Eliminating Doubt In The Vaccine Controversy
"I'm Sorry... You're Injecting Me With What?!"
There are very few topics more polarizing today than the vaccine controversy. For the majority of people, it is insane to believe that vaccines could somehow develop into a public hazard, given that they may have saved hundreds of millions of lives by bringing smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, yellow fever, whooping cough, polio, and measles under control.
To believe anything but positive things about vaccines connotes the type of fundamental distrust in our institutions that comes naturally to conspiracy freaks, who also believe that reptiles are running the government while flying around in cigarette shaped tubes. To distrust doctors who are supposed to protect and heal us, insinuates that you’ve given up on humanity and are on the way to becoming a hobo who gibbers nonsense at street corners while chewing the same piece of Hubba Bubba for the third week in a row.
The human brain is capable of 100,000,000,000,000,000 processes per second, more powerful than any computer in existence today, so surely if something was wrong with our vaccines we would by now have certain knowledge of the dangers?
Brain researchers would tend to disagree with this logic. The human brain is exceptionally gifted in protecting entrenched belief systems. Confirmation Bias spurs us to agree with people who agree with us. Ingroup Bias helps us to form tighter bonds with people who think like us and become suspicious of any alternative. Status Quo bias makes us apprehensive of any type of change. False Consensus Bias leads us to believe that everyone else thinks like us. Et cetera.
The pharmaceutical industry rides on our cognitive bias default. It spends more than $25 billion per year in advertising plus another $2.5 billion in lobbying per annum to convince us about the stuff that we pop in our mouths or inject in our veins. Their campaigns have been incredibly successful in steering public conversation to the point that any type of doubt expressed against vaccinations is seen as a form of mental instability.
“If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken,” stated Boyd Haley, former professor of chemistry at the University of Kentucky as an expert witness in a court case against a vaccine manufacturer. “If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage,” Haley continued, but the judge ruled that Boyd’s “lack of expertise in genetics, epidemiology, and child neurology make it impossible for him to supply the necessary factual basis to support his testimony.”
Boyd Haley is branded for life as a tinfoil chemist, but his only sin was to report what actually happens on a petri dish.
The rates of autism in the U.S. have increased nearly sixtyfold since the late 1970s when the MMR vaccination was introduced as the first vaccine to use thimerosal as a conservative. The mercury-laden agent is known to be toxic by inhalation, ingestion and even contact with skin, but somehow we don’t have any doubts about its safety when it’s injected into a baby. A paper published in the June 2009 issue of Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry (volume 91, issue 4) concluded the routine administering of childhood vaccines containing thimerosal could cause “significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells.” But that report is now exceedingly difficult to find online.
The first injection of MMR is given to babies within a month of their first birthday.
In the past 30 years, the number of vaccinations has tripled along with the tripling of the number of children with learning disabilities, points out Dr. Joseph Mercola of the Illinois Natural Health Center. Mercola, like many of his alternative peers, sees the autism epidemic as the result of cumulative, multifactorial agents, like environmental toxins, nutritional deficiencies and heavy metals of which vaccines are only one contributor. But even this type of thinking is considered “anti-vaccine.”
The CDC reported in March 2014 that one in every 68 children in U.S. has ASD (autism spectrum disorder), up from 1 in 150 in 2000. In the 1980s, the rate of autism was one in a thousand. The rate of growth happens to coincide with the increasing number of vaccinations added to the childhood vaccination schedule. Yet, the research into autism is primarily focused on genetic causality, with little regard to environmental effects like toxins or heavy metals.
A genetic causality would imply massive mutations in our collective DNA to allow for a sixty-fold increase in ASD in just a couple of decades, yet the genetic theory gets more than 20 times research funding than all the other ASD research put together.
The polarization between “pro-vaccine” and “anti-vaccine” groups is exactly the type of public discourse that the marketing geniuses at Merck et al are looking to incite. It’s the PR version of the Roman dīvide et imperā, divide and conquer, the objective of which is to undermine critical thinking.
Merck sells drugs and vaccines like MMR with a turnover of $50 billion per annum. In 2011, they paid a $900 million fine for Vioxx painkiller that produced 40,000 lethal heart attacks (and gave another 80,000 surprised citizens a semi-heart attack). They also developed Fosamax, a drug for osteoporosis that causes bones to rot. But if Merck and their coven of paid researchers say that MMR is safe, then MMR must be safe without a doubt. Merck itself is in any case absolutely safe because of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which protects vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits. Reagan signed this act into law in 1986, close to the time when the ASD epidemic began to take off.
The latest casualty in the polar divide between the pro- and contra- vaxxers is doctor Daniel Neides, the Medical Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute, who got promptly fired after writing an article about vaccine safety. Doctor Neides is neither anti-vaccine nor 100 percent pro-vaccine, but he dared to question the use of formaldehyde (a deadly neurotoxin) as a replacement for thimerosal in flu shots, after getting sick from his own shot.
“I, like everyone else, took the advice of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – the government – and received a flu shot. 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.
WHAT? How can you call it preservative-free, yet still put a preservative in it? And 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.”
In other words, doctor Neides expressed doubt. And because of the doubt, Neides now belongs to the rapidly deteriorating hobo caste who has lost his mind. Judge for yourself how imbalanced Neides is from his recent speech at the OAMF Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom convention.
Another interesting casualty is a recent study titled Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children, authored by Anthony R. Mawson, Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Jackson State University’s School of Public Health, who made sure that his team takes no issue with vaccinations. They studied 666 kids, half of them vaccinated, half of them not.
“Vaccines are among the greatest achievements of biomedical science and one of the most effective public health interventions of the 20th century. Among U.S. children born between 1995 and 2013, vaccination is estimated to have prevented 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 premature deaths, with overall cost savings of $1.38 trillion. About 95 percent of U.S. children of kindergarten age receive all of the recommended vaccines as a requirement for school and daycare attendance, aimed at preventing the occurrence and spread of targeted infectious diseases. Advances in biotechnology are contributing to the development of new vaccines for widespread use.”
Despite the enthusiastic pro-vaccine intro, the study mysteriously vanished shortly after being published on Open Access Text, a scientific publication site. One reason may have been the statistical conclusions revealed later in the study, including the following paragraph (see also enclosed tables).
“Mawson and his team found vaccinated children significantly more likely their unvaccinated counterparts to be prone to allergic rhinitis (hay fever) [10.4 percent versus 0.4 percent], other allergies [22.2 percent vs. 6.9 percent], eczema/atopic dermatitis [9.5 percent vs. 3.6 percent], a learning disability [5.7 percent vs. 1.2 percent], ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) [4.7 percent vs. 1.0 percent], ASD (autism spectrum disorder) [4.7 percent vs. 1.0 percent], any neurodevelopmental disorder (learning disability, ADHD, ASD) [10.5 percent vs. 3.1 percent], and “any chronic illness” [44.0 percent vs. 25.0 percent].”
This translates to nearly five-fold probability in getting ASD from vaccinations. Twenty times higher likelihood of allergies. Five times higher likelihood for ADHD. Two times higher likelihood for any type of chronic disease. Two and a half times higher likelihood for learning disability. So basically a lot of brain damage, for the benefit of lowering the odds of getting chickenpox, rubella and whooping cough.
These types of findings clearly support the cumulative toxin theory that Mercola and his alternative community support. Most people are willing to accept that there is a higher chance of neuronal damage if the child is living in a polluted environment, drinking compromised water, eating nutrient-deficient foods (in or outside of embryo), or exposed to other toxins. There are also plenty of studies that link e.g. pollutants to ASD directly, but none integrate the vaccine component. The logic goes like this: exposure to pollution can increase the odds of autism, but injecting the heavy metals from pollution directly into the baby’s bloodstream is safe.
Expressing any type of doubt is becoming increasingly difficult in the vaccine controversy. Any type of news or research that undermines mainstream medicine, is also likely to be targeted by the brand new Facebook and Google algorithms that are designed to filter out “fake news.”
Just like this article.
CHARTS from “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children,”