Another blog post inspired by Twitter ...
Why are vets recommending fewer vaccines to animals in response to higher rates of chronic disease?
Why can't we do at least one study comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children (even a retrospective one, let alone an RCT)?
Is there any company manufacturing or selling vaccines that hasn't been accused or convicted of fraud or deception or unethical actions? In other words - are the products they are making worthy of our trust?
In vaccine studies, why is the "placebo" NOT an inert substance like saline, but rather the vaccine excipient minus the antigen? The excipient is not inert saline and contains many other chemicals that are biologically interactive - this would affect the results of the study.
Why is there so much conflict of interest (COI) embedded in every facet of vaccine policy?
Lawmakers receive large amounts of cash from pharmaceutical lobbyists
Scientists and other researchers are beholden to grant-makers for further funding
Physicians are paid bonuses for vaccinating patients
Healthcare workers are required to be vaccinated to continue employment
Members of the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Vaccination Practices) have ties to and/or
benefit financially from companies that make/sell the vaccines they recommend.
There is a revolving door between the CDC and many vaccine/pharmaceutical companies
Declaring or making known any conflict of interest does not make it go away. What makes it go away is eliminating the conflict (duh!) - do not receive any kind of payment or gift (either cash or in-kind) from any company involved in making or selling vaccines.
Why is use of a product that has been legally declared "unavoidably unsafe" required for participation in community activities (school, employment, etc);
Why are those who make/sell/administer vaccines legally shielded ("immune") from liability?
Why are vaccines "exempt" from being questioned? The "science was settled" in regards to the helio-centric nature of our solar system ... well, at least by Galileo - but he was "made to care" by many in his day - and it was not until recently that those who opposed him finally acknowledged he was correct.
Similarly - the theory that episiotomy protected the pelvic floor was unquestioned ... until someone actually did the research - low and behold, episiotomy tends to do more harm than good and its use should be restricted. Hmmmm. Vaginal birth after cesarean was considered unsafe - until the research was actually done - low and behold, it was "discovered" that it is actually, in general, a safe route of birth for many, if not most women who have previously given birth by cesarean section. Hmmm. Yet there are many questions about vaccination that are studiously unanswered. The theory of vaccination is just that, a theory. Whatever testing and research that has been done is not sufficient and is little more than the academic equivalent of an echo chamber. Those who have questions about vaccination safety, efficacy, and policy are trying to stop the echo of "safe and effective" - it's a technique called the broken record and it can be effective, but it is hardly appropriate for a topic this important.
Why are there some who think that "Shaken Baby Syndrome" may have the DNA fingerprints of vaccine-associated death all over it ... yet no one will take this seriously. How many may have been falsely accused and jailed because of this?
Similarly, does anyone consider any temporal association between SIDS and receipt of vaccines?
Why are those who question vaccination unafraid of freedom, while those who accept vaccination without question frequently want to impose this on others - in other words, advocate limiting freedom to choose or decline a medical procedure - those who advocate for vaccination advocate for denial of informed consent (one element of which is freedom to accept or decline the course of action).
Why is the heavy hand of the state being used to control the population (in the context of this blog post: in regards to vaccination - but certainly the heavy hand of the state is being used to control citizen in far many other domains as well) when there are so many legitimate questions about vaccination?
Why are substances used in vaccines not safe outside of vaccines (ie: like mercury, formaldehyde among many others) but are safe to be injected into anyone when included in vaccines? Why are EPA limits for these toxins unsafe for human exposure at lower levels in drinking water than in vaccines that are injected into the body?
Why do we vaccinate children for Hep B at birth when their mother's do not have this infection?
What would the vaccine schedule look like today if vaccine makers had not been given immunity (since 1986) - the number of vaccines has grown exponentially since then and there are hundreds more being developed.
One generation ago the mantra was "question authority" ... now those who do are pariahs.
Transparency welcomes questions, research, information - none of which is valued by those who deny there are legitimate questions regarding vaccination. Transparency and freedom are a natural fit - how lovely it would be to have both in regards to vaccination. Answering the questions posed in this post would be a start.
Do your own research, consider all points of view.
As always - if you want a vaccine you should get it. If you do not want a vaccine you should be free to decline without being penalized in any way, shape, or form.