Weekly Update: The Decline of Modern Education Continues
Australian Labor MP: "I'd Choose Autism"

A Valuable Concession On Mandates: “Let Freedom Ring”

Vaccine-Confidence-ProjectBy John Stone

I have been meaning to write about the New Year message of Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project, a  “group” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organization. Dr Larson is remarkably calling for an end to vaccine mandates, and is openly critical of recent events across Europe but in California, India and Australia. It is just possible that she was responding to an article by myself addressed to her early in December pointing out the paradoxical nature of her position: the draconian drive against citizen’s rights which we have been seeing across the globe was incompatible with her mission to create confidence: they were indeed contradictory projects.

She writes:

Somehow the assumption that populations would accept – and continue to accept – more and more vaccines, just because they are good for personal and public health, needs a reality check. The ever-changing political, cultural and emotional lives of people have different notions of what is good for them, and we need to listen.

Well and good. Dr Larson goes on:

This does not mean agreeing with misinformation about vaccines that is circulating on the internet and social media, but listening to the deeper, underlying sentiments – the feelings of alienation, the loss of personal contact and people’s sense of feeling “counted” rather than cared for.

And here, of course, we part company (we were bound to). It is not only “alienation” it is that the primary source of misinformation about vaccines are government and global bodies like the WHO, GAVI  and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Members of the public want to discuss the small print. If Dr Larson is herself confident she ought to welcome dialogue: it may be an improvement being nice but of course it is not only uneducated people that are critical of vaccine program (the complaint very often is that they are educated), there are many doctors and scientists who often face a professional persecution for voicing their doubts. And it is also necessary to listen to the people - and their families - who have been hurt. Another problem Larson ought to consider, beside the iron fist of mandates is the hate campaigns against vaccine critics that rage through the mainstream media and in comment columns. The CEO of GAVI, Seth Berkley, has called for vaccine dissent to be removed from the web in the crudest terms. This, also, is the route away from trust. Worse, we are being deprived of the most basic intellectual freedoms.

There is no core body of evidence for the safety of the expanding vaccine schedule. In the last decade Paul Offit floated the idea of 10,000 vaccines being safe: it was taken up particularly by British health officials (Prof David Salisbury, Sir Liam Donaldson, Prof Elizabeth Miller) but now even Offit himself seems to be claiming he never said it via the website of Every Child By Two and it has not been replaced by any other theory. What we have are multiple products with different levels of effectiveness in suppressing disease by sparking inflammation, different safety profiles, and ever more of them which the infant body particularly then has to tolerate at any one time. It is a mighty assumption that “more and more vaccines” are the path to health heaven. The most vaccinated nation in the history of the earth, the USA, is drowning in child neuro-developmental disability, chronic ill-heath, and poor child mortality figures. It is becoming an economically unsustainable society.

So, thank you Dr Larson, let’s get civilized indeed: this not only means pretending to listen in a paternalistic way, but actually listening. It involves beginning to understand the limitations of the technology you advocate. But also thank you really for acknowledging through your WHO and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backed organization that mandates are a human offence. This is something that can be cited.

John Stone is UK Editor of Age of Autism

Comments

Aimee Doyle

@Cia - "He was livid about vaccines the year before his campaign, promised he would do something, but he hasn't. And he has been willing to defy all the vested interests when it comes to the Middle East and Pakistan. (So glad I voted for him, though I'm still waiting when it comes to vaccines.)"

Trump has not only abandoned the vaccine-injured - he has actively promoted pro-vax individuals to government agencies. He nominated Tom Price, then Alex Azar to HHS; he nominated Scott Gottlieb to the FDA; he appointed Brenda Fitzgerald to the CDC. All are pro-vax. It's hard for me to believe Trump cares, with these appointments. Don't tell me this was coerced. He has gotten every other governmental appointment he wanted, even controversial appointments like Betsy DeVos (Dept Education - who didn't know what an IEP was) and Neil Gorsuch (who wrote a decision as an appellate judge against the family of a child with autism).

Why exactly do you think he cares?

Hans Litten

"Cia, yes, you can point to California and SB.277 to argue that vaccine pushers are serious about mandates and forced vaccines. Yet Cia, I encourage you to look at the big picture. Numerous times Pan went on camera and said he intends SB 277 to serve as a model for the rest of the US, but why after 4 years no other State have adopted it? Is this due from our protests and efforts? Do you really think they're listening to us or fear us? Again -- the naive public overwhelming supports vaccines, pretty much every politician vouch for them, the courts have upheld mandates over and over again, so I ask, again, what's the hold-up with blanket mandates across the US?!"

Greg , I suspect they got a fright in Italy, a real fright.
And the risk for them is contagion, if protests start in a serious way like they ought to vaccines are finished forever.
It is a funny situation, how in parts of Africa , people literally run for their lives at the mere mention of vaccination (but in the West the sizable and growing minority that know the truth are still somehow shouted down into submission).

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cdcs-fictional-flu-death-stats-and-tamiflus-lethal-side-effects

The CDC's Fictional Flu Death Stats and Tamiflu's Lethal Side Effects

"You don’t sell the drug, you sell the disease."
~ George Merck, founder of Merck

Greg

Cia, yes, you can point to California and SB.277 to argue that vaccine pushers are serious about mandates and forced vaccines.  Yet Cia, I encourage you to look at the big picture.  Numerous times Pan went on camera and said he intends SB 277 to serve as a model for the rest of the US, but why after 4 years no other State have adopted it? Is this due from our protests and efforts?  Do you really think they're listening to us or fear us? Again -- the naive public overwhelming supports vaccines, pretty much every politician vouch for them, the courts have upheld mandates over and over again, so I ask, again, what's the hold-up with blanket mandates across the US?!

Cia, back to California and SB 277.  SB 277 applies to all private and public schools, but do you know there are no penalties for private schools not reporting their exemption figures?! Why do you suppose that is? What do you call a law that you have no intention of enforcing?  I would say not a law.  Also, speaking of cracking down on Sears, but, really, why havent they pulled his license?  What a great way to send a message that you're serious about enforcing mandates, and won't tolerate sympathetic antivaxx doctors.

Cia, I firmly stand by my assessnmentl that within the provaxx ranks there are serious conflicts and tensions about mandates.  You can be provaxx all you want and spout your BS, but who seriously wants a child that can't speak, or learn, and never will be able to fend for hisself?

Yes provaxxers are serious about people getting vaccines -- but that's OTHER people or strangers getting vaccines! Not being so enthusuatic about risking vaccines for yourself and 'loyal' friends' is entirely another matter, and I believe accounts for the perplexing picture we're witnessing with the implementation of mandates.

Also Cia, in regards to Trump, I too am disapointed  that he hasn't done anything about autism, despite his campaign posturing.  Observing Trump though, I've come to better understand his motives.  Trump is a meglomaniac whose singular focus is to prove he is the greatest by MAGA.  If you listen to him tout over and over again his economic accomplishments it's quite clear this means providing Americans with jobs and a strong economy.

Likely Trump sees pharma as too profoundly entrenched in the economy and taking them on might not be conducive to MAGA.  Yes, Trump  will buck the status quo on issues such as immigration that are not in direct conflict with this singular goal.  Campaign promises, however, such as cracking down on pharma for over pricing meds, or taking on China for manipulating their currency, or, again, adressing the autism epidemic are likely deemed not consistent with MAGA, and those promises are considered ones to scrap.  Unfortunately Trump is no JFK or MLK who has the moral fortitude to do the 'difficult' but right thing that invariable in the longrun will MAGA.

John Stone

Larson has a new article "A global girl gang", calling for web censorship

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30193-4/fulltext

using as an example the recent film "Sacrificial Virgins". She claims that the film emotes but in fact all she is doing is emoting. She claims the film does not provide balance but when Katie Couric tried to do a "balanced" film pharma all but destroyed her, led by Dorit Reiss, in one of the most unpleasant incidents in modern mainstream media history.

https://davidhealy.org/the-couric-incident-hpv-vaccine-mass-bullying/

Larson pretends to be balanced. Last year she gave an interview with Johnson &Johnson:

“Yes, there are potential risks—there will always be potential risks with any medical treatment. And we don’t talk enough about that.”

https://www.ageofautism.com/2017/12/paradoxes-for-heidi-larson-the-vaccine-confidence-lady.html

but if anybody actually does talk about it she goes into over-kill.

Hans Litten

And yes John, my gut tells me that this is the prime factor that is causing Heidi Larson to turn cold shoulders at mandates, rather than any empathy she may be feeling for the human rights of the 'little' people

Posted by: Greg | February 15, 2018 at 10:19 AM

Its a nice idea Greg but I cannot believe that cold hearted woman has any family to speak of ,
more than that I am not even sure she has a heart.
She certainly cannot possibly have a conscience. Con Science yes maybe .

cia parker

Greg,

How did the mandate get passed in California? Countless thousands strongly against it, Jerry Brown had JUST newly created a religious exemption to get out of the requirement a year or so before, Pan who made a complete fool of himself conferring on the sideline with his pharma rep, then running away frantically when he saw Del and Polly approaching him, SO many people begging their legislators not to pass it...but it passed. Yes, they can theoretically get a medical exemption, but they've cracked down on all the doctors who give any. I don't know what they ever did with Dr. Sears, who gave a medical exemption to a child who had already reacted severely to vaccines. Pan had said that doctors would continue to have complete ability to give exemptions as they saw fit, then wham! Crucify Dr. Sears. Draw up a hit list of all the doctors who give medical exemptions. So who's behind that? Where's the push-back? And then it may be that that homeschooling family that's in trouble now may be the spark they need to ban homeschooling? Or make even homeschoolers vax? Where are the closet vaccine fearers?

cia parker

Greg,

Why do you think Trump hasn't done anything? His son Barron is autistic by vaccine. He was livid about vaccines the year before his campaign, promised he would do something, but he hasn't. And he has been willing to defy all the vested interests when it comes to the Middle East and Pakistan. (So glad I voted for him, though I'm still waiting when it comes to vaccines.)

cia parker

Greg,

The lobbyist said that every outbreak favors them, because most people just break down hysterically if they even hear the word outbreak, much less epidemic. I don't understand why they don't see that nothing drastic happens. 38,000 were diagnosed with pertussis in the US five or six years ago, many more had it but were undiagnosed, there were twenty deaths, about half of them were newborns. In most years it's ten deaths from pertussis. In the measles outbreak at Disneyland, it was one immmunocompromised woman who had HAD the measles vaccine, the first measles death in the US in many years.

Is that going to continue? This conditioned response of mega-reaction to the word outbreak, regardless of how harmless it is? It's unreasonable, but the whole thing is unreasonable. I thought last night, well, at least 25% are against mandates, thirty years ago it would have been 0%. Is it going to be going faster now? You said something about another couple of years: do you really think it's going to change dramatically in that short a time? And aren't they going to fight very hard realizing that once they recognize the facts, someone is going to have to pay billions and billions and billions to all the autistic kids? Will they give millions to the families of all the kids who died of asthma or peanut allergy attacks? (I doubt it.) I'm hoping they will make huge judgments automatic for those like us who can prove that the hep-B vaccine was given without permission and autism was the result. Then we wouldn't even have to try to prove the four days and nights of encephalitic screaming.

Greg
I doubt part of your explanation because the evidence is that in many states across the US the vaccine lobby have driven hard to extend mandates and had to be fought off - I suppose if you are a pharma exec you might be rich enough to buy out (which might be conspicuous to some of your social acquaintances) but for ordinary citizens the costs are not trivial.

Indeed John, rich phama execs have enough money to buy their way out of mandates, but they're not the only players.  What about their 'colleagues' that they need to maintain the vaccination fraud? As I mentioned, will they sacrifice that journalist who is working hard for them bashing Wakefield, or what about that public health figure who is called upon to lie about vaccine safety
science? Reallly, who will be spared and who will be left out in the cold?

John, what you raised in your parenthesis is also true.    Any collusiin of such sorts would be deemed as too suspicious.and risky. The end reality is vaccines fears even among their public backers is a very serious issue, and to the point that even they are adverse to mandates. I would also assess where the vaccine lobby was fought back from their drive for mandates was not entirely, or even significatly, due to our efforts, but from tensions within. And yes John, my gut tells me that this is the prime factor that is causing Heidi Larson to turn cold shoulders at mandates, rather than any empathy she may be feeling for the human rights of the 'little' people

John Stone

Hans

Maybe a slightly different issue as this is a therapy.

Hans Litten

Transparent Pharma propaganda as to why they should always be allowed to circumvent all the rules :

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/02/08/i-met-theravax-herpes-vaccine-patient-and-here-what-he-said-12543


This piece is nasty on so many levels .

John Stone

Greg

I doubt part of your explanation because the evidence is that in many states across the US the vaccine lobby have driven hard to extend mandates and had to be fought off - I suppose if you are a pharma exec you might be rich enough to buy out (which might be conspicuous to some of your social acquaintances) but for ordinary citizens the costs are not trivial. There again it may well be that this is just the kind of embarrassment on Larson’s mind. Bear in mind she works in London where we don’t have mandates and I suspect there is a secret war being conducted by those in the establishment that don’t want them, but don’t want to say so. My reading is that financial penalties for non-vaccinators would not be politically acceptable here and therefore it would have to be more or less completely compulsory. This may have something to do with her present line.

Greg

Cia, you asked how things will transpire, which provaxx hypocrite will become turncoat and help us?  Cia, they don't need to become turncoat for us to win.  That journalist can continue to take his marching orders and write his BS about Wakefield, and, likewise, that public health figure 'in the know' that the CDC's safety studies are crap can continue to spout how sound they are, yet do you really think  when the time comes for their kid to have his jabs they will take the risks?  I definitely don't think so, and this  is how we will win.

They too will want to refuse vaccines, and that's why even when they bother with their mandates you find those mandates, invariable, always carry accompanying 'outs'. With No Jab No Play you forfeit your welfare payments and you don't have to vaccinate your kid, SB 277 allows you to pursue a medical exemption, and with Italy's mandates you can escape vaccines by paying a fine or bog things down by asking for separate vaccines. I would argue that all those 'outs' are by design, and the mandates essentially are merely arm-twisting exercises to get the gullible public  to comply, and while preserving 'outs' for those who are bent on refusing vaccines,  including the provaxx hypocrites.

Cia, consider provaxxers comparing vaccine mandates to enforcement of seatbelts usage.  Again, all States in the US and all Western countries for that matter mandate seatbelt usage -- without exceptions!  What's the hold-up then with vaccine mandates, considering their strong political, public and judiciary support? I would argue the hold-up is largely due from the pro-vaxx hypocrites 'private' discontent with vaccines, and largely inflamed by their 'skin in the game' conundrum.

And Cia, indeed there is wide, popular support for vaccines from naïve average-Joe and Joanne, but I would also argue that we don't need them to win.  They're not the one in charge and pulling the strings -- the pro-vaxx hypocrites are.  Also in terms of sheer numbers, we don't really need to draw the populous to our side for us to win. By pro-vaxxers own admission even a five percent reduction in vaccine rates will compromise their 'herd immunity', and tether things on the brink of collapse.  Surely as we continue to plug away on the internet with our concerns and vaccine injury stories more and more pro-vaxx hypocrites will take notice and inadvertently 'act accordingly' in advancing our cause. Cia, perhaps someone should have asked that vaccine lobbyist why so much time and resources are wasted  fighting our little rag-tag, marginalised,  and unpopular movement? The short answer is even the 'little' discontent that we brew is huge.

rtp

No. Germs are not dangerous. And I can't believe that any non-vaxer still believes they could be.

It is remarkably simple.

If germs were so dangerous that vaccines were necessary then the most dangerous places in the world would be where people go to get their vaccines and the most dangerous people in the world would be those who administer them.

So we have ourselves the single greatest and most destructive logical contradiction in history.

And it is all so ridiculously, patently obvious.

How can everybody not see this?

How can even most non-vaxers not see that the germ theory itself is the single most impossible belief in history? If I said that all disease was caused by unicorn farts it would be a more coherent and plausible explanation than germ theory.

And bear in mind the above is just one of the impossibilities of germ theory. I can point out others. I don't need to because the above is devastating but I could.

Jeannette Bishop

I'm sorry, Cia, she sounds very walled off from a significant aspect of your life. Many in my family, every generation, lean that way too, even if most of them won't tell me flat out!

I'm also wishing so many would recognize that the vaccine injured are living under repeated threats of further injury due to the denial, and are left to live with the pain and debilities of inappropriately treated injuries daily (of course in my family that would mean being conscience of some level of the same threat to pretty much all of us).

The worst to me is when someone expresses faith that while they are sure vaccines DO NOT cause fill-in-the-blank, that even if they DID cause fill-in-the-blank that the current state of things has to be for the best... I guess because there us no direction from on high to change things...

I can't help wishing they would (could?) translate that authoritarianistic (?word) faith over into a certainty that our "leaders" of society would and could do EVEN BETTER if we all simply put some effort and resources into understanding the matter, providing them with some comprehensive evaluations of what is happening here on the ground, resources and labor maybe, and many (MANY) encouraging words! Then, before we even get so far, we might find out we have some relatively low-cost improvements to implement ourselves without even burdening our all-wise leaders!

cia parker

Greg,

Thank you for your comment. It has inspired hope in me: I hadn't thought of it in those terms, that the provaxxers know in their hearts that vaccines cause autism and they're as frightened as everyone else. So how do you think this is going to play out? Both in the US and in Europe? Who is going to break step and rebel against the party line?

Laura Hayes

Cia,

It doesn't matter what your neighbor believes or doesn't believe about vaccines. It is NEVER her decision, or anyone else's, to decide what another person allows or doesn't allow into their body or that of their child's...NEVER.

As a friend said to me today, pro-vaccine means nothing more than when someone wants vaccines for themselves or their children. Nothing more.

When someone is pro-vaccine-mandates, however, and wants others to be vaccinated against their will, that is something completely different. That is tyranny, oppression, medical violence, medical fascism, terrorism against the will and bodies of others...and it is WRONG.

Lines have been crossed that never should have been crossed with regard to vaccines, specifically, vaccine mandates (I won't even mention wrongful FDA approvals and wrongful CDC recommendations here). Mandated medicine is WRONG.

So, your neighbor can do whatever she likes with regard to vaccinating herself and/or her children under 18. But neither she nor anyone else has any right whatsoever to dictate medical treatments and procedures for others.

cia parker

Laura,

Most people do not see it in those terms. Most people think of Disease as one big, dangerous, undifferentiated block and Vaccines as another block which is what saves us from Disease. Most people have gotten a lot of vaccines, and even if they have asthma, bowel disease, diabetes, or whatever, do not realize that the vaccines caused their conditions. They think in very broad terms: smallpox bad, vaccine ended it, polio bad, vaccine ended it. pertussis bad, measles bad, chickenpox bad. They are certainly very st-pid. At Mass today the priest said that because of the ongoing severe flu, he had decided not to offer the wine today, just the wafer, for Holy Communion. I asked my daughter in the car afterwards if she had understood why there was no wine today. And she showed uncharacteristic interest and asked why. I said so we wouldn't get flu from someone who had put his lips on the edge of the chalice, which could transmit germs even though the server wipes it with a cloth as soon as you give it back. And I said that ultimately it was good for most people to get the flu, etc. etc. And she said is it BAD to get the flu? I said No, in most cases for most people, it's GOOD to get the flu, train your immune system, get both specific and non-specific immunity, fairly good protection from cancer for the next five years if you don't take any fever reducers. But she kept saying No, it's BAD to get the flu. And that's the way most people are, conditioned to respond with knee-jerk programmed responses.

But most people think in much simpler terms and value short-term comfort and lack of sickness over more genuine health. They think it's irresponsible to let your child be sick for even a single day if you could have prevented it by giving him a vaccine, or even have reduced the chances. I disagree. But very few people would see giving children vaccines as equivalent to torture or child abuse. And it's not. It's done hoping that it will save the child from getting any kind of sickness, without understanding the value for lifetime health of going through many contagious diseases. And without understanding the wide array of vaccine damage and what causes it. They're st-pid, blind, proud, vaccine crazy, but they aren't child abusers since their intention is to protect the child, however misconceived that is.

Grace,

I agree. I would love to see what goes on in the minds and hearts of the professionals who promote vaccines. Many of them probably do believe the propaganda themselves. It's very likely that most of the others tell themselves that they are promoting what the entire medical world perceives as the greatest life-saving invention of all time, and don't look closely at information which contradicts that belief. I would like to know exactly what they think, but I don't.

cia parker

Laura,

The problem is that my neighbor believes that the shots are nearly always safe, but that young infants are very vulnerable to severe cases of contagious disease. And they are, but my neighbor thinks it's a community responsibility to protect them by vaccinating everyone, and I don't. I think the buck stops with the parent. They need to shelter young babies at home and not expose them to anyone who might be contagious. They need to get the nosodes for the diseases they're worried about. Ultimately I care about my baby a lot more than I care about anyone else's, and no, I don't care if my child gives their child flu or chickenpox or whatever. She thinks I should care about vulnerable newborns, but after what I've been though and learned, I am not willing for anyone who doesn't want the shots to be compelled to get them. But I fully understand that in rare cases this WOULD lead to a newborn or others getting and even dying from a VPD. Why was their vulnerable newborn near my child to start with?

Jeannette,

My neighbor doesn't listen to a word I say. I told her two weeks ago and on prior occasions over the years that children now are routinely given a HUGE number of shots, MANY more than her five children got in the '50s and '60s. She honestly trusts authority in general. She's from the Silent Generation, born in '28. She complies with every possible civic responsibility you can imagine. Always goes to vote, always recycles. Shovels her sidewalk when it snows, which not many people do, including me. Buys her plants from a nursery which employs autistic young people. When I first met her, in 2002, I saw that she did a lot of gardening, and used a huge amount of pesticides and other chemicals on her plants (which I think is the opposite of doing your civic duty, it's poisoning the world for everyone). I said something about how dangerous they were, and she said, "Oh, the American government would NEVER permit them to be sold if there were ANYTHING dangerous about them. End of story." When I told her about Cecily screaming for four days and nights reacting to the hep-B vaccine, she said that none of her children had done that. Well, duh, none of her children got a vaccine the day of birth at the hospital. And beyond that, they seem to be among those that can take a lot of vaccine abuse. She faithfully goes to get her flu shot every fall in order to protect those around her from catching it from her. Ninety years old, and her mind is very sharp, and she keeps up with current events, except that she hates Israel and hates Trump. A source of friction between us. I've talked about the mercury, but again, it's Oh, the vaccine companies would NEVER do anything that might hurt anyone, and the government would NEVER permit it. I've told her about my mercury attacks, but again, it's just in one ear and out another. I asked her to buy some frozen dinners once when I was immobilized with nausea and vomiting from a mercury attack, and she went out immediately to buy them, also went to the health food store to buy homeopathic cocculus that I thought might help me.

I don't know what to do. This is her religion, to honor and uphold every authority in her life, both Caesar and God. My problem is that it's VASTLY disrespectful of my and my daughter's severe vaccine-induced disabilities. You would think curiosity and genuine listening should be part of her dealing with suffering humanity, but they're not. She thinks anything she reads in printed media or sees on non-cable TV is the gospel truth. Pride is the most serious of the seven cardinal sins, and I think she has a disabling amount of pride, but I can't tell her that.

Jeannette Bishop

@Cia, your relay of your experience with your neighbor is triggering my OCD...does your neighbor at least understand what current vaccination practices look like for babies and and children?

https://preggomyeggo.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/vaccines-1983-vs-2016/

and that industry cannot be sued for health harm resulting from any vaccine recommended for children (which applies to the flu shots she might be getting)?

Laura Hayes

Cia,

When one wants to force one's will on another in the form of INJECTING them, and their babies, with scores of dangerous, invasive, toxic, potentially-fatal medical procedures against their will, brainwashed or not (think Nazi Germany, many brainwashed there, didn't make what they condoned, supported, participated in, and/or enforced acceptable), it is inflicting terror on others. Period. Even if someone is not the person injecting the vaccines, if he supports forced vaccination via mandates, he is just as guilty. Perhaps if more of us would call a spade a spade, the brainwashing could be undone more rapidly, and the perpetrators would begin to fear the awakened masses versus the victims fearing the vaccine-forcing-and-wielding terrorists.

In my 2016 WAPF presentation, I called a spade a spade, too:

"What would you say if you walked by the window to my house, peered in, and saw my husband and me holding down our tiny baby on the dining room table, then roughly jabbing and injecting it multiple times with toxic cocktails and true witches’ brews of ingredients…all while our baby, or child of any age, screamed bloody murder, trying to escape our grip and savagery? I imagine you would whip out your cell phone, call the police, then try to barge into our home to stop the abuse! How is what I just described any different than what goes on every minute of every day in doctors’ offices and hospitals in our country and across the world? To be very clear, it isn’t.

To state it very plainly, vaccination is child abuse in the form of medical assault and battery. With regard to adults, when vaccination is carried out against one’s will or wishes, say for school admittance, job requirements, elder care and housing, or military admission, or when carried out with one who is hesitant, or with one who is unsuccessful in resisting and refusing, it also meets the legal definition for assault and battery. We must begin to label these vaccine atrocities for what they are: blatant and inexcusable child abuse; medical assault and battery; and when death is the result for the vaccine recipient, involuntary manslaughter. These vaccine-induced injuries, illnesses, and deaths are iatrogenic in nature, meaning they are caused by doctors and nurses. Vaccinations are crimes against humanity, and there is no time to mince words about this fact."

We need to stop excusing others' gestapo-like behavior, and instead, call it what it is...and when it intimidates others and ensures medically-induced violence against others, including against babies and children, it is indeed a form of terrorism...making the perpetrators a form of terrorists.

Cia, what do you call it when well more than half of American children (outdated statistic, probably frighteningly higher now) have been made chronically ill, permanently disabled, infertile, mentally ill, extremely difficult to raise, teach, and live with, and prematurely killed by vaccines? I call that terrorism of the worst kind, as intimidation is most definitely involved, and what is being forced is indeed a form of unlawful violence when done against one's will, as the victim's body is pierced, injected, invaded, poisoned, and destroyed in multiple ways and to varying degrees, including death. As I wrote in my reply to Aimee Doyle, the fact that forced vaccination via mandates is legal simply reflects that we are living in unlawful times.

Cia, what do you call it when parents fear their children will be taken from them if not "fully vaccinated"...when children are denied life-saving surgery if not "fully vaccinated" beforehand...if children cannot attend school if they are not "fully vaccinated"...if teens cannot attend college unless they are "fully vaccinated"...if people cannot pursue an ever-increasing list of careers unless they are "fully vaccinated"...if parents can't find a local doctor for their child unless their child is "fully vaccinated"...if a pregnant woman cannot find an OB unless she is "fully vaccinated"...if parents-to-be fear living in certain states if they don't want their future children to be "fully vaccinated"...I could go on and on. What do you call that, Cia, when people are living in terror due to the threat of being vaccinated against their will? I call that TERRORISM IN ACTION.

Grace Green

Cia, I don't suppose most of us think that the ordinary person in the street who has fallen for the lie is a terrorist. But there are many doctors, scientists and politicians who, by now at least, must know the truth and are perpetrating the lies for their own financial gain. Those are the ones who deserve our condemnation in the strongest terms.

Angus Files


Were not alone thats a lot of voters are they all wrong?
A survey from 20116 by YOUGOV has suggested that one in three Trump supporters believe vaccines do cause autism.
“There is somewhat more belief that vaccines can cause autism. “
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/

Independent 14th Feb 2017 - Donald Trump raises concern about autism myth used by anti-vaccination campaigners.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-autism-anti-vaccination-vaxxer-myth-injection-health-campaigners-a7580941.html

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

ciaparker2

Laura,

Even many of those who support mandates are good people, just brainwashed. Like my neighbor. She believes that vaccines are nearly always perfectly safe. I said that millions have seen our children react to vaccines with autism and she said Nonsense. I said that the varicella vaccine has caused a tremendous increase of shingles, much more painful and dangerous than chickenpox, because it eliminates the natural virus in the environment which gives natural boosters. She said that was ridiculous. Of course I'm offended by her refusal to even look at all my studies, all my proof. I think her attitude is blind and arrogant. But she thinks that she is right, and that mandates are necessary to prevent raging, dangerous epidemics. And of course it's true that if you are afraid of measles, mumps, and chickenpox, then without mandates they will come back, a few people would get serious cases, even die of them, and babies too young to be vaxxed would get them and some would die. And provaxxers are right in saying that to protect the whole population as well as can be done, everyone must get vaxxed. My neighbor is kind and responsible, very religious. Which reminds me that I need to call her right now to see if she wants to go with us to Ash Wednesday Mass at noon. Several weeks ago I had a lot to translate over the weekend and asked if Cecily could go to her house for a few hours Sunday afternoon. And she unhesitatingly accepted, worked a puzzle with her and gave her Rice Krispy Treats that she had made. Last year she let me leave her at her house when I went to Arabic classes at the university Wednesday evenings for several months. She always calls before Christmas and her birthday to ask what she would like as a gift. She thinks she knows all about vaccines, which the dominant narrative constantly reinforces. She believes in mandates, but she is not a terrorist. It's more complicated than that.

ciaparker2

Rtp,

Germs ARE the enemy in the case of dangerous cases of infectious diseases. And vaccines DO induce the production of antibodies which in the case of most vaccines provide protection against the targeted disease for most people most of the time, for an uncertain length of time. That's why our dogs no longer get rabies, our cats feline distemper, our children measles, diphtheria, chickenpox, and polio. I agree that it is foolish to give vaccines to try to prevent the childhood diseases, which are actively beneficial for most of those who get them, foolish to give vaccines to prevent rare diseases that most people develop subclinical immunity to over time, or for usually harmless adult diseases like flu, HPV, and hep-B. It is a realm of nuanced choices and decisions. But, again, autism is our ace which will overcome people's stoked and conditioned fear of measles and mumps.

ciaparker2

Linda,

Heidi recognized that a large number of people believe that vaccines do grievous harm. I read what she said as recognizing that we need to talk and listen to one another. I understand that she would like to impose mandates, but also that she recognizes that they will not work. She seemed to be putting out feelers, wanting to talk to seek a means of getting us to willingly agree to submit to the recommended vaccines. So let's talk. Once we tell her the reasons for our refusal, she would have to come up with another plan which would have to allow for vaccine refusal, since no one in his right mind would agree to the hep-B vaccine, MMR, pertussis or flu vaccines. Or many of the others.

ciaparker2

Linda,

I agree with Greg: the professional anti-vaxxers know better than anyone how dangerous vaccines are. We need to talk to them, both for their own sakes and for that of others reading or listening. The ace we hold is autism: everyone has seen it now and been horrified by it, those over forty remember a time when it wasn't present and schools didn't have or need an army of paraprofessionals, and we'll eventually win. At least everyone is now aware of those who recognize that autism is caused by vaccines, something that wasn't true thirty years ago. I was flabbergasted when I first read Dr. Pitcairn's Natural Health Care for Dogs and Cats nearly thirty years ago when I read the chapter about vaccines for pets. Never in a million years would I have thought that vaccines could do damage rather than just protect against disease.

There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who is saved than over all those obedient to the Lord since birth, more joy over the Prodigal Son who was lost and then found, than for the brother who had continued responsible and dutiful throughout his life. We plow the fields and scatter the good seed on the land: that is all that we are responsible for.

Linda1

Cia,

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Matthew 7:6 KJV

Angus Files

They are still hiring guys - no brain required...


https://modernalternativemama.com/2016/04/11/trolls-dont-get-job-done-pay-pro-vax-mommies/


Pharma For Prisson

MMR RIP

Morag

Thanks John ,as always. your articles are appreciated and bring a good blast of fresh air to a subject area still considered "The Unmentionables" What if the word vaccines was replaced with his-n her's contraceptives syrup, sweets,and lollipops.what would people think ,feel. and wonder about that?
And it's a human need to be told stories . The more we are governed by idiots ,and have no control over our own destinies,the more we need to tell stories to each other about who we are, why we are ,where we come from ,and what might be possible --Alan Rickman . Wasn't he just fabulous!.
No jab no pay,has a rea chilling effect on having even a smattering of respect for medicalised mandates for any medical situation . NHS had an ad jingle going on saying "No decision about me without me " but good intentions don't get the job done ! Health care improvers and their sponsers really are in big serious trouble .People are far too valuable to be considered as" herd" material to be exchanged in the merck-at place square fo percieved "Herd " status .Vaccine confidence directive indicating what books will or will not be available in the public library .aye very good !
Keep on dancing -The Gentrys- you tube

Greg

Cia, everything that professional vaccine lobbyist  said about the strong public support for vaccination is true.  On the surface it really does appear that we are facing very formidable obstacles in advancing our cause, but an important distinction needs to be made.  That distinction is the recognition that the vaccine safety war is actually being waged on two fronts -- publicly and privately.  Publicly we don't stand a chance and there is indeed wide, popular support for vaccines and mandates.

Privately, however, is where we actually making real in-roads.  That person should actual consider with all the popular support vaccination why only three States have mandated them.  Even with the recent activities in Europe, with Italy and France pursuing mandates, the rest of Europe seem to have developed cold feet about them.  Sweden have rejected them, and with all the talk of Germany and England considering them, they haven't done so. Really- what's really helping us David-antivaxxers as we take on Goliath?  The simply answer is the help is actually coming from the provaxxers who are in charge.  For all their public support of vaccines, privately they too fear them, and also desire to avoid vaccine injuries for themselves and loved ones.  'Antivaxxers' consistently fail to see this.  When we rail about autism and vaccine injuries we rarely consider that we're not the only ones that are terrified.

Our movement will always be in the ascendancy, not so much because we have truth on our side.  Having truth on your side often is not enough. Our success will continue to come because we hold the ulitimate ace -- the provaxx hypocrites or 'closeted antivaxxers' who privately sympathize with us.  And, with this said, perhaps I will be the first here to declare that vaccine mandates are dead.  They are dead in Europe, and the US, and also in California where I am paying special attention to the abuse of medical exemptions.

michael

"sheer aggression"-- military tactics similar to scorched-earth policy.

rtp

https://patch.com/new-york/rockvillecentre/new-poll-40-percent-long-islanders-not-sure-if-vaccines-are-safe

Sorry. There is the second poll.

Laura Hayes

Aimee Doyle,

Thank you for commenting, as I appreciate your contributions here on AoA :)

To clarify, I wrote:

"You can't negotiate with terrorists, and those wanting to force vaccines on others are indeed terrorists."

One can be pro-vaccine and not believe it is their right to force others to be vaccinated against their will. There are also those who may or may not be pro-vaccine (some may eschew vaccines for themselves and their children, but support forced vaccination for others), but believe it is their right to force others to be vaccinated against their will.

It is those who condone, support, legislate, and enforce vaccine mandates, which equal forced vaccination, whom I refer to as terrorists. Terrorist is defined as: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The forcing of dangerous, sometimes fatal, invasive medical procedures, and scores of them at that, on others is indeed unlawful violence (the fact that it is legal simply reflects that we are living in unlawful times), and intimidation is used to accomplish this.

I hope that helps to clarify what I wrote.

rtp

cia, whilst it is true that there is majority support for vaccines - and making them mandatory - it is nowhere near as clear cut as your lobbyist made out.

Here is another poll. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trade/trump-weighs-tariffs-quotas-on-u-s-steel-aluminum-imports-idUSKCN1FX2H1

There it is 43% for choice and 48% against choice.

It also said 13% opposed vaccinations altogether.

Polls certainly jump around but I have been following them closely and the trend - at least in the US - is that the people are getting less and less enamoured with vaccines.

Here is another more recent poll with basically the same results - and it came from ultra-liberal Long Island.

I agree with you that we aren't at a tipping point yet - that is still a couple of years away. It also requires those who oppose vaccines to stop trying to be "moderate" and pretending that vaccines work even though they are all clearly useless.

It also requires anti-vaxers to stop pretending that germs are the enemy. It is people's fear of contagious disease that always leads them back to vaccines. Take that away and you get *permanent* traction.

ciaparker2

Linda,
Everyone is a human being and can and should be talked to. It doesn't matter what Heidi frames the dialogue as, more important what the other listeners take away from it. But I think we need to expand our audience and not just preach to the choir, but to the 76% that don't get it at all at this time. And Heidi is human too: at some point something would click and she'd realize what the situation really is. Where would we draw the lines if we wanted to demonize all pro-vaxxers?

Linda1

Not talking to the enemy does not mean not talking to people. It means not talking to the beast. Big difference.

Cia, I think you are misinterpreting what Larson is saying. She isn't asking for dialogue. She isn't saying that refusing vaccines is a reasonable position that should be tolerated. She's saying that people are refusing for various reasons and that that is a problem that must be overcome. She's saying that her cronies have to listen to the people, but not so that the people can be respected, so that the beast, of which she is a part, will know how to manipulate the masses into compliance.

John Stone

Cia

And you are right it is hard to talk to almost anybody - one thing about Larson is she perhaps reads (and this is one thing to draw from this) that the project is in trouble from its own sheer aggression.

ciaparker2

John,

I wasn't thinking specifically about Heidi Larson, although I'd be glad to talk with her. We need to talk with a lot of people in public, make the public aware of where they are just plain wrong on the subject of vaccines and VPDs. Make them THINK about what they think supports their beliefs, because in most cases it really doesn't.

Bayareamom

"Bill Gates, the most aggressive vaccine pusher all over the world , has refused all vaccinations to his own children - says his family doctor. Injectable poisons are only for other children."

That story came out of an alleged 'fake news' website. That information may or may not be true, but unless Gates comes out and puts on the record re what his children's vaccination status is (which I doubt he'll do), I wouldn't trust that information.

ciaparker2

Aimee,

I agree. I can't think of anyone in my physical range of acquaintance who believes that vaccines are dangerous. They are not terrorists, they are brainwashed, callous, and incurious. I got upset with my elderly neighbor two weeks ago. She chided me for spending so much time commenting on vaccines on the Internet, and told me to get a grip, find another pastime. I said I was saving the lives of babies. She snapped at me, saying "No, you're not!" The next day I got something in my inbox with an account of a baby born last August who got his two-month vaccines in October. It was eight at once, and within two days he was dead. The mother is now in our camp and very vocal about her child's death by vaccine. And it was hard for me to take: gee, I've commented so much for over seven years now, and here are STILL people *** enough to think it's fine to let their infant get eight shots at once? And she had turned down the hep-B at birth, the article noted. To reach eight he would have had to have gotten the hep-B at that time. So what? She knew it was too dangerous to give a newborn, but totally OK to give with seven others at two months old? How in the WORLD could she have thought that was a safe thing to do? And it made me angry that my neighbor had JUST told me No, you're not! If I could have talked with that woman last summer, her baby would still be alive today. I am 100% positive that after talking with me, no one would do such a foolish thing. And now she's going to grieve for the rest of her life that she did something so ***, and it cost her little boy his life.

But I don't think she's a monster. And nor is my neighbor, who learned all she ever needed to know about vaccines during the polio epidemics of the '50s (she turned 90 last week). I've told her that we've learned a lot more about the immune system and the vaccination process since then, and also about the benefits of getting the usually mild diseases, but it doesn't make any difference. She told me that several of her children and grandchildren work in the medical field, that she has an infant great-granddaughter whose parents are going to make sure she gets every last one of the recommended vaccines. (Aagh!) The mother of the baby who died is sorry now for playing along with the narrative. Too late. Dr. Moskowitz in Vaccines said that he still is in utter incomprehension after decades of writing about it how this religious narrative continues to have such a ridiculously strong hold on most people.

I think we need more public discussions and debates with high-profile speakers who will draw an audience. I would LOVE Dr. Moskowitz to do a televised series with one chapter of his book presented every week, with a debate on the issues in that chapter in the second half hour of the program. We have to show people that we have the science on OUR side, but I think we need the sizzle of a televised debate to make any progress. And in the last ten minutes, an interview with real-life vaccine-damaged people recounting their experience: card-carrying rationalists with devastating vaccine reactions. Show the damaged children, autistic and other kinds of damage. Tell them exactly how the vaccines did this. We KNOW how they did it. But absolutely, we have to talk with the enemy. I wasn't thinking of a parley at all, John, not in the sense of a compromise. I was thinking to show them that we're right and what do they have to say about the demonstrable truth? You expect me to do what caused that kid over there to become like that?

John Stone

Cia

I think Heidi Larson can respond by words or deeds to just what has been said here.

cia parker

I exchanged a few emails with a professional vaccine lobbyist last year. He made some discouraging points which I think show that we need to consider, and I think publicly discussing them with those in positions of power in this area could only help us.

"The issue of vaccination to the side, you live in a dream world bubble. The number of signatures required for a referendum in California is 365,880. That is nothing. You need over 5 million votes to WIN a referendum. You never had the votes much less the the ability to get the signatures for it. You are talking to a pro here on the subject.

You are right the politicians stay away from the subject because it it not important enough for them to lose those few votes. That is true, but public referendums are another thing. Have you bothered to look at the polls at all?

."Should the federal government require children to be vaccinated for preventable diseases?" - Nationwide polls
Yes -70% No 28%
Of the No' s they are qualified by 6% saying "No, But require vaccinations in order to attend public schools so-

."Should the federal government require children to be vaccinated for preventable diseases to attend public schools?"

Yes -76% No 22% - This has been repeated every year for decades.

It's not even close. You could double the anti-vaxx turn out and lose. Us smart people always line up referendums with regular elections so that vote attendance doesn't depend on interesting in the referendum. So much for your better turn out idea. Get a grip. You will not be winning any public referendums any time soon. That's why I am working on those. It's only money away. and we are getting close. The only reason it was not in the last election in 5 states is that we won't go in until we think it's properly funded. When we make the move, it will be a forgone conclusion.

If you are so sure, prove it. Go help those STILL trying to get signatures in California. Oh, that's right--- they have GIVEN UP because it's not possible to get 365,880 people in California to support that nonsense.


Until you get a grip on the real numbers and facts, you will always lose. Sorry. You can send all the letter you want to congressmen. It won't help when idiot voters act. Didn't you notice that a reality TV star got elected president and you think you can swing the public with logic? You will never beat the massive pro-vaxx fear campaign with us starting with a 5 to 1 lead.


Good Luck. You will need it. I don't.

There is no reason for us to discuss the vaccination issue. I know your thoughts and you know mine. I don't "believe" in anything. My opinions are all fact driven. I call it "nonsense" because anti-vaxx is a "belief" and is not fact driven hence "no sense" or nonsense. By definition, things are are not fact driven are "nonsense". That is just semantics.

Anti-vaxx efforts do make a difference. Those efforts are why the measles are not eradicated in the U.S. Just a minor change in the immunization rate radically affects population immunity. That is another fact. There is limit to that effect but it is still a serious hazard.


Fear campaigns always work. Did you miss the last election? It was all name calling and fear. The anti-vaxx efforts are ALL fear driven. Every single one of them. The problem with those anti-vaxx fear campaigns is that the victims you claim are few and highly contested. The pro-vaxx camp can point to literally millions of uncontested victims. When a real pro-vaccine campaign is done, it overwhelms with fact based fear.. California is a perfect example.


But at its core, the real reason that the anti-vaxx movement is a lost cause is just the facts of disease. As the vaccination rate drops, the likelihood of an outbreak increase dramatically. One good size outbreak and all of your efforts will be reversed quickly. In the end, you are just working for your own defeat and to put money in the pocket of naturopathic charlatans.


By the way, have you noticed the new labeling requirements for homeopathic nonsense? We worked that and it didn't cost us any money. We are about a million away from starting the mandatory vaccination referendum campaign in the first state. It will happen before long."

John Stone

no-vac

I am afraid that is a click-bait story of no provenance - no doctor named, no plausible explanation of how such a tape came light. It has most probably been put out there so it will be circulated on social-media and other websites, in order to make a case for a clamp down. Back in November the same author put out a story about Putin denouncing vaccines - no credible source. A couple of days later the Daily Mirror put out a story that Putin was trying to subvert the western vaccine program, again completely source-less. We have no reason to report baseless stories here, unfortunately we have too many real ones.

cia parker

Laura,

This is also what she said: "Somehow the assumption that populations would accept – and continue to accept – more and more vaccines, just because they are good for personal and public health, needs a reality check. The ever-changing political, cultural and emotional lives of people have different notions of what is good for them, and we need to listen." (NB: So if they need to listen, we need to talk.)


"This does not mean agreeing with misinformation about vaccines that is circulating on the internet and social media, but listening to the deeper, underlying sentiments – the feelings of alienation, the loss of personal contact and people’s sense of feeling “counted” rather than cared for." (NB: We provide her with some of the thousands of scientific and other verifiable records of physical proof, and ask her in what way it is misinformation. We ask her how we are going to feel cared for if she doesn't respond rationally to our tangible and verifiable concerns.)

She has expressed a desire to talk, so we should talk. She has said that trying to force us to comply needs a reality check. She is in a position of power, and for the most part we are not. If we speak on the record, then our discussions will be published, people will read them, and ask questions, if they haven't already. If we refuse to talk, then nothing will ever change. Most people continue to believe in the quasi-religious vaccine narrative. Just hanging out among ourselves will not change the larger reality.

Aimee Doyle

@ Laura - "We absolutely do not need to speak with the enemy...they are "the enemy" for good reasons, the first of which is for violating the most basic rights of others, those of self autonomy, bodily integrity, and parental rights. You can't negotiate with terrorists, and those wanting to force vaccines on others are indeed terrorists."

I guess what bothers me about this is that some of my family and close friends are strongly pro-vax, but I would never call them terrorists. They care about the health of children as strongly as those who are pro-vax. They just operate from a different set of facts than I do. The solution lies in education - and in conversation.

no-vac

Bill Gates, the most aggressive vaccine pusher all over the world , has refused all vaccinations to his own children - says his family doctor. Injectable poisons are only for other children.

Linda1

"Peace" not "piece". LOL

Linda1

"Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together."

Above is the last bit of Larsen's New Year message - a quote from MLK. Who do you think she means has "poverty of the spirit"? What do you think she means by "scientific and technological abundance"?

How does she want us to learn "the simple art of living together"?

The anti-vaxxers who have impoverished spirits should make piece with science and technology BY VACCINATING.

She is not for freedom. She is merely pointing out the problem that she has been hired to solve. The problem is us and our insistence on being free.

nhokkanen

I agree with cia parker about Heidi Larson’s avoidance of specifics. Part of the ideological gap between Larson and the people/consumers she studies (like insects) is her favor of public over personal.

Vaccine injury is very personal, indeed — and explained with specific symptoms caused by specific vaccines. It's difficult to feel concern that others on the planet might contract the measles you had as a child, and barely noticed, when the MMR vaccine cruelly gave your child chronic health damage and lifetime disabilities.

Larson’s patronizing rhetoric is locked in the realm of general concepts. By not addressing specific vaccine adverse reactions or fraud accusations, she hopes to keep readers in the realm of friendly, hopeful theory versus unpleasant, stressful reality.

Her Lady Bountiful act notwithstanding, the darker side of her fallacious “herd immunity” argument is its unspoken chilling acceptance of sacrificing vaccine injured as acceptable collateral damage.

Angus Files

You can hear the mandatory drum roll starting..!

Measles epidemic warning: Cases of the deadly infection tripled last year across Europe


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5385359/Measles-cases-Europe-tripled-year-officials-say.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

John Stone

Cia,

I suppose in that sense I am talking to her. If I have got anything wrong it is in public and she can say so. But the only objective is better understanding of what she said. There is no peace to be negotiated.

Laura Hayes

Cia,

You wrote, "We have to talk to the enemy, or we won't achieve anything for the hapless victims."

We absolutely do not need to speak with the enemy...they are "the enemy" for good reasons, the first of which is for violating the most basic rights of others, those of self autonomy, bodily integrity, and parental rights. You can't negotiate with terrorists, and those wanting to force vaccines on others are indeed terrorists. They care not a whit about what you call "the hapless victims", as evidenced by the fact that they are the ones creating the hapless victims, by the millions, and laughing all the way to the bank and to positions of power.

You also wrote, "Heidi Larson has admitted that their side won't achieve the willing, trusting cooperation they need if they try to mandate vaccines."

No, that is not what she said. This is what she said:

"The success of vaccination depends on the public accepting the voice of experts and government – both of whom are facing waning trust in many countries around the world."

Thus, what she has effectively said is that in order to reduce the opposition to vaccines and to vaccine mandates, the public's accepting of the voice of experts and government must be increased. That is a big difference.

You then wrote, " I don't know why she says that except to continue to maintain the lie that vaccines are basically safe. When she hears our specific use of our freedom of expression, maybe she'll start to realize the truth."

Yes, Cia, her chief goal is to maintain the lie that vaccines are safe, then using that lie to justify that vaccine mandates are acceptable. She has no intention of hearing about or acting upon the incalculable harm that vaccines have caused, and continue to cause, nor does she care about the millions of lives decimated by vaccines, and the billions who will never reach their full potential with regard to physical health, mental health, IQ, fertility, or longevity, due to being vaccinated.

Here is an old quote I keep hanging by my desk, from a colleague:

"As long as vaccines are perceived to be harmless, then mandates will be considered to be harmless. Just an inconvenience. They will just be forcing people to do something good for them they don't like, like eating your vegetables."

Heidi Larson is foe, not friend.

cia parker

John,

Wouldn't it be good to talk to her and ask her what she means? Ask her how she intends to gain trust in vaccines when there is so much solid proof that they are dangerous? She seems to start from the position of believing that they are safe and we are mistaken. Isn't this a good opportunity to ask how we can trust when (thousands of dangers based on scientific studies as well as epidemiological and case studies can be inserted here)? Isn't it necessary to politely ask her what the -- she means, and see how she responds to our proof?

go Trump

I believe Bill Gates once said he did not think the internet would be that big a deal... and also that no one would ever need more than 8 megs of RAM...

He knows even less about vaccines.

Jeannette Bishop

From my viewpoint, the same PTB that hated and wanted to silence Dr. King's message also love vaccination...so I can't tell what she is arguing for...nevermind trying to make it all about MMR and Wakefield? or thimerosal? or now aluminum? ...forced vaccination and then forced "inclusion?" so those assenting to both can feel doubly good about themselves? ...making token overtures of allowing some "personal choice" while what happens on the ground is still essentially coercion?

Or does she really just want to live alongside people who don't go along, who have both diversity of viewpoints and actual practices?

Maybe she's saying to pharma, now that you've spent mega much in vaccine R&D, you really just can't expect everyone to accept mandates of every one? I kind of really doubt this one, though...

John Stone

Tim

It was certainly my reading that Larson said that California SB277 was bad idea - that these thing are turning people off.

But I would add that part of my purpose in writing this was to put Larson in the position of clarifying VCP's position, if I have got it wrong.

Tim Lundeen

The vaccine propagandists may have realized that mandates cause a great deal of vaccine-safety discussion. The result is more awareness of vaccine risks and lower vaccine uptake. It could be that their greed, to add a few more percent to their sales, will end up destroying their whole business.

If there were no mandates, I would never have been mobilized as I've been, but California's SB277 got me actively engaged.

John Stone

Cia

I am not sure that we have to talk to the enemy, only pay attention occasionally to what they say.

Laura/Cherry

The Vaccine Confidence Project is distancing itself from compulsory vaccination - that I take to be confirmed by the reference to "liberty", which apparently does not extend to being able to criticise the vaccine program. I agree with anyone who thinks that Larson does not do a very good impression of a sheep - whatever happens the advancement of the program is the objective, and I have often observed that in the UK we have high compliance, no mandates and a child population in collapse, so the removal of mandates may only defuse opposition, and that may be the big strategy. As I said advocating enforcement is paradox for someone trying to win confidence,and that is perhaps part of the reason for this modest but curious departure..

Cynthia Cournoyer

"...contrarian views become problematic for a technology like a vaccine..."

There is no mystery here! Obviously freedom is ok, except when it comes to vaccines! No ethics there on the part of anything "Gates." She is saying that WE are the problem. WE must comply for the greater good.

We, dangerous, unvaccinated people are "problematic" for those who believe that vaccines were the answer, are the answer and will forever be the answer. There should never be a technology ("like a vaccine") that is immune to "contrarians."

Linda1

I don't think her underlying message is that mandates are unacceptable. I think her message is that mandates are acceptable when it comes to vaccination for the sake of the herd and that a way must be found to convince the world of that.

She is extending an olive branch covering a sharp needled syringe.

cherry Misra

Friends, in another video, Ms Larson shows her true colours, jetting over to Japan to receive a petition from a "silent majority" - well, actually a couple of hundred Japanese gynecologists and pediatricians - who want the Japanese government to support the HPV vaccine. Ms. Larson must truly be a dyed in the sheeps wool vaccine supporter, to take this approach , considering that the Gates Foundation sponsored trials of HPV vaccines in India and girls died.
Those pesky Japanese- just a couple of claims of girls harmed by the HPV vaccine, and the government withdrew support. Need a translator here- How do you say "Church of the Immaculate Vaccine" in Japanese.
In all fairness, I grudgingly admit, Gotta hand it to those vaccine manufacturers : From their point of view, Ms. Larson is quite a find.

cherry Misra

Laura, I love that" Wolf in sheep's clothing" ! The museum of vaccine injury (I used to call it the museum of autism) might in fact, include a black granite wall devoted to those people . I too see no condemnation of mandates . In fact, she decribes some of the mandates and implies that they were necessary reactions to lower vaccine rates. But, still we should "LISTEN" to the poor deluded people who are feeling marginalized ; they would then feel better and join the herd. - Because we dont need those CONTRARIAN views. (Society counts - The individual does not) Interestingly she quickly says that no one has any concerns about vaccine safety.

cia parker

Laura,

We have to talk to the enemy, or we won't achieve anything for the hapless victims. Heidi Larson has admitted that their side won't achieve the willing, trusting cooperation they need if they try to mandate vaccines. So that's where we need to put the lever. She says we have only a demand for freedom of expression, not concrete criticism of a specific vaccine. I don't know why she says that except to continue to maintain the lie that vaccines are basically safe. When she hears our specific use of our freedom of expression, maybe she'll start to realize the truth. But we should use her own words to show our good faith in parleying and opening a space for dialogue, and then get specific.

annie

"The growing challenge in the vaccine landscape is that it is no longer isolated individuals who are thinking twice or refusing vaccination, but that there are growing groups of people who are not only expressing their individual right to question and to choose, but are increasingly connected with others and demanding the right to choose as part of a larger movement. These movements are about principles of freedom and rights, not about specific vaccines, or specific safety concerns."

This statement is patently untrue! Much of the resistance against forced vaccination stems from very "specific safety concerns". It is my contention (and I believe the contention of many in this "movement") that the risks of vaccination are far outweighing the perceived benefits. My goal, as well as I believe the goal of many who are resisting forced/coerced injections of indemnified, unregulated products, is to stand up for the greater good, NOT to defend my individual freedoms at its expense.

Angus Files

I think shes trying to, run with the fox and hunt with the hounds so to speak.If she genuine is thinking of us all I`ll take it, change has to start somewhere..great work as always John.


Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

John Stone

Laura

Larson has said what she has said. I would imagine she is aware of this column, though I have not written to her because when I have previously written to her she has not replied. If she wants to say that she did not really mean it about vaccine enforcement being an infringement of human rights (or I have misinterpreted it in some respect), she can. If she or VCP want to re-trench, they can. I am not here to sell Heidi Larson, I am pointing out what she has said (bearing in mind her powerful status).

John Stone

Bill

If you mean me, it is only because not every article has to refer to everything. It is obviously part of Larson's analysis that the pharma/government complex may be over-playing its hand by forcing its products on everyone - so that is also a commercial calculation for them. But oddly enough it is rather an opposite philosophy to the way Bill Gates played his business career, which was making sure absolutely everyone had to have his products..

Laura Hayes

John,

I am always wary when I read "but". Heidi Larson states:

"Standing up for rights to freedom of expression, to choice, and to respect and dignity are all healthy characteristics of democratic societies. But, contrarian views become problematic for a technology like a vaccine, whose success – at least for many vaccines – depends on “the herd”. The success of vaccination depends on the public accepting the voice of experts and government – both of whom are facing waning trust in many countries around the world."

"But" is the word that comes before the exception, and with regard to vaccines, it is often followed by a preamble to "a fix", which will then be used to justify mandates. Of course, the fix is not attainable or desirable. Government regulatory agencies, elected officials, and "experts" will always be corrupted/corruptible to some degree, often to a large degree. More importantly, even if that weren't the case, nothing trumps the fundamental human right to decide what one allows, or doesn't allow, into one's own body or that of one's child. Period.

Until and unless Heidi Larson expressly states that no medical mandate is ever acceptable, including those for vaccines, she should be regarded with high suspicion, and she does not deserve anyone's trust or approval. Those who won't explicitly and unequivocally state and insist upon the fundamental human right to self autonomy and bodily integrity, as stated above, are not freedom fighters...they are wolves in sheep's clothing, tyrants, strippers of others' rights, and have no business being in any position of power.

Bill

Why does NOBODY want to talk about the ELEPHANT in the room....????....
Vaxxes are a sold-to-the-public, FOR-PROFIT product, of PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT industry....
Bill Gates didn't get to be a $Billionaire$ by working as a public school teacher....

John Stone

Laura

"The growing challenge in the vaccine landscape is that it is no longer isolated individuals who are thinking twice or refusing vaccination, but that there are growing groups of people who are not only expressing their individual right to question and to choose, but are increasingly connected with others and demanding the right to choose as part of a larger movement. These movements are about principles of freedom and rights, not about specific vaccines, or specific safety concerns.

"Standing up for rights to freedom of expression, to choice, and to respect and dignity are all healthy characteristics of democratic societies. But, contrarian views become problematic for a technology like a vaccine, whose success – at least for many vaccines – depends on “the herd”. The success of vaccination depends on the public accepting the voice of experts and government – both of whom are facing waning trust in many countries around the world.

"Somehow the assumption that populations would accept – and continue to accept – more and more vaccines, just because they are good for personal and public health, needs a reality check."

I take this to be saying it is ethically wrong to enforce this on people, and it is in the title 'Let freedom ring'. I am paraphrasing, the specific words are not there, but the substance is.

Laura Hayes

John,

I have read your article 3 times and also read Heidi Larson’s New Year’s message. Nowhere did I read that Heidi Larson says vaccine mandates are a human offense. As far as I can see, she has said no such thing and holds no such view.

If I have missed something, please point it out to me.

John Stone

White Rose

I am simply pointing that anyone across the globe arguing against mandates can quote the Vaccine Confidence Project, which is an adjunct of the WHO and the Gates Foundation. And, of course, it can be quoted against them if they say anything else in future.

White Rose

Posted by: John Stone | February 13, 2018 at 06:56 AM

Sorry John , no criticism of you (on this occasion) . haha
Its just it doesn't matter what any of them say, its what they do that counts.

Grace Green

I think her weasel words are very fishy (to mix two metaphors!). We autistic people are very much at risk from people being "nice" to us as we're too inclined to trust. They seem to have realized laying down the law is going to be counter productive, from their money-making point of view.

Jenny Allan

Well done John! Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project, is definitely one of the prime 'movers and shakers' within the vaccine promoting corporate and political establishment cartels.

It can be quite difficult and frustrating to understand just what is going on behind the scenes. I have always found the REAL issues with corporate policies, including vaccine manufacturers, are best found in the financial reports, usually also reported in the mainstream press and media. GSK, for example was quick to tell its shareholders about the expected huge profits from the recent UK infant scheduled Meningitis B vaccine, acquired in a 'swap' with Novartis.

A quick look at the recent child vaccinations uptake in England tells another story.
https://digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB21651

2015-2016stats:-
"Key Facts
National coverage figures reported for most routine childhood vaccinations at 1 and 2 years decreased slightly in 2015-16 for the third consecutive year. In addition, national coverage of Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) as measured at 2 years, decreased slightly in 2015-16 for the second consecutive year, following a year on year increase since 2007-08.
In 2015-16, 93.6 per cent of children reaching their first birthday had completed their primary immunisation courses against Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Polio and Haemophilus Influenzae type b (DTaP/IPV/Hib). This compares with 94.2 per cent in 2014-15 and 94.3 per cent in 2013-14.
Coverage of the first dose of the MMR vaccine for children reaching their second birthday decreased to 91.9 per cent in 2015-16. This continues a downward trend in recent years. Coverage was 92.3 per cent in 2014-15 and 92.7 per cent in 2013-14.

National coverage of the first dose of the MMR vaccine (MMR1) for children aged 5 years old was at a record high of 94.8 per cent in 2015-16. Coverage was above the World Health Organisation (WHO) target of 95 per cent in seven of the nine government office regions.
National coverage figures reported for the Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis and Polio (DTaP/IPV) booster as measured at 5 years show a decrease in 2015-16 for the third year in a row."

https://digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB30085

2016-17 stats:-
"Key Facts
In 2016-17, four out of the six routine vaccinations at 1 and 2 years showed small decreases in coverage compared to 2015-16. This includes coverage for the Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine as measured at 2 years which decreased in 2016-17 for the third year in a row, following a year on year increase since 2007-08. Coverage for this vaccine is now at 91.6 per cent, slightly lower than in 2015-16 (91.9 per cent) and at a similar level to that reported in 2011-12.
In 2016-17, 93.4 per cent of children reaching their first birthday were reported to have completed their primary DTaP/IPV/Hib course (three doses). This compares with 93.6 per cent in 2015-16, 94.2 per cent in 2014-15 and 94.7 per cent in 2012-13.
National coverage figures reported for the MMR 1st dose as measured at 5 years show coverage at the WHO recommended target level of 95 per cent for the first time.
National coverage figures reported for the Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis and Polio (DTaP/IPV) booster as measured at 5 years show a decrease in 2016-17 for the fourth year in a row."

These 2 summaries contain a paradox. It is reported the MMR vaccine uptake measured at 2 years has decreased in recent years, along with most of the other infant administered vaccines, yet the coverage at 5 years has increased to the WHO target levels of 95%. Does this mean parents are delaying the MMR vaccine until their child is older? If so this is a big victory for the Vaxxed team which demonstrated less problems when this vaccine is administered after the age of 2 years.

Whatever the reasons, it seems parents are now questioning the 'vaccines are always safe and effective' mantras, and making their own informed decisions about when or if to vaccinate their children. In the UK there are no child mandatory vaccinations.


John Stone

White Rose

I am not clear in what way I place trust in Heidi Larson in this article. I have pointed out certain things, drawn certain conclusions: the rest is entirely up to her.

White Rose

And you trust Heidi Larson ? John (why would you ?)
I wonder what Heidi's flu vaccine status is ? 0% efficacy I bet
She is just another one of the "Three Card Tricksters" in my view.

Anyway I love this little gem of a story :

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/Some-May-Consider-Second-Flu-Vaccine-473850313.html

Certain people who received an influenza vaccination early this season should consider getting a second flu shot as the number of flu cases skyrockets in North Texas, according to doctors. (Published Monday, Feb. 12, 2018)

bob moffit

"It is a mighty assumption that “more and more vaccines” are the path to health heaven."

As was recently written in an AoA article .. all vaccine "science" can be defined as being "assumption built upon assumption" .. such as .. the assumption that "one size fits all vaccines" ... and .. the assumption the "benefits of vaccines" will always "outweigh the risks".

Both these assumptions have proven to be more "wishful thinking" ... than "science".

Indeed, absent these two main .. historically proven flawed assumptions .. the main assumption .. that "more and more vaccine are the path to health heaven" .. is exposed for the "scientific" fraud it is.

In any event .. I agree wholeheartedly agree that "acknowledging through your WHO and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation backed organization that mandates are a human offence" .. though long overdue .. is none-the-less .. "something that can be cited".

However .. the urgent question of WHY .... "The most vaccinated nation in the history of the earth, the USA, is drowning in child neuro-developmental disability, chronic ill-heath, and poor child mortality figures .. and .. is becoming an economically unsustainable society."?

Obviously .. as long as the ANSWER to THAT SINGLE QUESTION REMAINS UNRESOLVED .. THE BAND WILL CONTINUE PLAYING ... ON AND ON .. ON AND ON


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)