I have a good friend that is from a scientific background, and married to a scientist. Recently we had a long conversation centering around the vaccine debate, but ultimately discussing frustrations regarding science and the medical establishment and government and big business influences. I feel that the conversation was very helpful for our very differing opinions to find an outlet, so I wanted to share some of the concepts that we had discussed. I’m going to try and keep the concepts in a logical order, but apologize if I end up jumping around a bit
My friends biggest concern for the arguments of either side seemed to center around the general population using the term believe or belief in regards to scientific information. Her statement simply is that science is called science for a reason. There are very set regulations, processes, and huge amounts of red-tape involved in making a scientific statement such as: this pill solves X problem. Scientists have to follow rigorous testing, under very strict guidelines, over years, and the studies have to be repeatable to be considered good science. So in her mind, belief should never enter into the equation. Whatever is in question has passed all of the guidelines, standards and is repeatable so it is valid. Period.
I pointed out however, that science changes it mind quite regularly. Eggs were bad, then good, then bad again. Salt was bad, and now science says maybe not. The earth was flat and now it is round. Our solar system models went through several changes. Energy has had several models. Even discussions on, and models of, the basic atom have undergone changes over time as our ability to discern things and our equipment have improved. So from a layperson’s perspective I can completely understand how someone would use the word belief. Really what the average Joe is saying is: Should I trust this information, if I go with this information, whose to say you won’t turn around in 5 or 10 years and tell me the opposite.” Really that is more a matter of trust than belief; but isn’t trust inherent in belief?
Now, granted, the processes have remained essentially the same. What has changed is our technology and equipment that we use for testing the myriad of things there are to test. As technology and equipment has improved, it is able to measure more accurately and we’ve been able to narrow results down further and sometimes more accurate results do mean that previous concepts need to be revised or adjusted. It just is, science is an evolving art of trying to put concrete data to the world around us.
So essentially the Average Joe has to trust that we have the best knowledge at this time using the current technology that we have to study with.
We also discussed how diet and nutrition are so complex that even when Science has done it’s level best to study the effects of one particular aspect of that, it is nearly impossible to account for every variable involved. Study participants can fudge their accounts of diet, often recording inaccurate quantities, calories, ingredients, and so on. Study participants can forget to mention that they are taking some supplement or over the counter medication, so then we have no idea the role that forgotten item played. So again we are relying on the best information that we have at that time. And again that can affect whether or not someone is willing to believe or trust that information.
I think really it boils down to semantics here. The scientist mind says data currently shows this so it’s as accurate as it gets, no reason to believe otherwise. The layperson mind says well they’ve changed their statements before, who says they won’t on this too. It’s really a matter of perspective.
The you add in government and big business and perspectives of the medical establishment.
Lets start with the latter. My friend pointed out that she does not consider doctors scientists. In her words they study enough science to know what they are doing, but by no means bother to study everything. She pointed out that a working doctor simply would not have time to read every bit of research, look at all the individual data, and make their own decisions. They don’t have the capacity so they have to rely on what scientific institutions tell them. Now with that being said, she agreed that that reasoning is precisely why individual patients have the right to choose (it’s one of the few things we completely 100% agreed upon). If a doctor can’t possibly know all of the in’s and out’s, can’t foresee how your family and genetics might react to something, or a latent health problem that you don’t even know about yet, then you should have a choice. She continued that where California has, and other states are trying to take away exemptions, it will ultimately fail. She believes that at some point, someone will have an injury and take the laws to court and it will be repealed by the time it hits supreme court. I personally hope her faith in the judicial system is correct.
I say this because we did discuss how there may be genetic components to reactions to drugs or vaccines. Yet we still do not have the tools to do a blood test and determine if this might be why some people are being damaged by vaccines or drugs. We discussed how unknown personal situations (for example someone not knowing that they have mild damage to their intestinal wall [leaky gut]) might lead to adverse reactions or vaccine/drug injuries. Yet we do not have a solid set of testing to run people through to determine if that might be a factor, or at least testing that would be covered for every person that requests it. We simply don’t have a way to determine if one individual sitting in a doctor’s office might react to a commonly accepted as good injection.
I pointed out further, that beyond that, doctor’s are not even given information on the toxicity of known ingredients in vaccines. For instance many vaccines contain aluminum. It it is a metal that is able to trigger immune response, so it is helpful for it to be in vaccines. However, if your body gets too much at once it can cause liver damage and even brain damage. Even prolonged low doses of aluminum have been shown to contribute to Alzheimer’s, which is why aluminum cookware and cans are required to be coated to avoid people from having brain damage from the repeated long term exposure. Yet doctors do not understand or have the knowledge of how to adjust dosages to avoid that. If an infant is due to receive a vaccine, they are given the same dose based on their age as any other child of that age. Yet aluminum toxicity is based upon blood volume which is directly in proportion to the infant’s weight. So your underweight preemie is given the same does as the well fed plump munchkin, and thus the underweight child is likely to suffer adverse effects.
So yet again there are factors at play that doctors are not able, or not willing to adjust for, yet doctors want to play God and demand that everyone get the same vaccines at the same dosage at the same time; and the state governments are bent on backing the doctors instead of their constituents.
Now why is that?
Science is convinced that vaccines are the sole responsibility for eliminating disease. My friend believes this wholeheartedly. She pointed out small pox and that it’s been eradicated due to vaccines. I said that it may have been a major factor, but that I was not convinced. We as a greater society have come up with a myriad of ways to affect and kill disease. Running water, plumbing, sewage treatment (even as simple as outhouses- separating feces from our living spaces prevented much disease by itself), soaps, personal protection devices such as gloves and masks, chemicals that kill pests that carry the disease, chemicals that kill the disease itself (Malaria was greatly reduced with mosquito sprays and mosquito netting, and even today if someone becomes ill with Malaria they are no longer likely to die because of greater ability to treat the symptoms). These were all factors that helped prevent the spread of disease and kill disease where it stands.
Beyond that I’m not convinced that diseases that were “eradicated” actually were. I remember only about 5 years ago there was a disease in California that was acting strangely like polio. Some people died. They managed to contain the disease and eventually there were no new reinfections. Yet they never admitted that it was polio because the actual virus didn’t look like polio. However, they never admitted it was a mutation either. That’s the problem with diseases. They are just like every other organism on the planet. They want to survive and will do whatever it takes to do so, especially including mutation. So that may have very well been a mutated polio virus. So where were your vaccines then. If the virus has mutated then the old vaccines are ineffective.
It is precisely why the flu vaccine is rarely effective, even though they push it year after year. There are now 4 types of Flu A, B, C, and in 2012 D was discovered. Just Type A has 198 strains based upon the proteins found on them. (CDC info- might be accurate). Good luck finding numbers on Type B, but the CDC will tell you that they based Type B classification on lineages and strains. Type C fortunately is newer and only has one known strain. & Type D being brand new only has one known strain. …. Yet the vaccine only covers one version of Type A and one version of Type B. They literally guess the previous year as to which one they think will be most prevalent the following year. Now I am certain they have some kind of data to guide that guess, but it is still an educated guess. The claims are that regardless of which strains they use, you will still be covered and if you get sick it will be less severe.
I work in the medical environment and because I am a contractor I am exempt from getting the vaccine, and I take advantage of that and avoid it. I’ve been sick from flu like symptoms twice in the last 5 years, and both times CDIF was going around the nursing home. CDIF is not the flu but many of the symptoms are similar. SO, I honestly couldn’t tell you if I had CDIF or Flu. I just stayed home for a week and was better. Yet, every year the nurses and aids and other staff are required to get the flu vaccine, and every year there are periods of mass sickness after the vaccine where the buildings are short staffed, or if staff is there it is obvious they are not well. Is it coincidence? Maybe. I doubt it.
Now, another thing I brought up with my friend is that again, along the lines of ingredients, there are things in vaccines that in themselves may be triggering problems. Thiomersal is an ingredient that has been removed from most, but not all vaccines. It’s primary component is Mercury. Toxic to humans. The argument was that because mercury was only one component of Thiomersal that it was not affecting humans or making anyone sick. Yet, they have removed it from all but 3 vaccines. Coincidence? Plus, have you ever known why the Mad Hatter was Mad? It was because hat making procedures once used mercury. The mercury literally drove hat makers mad. I am not a scientist, and I admitted that to my friend, but I have noticed that post Thiomersal use, there are astronomically high rates of depression, anxiety disorders, and we’re even seeing higher rates of schizophrenia. I would argue we’re all mad hatters.
Take that one step further. Peanut oil is being used in many vaccines and has been for about a decade. The last 5 years the rates of extreme Anaphylatic shock type peanut allergies has skyrocketed with 4,000 new diagnoses every year (Click here) . Again I see a correlation. We’ve know about peanut allergies since the 40’s, yet they are more common now than they have ever been, and I’m not the only one making the connection to vaccines (and here) . There has also been the same correlation to use of egg byproducts and egg allergies, and cotton seed oil and cotton seed allergy, both of which ended after discontinued use the those ingredients in vaccines. Beyond that rates of other autoimmune diseases and disorders are rising just as rapidly- Rheumatoid Arthritis, Some forms of Diabetes/Pancreatitis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, PCOS, Asthma, IBS/IBD, Crohn’s, Lupus, MS, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Psoriasis, Grave’s Thyroid disease, Myasthenia gravis, and Vasculitis– to name a few. All of them are more prominent than they were even 30 years ago.
By the way I have been diagnosed with: thyroid dysfunction, asthma, severe dietary allergies and seasonal allergies. Some of my allergies cause reactions just like R.A. though I’ve never had a doctor diagnose me because I don’t want the stupid meds when I can control the joint pain with diet.
Now my friend disagrees with me on the allergy/auto-immune connection. She could not specifically state why that would be impossible, but did say that disease antigens and allergy antigens are different. She just didn’t think (believe) that one vaccine could trigger both. It’s only for the disease so that would be the only effect. But of course she didn’t realize that there were still vaccines using Thiomersal either.
So then discussion turned toward business and government influence on the study of efficacy. She was the one that pointed out that much data never makes it to the table. She stated that if any data fails the rigorous standards then it is exempt from being released. If data is biased in any way it is with-held intentionally. If data can not be reproduced in a duplicate study it is with-held. If data is being sponsored by a business (pharma wants to know if their drug works) and no beneficial results are documented then data can, and often will be with-held.
She then pointed out that many studies are done as sidelines. Her example was that you are in charge of studying why the ocean is blue, you get grant money for that. Because you think it pertains to why the ocean is blue you start study B as to why the sky is blue. You find the answers you want to the sky issue and help solve the ocean issue. However, if you find out the sky is really green and it completely challenges why you thought the ocean was blue, then do you really want to share that information. Especially if the sky being green makes the company/government-agency you work for look bad. If there’s a risk you might get fired or not be able to work anymore, there’s a good chance that you will pretend the study didn’t exist or at least find a way to not release the data. She then explained that there are many ways that would prevent data from being released. Subject/participant personal info could be compromised, inaccurate results, being unable to control external variables, biased participants/scientists, or any slight variation from scientific standards could nullify data. So she was essentially admitting it’s not the data that is compromised, it is the business, politics, and governmental oversight that compromises accurate data from being released.
So essentially she is saying that we have the most accurate information possible with the tools and technology we have at this time, with an acknowledgement of the politics of the game. So again, I can totally see why the layperson might call that a belief.
She admits the downfalls to obtaining accurate data, but contends that what she has seen is the only accurate data available, when the reality of the last bit of conversation dictates that there might be accurate data that never saw the light of day.
Finally, I asked her if she was aware of the CDC whistle-blower Dr. William Thompson that is set to appear in front of Congress later this year, as well as a standing court case. That he is willing to testify that the CDC data was falsified and the CDC lied to the rest of our government, all of our medical professionals, and the general public about the percentage of vaccine injured individuals. She simply replied that she was unaware of that information and couldn’t comment on it. She then stated if that is really true then why didn’t Europe show the same data that he is willing to testify on. Stating that she believes Europe’s standards to be even more rigorous that the United States.
My only answer for that is if business and politics can affect the release of accurate data in a Democratic government, I see no reason why it can’t also affect the same process in a Socialized government. The only difference being that socialism does make a greater effort to keep it’s people healthy and cared for, and is slightly less concerned about big business making even bigger money. It doesn’t mean they are exempt from those influences, just that they make a surface attempt at balancing the scales.
So all in all we agreed to disagree on many things. The only thing that we both unequivocally agreed upon was that the individual patient (or Parent in child situation) should have the right to choose in lieu of accurate testing measures to determine safety and efficacy on an individual basis.
And with that being said, since I already have so many auto-immune issues, I will continue to refuse vaccinations, for myself and my children. If my issues are even remotely related to vaccination, my children have my genetics and will be spared the risk. My husband can make up his own mind- though I believe him to agree with me.
#VaxxedTheMovie… the makers of the movie in the Q&A afterward recommended having a written statement that if vaccinations are give the medical establishment and administering medical professional(s) will be sued. I consider this blog post and my restatement of that recommendation to be my current copy of that, as I can access this writing at any time as long as I have my phone. I will still seek a legal version, as a backup, but this will be my written refusal for easy access. Any further vaccinations for me (Treasa Cailleach) or my children (Anya or Ian) will result in legal proceedings.
And final disclaimer, if you are a doctor reading this while any one of us is sitting in your office, make my day, the lawsuit would fix my financial woes really quick. Thank you for your cooperation!