mine does." Then she said this,
"You have stood on the shoulders of our collective protection for too long. From that high height, we have given you the PRIVILEGE of our protection, for free. And in return, you gave me this week. A week from hell. Wherein I don't know if my BABY will develop something that has DEATH as a potential outcome." She makes my point with that statement. She and her BABY have a much better chance of being killed by lightening or on the drive over to the doctors office than of dying from the measles.
Next comes the misinformation and name calling,
"You think you are protecting them from autism? You aren't. There is no, none, nada, nothing in science that proves this. If you want to use google instead of science to "prove me wrong" then I am happy to call you an imbecile as well as misinformed." There is all kinds of information linking autism to getting vaccinated, including fraud at the CDC (destroying the links between vaccines and autism). She probably hasn't read about the CDC whistle blower. Who knows if it's the mercury, the aluminum, the aborted fetal cells, any of the other adjuvants, or some or all of the ingredients that causes might cause this or other problems. Because no long term studies are done, and with no liability, the drug companies have no reason to do them so we may never know. As far as using Google - that will lead you to the science, and to the articles with references that can be checked and verified. The only imbeciles are those who don't want you to be informed and refuse to do the research and then come out with statements like hers. It looks like she'll be happy to call anyone who disagrees with her any name she wants. In the article, she attacks some of the possible treatments that might actually help her child should he/she get measles.
It's probably not her fault. The media, drug companies, doctors, and government have misreported, misrepresented, lied, and put fear into a lot of people. Vaccines represent billions of dollars of income for them. So that's what they're taught to do. And when they instill enough fear into someone like the person above, they play back these stories to instill more fear and misrepresentation. This tactic has worked exceedingly well on her.
Whatever choice you make will have consequences. Even not making a choice is a choice. But you should at least have the freedom to make that choice when it comes to medical procedures and experiments that will be performed on you and that may permanently injure or kill you.
What should you do? Your research...but not from those making money from what you're researching!!! Which leaves out the media, the pharmaceutical companies, and the government. You must find independent sources without conflicts of interest (i.e. - without payoffs from the drug companies). I hope the links I've provided in my post of many links helps you get started.
Those who want vaccinations to be mandatory claim by not vaccinating, you are putting others at risk, as the lady above claimed - but if you actually do the research, you'll find this is not true. And by getting vaccinated, you are putting yourself at risk, and at a greater risk than the diseases you are being vaccinated for, and thus at greater risk than those they say you might put at risk! When comparisons have been done between vaccinated populations and non-vaccinated populations, the vaccinated are sicker and have more health problems. Don't believe it? Look at the health in the U.S. where we give more vaccines than any other country, spend more on health care than any other country, and are near last in health and longevity for all developed nations. The more interventions we give, the sicker we get.
About the so called "greater good:" When you go to work sick, go shopping for food while sick, to the doctors office, or any other activity that involves others while you are sick, that also puts others at risk. I think you can follow the reasoning here, and the logic - if vaccines are mandatory, should it also not be mandatory that if you are sick, you should be under house arrest, quarantined (as they tried unsuccessfully to do with ebola exposure). How many drivers have accidents? These accidents kill around 35,000 a year - so should driving be illegal for the greater good? How about smoking and drinking? The "greater good" argument falls apart when you consider all the other possibilities to save lives. It seems the common denominator in deciding what is for the common good is not your health or well being, but how much money can be made.
About vaccines and autism - 83 claims have been paid for vaccine caused autism by the "Vaccine Court." There is the CDC whistle blower stating that studies that showed a link were discarded or disregarded by the CDC. Plus there are all the children who developed autism after getting vaccinated. Yet they claim they are safe. With zero liability to those who make the vaccines, they have no reason to remove the toxins, nor make the vaccines safe. I think we can all agree that if vaccines were really safe and worked, everyone would be lining up for them with their sleeves rolled up. Who wouldn't want to avoid the chance of getting all those diseases?
Here is a link going into some detail about what I've been saying:
Link.
Are vaccine adverse events under reported? To say yes would probably be an understatement. Here is an
example (link). Within 6 hours of getting the HPV vaccine, the girl died. Cause of death was listed as "inconclusive," then blamed on benadryl. If the HPV vaccine was the cause, the government vaccine court would have to pay the family $250,000, and vaccines would get negative publicity (assuming it would be reported). If the listed cause is benedryl, the family gets nothing and no negative comments about vaccines. Hmmm - vaccine or benedryl? What would you think they would find as the cause?
One last word to this article - The U.S. is always talking about human rights violations in other countries (just heard that in relation to Cuba). Yet we just passed a law in California mandating vaccinations, which goes against the Nuremberg Code and the HHS Belmont Report - the part about forced medical procedures and medical experimentation. Before we complain about other countries, we need to be an example and clean up our own act!
