“If you’re not going to vaccinate, you shouldn’t get to use western medicine.”
“If you’re anti-big pharma you shouldn’t be able to buy insulin.”
“If you hate pharmaceutical companies so much you shouldn’t be allowed to buy an EpiPen for your kid.”
Let’s get one thing straight, knuckleheads. If someone decides that it’s in the best interest of their child’s health, well-being, or right to life to forgo vaccination, they still get to do whatever the hell they want when it comes to treating disease, whether you like it or not.
Guess what, Einsteins? Antibiotics aren’t man-made. They weren’t invented, they were discovered. The very definition of antibiotic means it is a naturally occurring substance produced from microorganisms and fungi. The synthetic crap is antimicrobials, not antibiotics. Antibiotics are a lot closer to the natural medicine movement than your prescription for Zoloft or Xenical.
Besides that, penicillin was discovered in 1928. The first smallpox vaccine that became the standard for vaccine production (freeze-dried with added peptones to reduce contamination and injected with a needle) didn’t come about until 20 years later when it was invented by Leslie Collier. So the use of natural antibiotics predates the first “western medicine” vaccine by two decades.
Plus there’s the fact that a First Nation tribe in Canada has been using a powerful antibiotic clay found north of Vancouver to heal infections for thousands of years, and now “western medicine” is all on their jock to appropriate it.
If we reverse the declaration and instead say, “You shouldn’t be allowed to get vaccines if you refuse to use antibiotics” do you hear how stupid it sounds? After all, antibiotics were here first. “You don’t want to use the clay? No DTaP for you then.”
Let’s be honest: most people who know enough to not vaccinate don’t want to use antibiotics anyway.
How about this fact: the examples you give of the “life-saving western medicine” non-vaxing parents should be deprived of are for conditions caused by vaccination. Remember, most “anti-vaxers” are really “former-vaxers” who already sacrificed one child for the herd. So you’re saying that a child who developed a deadly condition like juvenile diabetes or anaphylactic allergies after its parents attempted to conform to the vaccination schedule should then be deprived of the only available treatment to save their lives? Where do you get off saying such a thing? Read the rest at Levi's blog: HERE.