You Get What You Get, Part 1 – Mistruths and Muddied Reporting
I worked at a beach club one summer many years ago. Membership was private, very private. From what I was told, one had to be “born into” their membership which made the club more exclusive than the other private beaches in the area. Several of the members could trace their roots back to prominent businessmen and their families who were integral in the rise and success of the American Industrial Revolution. I ran into some of those members occasionally, but it was their children whom I was assigned to work with that summer.
One thing that has always stayed with me from that job at the beach wasn’t the experience of getting a peek into how the rich and famous played when money was no object; it was of an expression that my fellow camp counselors used: “You get what you get.”
That expression was stated after one of the children forgot to use their manners. One of the counselors said it as a gentle yet firm reminder to be grateful for a treat they were just offered. Popsicles, which came in three different flavors in a variety pack, were being handed out. By the time it was the last child’s turn to receive his, there was no guarantee he was going to get the flavor he wanted. Face scrunched up and ready to protest, he got a dose of reality and a reminder that to have any refreshing Popsicle on a hot summer day was a treat even if it wasn’t the exact flavor he had hoped to receive.
“You get what you get” was repeated a few times for a few days with our campers. As we eased into a routine, and as expectations were established and polite responses from the children returned, things began to run smoothly. Instead of having to harp on using nice manners, we had more time to frolic on the sand and to play in the ocean. By the time summer camp was over, we’d diminished the use of reminding the kids that “You get what you get.”
“You get what you get.” It’s a response that can work on both kids and adults. It can work in lots of places and in many situations. It could help to diffuse a behavior before it escalates. It can also be said as a quick reply to end an argument, but I find that it is more effective as that gentle yet firm reminder.
One such instance where this reminder should be said more often is in mainstream articles and on television news shows when the topic includes the measles and mumps “outbreaks”. If reporters would truly take the time to thoroughly examine why such “outbreaks” have occurred, a gentle yet firm reminder of “You get what you get” would’ve accompanied their reports.
To my knowledge, adding that reminder hasn’t happened. I will say that, surprisingly, some of the reports I’ve seen have provided some useful information, including the most important one—that the diseases being spread have originated among those who’ve been vaccinated. But, as quickly as that fact is stated, the story makes an unnecessary turn and places a mysterious and incorrect blame of the “outbreaks” on the unvaccinated.
Accusing a “legion of anti-vaxxers” for something that they play no part in is, of course, wrong, but now seems to be standard protocol. Standard protocol also includes deflecting from the truth while providing illogical synopses. Unfortunately, with that type of reporting, the media has greatly deceived its audience. Not only that, but the media and its supporters have brought unnecessary criticism to parents in the hopes of shaming them.
Instead of properly investigating and calling out the false promises of vaccines, and in making their erroneous statements about the unvaccinated, the general public has been fed mistruths about sub-standard products on today’s vaccine schedule. The general public knows not to question the media though and has placed trust in that entity that doesn’t respect them.
The general public will hopefully learn of the vaccine reality many of us have lived and realize that it is far different than the mainstream media’s version of vaccines. When that realization occurs, that firm yet gentle reminder that I learned so long ago will come in handy once again. This time, directed to the general public, they’ll discover that they get what they get because they believe what comes out of corrupt media channels.
I remember not having to say “You get what you get” quite so much at the end of the summer when I worked amongst the rich and influential and with their children at the beach. As counselors, we treated all of the children nicely and expected them to treat us with the same courtesy. We provided a safe, fun and respectful environment for them, and in a short amount of time, we found common ground with our young campers. Once boundaries were set, and once respect was established, we were all able to enjoy long summer days outdoors. Sadly, I don’t see a working relationship among the media and our community developing just yet. It can’t when the media chooses to continue to water down reality and to publish skewed vaccine-induced “outbreak” stories while also openly attacking the personal health care choices of the unvaccinated.
Cathy Jameson is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.
You are right, they [Wikipedia] use the word "consensus" to quickly "shut-down" their argument without providing any facts, studies or evidence.
I tried removing the word "fraudulent" on Wikipedia about Dr Andrew Wakefield. Wikipedia emailed me ..."the consensus is"...then blocked me from making any further corrections!
Posted by: AussieMum | May 18, 2014 at 10:36 PM
the denmark study..today in reading.." somalian mothers who were pregnant duing immigration had increased risk of having a child with autism"..in another area I read..Somalian children have a five fold risk of autism..I read all immigrants from Somalia must have yellow fever "live" vaccines..next I read..immigrants from somalia often locate to big cities..then I saw that the group 1992 included in the denmark study were added after the study began were from a copenhagan practice...my question..could thorsen etal have deliberately bumped up the post thimerosal autism rate by using this immigrant group? and compared the previous group of native denmark children to this new and growing group who we see have terrible autism numbers..and why would anyone vaccinate a child with Somalian ancestry until they know what's going on?
Posted by: barbaraj | May 18, 2014 at 06:47 PM
@ Anne J - It is never a good idea to participate in these types of phone surveys. All they do with the information is look for ways to restrict the philosophical and religious exemptions in different states via bills that suddenly crop up in the state legislatures.
I don't believe there is anything random about these surveys. They know exactly who they want to target prior to making their phone calls.
Posted by: In Answer to Anne J... | May 18, 2014 at 06:15 PM
This is a bit off-topic, but has anyone else been contacted by phone for a "random CDC survey"? Seems every time they do one, I'm ALWAYS contacted, so it doesn't seem so "random." They start out with a bunch of questions about me, then gradually shift to my vaccine-injured son with aspergers. I was asked if they could call back and do a "follow up survey" with regards to my son.
Just curious if anyone else had received a recent call?
Posted by: Anne J. | May 18, 2014 at 03:36 PM
Where was that “legion of anti-vaxxers” in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s? Hiding with the "hidden horde"?
Seems to me that the “legion of anti-vaxxers” has increased in proportion to autism cases, though at a somewhat lesser rate.
Some autism parents still refuse to examine convincing evidence of the vaccine/autism link. Others still hold out hope that ethical decency will eventually gain a foothold within the CDC's revolving door bureaucracy.
Posted by: nhokkanen | May 18, 2014 at 02:58 PM
When you say sub-standard products on today's vaccine schedule, I wasn't sure what you meant. No vaccine is safe or 100% effective, and it would not be possible to make it so. Any standard would have to allow for that. Of course they lie about how OFTEN they are devastatingly dangerous or ineffective. But isn't the "killer" nature of measles, mumps, and rubella the selling point, rather than the extremely safe or effective nature of the product? You get the best they have on offer for usually preventing the diseases, and you get what you get. The crucial point is that it would be better for children's long term health, both those who escape autism etc., and those who just get a stronger, healthier immune system from having had the diseases, to just get the diseases rather than try to prevent them.
Posted by: cia parker | May 18, 2014 at 01:52 PM
Accusing a “legion of anti-vaxxers” for something that they play no part in is, of course, wrong, but now seems to be standard protocol.
What makes it even more ridiculous, is that the "outbreaks" aren't really occurring anywhere but IN the media.
This site is visited by thousands of parents who's children were poisoned by vaccines. Yet not a single one of us lined up for those poisons, because the "science" convinced us it was the right thing to do.
The only reason we did it, is because the MEDIA convinced us it was the right thing to do. Just like they've been doing since they first pulled it off back in the 50's.
As much as I hate the inventors of these poisons, they'd probably still be on shelves were it not for the efforts of our moral-less media.
Posted by: Barry | May 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM
The buzzword they use on Wikipedia to silence even the most scientifically-backed multi-sourced posts and discussions on subjects of mercury, neurotoxins, Thimerosal, autism, Aspergers, etc is "consensus"
Posted by: aspiesmom | May 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM