From the years I worked in sales there was one piece of information which has always stuck with me. It’s said that even when a person goes to a car dealership knowing he wants to get a specific car, the salesman still has to ask for the sale at least five times before the customer says yes.
I understand very few of you had ever considered a ballot proposition as a way to make progress in combating autism. You didn't intend to walk onto that particular car lot. I may need to “ask” for your support many times before you say yes.
But the process goes even deeper. The person who goes onto that car lot knowing the specific car he wants isn’t trying to make the salesman’s job more difficult. We may know what we like, but we also want to make sure the decision we make is the right one. In the sales world the four times the interested customer says “no” are known as “objections”. The salesman’s job is to answer those objections as completely as he can. If he does a good job the sale is made. If not, the interested customer walks away.
Since I’ve rolled out the Green Vaccines initiative it seems there have been three main objections raised and I want to take each one of them in turn:
A. We should just stick to getting a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated Study funded – I will confess that the first order of business is getting a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated study done with world-class researchers and a large enough sample size to make people sit up and take notice. However, I know that some people are very close to getting something along those lines started. That’s the first punch. How long will it take them to get results? Personally, I think such a thing could be done relatively quickly. Then what follows? I think the Green Vaccines Initiative is something which supports that line of inquiry. It's a good second punch. If a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated study gets funded we should have the results by election time. If not it creates more of an impetus to get such a study completed.
C. The Green Vaccines Initiative doesn’t go far enough – I read with great interest an open letter to me from the Natural Solutions Foundation which made the assertion that there is no such thing as a “safe vaccine.” I find myself in sympathy with such a view and am certainly acting as if there is currently no such thing as a safe vaccine by not getting any myself or having them given to my children. I might eventually take such a position. However, it seems to me that to move things forward we need to change public perception from the belief that vaccines are universally safe, to one that they have troublesome components which render them potentially unsafe to a certain subset of the population, as a prelude to a full and objective look at the safety of the entire vaccination program.
I made the analogy in my letter of response to the Natural Solutions Foundation, of a man who was in San Francisco but needs a ride to San Diego. I stumble upon him and inform him I’m going to Los Angeles and would be happy to give him a ride that far. On the journey down I might convince him Los Angeles is a better destination. He might do the same in regards to convincing me of the benefits of San Diego. We might end up not convincing either one, but at least we each had an agreeable companion for the trip. I would have benefited from his company and he would be much closer to his destination.
I’ll end like a good salesman reminding you of what we’re talking about, then leaving the decision up to you. Although this effort takes place in a single state I believe it will provoke a national discussion about vaccine ingredients, vulnerable sub-populations, the undeniable rise in neurological disorders, and the criminal lack of interest in doing the appropriate safety testing regarding vaccines. This benefits everybody. Here are the main parts of the Green Vaccine Initiative that we are looking to test with potential voters.
1. Research/Testing – Oregon requests the federal government to return the records of the Vaccine Safety Data-Link from private industry and make them available to independent researchers, conduct a study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, study the health effects of aluminum adjuvants, and other substances used in vaccines like hydrolyzed gelatin and sorbitol.
2. Disclosure/Informed Consent – Comparison of Oregon schedules with that of the CDC and other first world countries and full disclosure of vaccine ingredients, as well as the level of safety testing on them.
3. Banning – Thimerosal ban across the board, as well as the flu shot for pregnant women, a ban on multiple vaccinations at a single visit, a six month ban on vaccines for premature births, and three months for any infant.4. Changes to Existing Law – Adding a philosophical exemption for Oregon, reducing required vaccines, restriction of the Vaccine Act of 1986 to unavoidably unsafe components of vaccines, and additional rights of military personnel to choose alternative vaccination schedules.
5. Consumer/Parental Choice – Giving parents the freedom to choose aluminum and formaldehyde free vaccines, a different vaccination schedule, a titer check before vaccination, as well as one for mitochondrial disorders which might be exacerbated by a vaccine, and the right to have multiple vaccines such as MMR split up into individual doses.
You can donate by clicking HERE. When you get to the donation page for Generation Rescue, click that you want to make the donation in honor of somebody, then during Step 2 you can make a personal note at the final field to enter information, please place the word "Ballot" in the personal note section so your donation can be directed to this effort.
Kent Heckenlively is Legal Editor of Age of Autism