If somebody is taking blood money from pharmaceutical mafias to lie about safety of vaccines, he becomes their slave and must do what they order him.

Query: I grew up hearing the question "What to do you want to be when you grow up?" so much. My answer probably should have been something like, "a good person," but it didn't take me too long to understand that I was supposed to answer with a job title, like my purpose in life, maybe even my identity, would become defined as a job I obtained or was aiming for, which at the time was being greatly expanded in possibilities each year through grade school, righting the clearly to be understood injustice of placing any limitation on what "job title" I could aim for as a woman--whatever the actual value, it was a programming that implied I was being denied a great personal value without a job title. That carried in some angst in a culture that still wanted to see moms stay at home and prioritize mom being there for her children to the greatest extent possible...it was almost like you were automatically less if you didn't have a job title to answer to the question "what do you do?" for part of the day, anyway, and brought out comebacks like pointing out how many "jobs" mothering might actually encompass, ironically including PR for motherhood, apparently...

Is this stemming from human nature? Or is this trying to glorify valuing the type of societal contribution that transfers resources rather easily (mainly via taxes, but I'm sure the labor production sometimes has some value for the tax garnerers too) into certain people's hands? It occurs to me also that getting the vast majority ultimately working (and really badly wanting to keep working or otherwise very limited in self-created entrepreneurial opportunities...maybe even fearful of having no clear "identity" that way) for a few at the top of a control-freakish system might be a profound control mechanism for their corrupt agendas, too...

Anyway...it almost seems to me like this innate tendency, or maybe well-programmed tendency, either has people putting the stability and perceived character of their own careers, maybe trying to protect their very identity over the very health and well-being of the next generation, even one's own in that generation (of course it helps if the whole system insists that your "job" is all about "protecting the well-being of children"). But many seem to by default take that job-protecting position on a concern that doesn't even really impact their own work, maybe out of solidarity "I'll watch out for your identity if you watch out for mine?"

...it's either believe something this visceral is going on, or I might have to resort to assuming too many in our race (at least in our rather polluted state of health) are all about comfort and the smallest of conveniences right down to what they will allows themselves to consider in their thoughts....(or I might have to undergo more expansion of ability to understand human nature than I may be currently capable of...)

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/02/21/vaccines-linked-to-mental-disorders-by-yale-study/

Vaccines linked to mental disorders by Yale study

A recent Yale study has called into question the safety of vaccines and could lend fuel to anti-vaccine advocates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has already written a piece covering the study on the news site EcoWatch.

The study, published last month in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry, reports that patients diagnosed with neuropsychiatric disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder and anorexia nervosa were more likely to have received vaccinations three months prior to their diagnoses. Though the collaboration between researchers at Pennsylvania State University and the Yale Child Study Center yielded results that seem to dispute the safety of vaccines, the authors asserted that the study needs replication on a larger scale and does not establish a causal relationship between vaccines and neuropsychiatric disorders.

Completely off-topic, reporter Ben Swann is continuing his Reality Check & Truth In Media reporting:

http://truthinmedia.com/

I really cannot fathom the level of "hatred" a person must possess in order to think that killing or maiming a previously healthy child is justifiable for --- well--- any reason at all(!)-- up to and including the mythical concept of "herd immunity". These people are sick and full of hatred for anyone who has a child that cannot withstand the insane barrage of vaccines that profit an industry enormously, yet do little else besides harm babies, children, and adults with never ending, completely unscientific, entirely irrational, pharma stakeholder endorsed vaccine "schedules".

Of course, the parents who want to protect children from being poisoned, maimed or murdered with toxic vaccines must hate their own and other children. You can't be more moronic and hypocritical than this pharma-globalist puppet dr. Hotez.

Soooo we're a "hate group" that hates ourselves?! That is as absurd as referring to someone who vaccinated her child or who fights for a safer vaccine program as "anti-vaccine".

I honestly believe this man is now so fearful that he has been terribly wrong about the issue of vaccine injury, in particular encephalopathy, that he has resorted to 'hate ' speech. His world is collapsing around him and he knows it. He is hitting out at the most vulnerable in society. This is not the behavior of a rational and balanced physician.

A few threads down Michael wrote...

Peter Hotez is angry just like so many parents who have learned the hard way that vaccines do carry the risk of the kind of damage he see's in his daughter Rachel. His anger is misdirected. He needs to direct his anger and energy at those institutions who have betrayed the public's trust. He has turned his back on his vaccine-damaged daughter and thousands of other children to continue down the only road he knows.

Indeed Michael, I have also witnessed similar 'displaced' anger from autistic parents who also vehemently deny the link. Should we then see Hotez's insult as more of a projection, how he is really thinking about himself? Not so much that he hates his daugter, but by denying the truth, and, much worse, joining the coverup, he is quite aware that his betrayal is not consistent with being a loving parent.

'The appropriate role for vaccines in national public health deserves serious discussion among all stakeholders, including those who advocate for vaccines, those who oppose them, and every stripe in between. This is a serious, contentious debate, implicating fundamental questions of prior, free and informed consent; the medical principle of ‘first do no harm;’ public health; science; and even the role of government itself. Academic institutions and leaders should be embracing this conversation, not seeking to squelch it."

Unfortunately .. while common sense dictates .. "national public health deserves serious discussion among all stakeholders" .. those "stakeholders" .. who "advocate for vaccines " .. much prefer to demonize those who "oppose them" .. such as .. calling them a "hate group that hates their family and their children" .. rather than actually "embracing this conversation".

There is an old trial lawyers' saying “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table"

Who can blame someone like Dr Hotez for resorting to such hateful rhetoric .. after all ... he of all people knows he has neither the facts or law on his side ..