Offit

Vaccinations: Haters and Ya-Sayers

Dear Concerned Parent:



Ok, so there is so much information out there that you are going to be TOTALLY overwhelmed! First and foremost you should read: A Shot in the Dark by H. Coulter and then read the following articles on the web, it is disturbing information so you should go through it slowly and take notes if needed, the articles are just a small sample of data demonstrating the negative health impacts of vaccinations. The information about vaccination risks is well documented, if in doubt read the other source material referred to in the articles.



Next you should be clear with the doctor from the start, if you have any doubts you should say NO to all vaccinations and be firm! Don't say yes to this one and no to that one, do the research so you actually know important facts about the negative side effects! Just say to the doctor you are taking your time to decide, the doctor will try very hard to follow a schedule starting the day the your baby is born!



I have found that it is best to say to the doctor that your decision not to vaccinate is a RELIGIOUS CHOICE, the doctor will hesitate to go there, from my experience. Remember, this choice is a basic freedom and right - for now - at least, that can change and will likely change in the near future.



I encourage you to be strong and have support from your spouse! Otherwise the doctor will break you down and use fear tactics, you have to be prepared for that Really!



Hope this helps,



E

Those who question vaccination programs are kooks or quacks, the press repeatedly tells us. The Globe and Mail, CBS News, Mother Jones and even scientific journals like Nature label skeptics as "vaccination deniers," much as global warming skeptics are called "deniers."



Slate magazine, citing the medical journal Vaccine, deplores "the global anti-vaccination movement [as] a loose coalition of rogue scientists, journalists, parents, and celebrities, who think that vaccines cause disorders like autism - a claim that has been thoroughly discredited by modern science." Commentary, a serious publication that covers politics, refers to skeptics as "vaccination truthers."



This wholesale demeaning of vaccine skeptics defies explanation. Granted, kooks and quacks exist in the vaccination field, just as they exist elsewhere. But why taint the skeptics as a whole, and fail to respectfully report dissenting views? No journalist would have had any difficulty finding dozens of distinguished skeptical scientists for the very few "rogue" scientists that the press has vilified...



Those who are labelled as anti-vaccination rogue scientists are hardly rogues - they are found at the pinnacle of the medical establishment. And they are hardly anti-vaccination. All of the scientists that I mention in this article value vaccines for the great good that they can do. Their opposition is to mass vaccination of the population, which discounts the risk that people with certain predispositions can react badly to various vaccines, just as people with certain predispositions can react badly to various prescription drugs.



Identify the vulnerable populations, the skeptics say, so that all can be confident when vaccines are administered. For this, they deserve our appreciation, not our ridicule.

Vaccines don't stand up to scientific scrutiny



I realize it may seem odd to invoke the laws of scientific reasoning on this issue.Vaccinations are supposed to be accepted without reason, without question by both medical professional and the public, right? Even daring to question vaccines is akin to questioning Darwinism in the minds of many.



But this, of course, reveals the fatal flaw of the pro-vaccine gang: They are afraid of being questioned. They fear scientific scrutiny so much that they have to reframe the entire debate as one made up of "doctors vs. quacks" rather than one of scientific evidence (which they don't have) vs. quackery (which they have lots of).



This is the strategy of the intellectually desperate. Truth does not fear investigation, and if vaccines are so provably useful for enhancing the health of children, then doctors shouldn't mind people asking questions or even openly debating the merits of vaccination programs. And yet what you see with vaccines today is a cult-like worship of vaccines that despises scrutiny or even solid science. Vaccines are good because they tell us so, and that should be sufficient reason, we're told.

All vaccines are biological weapons that weaken or destroy the human immune system. They often fail to protect against diseases they're designed to prevent and often cause them. The H1N1 vaccine is experimental, untested, toxic, extremely dangerous, and essential to avoid even if mandated.

In a December 1994 Medical Post article, Dr. Guylaine Lanctot said:

"The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are actually changing our genetic code through vaccination....100 years from now we will know that the biggest crime against humanity was vaccines."

Dr. Viera Scheibner is internationally known as perhaps the leading expert on adverse vaccine reactions. Her analysis concluded that "there is no evidence whatsoever of the ability of vaccines to prevent any diseases. To the contrary, there is a great wealth of evidence that they cause serious side effects."



Nonetheless, immunization programs proliferate because the profit potential is enormous despite growing numbers of reputable scientific figures citing concerns.



Currently, over 200 new vaccines are being developed "for everything from birth control to (curbing) cocaine addiction." Around half of them are in clinical trials using human guinea pigs putting their health and safety on the line unwittingly.



New delivery systems are also being developed that include nasal sprays, mosquitoes, and genetically engineered fruits containing vaccine viruses. With every country in the world a potential buyer, health and safety considerations are suppressed for the sake of profits. Unless somehow this madness is stopped, the harm to our children and society will be catastrophic.

In recent months health authorities have implored parents to be responsible and vaccinate their children.



As well as whooping cough, diptheria, tetanus, polio and German measles (rubella), vaccines are now urged against hepatitis B and the "new" disease Haemophilis Influenzae b (Hib), which causes a host of invasive infections including the brain disease meningitis.



However, leading doctors and scientists here and overseas are seriously questioning the value of mass vaccination programs and claim vaccinations may in fact be doing more harm than good by sabotaging our natural immune systems.



Firstly, that current mass vaccination programs are neither necessary nor effective in normal conditions in developed countries.



Secondly, injecting foreign material into the blood stream is a dangerous process which can cause very serious illnesses. Where viruses are concerned, the results can be even more unpredictable and dangerous.



In contrast, federal and state health authorities still insist that vaccination is necessary and effective.



Their biggest pro-vaccination argument is that without it, our society would be ravaged by epidemics of killer diseases. The director of the communicable diseases section of the Federal Health Department, Dr Robert Hall, points to the success of mass vaccination in reducing the diseases of the 19th Century: small pox, typhoid, diptheria, polio, measles and so on.



Medical literature shows that there has never been an outbreak of any infectious disease in which vaccinated children did not contract that disease. Supporters also admit that there are risks of side-effects from vaccination - including death - and that diseases like whooping cough and rubella will never be eliminated, even if every baby is immunised.



Melbourne specialist Dr John Piesse claims that parents are being given a false picture of vaccinations.



"It's an absolute scandal, there is no examination of the risks and side-effects," he said.



While doctors undoubtedly believe they are doing the best for their patients, surveys have shown that very few general practitioners have the time to read original research.

My answer is lack of acquired natural immunity now apparent in two generations due to mandated vaccinations. That happens when a pregnant mother does not - and cannot - pass on to her fetus naturally-acquired immunities she does not have, nor can acquire, since she did not contract those pesky childhood infectious diseases that apparently were designed by Nature to improve or 'beef up' the human immune system by creating pass-along immunities. Just about every child in the USA has been vaccinated numerous times by medical mandate since the 1980s. That interferes with human physiology and the ability to acquire lifelong immunities - something that apparently would interfere with Big Pharma's marketing plans for vaccines. What vaccines do, in effect, is 'castrate' the natural human immune system we are born with, and substitute a chemical and pharmaceutically-induced antigen response - quite different from natural immunity - which the human immune system apparently has difficulty implementing, as witnessed by adverse reaction events most vaccinees experience after receiving vaccinations - even if only minor and nothing major like febrile seizures, encephalopathy, Guillain-Barre, etc.



The fact that multi-vaccinated children are coming down with the very diseases for which they have been vaccinated ought to be a 'smoking gun' indication that the vaccine antigen response is not recognized by the human immune system. Consequently, vaccines provide no immunity no matter how many times some children may be vaccinated, as has been happening in Pakistan and elsewhere, especially in the USA where the perceived remedy is more and more vaccinations. What is the probable end result of more and more vaccinations?

Inflammation and chronic diseases from the immune system having been 'raped' so many times, it cannot protect the body from other disease patterns taking hold, which we now are seeing in younger and younger children.

Mass vaccination eventually ceases endemic disease outbreaks by removing virus circulation in the community, instead of inducing permanent immunity in the vaccinated. However, viral diseases, although reduced in incidence in many countries, are not fully eradicated from all parts of the World. A region-specific elimination of viral exposure by means of mass vaccination at the time when the virus is present globally is hardly good news. Prolonged mass childhood vaccination is a measure of disease control that with time makes our entire adult population (but more importantly infants) more and more defenseless against the incompletely eradicated virus, which can be easily re-imported. Why do we then choose to put so much effort into a self-defeating public-health venture?



Two epidemiologists, who have recognized the potential problem of this waning vaccine-based protection and have included this parameter into their herd-immunity modeling, predict: "For infectious diseases where immunization can offer lifelong protection, a variety of simple models can be used to explain the utility of vaccination as a control method. However, for many diseases, immunity wanes over time.... Here we show how vaccination can have a range of unexpected consequences. We predict that, after a long disease-free period, the introduction of infection will lead to far larger epidemics than that predicted by standard models. These results have clear implications for the long-term success of any vaccination campaign and highlight the need for a sound understanding of the immunological mechanisms of immunity and vaccination."[9] The medical establishment got it all in reverse: it is not vaccine-exempt children who endanger us all, it is the effects of prolonged mass-vaccination campaigns that have done so. When will the medical establishment (and the media) start paying attention to the long-term consequences of mass-vaccination measures instead of hastily and unjustifiably blaming every outbreak on the unvaccinated?

Who are some of the staunch Ya-Sayers of vaccinations? Dr. Profit

An example of, let's call it lunacy, from high places in the vaccine industry, Dr. Paul Offit once publicly remarked that children can safely receive 100,000 vaccines at once. He later changed that to 10,000. Unfortunately, this leading pediatrician who holds influential University and Clinical positions has media clout and has been interviewed often.



He has written publications refuting vaccination dangers and condemning those who refuse vaccinations for their children, even to the point of encouraging pediatricians to not provide care for children not vaccinated.



Of course, Offit has made sure Merck's Rotavirus vaccine Rotateq® is included as part of early childhood vaccine schedules. Merck awarded Offit a grant of $350,000 to help develop the vaccine, and he has partial patent rights as well, which have recently been sold for a one time healthy profit of $180 million. This undoubtedly is not the only conflict of interest.



Offit has made these outrageous claims of the vaccination capacity of infants, while assuring their immune systems are able to handle quite a bit in their newly inhabited world. Though passed on by mainstream media without question, his statements are totally false.



But his authoritative bluster does intimidate or confuse the public while boosting his vaccine industry revenue.

Paul Offit believes that exempting your child from vaccination is morally reprehensible.

The status accorded to him by the pharmaceutical and medical fields permits him to influence the opinions and practice of lower rung physicians regarding vaccine exemptions. Unfortunately, even doctors will simply believe the "expert"[2] without bothering to go and check their own medical literature, to see if the self-proclaimed expertise has a solid scientific foundation. Research shows that when people listen to the expert, the part of their brains that is capable of independent thought goes to sleep.[3]



More truth about vaccinations comes to light with CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson's revelations

On August 27, CDC whistleblower William Thompson came out of the shadows and admitted he had omitted vital data from a 2004 study on the MMR vaccine and its connection to autism.



Thompson's official statement was released through his Cincinnati attorney, Rick Morgan.



The key piece in Thompson's statement is:

"I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."



"My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines." Everything else in Thompson's statement is backfill and back-pedaling and legal positioning and self-protection.



But this part, this is big. Within Thompson's community of researchers and the general world of medical research and publishing, people know what it means.



It means major fraud.



Thompson, a co-author of the 2004 study, published in the prestigious journal Pediatrics, is admitting to egregious fraud. Cooking the data.



Major scandal. It directly indicts Thompson's co-authors of the 2004 study, including the lead author, Frank DeStefano, who is also a CDC executive in charge of vaccine safety issues.



Now add to that: concealing the dangers of the MMR vaccine for ten years has resulted in untold numbers of cases of autism that could have been prevented.



Damaged lives of children. Damaged families.



Again, this is not someone coming in from the outside to criticize a published study. This is one of the co-authors of the study.



Thompson was there in 2004. He knows what happened. He participated, along with his colleagues, in a cover-up.



His co-authors are all recognized figures in the world of vaccine research: DeStefano; Tanya Karapurkar-Bhasin; Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsop; and Coleen Boyle.



They have all defended the safety of vaccines in other studies, which are now thrown into doubt. As in: dominos falling.



Pro-Vaccine propaganda

A stunning new report reveals that the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has been monitoring independent health sites and their users in an attempt to identify 'anti-vaccine influencers' and their effect on lackluster vaccine uptake.



A newly fashioned United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) working paper tracking "the rise of online anti-vaccination sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe" identifies independent health websites, including GreenMedInfo.com, Mercola.com, NaturalNews.com and VacTruth.com, as contributing to lackluster vaccine uptake.



The UNICEF report, obtained data using "state-of-the-art social medial monitoring tools," and confirmed that parents are using social media networks to decide whether to vaccinate their children

Labeling research that contradicts or questions the unilateral view that vaccines are always safe and effective, or that their benefits always outweigh their risks, as "anti-vaccine," or the sites that host or discuss that information "anti-vaccination," is polemic and disingenuous. Indeed, insofar as many of the sites UNICEF labels as "anti-vaccine" consistently cite peer-reviewed and published research, they risk indicting the credibility of their own global immunization agenda, which is ostensibly based on the same "evidence-based" epistemological model.

The report also makes the following recommendations:

"International agencies and other partners will need to combine forces and support governments to reverse this counterproductive trend and develop common strategies to promote immunization, as one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions known in the world." [emphasis added]

While this report appears to have the objectivity and credibility long associated with world governmental health agencies, UNICEF does little to conceal its willingness to partner with, and accept money from, corporations who may have a vested interest in discrediting valid information about the unintended, adverse health effects of vaccines and/or their lack of effectiveness, such as manufacturers of vaccines themselves.

Exercising Parental rights when refusing vaccinations:

Long time practitioners in the natural health industry ask themselves this question on a daily basis. Why do people follow medical authorities who prescribe toxic vaccinations, medications and treatments which only serve as a detriment to human health? The answer lies in a recent report in PLOS Biology.



What we are experiencing today is essentially medical tyranny where government, pharmaceutical conglomerates and medical colleges conspire to produce blind followers of a system that produces more health risks than benefits to any given population.



People have been misled by authority figures to believe that vaccines have prevented horrific diseases when this is plainly false. The main advances in combating disease over the last 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water...not vaccines. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded areas and better living conditions have contributed as well. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research which proves that vaccines did not save us.



There is light though. The public is gradually detaching themselves from the medical paradigm. They are not automatically conforming to advice from physicians as they did just one or two decades ago. The days of patients solely acting in terms to comply with group membership or fit in a specific group identity are fading. People who have empowered by the medical model to resist natural health are finally seeing the light.



Professor Reicher concludes that tyranny does not flourish because perpetrators are helpless and ignorant; it flourishes because they are convinced that they are doing something worthy. It will take many more years to convince the masses on the atrocities of conventional medicine and perhaps even more time to convert them to natural health. In the end, people will do what they know is right and truth will eventually guide them in this direction. For those of us showing them the way, all I can say is patience ...lots of patience.

Conclusion

Big-Pharma, not activists, are responsible for the growing mistrust of vaccines



The debate isn't ultimately about the science of vaccines, but rather a lack of trust of those charged with producing, monitoring the safety of, and distributing vaccines. The false narrative of science versus conspiracy theorists is peddled by the media, the government, and the corporations that hold influence over both because a narrative focusing on the wisdom of entrusting criminals and mass murderers with our health is an open and shut case.



Such a conclusion would result in the ditching of big-pharma's vaccines and seeking alternative solutions to immunization, vaccine production and distribution, and overall accountability for healthcare. This would in turn result in the decentralization of healthcare and pharmaceutical production, breaking up the unwarranted wealth and influence of big-pharma and those throughout the government and media that have enriched themselves protecting this monopoly. Clearly this is an outcome many in the media, government, and across the board rooms of big-pharmaceutical corporations across the Western World will fight fanatically to prevent.



For the anti-vaccine movement - it may be wiser to focus on these aspects of the debate rather than be drawn into the false paradigm the media is trying to superimpose upon the issue. It may even be wise to not use the term "anti-vaccine movement," and instead make it an anti-big-pharma movement.

Recently there has been a lot of 'debate' in the mainstream media about vaccinations. While this debate is not new, it is something to take notice of, at least I have been taking note. What sparked my interest in the current vaccine debate, and the taking of notes, was a comedy segment on T.V.While I am not a regular viewer or cable subscriber, I had the opportunity while visiting family to watch Comedy Central, I almost fell out of my seat when the topic of saying no to Vaccines appeared on The Daily Show . What really sparked my curiosity was that, the next night, The Colbert Report had the infamous Dr.Profit on, touting the benefits of vaccination, condemning parents that choose opt-out of vaccinations and promoting his book Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All . It really is a sign of the times when a comedy station addresses and gives air-time to pro vaccination propaganda and has a guest host who profits from vaccinations. More information about Dr. Profit later in the article.This 'Anti Vaxxer' debate is a hot topic and the content and/or poking fun on cable t.v. brings this debate to a much wider audience. I am an 'Anti Vaxxer' and have been for years. I have 2 grown children and neither of them was ever vaccinated. I am personally against and highly suspicious of the American vaccination effort that has been ongoing for years. I live in a state, like many in the US, that is very pro-vaccination.When my children were young, I received phone calls and endless mail about the immediate importance of my children receiving their required immunizations (vaccinations). I have been cornered by emergency room nurses and over zealous doctors about the immediate necessity to comply with vaccination laws and requirements. I have left community health centers in tears, feeling like a horrible mother, because I questioned the safety and effectiveness of required vaccinations. Back then, while holding firm to my 'No' choice, I admit I did not know the facts, I just knew something wasn't right. Fortunately other mothers in my community were 'anti-vaxxers' as well and through experience, research and motherly support, I began to form a more informed basis for my decision to say 'No'.In today's parenting world things have changed. At least from my personal interactions with families with small children. As a mother and former teacher, I am around young children and their parents often, sooner or later the topic of vaccinations pops up. There are two distinct camps among parents, what I call vaccination Haters and Yay sayers. Those who do not support vaccinations and those who are only too happy to comply with vaccination requirements. While I don't 'go there' right away, when talking to the uninformed (or 'disinformed') about my personal anti-vaxx stance, I wait for the parent to ask a specific question. If the parent is a supporter of vaccinations, the conversation is usually pretty short: 'it's the parents choice, do your research, etc'. If, on the other hand, the parent is really struggling and is looking for some solid research and data on the safety of vaccinations and WHY there is such an intense debate going on, I offer the following information. Readers may find it useful in a similar situation.Below is the standard email that I send to concerned parents:The articles below are included in the email. For most parents the reality of reading through each article is overwhelming, time consuming, and even a bit scary. I have taken the most important information out of the articles and summarized the key message. This way parents can skim the article and find bits of information that confirm what so many Anti-Vaxxers are saying. While vaccination supporters say the anti-vaxxer movement is a loose bunch of rogue scientists, journalists, parents and celebrities, the reality is quite different:Men like Dr. Offit have an agenda, financial or otherwise, and really lack any sort of moral character. It's ironic therefore that he would accuse parents who disagree with his views of being morally reprehensible.The choice to not vaccinate is morally reprehensible Why?! Because corporate medicine and its 'experts' are some how more knowledgeable about what is best for other people's children? Families with legitimate concerns should cower to physicians and experts and allow them to over-ride their parental philosophical and religious rights based on corrupted, profit based science? Really??Many would say that it is morally reprehensible for a doctor (millionaire vaccine inventor) to support and encourage vaccinations while dismissing important facts and questions regarding vaccine safety. As the Colbert Report segment above shows, Dr. Offit has tremendous influence in the debate:It is obvious that the vaccination yay-sayers are in full propaganda mode. This is made clear by the media coverage that the yay-sayers receive. While this approach is not new, the use of social media has upped the ante, targeting parents and questioning parents' rights and sanity in the process:As the anit-vaxxer debate continues and disturbing revelations, such as the CDC whistleblower information, come to light, parents and informed citizens will continue to ask questions about the alleged safety of mandatory vaccinations. The yay-saying pro-vaxxers will not give up easily. There are profits to be made and a medical belief system to uphold! As the UNICF report stated; "International agencies and other partnersand develop common strategies to promote immunization"An excellent example of this pro-vaccination strategy at work is a recent Slate Magazine article arguing thatTony Cartalucci lays out an excellent counter argument to such a ridiculous statement:It is my hope that this article will help light the way for those who are interested in knowing the truth about vaccinations, the medical cartel , media manipulation and the importance of exercising your individual and collective rights, while you still can!