Waking Up to Vaccine Reality
By Cathy Jameson
Welcome, new moms! We’re glad to have you join us…
I see vaccine-related posts all the time when I log in to Facebook. Not a day goes by that I don’t see some vaccine link being shared. I sometimes feel overwhelmed when I see that topic in my newsfeed. That’s because some days, the news isn’t good news - people are still being injured by vaccines, vaccine efficacy is waning (but we should still go out and get that bum vaccine anyway!), and mandates are looming. It can all be rather depressing. I’ll admit that I’m guilty of clogging my friends’ newsfeeds with all sorts of vaccine news and information, but that’s because when you’re a parent of a vaccine-injured child, being vocal about vaccines can easily become a habit.
Last week, logging onto Facebook was no different than other weeks. I saw posts about the Zika vaccine, about the Tdap vaccine, and about the DTP vaccine. I saw those being mentioned in some FB groups as well as on some of the autism advocacy and vaccine safety pages that I frequent. Not surprisingly, I saw those posts on friends’ walls, too. I expect to see that from certain friends, especially the ones who have a vaccine-injured child who is also on the autism spectrum. But last week when I saw that news pop up in my newsfeed, I didn’t cringe like I sometimes do when I see a vaccine link. I did a double take instead.
The posts that I saw were not being shared by moms like me. These moms were different. Their kids were different, too. The kids didn’t have seizures. Their weren’t in therapy. They weren’t in self-contained special ed classrooms either. It was a different population of moms fairly new to the online vaccine scene who were chiming in, and I couldn’t believe it. Typical moms of typical children were sharing articles about vaccine bills, about vaccine ingredients, and about the vaccine schedule. All out in the open and on Facebook!
I didn’t want to question why, but why? Why did these moms go from completely silent on what’s become a controversial topic to linking these sorts of articles to their FB walls? And why all of a sudden now? My mind was spinning.
Maybe they saw the 2016 schedule and were shocked at how many vaccines there are.
Maybe they came to realize that following the vaccine schedule is not safe, is not effective, and in actuality, for some people, is downright dangerous.
Maybe they recently took a verbal beating from their doctor about declining some of those vaccines.
Maybe they realized that if they don’t start being vocal now, they’ll lost their chance to speak up in the future.
Maybe the reason these moms are sharing what they are sharing is because they’re finally ready to say enough is enough. Whatever their reasons are, I am glad to witness what I am witnessing.
A few of the women hail from states where vaccine bills were recently introduced. The bills, had they passed, would have taken away their parental rights. As former vaccinators who previously had a choice to vaccinate or not, these women would now be forced to have to vaccinate their children. No questions. No exceptions. No exemptions. That can be pretty scary to realize. Thankfully, these moms aren’t afraid to share their thoughts on the subject. I just hope that they are prepared for what comes next.
Waking up to vaccine reality isn’t easy. People recognize how blind they were. They realize that they’ve trusted the wrong people. Worse, the more aware and vocal they become, they’ll begin to lose friends and others close to them. It can be a long, hard and sometimes lonely road to walk. As the mom of a vaccine injured child, I know this, and I feel for the moms on Facebook who are walking that path right now. That’s why I’m cheering these women on as much as I can. I’m ‘liking’ their vaccine-related posts. I’m commenting on it. I’m adding to a conversation that they started, and I’m sending them private messages of encouragement when that conversation, which inevitably draws their pro-vaccine friends in, gets heated.
At one time, I, too, was pro-vaccine. I created my own vaccine logic to justify my decisions. I refused to see the other side of the conversation – that vaccines were not always safe, effective or life saving and that the ingredients could cause more harm than good. It wasn’t until my child’s health started to go downhill that I realized that there was another side to vaccines. It took me watching his health worsen for me to wake up. While transitioning away from being pro-vaccine to being more informed, my eyes were opened but my heart was crushed. I was confused, angry, and lost. It was going to take time to heal, but I knew that something better would eventually be around the corner. And it was: freedom.
I was free. I was free from working with people who did not have my child’s health in their best interest, and I was free to make better choices for my family and for myself. I’m encouraged that some of my friends who have typical kids are starting to free themselves, too. This waking up period is exciting. I let one mom know that I can’t even put into words how grateful I am to see her recent posts on Facebook. She’s coming out of the shadows. She’s tippy toeing into reality. She’s cautiously testing the waters and also bravely planting seeds of truth at the same time. One article. One link. One statement against vaccines in her Facebook status at a time. It’s quite thrilling to see.
It takes courage to go against pro-vaccine logic, to speak up and say no way are all those vaccines ever going to go in my child. It takes even more courage to say all of that on social media. Juggling what usually comes next – the harsh comments and the personal attacks from others and dealing with any unsettled feelings of doubt after going “public”, can be a struggle. So can losing family and friends who cannot respectfully agree to disagree when it comes to discussing anything related to vaccines. Which is where we come in.
Those of us who’ve been vocal about the vaccine schedule before know what it’s like to be attacked. We know what it’s like to be ignored and discriminated against. I don’t want these new moms to have to experience all of the harsh vaccine reality that many of us have endured for years, so let’s welcome them to our online community with open arms. It may have taken some of them a long time to get here, but we can let these new moms know that we’re so happy to have them join us on this side of the vaccine conversation.
Cathy Jameson is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.
rtp,
Thank you for your reply. I may have a comment stuck somewhere already in the works (or I failed to send it).
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 10, 2016 at 12:16 PM
Historical perspective. 30 years ago, most people who were vocal about the dangers of vaccines were also people with typical children. Back then, most of the people I met who chose not to vaccinate were not the injured, but the never-vaccinated or the stopped-vaccinated. The movement has changed to include a major portion of those who have injured children. But there were always those who followed their initial doubts about them and never vaccinated. I think the advent of social media and instant access to information has brought to light the many different aspects of those in the fight against vaccines. And of course, the ridiculous number of vaccines is the major reason why we have so many more recruits to our cause.
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | February 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM
The view which has so far held in the UK is the chicken-pox vaccine is contra-indicated because suppressing the natural circulation of the varicella virus would increase the risk of shingles, which is more commonly serious. Remarkably our Joint Committee decided against it in 2009 though we do now have shingles vaccine, and I should not be surprised if it came back on the agenda:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/chickenpox-christmas-is-over-so-time-for-a-new-vaccine.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/11/disingenuous-cdc-study-confirms-danger-of-chicken-pox-vaccine.html
Posted by: John Stone | February 08, 2016 at 05:56 PM
"If you don't mind me asking, do you think there are non-vaccine factors that explain the rise in shingles observed around the introduction of the vaccine,"
I certainly don't mind you asking and yes. There are definitely non-vaccine factors. But I don't think there is *any* relationship between shingles and chicken pox. Indeed, the very fact that doctors say that the varicella virus can infect our bodies for years or decades and suddenly explode in an orgy of pathogenesis is definitive proof that no vaccine could possibly work at all.
You see, if exposure to the pathogen for years is not sufficient to teach the immune system how to fight it, then clearly no amount of vaccines could possibly allow the body to achieve immunity to the disease. (The same holds true for the Hep B vaccine, measles vaccine, HPV and would also hold true for HIV and herpes too.)
It is literally impossible to gain immunity (not even natural immunity) to any virus that can infect us chronically. Chronic infection nullifies the very notion of learnt immunity.
If you are looking for an explanation of the rise in shingles (assuming the rise is real) then you aren't going to find it in virology or immunology.
The first thing you should do when thinking about shingles is not ask yourself "which of the trillions and trillions of tiny little proteins which are present in our bodies all the time must be causing this?" but "why does shingles typically only present on one side of the body? What is the one and only thing that could explain the obvious laterality of this (or other) disease?"
Posted by: rtp | February 08, 2016 at 05:13 PM
kapoore, I certainly wasn't trying to criticise you. And I get why many on our side feel the need to meet others half-way but the reality is that if you yield on the idea that vaccines work then no matter how much you talk about their dangers your opponent's rationalising mind will just repeat "smallpox, polio, smallpox, polio..."
No matter what you tell them about their dangers, anybody who believes that if it weren't for the smallpox vaccine they would be dead and without the polio vaccine they would be crippled will sacrifice anything and everything in the name of the Great Vaccine God. Concentrating on safety and pretending that vaccines actually work will always have limited efficacy.
You are not going to make a rabid pro-vaxxer accept that the smallpox and polio stories are a lie but you can at least sow the seeds of doubt. A great, simple and true line is to say:
"Did you know that ever since the polio vaccine, rates of paralysis have *increased*?"
Your opponent will find ways to rationalise this fact but whatever rationalisation they come up with, the magical gloss of vaccines will have lost at least some of their power on them. You can't rationalise this away except through admitting that polio was probably never that big a deal in the first place.
Same for smallpox, you can say: "how could the health agencies have possibly known that a tiny little virus that can only be seen with an electron tunnelling microscope didn't exist anywhere on the planet? Surely no mere mortal could possibly know such a thing. They clearly made this claim up and therefore they are not to be trusted."
I have quotes by the way showing the CDC instructing doctors to declare any positive tests to be false on the circular basis that "well smallpox doesn't exist anymore so they must be false positives".
The virus (assuming that there ever was a smallpox virus) still exists and people still get severe pox (which we call severe chicken pox/monkey pox etc).
The point is though, pretending that vaccines work and focusing on safety is an argument that will only ever work with a limited proportion of the population.
Remember, if you can scare someone out of vaccinating then you can scare them into vaccinating. And whilst governments, doctors and the media are woefully incompetent at most things, we could never hope to compete with them at scaremongering.
Think of it this way. Human rights are the leaves, vaccine safety are the branches, vaccine efficacy is the trunk.
And the root is the germ theory.
Attacking the leaves is almost a complete waste of time. Attacking the branches will have measurable impacts but will always be limited. You can attack the trunk without attacking the roots if you like but at the very least you must attack said trunk. Otherwise we will just keep on going in our current situation whereby we have temporary victories on vaccine mandates but eventually, we will lose everywhere.
There is no middle ground here. There is no scope for that. In some situations there is but not in this one. You always have to ask yourself, what is the counterfactual?
Could doctors stand up and say "listen we got it wrong, the schedule is too bloated and causing untold damage and now we are going to pull it back"? Of course they couldn't. They would all go to jail. So the only logical course for them is to double down. No amount of reasoning or pleading from us will change this because it is the only rational thing for them to do as individuals - and certainly as a collective. Anything else would be suicidal.
When you understand that the other side has no choice but to become increasingly draconian then you should realise that moderation for us is an impossible strategy. It would be poor strategy if vaccines did actually have any benefits. And it is disastrous strategy considering the fact that none of them do.
Posted by: rtp | February 08, 2016 at 04:51 PM
rtp,
If you don't mind me asking, do you think there are non-vaccine factors that explain the rise in shingles observed around the introduction of the vaccine, like maybe chicken pox was going down in incidence on its own or other factors playing a role in the emergence of shingles in greater and younger frequency (something to counter the idea that the vaccine reduced the level of natural boosting against shingles)? I agree we don't have good data on vaccine efficacy, and I'm pretty sure there is no way the "benefits" of chicken pox vaccine could outweigh the increased risk it likely added to the schedule...I'm still just working on forming my own view of the impact of vaccination.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 08, 2016 at 03:10 PM
Hi rtp,
You could be right that no vaccines work. Personally in my risk/benefit analysis I would not rely on any vaccine to work. I would not go into a typhus or typhoid epidemic even if vaccinated without taking super precautions. I think it is unwise to take a baby under six months to Disneyland or Vegas or any other human petri dish. It's hard to know if vaccines work or not without the presence of disease. I'm not, though, an expert, instead I am a person who reads the studies in hopes of having a dialogue with a true believer like a school board member or a legislator. Most people believe in an erroneous idea of "herd immunity." To counter that I have studied the ideas of immunologist Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych that you can watch online. Step one in countering true belief in herd immunity seems to be looking at the disease patterns in epidemics or other studies that measure antibodies post vaccination--in other words, accept the basic premise of antibody immunity and show how limited that immunity is in preventing outbreaks of disease with some of these published studies. I am definitely on the anti-vaxer side, but given the level of belief in vaccines you have to start somewhere
Posted by: kapoore | February 08, 2016 at 02:45 PM
Cathy, Your reporting is encouraging. I do not have a dog in the fight. Our six children had fewer shsots and much later before we found the problem with vax. My daughter asked me about the two sides of this issue and I began to research three years ago and have not stopped my daily learning on the subject. I look around our church congregation and estimate that twenty percent of the children are outwardly injured. I suppose that they are all injured in some way, though. I see six autistic, three diabetic, allergies, etc. Growing up I did not see any of the above challenges. I am the gadfly in hopes of dissuading parents from playing vaccine roulette and seriously messing up their families. It is a thankless job and I bring on the ire of some, but the price of being a nuisance is what I am willing to pay to save some poor kid a lifetime of distress. I am intent on spreading the word about the dangers.
Posted by: Tribulusterrestris | February 07, 2016 at 08:22 PM
kapoore, there is no valid evidence that any vaccines works.
The data you are looking at is not double blind (ie the doctor treating the patient knows that said patient is vaccinated).
This prejudices their diagnosis and therefore they are less likely to diagnose, say, measles than in someone with the same rash but who is not vaccinated.
If you take away this prejudice by doctors and the fact that in many cases the disease has been more strictly defined (for example, you can't make a polio diagnosis without a positive lab result today whereas in 1950 symptoms alone were sufficient) then there is no reason to believe that *any* vaccine has actually worked.
Posted by: rtp | February 07, 2016 at 08:15 PM
The media tend to portray the “dialogue” about vaccines as a debate between two groups of people – pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers. As a participant in countless conversations about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines I've learned there are many more factions participating in this process. Its helpful to know who we might be in conversation with. They include:
1. Pro-Vax Crusaders
These are the most stanch adherents to the current vaccine paradigm. Followers of this position are resolute in their belief that vaccines are “safe and effective” and that “vaccine injury is rare and an unfortunate but necessary cost of protecting the greater good”. Those with the most extreme position are “crusaders” who believe everyone must be vaccinated with or without their consent. They believe the ‘greater good’ trumps the medical ethic of informed consent or individual rights and freedoms. They also believe “the science is settled” and are committed to silencing and censuring any discussion about vaccine safety and effectiveness.
2. Compliant Vaxxers
These members include those who vaccinate themselves or their children, not out of a well-informed choice, but rather out of compliance with current practices and societal beliefs. The decision of whether to vaccinate, with which vaccines, and when is transferred to doctors, nurses, and other “health authorities”. They simply comply with the recommendations of these “health authorities” and hold the belief that “they wouldn’t recommend vaccines if they weren’t safe and effective.” They may not be advocates of mandatory vaccinations, but also do not fully embrace informed consent.
3. Hesitant Vaxxers
These members include those who are beginning to question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. They witness the rising rates of autism, neurological and immunological disorders, seizures, and allergies. They continue to participate in the vaccine program but do so hesitantly. They may delay in getting themselves or their children vaccinated or decide not to receive all vaccines. They are uncertain about what is the best decision for themselves and their children and remain susceptible to persuasion/coercion from the media and medical industry.
4. Reluctant Vaxxers
These members include those individuals who vaccinate because of state/government mandates and other coercive and punitive measures. They believe they have no choice but to succumb to vaccinations, and/or they live in a community where medical choice and informed consent no longer exist (California/Australia).
5. Regretful Vaxxers
This group consists of those individuals and parents who may have once been pro-vaxxers, compliant, hesitant, or reluctant vaxxers, and then experienced severe adverse effects, injury, and/or the death of a loved one following a vaccination. They are regretful of their decision to vaccinate and wish they had done more research on the topic before complying. Their goal is to alert others to the potential consequences of vaccination that they have personally experienced. They actively question the vaccine dogma and are strong advocates for informed consent and safer vaccines.
6. Anti-Vaxxers
This is a small but well educated group of individuals, most often scientists, researchers, medical professionals and sometimes parents who recognize the biological, neurological and/or immunological consequences of injecting vaccine ingredients into the human body. They are open and direct in expressing their concern about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccination program.
7. Financial and Political Benefactors
This group consists of individuals and groups (vaccine manufacturers, medical industry, CDC, politicians, media) who have a financial and/or political stake in protecting the current vaccine paradigm. They are strong advocates of “more of the same” and dismiss any concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness. These individuals and organizations are more committed to protecting the vaccine program than in protecting individuals. They hold the position that - "Any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine (program) cannot be allowed to exist." They advocate for mandatory vaccinations and an increased vaccination schedule.
8. Internet Trolls
This is a group of individuals who are employed by the medical industry to discourage public discussion about vaccine safety and effectiveness. They “troll” Internet websites, opinion columns, and comment sections of media to bully, intimidate, and silence anyone who expresses concern about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Their means of engagement is primarily personal attacks and name calling.
Hope this helps those new to the discussion.
A Regretful Vaxxer who is on his way to becoming an Anti-Vaxxer.
Posted by: Ted Kuntz | February 07, 2016 at 08:08 PM
Thanks, Cathy, for sharing your observation of increasing vaccine activism! I'm not sure I experience the same feeling of freedom, but I can put together a few shards of peace in hearing that some young parents are well-warned and probably treading a safer, healthier path than the one I led my daughters down... and I hope that soon all our children will have better access to health freedom and truth.
Thanks for all you do!
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 07, 2016 at 06:21 PM
Great article, Cathy!
For any newbies who might be reading your post today, and for AoA veterans, check out this disturbing link for seminars regarding how to train for "Standing Orders" for adult vaccinations.
http://www.standingorders.org/
Note the sponsors of this sinister business are Pfizer and Immunization Action Coalition.
My advice is to make sure that you and your loved ones have practiced and have an action plan for what to do when bombarded by medical staff who have been trained to badger, frighten, berate, not tell the truth, not treat the individual as an individual, and who knows what else, when someone says "NO, THANK YOU" to vaccines.
Make sure that you and your loved ones are fully prepared to say NO, and stick to it, to any unwanted vaccines (and/or ones you haven't even considered) BEFORE you seek medical help.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | February 07, 2016 at 05:03 PM
Thank you so much for this wonderfully hopeful article! I am the parent of a very mildly vaccine-injured child. I don't thank my lucky stars that I was able to protect he and his two younger siblings from the worst ravages of vaccine injury, I thank the brilliant and brave parents who went before me whose children did not escape them (and my mommy gut).
My heart bleeds for their children.
My heart rages that it is such an
uphill battle to help these children get better.
My heart rages that it is such an uphill battle to
prevent this from happening to other children.
I am humbled by their advocacy.
I am ashamed that once I thought they were crazy.
I am wanting to pay them back in whatever way possible.
I am desperately afraid of what will happen to my children
should we be forced to comply with mandates.
I am still in need of their help:
I think it might be monumentally helpful for vaccine-safety advocacy organizations to disseminate information that helps parents know there might be safer ways to be mandate compliant. Mandate compliant does not necessarily mean schedule compliant. It might be important to stress that day-care compliance and school compliance are two totally different things as parents who are lucky enough to stay home with their babies have a bit of a window of protection. What exactly are the vaccines mandated for school/day-care (again)? How many doses are being mandated? Will states allow titre-draw proof (if you will) that would usurp dose mandates? While standing up against mandates is paramount I think we need to keep mind that losing a battle here and there doesn't mean losing the war (although I sure an glad people are waking up and we seem to be winning more battles lately). Thank you again Cathy and all you wonderful people at AoA!!!!!!
Posted by: Annie | February 07, 2016 at 12:39 PM
Maybe it's because activist like you, Cathy, have tirelessly and courageously put forward the truth, your truth, despite the harassment. Vaccine refusers are still a tiny minority ( I heard recently 3 %). So I asked my husband who is much better at math than I am what 3% of three hundred million is? I mean I could have figured it out but I would have had to use a calculator, and he can just pop it out in two seconds--9 million he said. I thought, that's not that many but we're all activists. We are small but mighty!
The problem is that it is very hard to get the right information. For example, let's take the "herd immunity" idea. Some people say vaccines simply don't work, but that just feeds the information chaos. Recently I have been studying herd immunity, and in fact vaccines do work for a minority of people for a certain amount of time. Vaccines "work" for high responders, that is about 30% of the vaccinated, for about ten years and then the immunity wanes. The problem is that no one knows ahead of time who will be a high responder and who will be a low responder and who will get no response at all. And who is in the middle with 7 years of so called protection. It's the same old vaccine roulette. So when a mom says I vaccinated and my kids are protected that probably isn't completely right because they "might be protected" and they "might not be protected." It's more like I vaccinated and my kids are possibly protected. I think, though, that Chris Shaws work is what will turn the real herd around... no one will want to put aluminum into their child's brain, and again there are going to be the genetically susceptible but some aluminum is going to get into the brains of all children vaccinated with aluminum adjuvants and no one knows how to get it out. One day non vaccinating moms will say, I didn't vaccine moms I'm not that worried about aluminum in the brain....
Posted by: kapoore | February 07, 2016 at 11:51 AM
Great post, Cathy. Having been aware of the truth/corruption since 2014 when Dr. Thompson 'came out', I'm sure there has been an increase in awareness of new Mothers, so hopefully this movement will continue to grow. With the new schedule, sadly, more children will be affected. This, in turn, may bring more families to the truth. What a dreadful world it is, though, when increase in vaccine injuries point to the truth - when so many Pharma, Government, health and media staff have been aware of this for decades. How do they live with themselves?
Posted by: susan | February 07, 2016 at 10:03 AM
Cathy, thanks for posting the latest vaccine schedule, which is obscene. How wonderful that citizen discussions and civil disobedience are now possible via the internet.
I see the 1983 schedule you posted for comparison. In 1980 I already questioned why so many vaccines (7 injected, 4 oral, 24 total) were necessary. I used to take my 3-year-old son with me on business trips, because it was easy for him to become an exchange-student in day care centers almost everywhere I went.
Then I found out that New York State would required me to get him vaccinated against mumps. I asked our pediatrician, who wrote a note that he did not need this, because he had already had the mumps. He got the mumps at such an early age from being in day-care since 6 weeks of age.
I attribute much of my son's spectacular good health to all of the exposures he had to dirt and disease in early childhood.
Posted by: Patience (Eileen Nicole) Simon | February 07, 2016 at 06:43 AM