Family

A Case for Questioning Vaccines

Whether or not a parent should be taking their kids in for vaccinations can be a hot-button topic these days. Many people feel very strongly one way or the other. The majority of folks are on the pro-vaccination side of the debate, however. Since I am typically one that roots for the underdog, I will attempt to lay out some sound reasoning as to why parents should think twice before sending their kids to get “immunized”. This is an effort to spread awareness and encourage parents to educate themselves on this subject. I am not trying to convince parents not to vaccinate their children.

The pharmaceutical industry claims that their vaccines are properly tested. Yet, the tests do not contain a vaccine-free placebo as a control sample. Meaning that it cannot be accurately judged that someone didn’t get sick, or felt better, due to the vaccine or due to simply believing they were now safe from infection (the placebo effect). Every scientific test performed should have a control group. The fact the vaccine industry omitted this should at the very least raise a few eyebrows.

Vaccines do not make one immune to disease, the term “immunizations” is falsely applied to vaccines in an effort by the pharmaceutical companies to make the general public think they are more effective than reality dictates. Some claim that the polio vaccine eradicated the disease, but this simply isn’t true. Polio, which is perhaps the most feared disease concerning children, had greatly lessoned before the polio vaccine was introduced in 1953. What led to the downfall of polio? An improvement in hygiene, diet, and the building up of the body’s natural immune system. Remember, the Black Plague also met its match before the age of vaccines dawned. This is all further evidenced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

“The 19th century shift in population from country to city that accompanied industrialization and immigration led to overcrowding in poor housing served by inadequate or nonexistent public water supplies and waste-disposal systems. These conditions resulted in repeated outbreaks of cholera, dysentery, TB, typhoid fever, influenza, yellow fever, and malaria. By 1900, however, the incidence of many of these diseases had begun to decline because of public health improvements, implementation of which continued into the 20th century. Local, state, and federal efforts to improve sanitation and hygiene reinforced the concept of collective ‘public health’ action (e.g., to prevent infection by providing clean drinking water).”

A common ingredient in vaccines is formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen (cancer causing agent). It just so happens that leukemia, which is a cancer, has grown in prevalence among children in recent years. Thimerosal is also commonly found in vaccines. It is an anti-septic and anti-fungal agent used in vaccines to keep the vial from becoming contaminated. However, thimerosal also contains mercury. Although, we are told that the vaccines only contain “trace amounts” of thimerosal. The last thimerosal study to be funded in the United States was back in 1929…by a pharmaceutical company. The results of their tests showed that 100% of the kids that were injected with trace amounts of thimerosal died from meningitis. If vaccines are safe, then why do they have possible negative side-effects? The Tripedia vaccine used for DTaP contains thimerosal and has the possible side-effects of SIDS, cellulitis, autism, anaphylactic reaction, brain dysfunction, low muscle tone and strength, nerve damage, hyperventilation, and convulsive seizures. Aluminum is another common ingredient in vaccines and has also been found to be toxic. Most notably affecting the nervous system.

If you are wondering why pharmaceutical companies would include dangerous chemicals in their vaccines, consider their motivation for trying to come up with vaccines. Johnson and Johnson is the biggest pharmaceutical company in America and it boasts profits of over 70 billion dollars a year. It is the major player in American pharmaceuticals and American pharmaceuticals are the biggest players in the world pharmaceuticals market, with some reports claiming that America makes up 45% of the worldwide market. With this much money to be made, what would be the motivation for not providing their vaccinations? This also plays into the increase in the number of shots a person gets today when compared with the early 1960’s. In the early 1960’s an average of three vaccines were administered to children, in 1983 this number rose to 24, and today the number of vaccines that a child is “supposed” to receive is 49 doses of 14 different vaccines. This is far more than any other industrialized nation in the world. Despite this fact, our children still carry the most illnesses.

Since 1988 there have been 19,227 vaccine injury petitions filed and $3.8 billion dollars paid out to petitioners that won their cases (Michelle Llamas, drugwatch.com, 2018). However, it is not the pharmaceutical companies that pay these fines. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which is taxpayer funded, was created by the government in order to compensate those who suffer from vaccine injury or death. In 1986, politicians passed the National Childhood Vaccine Act, which protects the vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits. What would motivate the pharmaceutical companies take responsibility for their actions when they are not the ones required to pay for it?

Our bodies are perfectly capable of developing natural immunities to disease. The human immune system is designed to identify foreign agents and neutralize them. Doing this repeatedly helps the immune system to become robust and more resistant to outside factors.Our world is so full of bacteria and contamination that we can never escape it. I am sure that as I type this post I am encountering numerous bacteria and contaminants on my keyboard. Yet, my chances of becoming ill are quite low because my immune system has had ample opportunity to prepare itself. When your body’s natural proclivity to fight on your behalf is combined with basic hygiene practices such as washing hands, brushing teeth, bathing, cleaning your home, etc. an even stronger bulwark against disease is created. To even further strengthen that bulwark, avoid drinking stagnant or contaminated water, use a filter even if your city water passes inspection and fully cook your food. You can also help bolster a stalwart immune system by eating healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables.

All in all, there is much food for thought and it calls for careful consideration. Keep in mind that this is was not an exhaustive effort on my part. There is much more evidence and support for parents questioning the ethical practices of these companies and the effectiveness of their vaccines, as well as the risks of using them. I am currently considering writing about each disease that these vaccinations were created for and whether or not the vaccine actually played a roll in preventing the spread of it. It is a lot of material for just one post, so I think this may be the best direction to go. Thank you for reading, and please feel free to share your thoughts.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases.

llamas, M. (2018, April 25). Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Payouts and Settlements. Retrieved from https://www.drugwatch.com/injury-compensation/

2 Comments

  • Hope

    This makes me want to research the topic more. I’ve done some investigation on this, but your post gave me new information and things to think about. I first started thinking more critically about vaccines the year the “Swine Flu” happened. A nurse I worked with (who was tasked with administering flu shots to the employees at our organization), shared that she personally would not recommend getting a flu shot. She explained what I had never realized before… that flu shots are created each year as an “educated guess” of what flu strains the CDC thinks will be prevalent that year. I’m sorry, but I think only weathermen should have the monopoly on making a living on educated guessing.

    • Junior

      Knowing that they are just educated guesses certainly doesn’t inspire confidence. Especially considering that the weathermen are wrong in some way much of the time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: