By Cynthia Cournoyer
When parents choose not to vaccinate, for whatever reason, they are usually accused of choosing “mother’s emotions” over “science.” The argument is framed so you have to choose between emotional mothers or proven science. These choices are set up to disparage mothers while giving the obvious logical choice of science. This is a false choice. Mothers emotions are valid and ironically it is the lack of science that mothers are the most concerned about.
It’s not science vs emotions, it’s no science vs real science. For a generation, parents have been asking for more science. Instead of properly controlled, unbiased studies, our population just gets more vaccines. A generation ago, states listed a few “required” vaccines for the worst diseases. Then they added a few more. Now, states automatically list every vaccine that was ever recommended. Today, same emotional pleas, still no science.
Early vaccines popped out of an epidemic (small pox, polio). Other vaccines came simply because they were invented. Most vaccines are recommended when no epidemic existed. No emergency predated adding more and more vaccines. Vaccines are deemed good, no matter what. They get pushed on mothers, while real science be damned.
These mothers have no conflicts of interest or reputations to protect. It is easy for them to ask for a reasonable study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children--to study whether adding vaccines to an already over crowded schedule is safe. Their pleas go unanswered.
So when emotional mothers ask for studies, simple studies, they are labeled anti vaccine. If parents do not accept that vaccines are safe and forever safe, no matter how many are given, they are anti vaccine. No middle ground exists. When a child is damaged by a vaccine, parents want safety and real science. Absent that real science, emotions win out.
Sadly, there can never be the studies that parents want most. There is no monetary backing for them and the chance of finding out the truth that vaccines cause harm, is too great a risk for those interested in the status quo. These studies will not be done. Not in the main stream. The people who criticize the Fourteen Studies and offer real science and legitimate questions to counter them, are still mis-labeled anti vaccine.
Anti vaccine is a catch all phrase that sets everyone who does not march in line, in the same category. Follow those emotional mothers and BAM! You’re branded! Forcing people to make the choice in favor of vaccines (science) is more palatable if everyone else is “anti-vaccine” (emotional mothers).
Lack of unbiased science is not exclusive to vaccines. If we wanted to seriously find a cure for cancer for instance, you would have laboratories full of “subjects” under a microscope. These subjects would be the success stories. These would be the people that were told to go home and die, and 10 years later they are still healthy. Why isn’t anybody seriously studying them? They don’t study what those success stories did to find health, they only study what they can later sell as treatments. People study success in other arenas. Winning athletes are studied, fine artists and musicians are coaxed into telling us their secrets. It’s logical, and dare I say, even scientific. Why isn’t anybody studying recovered autistic children? Unfortunately, the answer is because the answer is not important enough to the world of biased science.
What if someone discovered that dirt cures cancer? It would be swept under the rug (sorry for the pun) because you can’t sell dirt. What if you found out that the cause of cancer was someone’s fault? Who would fund that study, just to have the people who caused cancer sued? So it is with vaccines and autism. The study won’t happen because the possible finding is too terrible.
Trying to get the medical establishment to “see the light” on vaccine damage and specifically autism, is like trying to turn a lion into a vegetarian. Good luck. Just not gonna happen. He’ll eat you over that nice bowl of veggies.
I will choose the common sense of mothers over biased “science” any day. And I won’t be taking the easy way out. Observation is one primary aspect of the scientific method. What better witness than the mommy in the trench. Biased science or the most motivated, most accurate observers, with no vested interest other than the health, albeit, very life of one particular child? Easy choice.
The science for which emotional mothers long, likely will not happen in the fashion we expect. Better vaccines or an alternative to vaccines, will not come from the top down. Change will come from the bottom up. We are at the bottom. We are in the trenches. We choose not to vaccinate or reject the existing schedule. We educate our sisters, our friends and neighbors and we show them how to recover their children. One on one. One mother tiger to another. Pretty soon, there will be no one left to buy vaccines. That’s when we get their attention. That’s when they will start to figure out that we demand safety and real science. Until then mother’s emotions are a grand substitute for science. Someday, we can turn our backs on them while they have an emotional tantrum because we rejected their brand of science.
Cynthia Cournoyer is a mother of three adult children, two with ASD’s. She has been observing the vaccine controversy since 1981. Her book (HERE) What About Immunizations? Exposing the Vaccine Philosophy will soon be in its seventh edition. Thousands sold in the 80’s and 90’s and the fully revised and updated rewrite should be available before the end of the year.