Vaccinism—The Dangers of Political Ideology
By David Taylor
Vaccines in America have evolved well beyond science into religious dogma. Like religious dogma, vaccine dogma is based on fear--fear of the Hell of disease and our desire to be saved from it. The “science” supporting this religious dogma cannot be questioned any more than the Holy Word can be questioned at an evangelical tent revival.
This dogmatism is easy to see in any argument on social media between a vaccine skeptic and a vaccine supporter who harbors no doubts about the safety and efficacy of the 19th Century medical procedure known as vaccines. Arguing with a True Believer is exactly like arguing with a religious fanatic. The fanatic does not want or need facts, science based or otherwise.
What is needed to turn the tide? The tide is turned on a personal level when your child or a child close to you becomes a victim of vaccines.
The tide on a social level will unfortunately require more injury, more death, more stripping of medical freedom and autonomy. As injury and death increase, a tipping point will eventually be reached, the Overton Window will shift, and vaccine policy will become open for debate.
That's what happened in 19th Century England when Jenner's smallpox vaccine, made from scrapings of cow pus, caused so much injury and death that there were riots in the streets of London against forced smallpox vaccinations. A Royal Commission was established in wake of the riots and eventually recommended that the required vaccination law be overturned in 1898 with passage of a “Conscience Clause.”
Until that kind of social shift happens, all the whistle blowers in the world, including Dr. Thompson, will have no lasting or significant effect. There have been several Dr. Thompsons in the past. As recently as 2012, in an interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies. Earlier equivalents of William Thompson were J. Anthony Morris and Bernice Eddy. Ever heard of them either?
The stages of the Overton Window are:
Unthinkable
Radical
Acceptable
Sensible
Popular
Policy
It's pretty clear where we are now on that scale as a society in our ability to debate vaccine science and safety. One of the major factors keeping us in the "Unthinkable" and "Radical" range is that vaccines are also consciously, methodically being made into a monolithic and powerful political ideology.
An ideology becomes political when it has its own:
***1. System of Law.
The basis of this system for vaccines is the matrix of state laws that mandate all or parts of the CDC recommended schedule, the 1986 NVICP Act, and the 2001 SCOTUS decision. The recent efforts in states like California to eliminate exemptions for children and increase mandates for adults are attempts to extend a system of laws to support "vaccinism"--the ideology of vaccines.
Australia and New Zealand have proposed to stop welfare payments to those who do not vaccinate; there's little doubt America is headed in that direction, too.
Obamacare also extends laws regarding vaccines. Beginning January 1, 2013, hospitals participating in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) were required to submit summary data on influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel. Use of this measure for payment determination began in FY 2015.
The rules for determining payments to hospitals for vaccine compliance fall under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program of vaccines as specified in §§ 412.160 through 412.167 published in the Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 170, Friday, August 31, 2012, Rules and Regulations 53675. In other words, it’s law.
***2. System of Government.
Even scholarly studies from Princeton say we no longer live in a representative democracy. Call it what you will--oligarchy, corporatocracy, kleptocracy--we live under the control of rulers who delegate control in an hierarchical manner. Polls consistently show that 80-90% of Americans believe vaccines should be a choice. So what?
Same polls have been showing for 20 years that an overwhelming majority of Americans support a substantial increase in the minimum wage. Clearly, our will is not represented in policy. On the whole, our Congress and president are bought and paid for by those who give the orders. Most of all, the pharmaceutical industry is, for all intents and purposes, a branch of government today.
***3. Command and Control Centers.
These used to be known as independent government agencies working on behalf of citizens. But one of RFKJr.'s main talking points is that the CDC, FDA, NIH, WHO, UNICEF and others have been co-opted to the point of being sock puppets for pharmaceutical interests. RFKJr.'s description of how decisions are made in these agencies and the shocking televised committee hearings in California leave no doubt these agencies are now the command and control centers for Big Pharma.
And any critique would be remiss if it left out state departments of child services, whose medical kidnappings of children of parents who deviate from Pharma orthodoxy are near-daily events. And once in that legal system, the parent must fight a well-coordinated army of lawyers, social workers, and judges deployed from the command and control centers.
***4. Recognizable Dress Code and Insignia.
Regardless of how ridiculous the CDC officials look, those damn uniforms they wear on TV convey the authority that reinforces their right to pronounce "truth" to the masses and order us to obey.
***5. Representation by a Political Party.
In California, 24 of SB277's 26 sponsors were Democratic. Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Think Progress--all prohibit non-dogmatic discussion of vaccines. If a story or comment slips by, it will be first attacked (debunked) and then immediately erased and the user banned. The few Republicans who have dared to speak out (Michelle Bachman, Rand Paul, Chris Christie) were immediately ridiculed and silenced. Only Donald Trump continues to speak about medical freedom and vaccines. And no one, including Republicans, has any idea what party The Donald belongs to.
***6. Finance and Tax System.
The most perverse irony of this entire nightmare is the $.75 surcharge that Americans pay for each vaccine. We allow liability-free companies and doctors to injure us, and then we are forced to pay for the damages they inflict upon us. Sweet.
***7. Indoctrination System.
One word--Elmo. But worse is that there are very few doctors practicing today who did not undergo indoctrination into the Church of the Vaccine in medical school, where they were taught two things: Vaccines are Good, and here is how to inject them. A third thing doctors in training are taught (but is not in the official curriculum) is what will happen if they dissent.
There you have it. Until you understand and accept that vaccines are religious and political dogmas in the United States, no science is worth talking about to you.
You want science? My god, there's more science on the harms of vaccines, including the sequelae called autism, than there is on the Rings of Saturn. But until you have crossed your own tipping point and have resigned from the Church of the Holy Vaccine and recognize its agents of political control, you are not awake.
David Taylor is the father of a 16-year-old autistic son who was successfully treated by Dr. Jeff Bradstreet for over 11 years. Taylor teaches at a state university system on the East Coast.
Cia,
Interesting points. You know what? We Americans need to learn more about homeopathy (at least I do). I've heard that the British Royals use homeopathy. I'm curious - Is this form of health care prominent in the UK? Does the NHS include it? Do homeopaths enjoy respect in the UK? Wondering...
Posted by: Linda1 | July 31, 2015 at 02:06 PM
Donald Trump has now said that he'd love to ask Sarah Palin to be a member of his Cabinet. I really think it's unwise to pin any hopes on Trump: I continue to think he's just not a viable candidate, for many reasons, this being a new and quite hilarious one. Why in the world...?
Posted by: cia parker | July 31, 2015 at 12:03 PM
Linda,
Anything is possible, but similar abrupt drops of clinical cases of polio occurred in many locations as soon as the vaccine was introduced. Of course parents must research it themselves and make a choice. But if there is a polio outbreak in their area, and they learn that a worrisome number of people has been paralyzed by it, then it would be reasonable to get the vaccine. The vaccine might indeed cause dangerous reactions, but every parent would have to weigh the risks and the benefits. Homeopathic lathyrus sativa has a proven record for both preventing and treating polio, and many parents might want to choose that option instead (or in addition) the vaccine.
The theory of vaccines is correct. If you introduce a small amount of the pathogen into the body by injection, then the immune system really will produce antibodies to it. It will produce antibodies to ANYTHING injected into it, which often leads to very serious problems of autoimmunity and too much inflammation. But in certain circumstances that might be preferable to risking a dangerous disease.
Posted by: cia parker | July 31, 2015 at 12:01 PM
Cia,
It could have been the vaccine. It could have also been other factors - natural end of the outbreak that coincided with the vaccination program or the local farmers stopped spraying neurotoxins on their fields at the same time or some other explanation. It's good to point out Dr. Yazbak's observation, but we really don't know for sure why the number of cases dropped.
Posted by: Linda1 | July 25, 2015 at 10:04 AM
Voices from 1959:
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.html#November%201,%201955%20THE%20$%20SIGN%20BEIHND%20SALK%20VACCINE
Chapter 10 of The Poisoned Needle by Eleanor McBean
THE POLIO MUDDLE---THE NATIONAL HEALTH FEDERATION BULLETIN 1959; Volume V July - August, Numbers 7-8 Adventures on Health Frontiers 1959
THE POLIO MUDDLE
Editorial
"Our reason for featuring the polio matter in this issue is, several states are trying to enact compulsory polio vaccination laws and two have already done so. While Tennessee does not have a compulsory law, its public health director has taken the matter into his own hands and has ruled that it is illegal for anyone to send a child to school unless he has been immunized against polio. If you don’t send the child to school you will be arrested, so who makes the law in America? We wonder how any lawmaker can ever think of voting for legislation of this nature when no one knows yet whether the polio vaccine is good or bad. Certainly we know the proponents are in disagreement. Salk blames the makers of the vaccine and the makers say the formula is not right. When the vaccine was first given very bad results followed. Cutter Laboratories got the blame. Then people who were vaccinated still got polio. The departments of health and the manufacturers then said the vaccine was only effective against the type which causes paralysis. Next, when those vaccinated still got the type which caused paralysis we were told you must have two shots. Still those vaccinated came down with the paralytic type and we were told we must have three shots that would do the trick. Still today we have those with three shots contracting the paralytic type of polio and we are told we should have four shots, and probably the job will have to be done over every eighteen months, or less. We ask, where do we go from here?
As you peruse the pages of this Bulletin you will find news items and reports which would lead anyone, who will think the problem through, to conclude that in proportion to the percentage of the population vaccinated, the same percentage of those vaccinated have polio of the paralytic type as those who have not been vaccinated. This regardless of whether one, two or three shots had been had.
To be fair, we must state that since the inauguration of the Salk polio shots the governmental agencies in order to make a good showing, adopted a policy of listing as polio victims only those who were proved so by laboratory tests. Before the inauguration of this policy anyone with the right symptoms was listed as a polio victim. This new procedure reduced the total number of folks recorded paralytic polio because the overall total of all cases was reduced. This does not, however, affect the fact that practically the same percentage of vaccinated have paralytic polio as the unvaccinated.
=====
Polio Hits Honolulu
The following reports cover the period from August, 1958, to April, 1959. These items are taken from day-today newspaper reports. June 19, 1958The wave of polio among military-connected families continues with the ‘report of two more cases in Tripler Army Hospital. This brings a total for this year to 21. Victims are William M. Thomas, Jr., four-year old. He had one polio shot in May and is suffering from paralysis of both legs. The other victim, Dennis W. Prescott, two-year old. He had his first Salk shot May 15th and is suffering from paralysis in both arms, left shoulder and back.
September 5, 1958The Territory’s 56th case of polio, a one-year-old army dependent, has paralysis in both arms and legs. The infant had two Salk shots, the last one March 3rd.
Two more army dependents, one of whom had a complete series of three Salk Vaccine shots, have been hospitalized with polio. Dr. James Enright with the Territorial Board of Health said one of these had received three vaccine shots, the last one on April 16th. His case is the 8th this year in which the victim had all vaccine shots. The patient is suffering paralysis on the right side of his face. The second patient is suffering a paralysis of both her arms and legs. Her condition is serious. The patient had received two vaccine shots, the on March 3rd.
August 12, 1958 The condition of Air Force Sgt. Patterson, who is suffering from Bulbar Polio, was described as "grave" this morning. The sergeant, his wife and two children, one and three years old, received their first polio shots on June 9th.
July 18, 1958 the newest civilian case is a part Hawaiian three-year-old girl. She has paralysis of the right leg. She has had no Salk vaccine. The second case reported today is suffering from paralysis of the right shoulder. This patient had had two Salk shots, the last July 2nd.
September 13, 1958 Five more polio cases were reported in Honolulu today. The five cases included a three-year-old girl who had received all three Salk vaccine shots. She is the 9th fully vaccinated Islander to come down with polio.
Two of the others reported today had received two shots. One is suffering with paralysis of the neck muscles and the other has paralytic symptoms in her left foot. The two other victims reported both with mild forms of paralysis had not received Salk shots.
September 18, 1958 The Territory of Hawaii’s 62nd polio victim of this year is a two-year-old Marine dependent who had received all three Salk vaccine shots. The victim is suffering from paralysis of the left leg. The boy received his third shot two weeks ago and is the 10th Island resident inoculated with three Salk shots to come down with paralytic polio.
October 1, 1958 Two more polio cases were reported today bringing this year’s total to 65. One victim, a twenty-year-old woman, suffering with weakness of her left leg, had received no polio shots. The other victim, a nine-months-old boy suffers from a paralysis of his left leg. The boy received two Salk vaccine shots, the last one in April.
October 16, 1958 Hawaii’s 68th polio victim of the year was reported today. The patient has no paralysis and had had two Salk shots.
September 24, 1958 Honolulu health officials cannot understand why their vaccination program is bogging down. They say 15% less people are getting their third shots than was the case in 1957. From the foregoing record as published in the newspaper it is not hard for a layman to understand why the public shies away from the Salk vaccine."
Posted by: ATSC | July 25, 2015 at 01:24 AM
Dr. Yazbak told me that he had helped organize the only state-wide injectable polio vaccination campaign in Rhode Island. A large number came for the first dose: polio cases immediately dropped so dramatically in number that less than half the original number came for the second dose a month later. Polio cases continued to plummet, and few came to receive the third dose. He has no doubt that it was the polio vaccine which had stopped the ravages of polio.
Most people now no longer remember how frightening the polio outbreaks of the '40s and '50s are, or how grateful everyone was at the advent of the vaccine(s) which stopped it. We need to acknowledge this, while still fighting to make people conscious of how the situation has changed in recent decades. If no one vaccinated for anything, some would be disabled or killed by the diseases, but if people were taught how to prevent and treat them by other means, I don't think the number would be high. And if no one vaccinated for anything, we could start to turn the tide of neurological and autoimmune disability in our children caused by vaccines, far the greater problem at this time. And there would be far fewer immunocompromised children to start with.
Posted by: cia parker | July 24, 2015 at 02:07 PM
rtp,
And I think if you overstate the case by saying that no vaccine is ever effective, that will make the person you are talking to turn away and turn off, since that is so clearly not the case. Rabies is no longer as common as it once was, because the rabies vaccine, while being dangerous, IS effective in preventing rabies. And so on. The vaccine decision is the most important decision that parents will make: thousands of parents do exhaustive research on car seats, day care and preschools, toxins in apples, and many more issues important for ensuring the health and happiness of their children. I don't think it's too much to ask that parents consider each vaccine-preventable disease and vaccine separately and in the context of their own location and era. I think it's fascinating, but even those not very interested in it can understand that it's of crucial importance for the life of their child, and focus and concentrate on the information for that reason. And they must accept that the buck stops with them, that doctors have interests which prevent them from giving the best advice for each individual child.
Posted by: cia parker | July 23, 2015 at 06:10 PM
RTP,
It would not be honest to say that vaccines are completely useless and that none of them work, and I am not going to say anything I believe is dishonest. Most vaccines work most of the time to do what they are supposed to do, and they WILL prevent the targeted disease for an uncertain length of time.
I understand that the diagnosis for polio was changed around the time the first vaccine was introduced: earlier more cases qualified for the diagnosis, leading to the appearance of a greater reduction than was the case. You can say the same thing about autism: now a broader and milder range of autistic brain damage is included in the diagnosis, and the shills try to say that this proves that there has been no real increase in numbers, just better diagnosis. And yet this is clearly not the case, just playing with words to satisfy an agenda. I understand that after the polio vaccine was introduced, those with paralysis were considered not to have polio-induced paralysis since they had had the vaccine, but something different. I have seen that cases of Guillain-Barre paralysis and aseptic meningitis had been formerly diagnosed as polio. I learned recently that aseptic meningitis is another term for viral meningitis, which is milder than bacterial, and causes flu-like symptoms. I could not find that it ever caused paralysis, it may be just that both polio and viral meningitis cause flu-like symptoms that they were sometimes confused, but in that case paralytic cases would NOT have been mistakenly diagnosed as viral meningitis.
Yet even though there is validity in these points, it is still true that both Salk's and Sabin's vaccines were extremely effective in preventing polio, and stopped the epidemics. Yes, pesticides and insecticides played a role in potentiating the formerly harmless virus. Yes, the DPT vaccine increased the number of severe and paralytic cases. Yes, most cases of polio were subclinical and those which were clinical were usually confined to short term flu-like symptoms which the patient fully recovered from. But that being said, there WERE terrible polio epidemics which ravaged the US and many other countries, leaving thousands of paralyzed children (and many adults) in its wake. The vaccines stopped that. And yes, that makes it harder to engage people who remember the polio epidemics and the vaccine campaigns which stopped them. Such people are inclined to believe that vaccines are good and lifesaving, except in the unfortunate one case in a million. They have a hard time accepting that that coin has two sides which are both valid, both true.
The measles vaccine has nearly completely stopped children in developed countries from getting measles. Not a good thing at a population level, but a fact. The pertussis vaccine stopped pertussis, at a time when the disease was no longer very dangerous, so again, not a good thing, but true. The Hib vaccine stopped Hib meningitis, although very dangerous in itself and the cause of peanut allergies. The avoidance of the DPT vaccine and breast feeding would have been better measures to prevent Hib meningitis. Chickenpox has disappeared thanks to the vaccine. Again, not a good thing, but true. The acellular pertussis vaccine is largely, but not completely, ineffective. The flu vaccine is largely ineffective in most years. But they are the exception rather than the rule.
We should not say what is not true. Vaccines usually work. They usually also cause damage, in many extremely severe and permanent damage. Both statements are true, and we should not tell anyone anything other than the truth, and let them balance the odds and make an independent decision as to whether to accept or reject each available vaccine.
Posted by: cia parker | July 23, 2015 at 03:47 PM
I just saw this on Vox about Donald Trump running for president.
"In an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, Trump identified himself as a "huge fan" of vaccines, but suggested that current vaccine doses were too "massive," leading to "horrible autism."
Posted by: cia parker | July 23, 2015 at 12:34 PM
"Each vaccine has MANY interesting and important points which we should make when talking to people about vaccines."
No we shouldn't. Yes there are many points about each vaccine that *we* find interesting but that doesn't mean it is an effective strategy to bore the pants of everybody we meet by regaling them with said points.
The quickest way to make someone question the necessity of the polio vaccine is to make them question the efficacy of it. And the quickest way to make someone question the efficacy of the polio vaccine is to tell them that rates of paralysis have risen since the vaccine (and respirator use too). Yes you need to have at hand the references to support this (plus the explanation of doctors differentially diagnosing the condition in the vaccinated). But most people are prejudiced in favour of vaccinating so unless you get to the point quickly they will switch off.
So next time you have a discussion, start with the line:
"Vaccines are completely useless. None of them work, none of them could work. Indeed they are a completely stupid and dangerous answer to a question only a complete lunatic would think to ask [trying to prevent disease by preventing something as ubiquitous as germs]."
They won't like what they hear but they certainly won't switch off.
Posted by: rtp | July 20, 2015 at 11:43 PM
"I think though that people are thinking about their own children. I think the polio vaccine in the '50s really did keep a lot of children from being crippled by polio. The rubella vaccine really has kept a lot from being crippled by congenital rubella syndrome. There may be larger forces taking up the slack with other syndromes, but it might be that the total would have been even greater without vaccines"
Congratulations Cia Parker! You just did exactly what I said we did and handed over a whole pile of ammunition to the other side for some inexplicable reason that I am sure makes sense in your head.
Serious question Cia. Why on earth do you go out of your way to rationalise that the vaccine actually works? Is the brainwashing just that deep? Even after deciding that you never want to vaccinate you still come up with a feeble rationalisation to allow you to maintain your faith that these concoctions actually work.
Doctors use immunisation status to differentially diagnose patients. So, essentially, if a child is paralysed and they are unvaccinated then they have polio but if they paralysed and are fully vaccinated then they have Guillain Barre, transverse myelitis, coxsackie etc. This is completely obvious - even if I hadn't provided the data I did. But despite the fact that you don't like vaccines and despite the facts I provided the brainwashing is so thorough that you still couldn't figure this out.
Posted by: rtp | July 20, 2015 at 06:54 PM
Voice of reason, interesting that you saw the illustration as Jesus presented as a doctor. Jesus used entirely different methods to heal the sick. I saw the illustration as doctors who imagine they are God ,a trap that those who don't believe in god can fall into , with all the consequences we see in vaccine damage.
Posted by: Grace Green | July 20, 2015 at 06:45 AM
You are not so well informed about religious dogma - "based on fear" - as you imagine. This is a trap so many arrogant (based on insecurity) people fall into. Yes, you have done your homework in the area of vaccines. Do not assume you are an authority across the board. As a bigot, you lost credibility at the very beginning of your piece.
Posted by: Dr. Bruce Wright | July 19, 2015 at 12:52 PM
I like your post. Very well written. I especially like the image you provide of Jesus presented as a doctor. Very good. I am glad you took the time to write the piece. God bless you and your family.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | July 18, 2015 at 05:48 PM
To Grace & Cia, and All ---
The term "herd immunity" so promoted by the Vaccine Nazis is easily used in a completely opposite way: The "truly healthy herd" are all those of my unvaccinated generation (born 1940 to 1954) having virtually all of the childhood diseases at early ages, easily sailed through minor school absences, actually benefited from having such "diseases", and came out to be the healthiest generation in history (though cigarette smoking did cause its numerous victims)
Bottom line: We did NOT have the massive amounts of permanent/chronic health issues so directly caused by today's vaccines. Autism was completely unheard of, etc., etc.
Posted by: david m burd | July 17, 2015 at 08:09 PM
"...This explains why, when you ask most citizens how they feel about vaccines, their reaction is visceral rather than intellectual. Their programming comes from so many facets of their living experience, subtly or obviously, that questioning the dogma requires an enormous psychological effort and a precision of factual thought..."
Yes! This is it in a nutshell.
Posted by: Bayareamom | July 17, 2015 at 02:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=110&v=dZUjU4e4fUI Soooo - Compassionate doctors -- do exist! She is such a sweet person - telling us how another compassionate doctor was really compassionate - she just was a little bit brazen about crushing up above and down below
Posted by: Benedetta | July 17, 2015 at 01:20 PM
Grace,
I agree that rubella infection is harmless to children and adults at any age, and ideally all girls would have gotten it before childbearing age. It is often very dangerous if a pregnant woman (who has never had it and never gotten the permanent immunity it confers) contracts rubella in the first months of her pregnancy, and can cause a wide range of severe and disabling conditions, or miscarriage. That is the reason and the only reason that people are given the rubella vaccine in the MMR.
The problem seems to be a lot worse in women who have stored mercury from vaccines, Rhogam, or other sources. So there are several angles from which to approach the problem without using the rubella vaccine, which is dangerous. One of the problems it causes is chronic arthritis. One angle is to deliberately expose ten year-old girls to it at the end of the school year, when they can stay home for several weeks, when they'll have permanent immunity and can no longer infect others (the pregnant woman problem). Another would be to take stringent measures to avoid contact with mercury in any form, which is advisable for many reasons anyway. Another would be to take the homeopathic nosode for rubella once the girl has had at least ten years to contract it naturally, but hasn't.
Posted by: cia parker | July 17, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Cia, I don't agree with you about the rubella vaccine. When I was a child, before such a vaccine was available, little girls were exposed to friends with rubella in order to obtain natural immunity. NO-ONE got congenital rubella syndrome as a result of contracting the disease at that age. Anyone who hadn't acquired such immunity could be vaccinated in adulthood, before pregnancy, with much less chance of a reaction.
Posted by: Grace Green | July 17, 2015 at 10:42 AM
Danchi
I think we are largely in agreement. I said that the ideology was delusional, but I agree that the behaviour of California's politicians went beyond that.
Posted by: John Stone | July 17, 2015 at 09:06 AM
John,
"The deaf ears of California senate are testimony to the extreme delusional nature of the ideology and the badness of the science which can only be defended in this way."
I don't think the California Senate is delusional in any way. This is about money. Pure, simple and evil. As far as the badness of the science? It's obvious Pan didn't read any science because he had a lobbyist spoon feeding him information during the hearings. I think the California Senate could care less about the science. The people that voted for SB277 have been looking at Pan over the last couple of years and seen a man who, in their little minds, has succeeded in achieving something they have been dreaming about-wealth. He's not that effective of a politician but he is an effective tool for big pharma to the point where he has accumulated in excess of 2 million to do their bidding. Not only that Senator Pan got his seat by using a fake address for his residence! He felt he could not win running for state senate in his ACTUAL home district so he used a residence he does not live in so he could win---and he's gotten away with it. How is that possible? Pharma owns the newspaper in California such as the LA Times, etc so if any reporter does show initiative and writes a story about the residency clause-it's quashed and if you pay off enough people in the parts of the government that's suppose to monitor the situation to look the other way-no one knows about it.
So the California senate members who voted for SB277 are looking at all this and thinking they want to ride the gravy train too and have the political protection of pharma-so they sell their souls having never looked at the science. They are probably telling themselves science is by consensus anyway and the consensuses say this--vaccine are safe.
Posted by: Danchi | July 17, 2015 at 08:40 AM
But also to put it in another way, to maintain faith in a product or a system, the system has to be brutally dismissive of dissenters and those who have suffered. This is alway about social control not about science. If the system had not turned into an out of control machine it would be attending to us. The deaf ears of California senate are testimony to the extreme delusional nature of the ideology and the badness of the science which can only be defended in this way.
Posted by: John Stone | July 17, 2015 at 06:08 AM
Regarding David's remark about Thompson still working at the CDC.
I don't know that we can attach any negative significance to that: it is part of official whistleblower protection that you can retain your job ie not be subject to financial reprisal. On the other hand I do think David is right to warn that his testimony before Congress might not on its own have the impact hoped for. However, there are a lot of angry people out here and we have to keep on making the point no matter what.
Posted by: John Stone | July 17, 2015 at 05:36 AM
rtp,
I think though that people are thinking about their own children. I think the polio vaccine in the '50s really did keep a lot of children from being crippled by polio. The rubella vaccine really has kept a lot from being crippled by congenital rubella syndrome. There may be larger forces taking up the slack with other syndromes, but it might be that the total would have been even greater without vaccines.
I think there are MANY arguments we can and must use. The polio vaccine is unnecessary unless it comes back here. There have been many killed or disabled by the vaccine, as there have been from every vaccine. IF it came back, we could talk about the role of exposure to pesticides and insecticides in causing a crippling reaction to what used to be a fairly mild virus. About how avoiding sugar during outbreaks prevents polio. About the homeopathic remedy lathyrus sativa preventing and treating polio. Only a tiny fraction of one percent of those who contracted polio ever had paralytic symptoms, and in only a fraction of those was it permanent. 100% of the children in India and Egypt got immunity to the strains of polio in their area through subclinical exposure or just a mild respiratory illness, like EV-68 last year. Sister Kenny developed a very effective kind of physical therapy in polio patients which prevented severe disability. Each vaccine has MANY interesting and important points which we should make when talking to people about vaccines.
Posted by: cia parker | July 16, 2015 at 11:32 PM
David Taylor's concisely crafted writing eloquently exposes how vaccine ideology, flawed as it is, keeps being reinforced by so many parts of society's framework.
This explains why, when you ask most citizens how they feel about vaccines, their reaction is visceral rather than intellectual. Their programming comes from so many facets of their living experience, subtly or obviously, that questioning the dogma requires an enormous psychological effort and a precision of factual thought.
The trick is, in our capitalistic consumer society, to present the actual facts about vaccines and autism in acceptable audiovisual packages. You'd think an intact brain and immune system for you and your child would be incentive enough.
Posted by: nhokkanen | July 16, 2015 at 08:44 PM
Great essay. We should understand though that we have a very good story. The only problem is that most of the time we want to give away half (or more) of our ammunition to the other side and then plead with them not to use it against us.
So much of what we have done has been by us has been about not antagonising anybody on the other side. And it is true that we don't want to antagonise reasonable people who do vaccinate (ie those who support our rights). But our general approach has been to shoot our own 'extremists' (ie those who are actually consistent) in the back as they are out there in the front line taking bullets for us. This has been catastrophic - far more so than the consequences of antagonising a few moderates from the other side would have been.
Coherence is the key - not full scale agreement on everything of course, but we should never be undermining each other.
We forever yield the efficacy of vaccines - this is a disastrous mistake to make as people will ignore pretty much any vaccine injury if they believe that if they don't vaccinate they and everybody they love will be dead tout de suite. This is the lie we need to destroy.
We need to make vaccine injury the side show not the be all and end all. I realise this is difficult for most of you because vaccine injury is how you came to your views but concentrating on it alone is clearly not an effective strategy (I am not suggesting for a second it is trivial - it is catastrophic - but it is simply not effective strategy).
So this is what you say when you are dealing with somebody who is reasonably interested in our story:
The purpose of measles vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of people with encephalitis and deafness. There was no significant reduction.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870605/ and http://www.hear-it.org/35-million-Americans-suffering-from-hearing-loss
The purpose of rubella vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of kids with congenital defects. There was no significant reduction http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5701a2.htm.
The purpose of the polio vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of crippled children, etc. There was no significant reduction
extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx (see data for India in 1996 and again in 2014) as well as http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v18n6/v18n6p20.pdf and http://www.census.gov/people/disability/ publications/sipp2010.html (Table A-4) (for disability rates).
The purpose of the diphtheria/pertussis vaccine was to dramatically reduce the number of kids hospitalised with respiratory infections. But hospitalisations due to respiratory infections are now extremely common. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804877.
The purpose of the Hep B vaccine was to reduce the *total* number of people with liver cancer. Rates in the US have tripled since the introduction of the vaccine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224838
The purpose of the Hib vaccine was to reduce the total number of cases of meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis. It did no such thing. http://www9.health.gov.au/cda/source/rpt_2.cfm... (look at meningococcal disease (invasive) and pneumococcal disease (invasive)) and because of the dismal failure of this vaccine it was inevitably followed by further attempts to vaccinate people against meningitis supposedly caused by other strains (eg Prevnar) showing that abject lunacy (doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result) is the standard procedure for vaccination policy experts.
And so on and so forth. When you try and marry up the vaccine against the *real world problem* it was supposed to address (as opposed to the number of germs found in the patient's body) it is always an abject failure. Indeed even if for some absurd reason you wanted to measure the number of germs found in people's bodies since the vaccine was introduced this simply wouldn't be possible because we simply don't and didn't take that information down (before the vaccine we assumed the germs were there and after the vaccines we generally assumed they weren't).
And you can add in the information from these graphs here: www.childhealthsafety.com/graphs that show that vaccines didn't save millions of lives.
Do this. Over and over again. It is concise and to the point and takes away the entire basis for vaccinating. Of course, people are extremely brainwashed on this issue and will still try and find ways to rationalise it, but if they hear it often enough and from sufficient numbers of people it will start to seep in.
Posted by: rtp | July 16, 2015 at 08:04 PM
It doesn't matter who you vote for. Doesn't matter who gets elected or what they say or promise before getting elected. They aren't in charge. It's a fixed game.
Posted by: Linda1 | July 16, 2015 at 07:25 PM
Based on Trump's past, he will not back down on the vaccine issue, if anything, he will only get louder once they pressure him to reverse his stance on vaccines, and they don't want that which he will only bring out more facts to back his claim.Trump speaks the truth so far, all which can be backed up, nothing will be different with the vaccine/autism link, he's not like the rest of the candidates that need funding.
Posted by: victorpavlovic | July 16, 2015 at 05:44 PM
For Cia,
I'm sure that it would be VERY difficult for any of them to take a stance one way or the other, for fear of alienating thousands. But in this case, if they don't take a stand for vaccine choice, a lot of us are simply not going to vote for them, because it means they support medical tyranny and rule by the brainwashed and coerced. Do any of them have any cojones? Possibly not.
Posted by: cia parker | July 16, 2015 at 05:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccTsOXRvb9c
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | July 16, 2015 at 05:15 PM
@kapoore wrote: "I still believe that William Thompson testifying before Congress will make a difference."
I'm genuinely interested in why you believe this to be true because I know of no facts that would support such a belief.
The story of Dr. Anthony J. Morris provides an exact morality play for us to understand what will happen to William Thompson.
Dr. Morris gave his whistle blower info to Senators, and a full-blown, nationally televised Senate hearing was held. You can read the transcript--
“Hearings before the Subcommittee on Executive reorganization and Government Research of the Committee on Government operations, United States Senate, Ninety-Second Congress Second Session on Titles I and II of S.3419, April 20, 21 and May 3, 4 1972."
Dr. Morris also appeared on what was then the most popular daytime talk show in America, The Phil Donahue Show, and told his entire story.
The end result was the renaming of the corrupt agency to how you know it today: the FDA. That was the sole outcome of Dr. Morris' whistle-blowing.
I hope you have a chance to read Truth-Out's interview with Kavanagh. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/10524-former-fda-reviewer-speaks-out-about-intimidation-retaliation-and-marginalizing-of-safety#
Kavanagh also turned over documents to the chairmen of powerful Senate committees. It was discarded. Until you read the corruption Kavanagh describes, which is overtly criminal and resulted in massive deaths and injuries, I don't think you can appreciate the level of criminal corruption at work. The pharmaceuticals today are as bad as the Mafia in their heyday.
The final outcome of Kavanagh's bravery? Here is how he concludes the Truth-Out interview:
"Based on other things that happened and were said, I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators."
I know that you hope Thompson will make a difference. I do too. But, in addition to the facts above, I would also point out Thompson still works at the CDC and, a year later, no one is making plans for a Congressional hearing and we are now in the 2018 election season.
The depth of corruption wrought by pharmaceutical companies on supposedly independent agencies charged with the protection of Americans is unfathomable for normal people. It certainly was for me until only a few weeks ago.
I continue to feel our best hope is the realization of the truth: We can no longer rely on our government or its agencies to supply any meaningful oversight. When it comes to this issue, it is clear that they and the MSM have been fully captured. Even if Thompson testifies, who will cover it and what spin will they give it?
As RFKJr. has repeatedly stated, "Only parents stand between our kids and these rapacious [and criminal] corporations."
Posted by: David Taylor | July 16, 2015 at 04:59 PM
A web search with "donald trump vaccinations autism" gets a few more references to Trump's position on vaccination (for me at least), including this on the second page:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/12/trump-did-not-f.html
He's been standing up for how he sees things with the current vaccine schedule, and how it is, for some time now. I'm really grateful he is frank and courageous (and notorious?) enough to be willing to draw some attention to what is happening with the health of our vaccine overdosed children and youth...
I can't personally invest a lot of hope in the vaccine stance of whomever might be elected to the White House as I think our presidents have been less free than most of the rest of us to do whatever they think is right (unless they think that the industry can do no wrong and deserves free public Presidential endorsements at least a couple times a year) on this type of issue for some time now...if the public by and large wakes up to the amount of vaccine injury being committed, I'm sure...ok I'm not even sure our "leaders" will then follow...
I think we need to change things from the bottom up, or maybe make those "on top" less and less a guiding factor (except maybe in cluing us in on where to withdraw support/participation) in our choices, somehow less able to do damage to the protections of unalienable rights that government is supposed to ensure...
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | July 16, 2015 at 04:50 PM
You will wait for a long time before it would even get mentioned. No one else has the balls to do it. But if they did they'd be smart. This could be the year of speaking honestly. The Donald is having that effect. I almost feel sorry for Hilary and just how fake and corporately driven she seems.
Posted by: for Cia | July 16, 2015 at 04:00 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/13/doris_kearns_goodwin_we_as_journalists_have_a_responsibility_to_figure_out_which_candidates_are_likely_to_be_our_leaders.html
Above is the only reference I've heard of linking Donald Trump and vaccines. Doris Kearns Goodwin is questioning Trump's leadership qualities and his conspiracy theories including vaccines. It's from last Sunday's Meet the Press.
Posted by: Sandy Raitt | July 16, 2015 at 03:22 PM
I don't think Donald Trump is a viable candidate for many reasons. I think we need to look somewhere else. I'm not going to vote Democrat, I'm going to wait and see who's going to run. If they don't say what I want to hear on vaccines, I'll vote Green, even though it's a wasted vote in some ways, it would also make a statement (if enough people do the same in exasperation).
Posted by: cia parker | July 16, 2015 at 02:53 PM
I still believe that William Thompson testifying before Congress will make a difference.
Posted by: kapoore | July 16, 2015 at 01:56 PM
There is a thread on cnn why jim carrey is wrong about vaccination if anyone wants to add a comment. I tried.
Posted by: greyone | July 16, 2015 at 11:41 AM
@ David
I respectfully disagree the "powers that be" are "saving" their predictable attack on Trump to "slaughter him" when they find it convenient.
My guess is .. they are terrified that Trump will not fold like a wet tissue .. as Christie and Paul did .. and .. stands tall and refuses to "apologize" for what they are certain to classify as "anti-vaccine" beliefs .. as was the case on his inarticulate "anti-Hispanic" comments on illegal immigration.
Trust me .. there isn't a single soul in the Republican establishment ... or among the media's national political pundits .. of both parties .. that wants to see Trump participate in that looming national televised debate .. which means .. if they were going to "slaughter him" .. they would have surely done it already.
At least that is my wishful thinking ....
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | July 16, 2015 at 11:12 AM
https://stopthesilencespeakthetruth.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/i-raised-an-addict-what-could-i-have-done-differently/
This was on my face book. Put on by my childhood friend that is now the head of UNITE in Kentucky.
She said she could have written this.
My sister's best friend wrote under that --- Don't judge us.
Several others that I now commented.
Sigh. I put a link to Harris Coulter's book from amazon on there and asked them to at least look at the synopsis and comments about his book.
The above article has the Mother trying to figure out what she did wrong
She questions herself on not making him take more responsibility and thinks about all the times that she would take papers to him at school, but then he had ADD was was so disorganized. He however did okay in school but once he went to college it just all hit the fan.
That is what is going on with my friend.
The last one before I commented said - it really is an epidemic.
I can't wake them up -- not one -- not one of them responded back to my post. Ignored -- Ignored and yet they ask why.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 16, 2015 at 11:05 AM
Sure they will try to question Donald Trump on the issue but it's a Pandoras box that could completely endear him to the public even more. I'd say at least half the population will not go for mandated vaccines once they understand what sb277 really means. It means you will get any and every vaccine they want, for diseases that are not even contagious in the classic sense. Look at what's happening with Gardasil around the world. And if people understand that there is too much corruption involved and the health orgs don't care about your adverse events from vaccines, well that's not going to help their cause.
Posted by: @David and Bob | July 16, 2015 at 09:51 AM
Yes threats and blackmail seem to be what science is about these days . How sad is that.
Posted by: @Carol | July 16, 2015 at 09:40 AM
All scientists seem to do these days is mock people. They mock you if you question vaccines or any alternative health care. Recently there was a ridiculously designed test about how nearly half the UK population is delusional. So much for "I fucking love science." I think many people see them as smug lemmings ready to do whatever pharma directs.
Posted by: I f'g wonder about scientists | July 16, 2015 at 09:34 AM
@Bob Moffitt--Yes, it is odd to us because we see the elephant in the room. But not odd as a product of the behaviors associated with an ideology--a set of closely held beliefs that seem natural and self-evident to the holder.
Vaccines pass the "anti" test right now. Believers can simply put an "anti" in front and everyone instantly, on a gut level, is stirred: anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-communist, anti-vaccine.
My guess is that when the MSM gets serious about taking out Donald Trump (right now he provides summer fun and filler in a 24-hour news cycle), his stance on vaccines will be the coup de grace. It was for Michelle Bachmann.
An ideology not only explains the world; it seeks to conform others to that belief. The result is an intense pressure to conform that is reinforced by the political forces which sustain the ideology. Translation: the slaughter of Donald Trump will begin soon enough.
Posted by: David Taylor | July 16, 2015 at 09:22 AM
The interview with Ronald Kavanagh, FDA drug reviewer from 1998 to 2008, is a must-read: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/10524-former-fda-reviewer-speaks-out-about-intimidation-retaliation-and-marginalizing-of-safety#
Some excerpts: "There is also irrefutable evidence that managers at CDER [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research] have placed the nation at risk by corrupting the evaluation of drugs and by interfering with our ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs. While I was at FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.... After FDA management learned I had gone to Congress about certain issues, I found my office had been entered and my computer physically tampered with. I saw strange cursor movements on my computer when I was just sitting at my desk reading that I suspected was evidence of spying. After I gave Representative Waxman's (D-CA) office a USB drive with evidence, FDA staff was admonished that it was prohibited to download information to USB drives. Then, after I openly reported irregularities in an antipsychotic drug review and FDA financial collusion with outsiders to Senator Grassley’s office and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I was threatened with prison if I should release trade secret information to Congress....[T]he Food Drug and Cosmetics Act explicitly allows communication of trade secrets by FDA employees to Congress, but since most people are unaware of this, FDA management can use the threat of jail for violation of the Trade Secrets Act, not only to discourage reviewers, but in my case they got Senator Grassley's staff to destroy the evidence I provided them. The threats, however, can be much worse than prison. One manager threatened my children - who had just turned 4 and 7 years old - and in one large staff meeting, I was referred to as a 'saboteur.' Based on other things that happened and were said, I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators...."
Posted by: Carol | July 16, 2015 at 09:21 AM
I recently e-mailed my senator, who is also running for President. I reiterated my vaccine safety concerns and said "don't make me vote for Donald Trump". I can't think of another issue that is more concerning to me.
Posted by: reluctant to use my real name anymore | July 16, 2015 at 09:06 AM
Right on Dave .. your description of the arrayed forces promoting vaccines and the governmental policies by which they are researched, recommended and approved as "religious dogma" .. is daunting.
You wrote: "The few Republicans who have dared to speak out (Michelle Bachman, Rand Paul, Chris Christie) were immediately ridiculed and silenced. Only Donald Trump continues to speak about medical freedom and vaccines."
Isn't it ODD the extraordinarily loud opposition to Trump's candidacy .. which probably explains why Trump is now ahead of favored son Jeb Bush in polls .. from the media pundits who demand he apologize for his "inarticulate" statements regarding illegal immigration .. to his political enemies now en-masse regurgitating Trump's many changed positions over recent decades ..
all these loud voices .. yet .. not ONE has asked Trump his position on vaccines? Why is that do you think? After all .. as you said .. it took only hours before Rand Paul and Chris Christie had to qualify their remarks supporting parental "choice" by proclaiming their own children are fully vaccinated because the "benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks"
Yet ... Trump .. this far into the campaign .. and not ONE question regarding vaccines? I think that odd .. no?
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | July 16, 2015 at 06:37 AM