Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
Personally, my wife and I decided to delay the administration of vaccines to our son until he was 2 years old, and then we spaced them out more than guidelines suggested. My wife is a Pediatric OT, and Director of Therapy at a clinic here, and our pediatrician respected her choices.
Yes, we wanted him vaccinated, but we did not agree with the government scheduling for them. I would definitely NOT be for some government bureaucrat, with no public accountability, forcing me to inject my son with very powerful medications before we thought that he was ready for them.
We believe that vaccines are essential and lifesaving, but my wife has seen some very strong negative reactions in children under 2 being vaccinated on the schedule currently called for in the US with some serious effects, over the years.
Should we put societal pressure on people to vaccinate their children? Shame them and avoid them? Absolutely.
Should we take away all rights of choice and force vaccinations at possible gunpoint? (since use of force is the ultimate backing of any government law), Absolutely not.
.
|
Interesting...
So while your own wife who also happens to be in pediatrics was reluctant to immunize your own children due to firsthand knowledge and experience with the prevalence of adverse side effects you would still be ok with shaming etc.
That seems sort of contradictory to me.
Few things...
When I was growing up, if a kid had mumps, measles, chicken pox, my mom wanted me to play with them. The common perception at that time was it was better to develop a natural immunity to those illnesses. She was not "bad mom who should be punished for putting her kids at risk". She was considered "good mom" for making sure her kids developed immunity from common childhood illnesses that are much worse in adults.
Next, consider the issues with the small pox vaccine for example, widely seen as the greatest victory of science and a worldwide vaccination effort. The problem is the original strain of the vaccine that was used to culture new vaccinations is in too short a supply and the modern synthetically created small pox vaccine is not nearly as effective. Keeping a culture of effective vaccine is difficult because they weaken over time. This has been known since the Chinese practiced inoculations as early as 1000 AD, yes, well before Jenner's cow pox farm girl "discovery".
Finally, there is a vested interest to the tune of trilions of dollars for drug companies to require vaccinations. It does create a powerful conflict of interest and they have been proven time and time again to push unsafe products, including vaccines, under the guise of everyone will die if you don't do it. Just follow the dollar and the people behind AIDS and there is a very big conflict of interest between non elected officials that sit on powerful drug company boards as well as serve as chairmen of the CDC like Robert Gallo... who told the world that one in four people would be dead of AIDS within five years, the day after the patent came through for his company's test, which btw was not a Gold Standard test.
Now, guess what company claims to have created the vaccine for AIDS, which by its very definition is so broad that literally anything from cancer, to TB, to diarrhea, etc. can be a AIDS defining illness, so unless that vaccine is a preventative against all of AIDS defining illnesses, I would hold that vaccine very suspect. This is not the shadowy speculations of "conspiracy theory" this is historical fact. Whereas, a small pox vaccination actually will most likely prevent... you guessed it... small pox.
In this thread, everyone is railing on WHP but he at least has taken the time to read the actual papers, which I also did when I was studying AIDS when I got into porn. In fact, I hung out with Dr. Kary Mullis and Dr. Peter Duesberg, one a Nobel prizewinner whose invention of the PCR DNA test revolutionized genetic science, and the other a Berkeley research scientist widely considering to be the world's leading authority on retroviruses at the time. Their scientific rebuttals to the AIDS hypothesis put both their careers in hot water due to Political pressures. They could not even publish in peer reviewed journals like New England Journal of Medicine, where science, inquiry and challenge and repeatable results, all should hold a higher standard than the motives of drug companies seeking to profit, especially companies that also are literally helping shape National and International policy.
Some vaccines are obviously good. Some are not. People should know more and scientists should be allowed to review the science and not be dictated to by for profit entities because then it is not about scientific method it is about profit motive.
