The literature against compulsory vaccination is expanding almost as rapidly as the list of new vaccines which a hyperactive drug industry is preparing for us — great medical discoveries “tending to the depopulation of the earth,” as
a physician in the 19th century put it.
This literature, contrary to the expectations of many who read it and write
it, will never change the views of the other side, as the position of the
vaccine establishment is rooted in a clear understanding of its own
self-interest. The manufacturers of vaccines and the pediatricians who
administer them are simply unwilling to criticise their source of livelihood;
they are remarkably incurious about new knowledge, and in that sense it is a
waste of time to argue with them. If pediatricians could not schedule “well
baby” visits (it’s the last time the baby is really well), they would have to
fold their tents and ride off into the sunset. Vaccinations provide such a
large proportion of their livelihood that without them they would have to
change occupation and practice another specialty.
Vaccines, of course, also account for a substantial portion of drug industry profits.
The only really effective response to this assault upon our neurological and immune systems is for the public to insist that state legislatures abolish the
laws mandating compulsory vaccinations.
For this the public itself needs to be educated about all aspects of vaccine
issues, and of the many areas of discussion and argument I have selected two
for particular emphasis: . The following pages cover two themes: (1) the
errors and shortcomings, even the actual bad faith and fraud, which stigmatize
the pro-vaccination literature, and 2) some of the unnoticed, or neglected,
short-term and long-term effects of vaccinations.
The second of these two themes is self-explanatory, as is my contribution.
The first is a little more complex.
Much reading and rereading of the productions of the physicians and
scientists who take money from the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH for articles
favoring government policies has convinced me that these articles are always
methodologically defective. The authors themselves are in a serious bind
because, when they apply for and receive a government grant to “study” a
vaccination issue, it is understood on all sides that their conclusions are
not going undermine the government’s vaccination program. When the outcome is foreordained, the data have to be adjusted accordingly, and the result is a lot of bad epidemiology.
The Government commenced its vaccination campaigns in the 1940’s without adequately testing these vaccines at all (whooping cough, for instance), or without testing them adequately (measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis-B, influenza). Now the FDA and the CDC are trying retrospectively and retroactively to justify these hastily reached and hastily executed decisions.
Articles which are not government funded, on the other hand, can occasionally be honest and objective.