- Created on Thursday, 09 July 2015 03:06
Recently, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that California children will not be allowed to attend public school in that state unless vaccinated, that there would be no more exemptions for any reason. It was prompted by a recent outbreak of measles in California.
Is such coercion justified? If vaccines are effective, then vaccinated children should have nothing to fear from unvaccinated ones because the vaccines protect them. And if the vaccines are not effective, then what's the point of forcing anyone to get them?
For the state to force the injection of chemicals into a child's body against the will of the parents is drastic to the extreme. Whether it is ever justified is debatable, and that's true even if vaccines are proven safe and effective. But, whether vaccines are safe and effective is also debatable, and the fact that it hasn't been established or resolved makes the violation of rights even more egregious.
The safety and effectiveness of vaccines can only be determined in one way: through scientific testing. But, do you know how many times vaccines have been scientifically tested? Nice round number: zero. And what I mean by that is that vaccines have never been tested by comparing the outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children as to the incidence of the disease or diseases in question and as to other health issues and to general health. Instead, the only testing they do concerns antibody titers, such as "the immune responses to the antigens of the hexavalent vaccine were noninferior when compared with those of the control group." So, the administered vaccines did cause the antibody titer to rise in the subjects who received them. But, that's not an end in itself. It's just a theoretical construct. A serological outcome is not a clinical outcome, and it's clinical outcomes that matter.
Here's a CDC report on a measles outbreak at a 100% vaccinated high school in Illinois.
"This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%. This level was validated during the outbreak investigation. Previous investigations of measles outbreaks among highly immunized populations have revealed risk factors such as improper storage or handling of vaccine, vaccine administered to children under 1 year of age, use of globulin with vaccine, and use of killed virus vaccine (1-5). However, these risk factors did not adequately explain the occurrence of this outbreak."
Didn't adequately explain it? How's this for an explanation: The outbreak occurred because the vaccine is ineffective. Even if it did raise the antibody titer, the assumption that that conveys protection is only an assumption. In plain English: the vaccine didn't work.
The rest of what they said is just rationalizing and excuse-making. In the recent California measles outbreak, less than half the afflicted children were unvaccinated. And remember, that's their numbers. I wouldn't put it past them to lie through their teeth.
So, have they ever taken two comparable groups of children, given one group the vaccines, and the other group not, and tried to control for everything else to keep the comparison fair, and then looked at the results, including the incidence of infectious disease and the incidence of other problems? NO! Never! Not once in the history of vaccination have they ever done that.
And their excuse is that it wouldn't be ethical, that to deny the vaccines to the test group wouldn't be right.
But, they know that there are kids who aren't going to be vaccinated anyway because their parents don't believe in it. So, since those kids aren't going to be vaccinated anyway, there are no ethical issues involved in doing a scientific study to compare the outcomes of those children to vaccinated children.
But, they still won't do it. They claim that because of the structural differences between the groups that the comparison wouldn't be meaningful. That is nonsense! Of course it would be meaningful. They won't do it because they are afraid that the unvaccinated children will show better outcomes, that people will hear about it, and then there will be a large-scale revolt against vaccination. And even if they don't actually expect that, they do fully realize that IT'S POSSIBLE! They know it from experience. The same drug companies that make drugs make vaccines, and they know from their own experience in testing drugs that sometimes the placebo group does better than the treatment group. I'm not going to say it happens all the time, but it happens sometimes. If you think it's rare, then you are naïve. And that is exactly why they do not test vaccines.
There are celebrities joining the campaign against vaccinations, including Rob Schneider, Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, and football player Jay Cutler and his wife Kristin Cavallari. They are denounced for not being doctors, as if they are too ignorant to make informed decisions, but let's be honest about something here: the average family doctor's understanding of how vaccines work is extremely limited. They just have a rote, cursory, perfunctory understanding of it. They could probably tell you everything they know about it in five minutes; ten max. And yet, they're spending their days injecting poisons into children like the good little vassals of the state that they are. And believe me, vaccinations are a state thing, a government thing. It's an unholy alliance between Big Pharma and government that brings it about.
Belief in vaccination is like a religion. It's based on a dogma. It is not based on looking at the world objectively. They carefully avoid shining a light on showing whether vaccines are truly effective. They really don't want to know. They just want to believe. To say that there's bias in their interpretation of the data about vaccines is a gross understatement. The world-wide vaccination cult is really a very sick religion.
I will never be vaccinated again; I would sooner leave the country. And I have no doubt that more vaccination harms lie ahead for the masses.