Published September 17, 2016
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Ethics released a new “Committee Opinion” this month that outlines what...
— William Wilberforce
The common conception of vaccines is that they have saved millions of lives by eradicating deadly diseases and that they are mostly if not totally safe. The public debate hinges on and legislative decisions are made based on these assumptions. Neither of them holds up to the barest scrutiny. A cursory look at government data shows that the death rate from infectious diseases, both generally and for the specific data these vaccines target, had already reached record lows before the vaccines were introduced.
Further, the government and industry, as well as independent, peer reviewed science confirm what countless parents and children have experienced: vaccines can and do injure children. Those injuries can lead to major health issues throughout a person’s life and can even kill infants, children and adults. All of this is well documented.
These two simple truths dramatically shift the risk-benefit analysis of vaccines. If we do not know these two easily verified truths, we may think that in this debate, on the one hand, are people who have done all the science and studied all the numbers and proven vaccines are safe and effective with no negative effects. These people are just trying to protect babies and save lives and they have all the science on their side.
This is the image presented in the media, and even many doctors believe it. In this widely believed public image, the opposite side of the debate is a bunch of people who get their medical advice from a Playboy Bunny and a discredited doctor who spent time in prison for torturing babies.
The reality is that on one side are many families of vaccine injured children. In some cases, the people on that side of the conversation have even lost their children to vaccines. Many of these people have gone on to study the actual numbers and the published science. They have all come to recognize the two simple, easily verified truths discussed in my first paragraph.
On the other side of the debate are a number of arguments. One is, we should not look into this because it puts babies at risk. This is ludicrous. Studying medical science and history does not put babies at risk. Another argument is that smarter, more well informed people have spoken, their words have been spread to all corners of the globe by the media and therefore we should stop talking about the issue. This also is a silly argument. The media is almost never right about anything except the sports scores.
The argument that the government is right no matter what is the argument in favor of totalitarian dictatorship. The historical evidence does not in any way support the veracity of governments nor their undying concern for the well-being of their subjects. The argument that the science is settled can only be made by those who have dedicated their lives to studying the science, and the true scientist who would make that claim is rare indeed, if not a purely mythological creature.
The science of the gravitational constant and the speed of light is not settled, let alone the science of vaccine injury. In fact, the science of vaccine injury, considered en total, shows quite a bit of danger and cause for concern and caution and further investigation, at the very least.
So why do people resist this conversation? Why do people refuse to read the government data or the published science? Why do they instead insist that nobody should discuss this issue? Why do they threaten and cajole, even cut off ties with those who are willing to look with clear eyes and search for deeper knowledge?
One can only hypothesize.
Either way, once we realize that the risk-benefit analysis of vaccines is not a question of saving millions of lives versus a few injured kids but may, in fact, be a question of testing disease prevention methods by injecting known neurotoxins into babies to gain control of their immune systems and the evidence that the experiment has worked is circumstantial at best, while the evidence that it is doing harm is incontrovertible, we should all pause to consider the issue more deeply, to become better informed and to engage our community in the discussion.
This article does not claim to offer the final answer. It is a call to bring people into the conversation and understand some of the parameters that are not discussed in the media or the doctor’s office. If that scares you, if observation, study and discussion frighten you, then you certainly have no right to claim the mantle of science. These are the cornerstones of science. If you argue that we should not discuss this issue because the authorities have spoken, then your argument is for authoritarianism.