KNOW…The Vaccine Controversy

After decades of blind adherence to a mass vaccination campaign that began in the mid-1960’s, the public is beginning to see the credible correlation between vaccine history and the epidemic rise in neurological, autoimmune and chronic inflammatory diseases. The public is being assured that there is no link and no causation. Where risk of injury or death is acknowledged, it is purported to be rare and inconsequential compared to the perceived benefits to individuals and society. With evidence of harm and the attendant realization that the right to informed consent is being denied, a growing number of concerned individuals are demanding that questions about vaccine safety and forced compliance be addressed. Hence, The Vaccine Controversy.

What are the perceived issues?

On the one hand, there is a vaccination policy with a goal of 100% cradle-to-grave compliance and whose proponents believe that vaccination is modern medicine’s greatest achievement. They claim that vaccines are safe, vaccinations prevent disease, save lives, and everyone must have them. On the other hand, there are reasonable people who recognize flaws and ethical problems with both the vaccine paradigm and a coercive vaccine policy. They claim that vaccines are inherently dangerous.

Most people would prefer not to engage in this controversy because the issues being raised question premises upon which conventional health care is predicated. With killer epidemics of infectious diseases a thing of the past, WHY NOT credit mass vaccination? Indeed, this assertion is taken at face value even though history and data show that better nutrition, sanitation and improved hygiene are as much contributing factors to the eradication of these diseases as mass vaccination is purported to be.

While it may seem like The Vaccine Controversy is new, the safety and ethical issues surrounding this debate have been contested since vaccines were invented. Whereas the proponents of mass vaccination might have you think there is a conspiracy of quacks and unfit parents trying to thwart medical progress and cause people to die, the truth of the matter is that the mounting evidence of malfeasance is undeniable as the conspiracy of silence about this controversy is brought to light.

At issue is whether vaccines are safe. Concern about vaccine safety, however, is not a valid reason for declining vaccines. A “one-size-fits-all” coercive policy is “all-for-all” with the only exceptions (in most states) being medical contraindication (damaged by previous vaccines or highly susceptible to vaccine adverse reactions) and religious conflict (now being threatened). Vaccine proponents say that those who question the safety forget or are unaware of how devastating infectious diseases were before the advent of vaccines.

The fact is, the stellar role that mass vaccination is believed to play in public health DOES NOT preclude a consequential role in ALSO being a factor in the development of chronic, debilitating immune dysregulation diseases and painful neurological disorders.

While admitting there are risks for injury and death (referred to as Collateral Damage), proponents keep assuring us that vaccines are safe and there is no connection between vaccination and adverse events or diseases.

Many people would prefer not to go down this road of inquiry. It was easier when we had only the fear of getting a deadly infectious disease – vaccination put that fear out of our minds. Knowing that the risks for vaccine injury and death are much higher and more diverse, we now have two fears to contend with. We fear getting a disease if we do not vaccinate, and we fear getting diseased by vaccination if we do.

The vaccine conundrum is polarized into two camps: “pro-vaccine” (everyone, every vaccine, any time and all the time) and “anti-vaccine” (don’t make me get them) – with “safe” and “dangerous” duking it out in the middle – each side with their own experts, scientific data and empirical evidence to support their truth. It is a complicated subject matter and when the focus in on the question of safety, there are many rabbit holes of distraction that take us further away from what is the real issue in this matter.

The FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE in The Vaccine Controversy is not about vaccine safety!

The fundamental issue in The Vaccine Controversy concerns the government’s power to deny fundamental civil rights. Because vaccination is a medical procedure with documented risks for injury and death, the Vaccine Controversy is about the human Right to Informed Consent. Because there are risks for injury or death, parents and all recipients of these products deserve to be given truthful information about the diseases and the adverse reactions from vaccines. Informed Consent means being able to choose or decline a medical procedure that carries a risk for injury, disability, or death. It doesn’t matter what anyone’s position is on the safety or necessity of vaccines … a coercive policy of compliance is unethical … and informed consent is a necessity for a moral society. Period.

What is the justification for mandated mass vaccination?

A common belief of the vaccine paradigm is that vaccination improves public health and that mass vaccination protects everyone’s health. The presumed logic is that high vaccination rates are necessary in order to prevent the return of terrible diseases. Thus, in order to protect the public, the public must be vaccinated.

It is not clear whether vaccination became mandatory because the public cannot be trusted to fulfill their obligations to society so laws were created to enforce compliance, or, if because vaccination carries a risk for injury and death people must be forced to vaccinate. If the rationale that mass vaccination protects and improves everyone’s HEALTH was true, rational people would likely be willing to take the risk of injury or death from vaccination; and people everywhere would suppose that forcing this medical procedure upon entire populations is noble, even though not ethical. In fact, this is what we have believed and why we have accepted this violation of civil rights. The vaccine paradigm has become so institutionalized that people do not think to question whether the person or entity demanding compliance has lawful authority to do so. They do not think to ask them for their statement of liability (in the event of injury or death). They fail to ask what to look for in case they or their child becomes a vaccine reaction statistic. Meanwhile …

The variables have changed … and so, too, the outcome.

Vaccine history is radically different today than when mass vaccination was initiated. The number of vaccines have increased dramatically (with hundreds more in the pipeline of development). Childhood vaccination rates are nearly 100% now, and they are being injected at younger ages (even before birth). New improved vaccines (replacing vaccines that were removed due to too many injuries and deaths) are being combined with two, three, four and more vaccines so that multiple vaccines are given at the same time. A child born in 2017 will receive, on the average, one vaccine per month for five years. None of these changed variables should matter if vaccines are safe, however …

After fifty years of this experiment with mankind, the Public Health finds itself in a state of crisis with an epidemic of Modern Diseases born of chronic inflammation, neurological impairment, and immune dysregulation – the consequences of which are not yet fully understood or realized. Autism – where incidence rates have gone from 1:10,000 in 1980 to 1:68 in 2017 – is just the tip of the iceberg. Similar rates of “epidemic” apply to seizure disorders and other allergic-related emergencies and in chronic conditions where “immune-dysregulation” is the operative word. Typically old-age-related inflammatory and degenerative diseases are now prevalent in children and young adults. With “Cause Unknown” to blame, it begs the obvious question: Has vaccination been a contributing factor in the development of these trends?

Yet, even as the credible empirical and scientific data coming in suggests that it could be, regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies (immune from liability since 1986) continue to assure us that injecting toxic substances into every human being does not adversely affect a person’s health or the Public Health. In fact, they implore us to ignore what we see, read and hear; and, they remind us of our obligation to society. Because, you see …

The rationale for mandated mass vaccination is based on the notion that the risk of injury or death from vaccine is relative to the risk of injury or death without vaccination.

In other words, the perceived benefit of saving millions of lives from the scourge of infectious disease epidemics by mass vaccination outweighs the purportedly rare incidence of death by vaccine. Thus, “the end justifies the means”.

This, as we learn from studying history, is a dangerous precedent for government intrusion and leads to unbridled, unchecked and unlawful power. Yet the majority of people think that forcing people to vaccinate is appropriate. Why? Because “vaccination is about the Public Health” … meaning that individual circumstance or choice in weighing risks is not relevant. Individual civil rights must be sacrificed for the greater good.

If it were true that vaccination protects the public health and improves immunity, one might be willing to play the vaccine game of roulette in order to gain such a benefit.

However, the science simply does not support this hypothesis any longer.

The justification for compulsory infection by injection is based on a flawed but pervasive belief that vaccination safely stimulates an immune response …

Yet the most advanced science in immunity proves that the human immune system cannot be tricked, suppressed, or controlled into accepting or tolerating any foreign DNA or proteins – whether by infection, injection or transplantation … without immunologic consequences.

In other words, immunological consequence is not a question of “if” but “to what extent”. Every vaccine must trigger an allergic reaction to be efficacious. The allergic reaction is an immunologic response with varying degrees of “crisis”. If the reaction is massive, the consequence is immediate injury or death. Rare, they say (but nevertheless proof there is risk). After injection and the initial allergic response (“normal” or massive), there is “infection” of toxic substances and foreign proteins to deal with – an immunologic process with varying degrees of morbidity – hence chronic inflammation and vascular and/or neurological damage. With vaccination, the “collateral damage” of immunological consequence is either denied (when blamed for events and diseases) or considered acceptable as the price we pay for the Public Health. The “vaccines are safe and prevent disease” mantra has worked on our collective psyche to the point where rationale discourse is forbidden and forced compliance with denial of informed consent is okay.

Our myopic beliefs about vaccination are founded on precepts that are no longer valid. To say “vaccines safely stimulate the immune system to protect you” – is disingenuous. It is La-La-Land to believe that is all a vaccine does, and that reality is conveniently left out of the outcome equation. Meanwhile, a public health policy of forced compliance of any medical product or procedure with risks for injury and death, without the Right to Informed Consent (i.e., the right to decline), is a medical tyranny and a crime against humanity that cannot be tolerated by a free and moral society.

If the Public Health is the justification for the practice and a policy of forced compliance, then the Public Health must be the standard by which it is measured. To say that government-sanctioned preventive healthcare is science and evidence-based (thus forced compliance is justified) is disingenuous. The Public Health report card and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System tell another story. Referring to those who decry the tyranny and question the safety as “anti-vaxxers” implies they are “anti-science” and “anti- for the greater good”. This moniker (and other bullying tactics) is used to shut down the discussion of relevant issues … the most important being the Right to Informed Consent. The on-going “safe vs. dangerous” argument, while obviously critically important to resolve, is a distraction that keeps us from recognizing the fundamental issue – which is the policy of forced compliance.

The Right to Informed Consent must be the foundational principle upon which Science, Medicine and Government are based – it is The Moral Standard for societies and mankind and every institution. The public welfare is protected by it and depends on it. The advancement of science, technology and medicine will not be thwarted by adhering to this standard. As the duties of government continue to expand (year after year) to meet social welfare needs and environmental challenges, its power of coercion is held in check with Informed Consent. Medical care, welfare benefits, employment and membership should not be contingent upon compliance when there is risk for injury and death or when the manufacturers and the administrators of these products have no liability for the injuries and deaths. That is medical tyranny. This is the Vaccine Controversy.