Child Vaccination Quotes

If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate. ... Choose science.

In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen.

Immunization is total nonsense! More than that is what's hidden from people about vaccines. They are dangerous. One child out of five has overwhelming disabilities from vaccines -- neurological problems, seizures.

Nothing but the natural ignorance of the public, countenanced by the inoculated erroneousness of the ordinary general medical practitioners, makes such a barbarism as vaccination possible.......Recent developments have shown that an inoculation made in the usual general practitioner's light-hearted way, without previous highly skilled examination of the state of the patient's blood, is just as likely to be a simple manslaughter as a cure or preventive. But vaccination is nothing short of attempted murder. A skilled bacteriologist would just as soon think of cutting his child's arm and rubbing the contents of the dustpan into the wound, as vaccinating it in the same.

Think about the world. War, violence, natural disasters, man-made disasters, corruption. Things are bad, and it feels like they are getting worse, right? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer; and the number of poor just keeps increasing; and we will soon run out of resources unless we do something drastic. At least that’s the picture that most Westerners see in the media and carry around in their heads. I call it the overdramatic worldview. It’s stressful and misleading. In fact, the vast majority of the world’s population lives somewhere in the middle of the income scale. Perhaps they are not what we think of as middle class, but they are not living in extreme poverty. Their girls go to school, their children get vaccinated, they live in two-child families, and they want to go abroad on holiday, not as refugees. Step-by-step, year-by-year, the world is improving. Not on every single measure every single year, but as a rule. Though the world faces huge challenges, we have made tremendous progress. This is the fact-based worldview.

Until we accept that our children have much more of a risk of being sexually abused than drowning in a pool, being struck by a car, stricken with cancer, hurt by a vaccination, or diagnosed with ebola, we contribute to a culture of panic and ignorance.

Most anti-vaccine books claim that all shots are bad, the diseases aren't really anything to fear, and as long as you live a natural and healthy lifestyle, you don't have to worry. I think this is a very irresponsible approach to the vaccine issue. Vaccines are beneficial in ridding our population of both serious and nonserious diseases.

In a devastating of example critical thinking gone bad, highly educated, deeply caring parents avoid the vaccinations that would protect their children from killer diseases. I love critical thinking and I admire scepticism, but only in a framework that respects evidence. So if you are sceptical about the measles vaccinations, I ask you to do two things. First, make sure you know what it looks like when a child dies of measles. Most children who catch measles recover, but there is still no cure and even with the best modern medicine, one or two in every thousand will die from it. Second, ask yourself, “What kind of evidence would convince me change my mind about vaccination. If the answer is ‘no evidence could ever change my mind about vaccination,” then you are putting yourself outside evidence-based rationality, outside the very critical thinking that first brought you to this point. In that case, to be consistent in your scepticism about science, next time you have an operation please ask your surgeon not to bother washing her hands.

Barbara Loe Fisher failed to note that many scientists before Wakefield had published papers proving the rare tragic consequences of vaccines without risking their career—for example, William Sawyer, who showed that a yellow fever vaccine had been contaminated with hepatitis B virus; Neil Nathanson, who showed that a polio vaccine wasn’t properly inactivated, causing children to become paralyzed and die; and Trudy Murphy, who showed that an early rotavirus vaccine caused intestinal blockage, killing one child. Scientists and public health officials didn’t marginalize Wakefield because he had challenged the belief that vaccines are absolutely safe; they did it because he was wrong—clearly and inescapably wrong.

Before school, there had to be vaccination. That was the law. How it was dreaded! When the health authorities tried to explain to the poor and illiterate that vaccination was a giving of the harmless form of smallpox to work up immunity against the deadly form, the parents didn’t believe it. All they got out of the explanation was that germs would be put into a healthy child’s body. Some foreign-born parents refused to permit their children to be vaccinated. They were not allowed to enter school. Then the law got after them for keeping the children out of school. A free country? they asked. You should live so long. What’s free about it, they reasoned, when the law forces you to educate your children and then endangers their lives to get them into school? Weeping mothers brought bawling children to the health center for inoculation. They carried on as though bringing their innocents to the slaughter. The children screamed hysterically at the first sight of the needle and their mothers, waiting in the anteroom, threw their shawls over their heads and keened loudly as if wailing for the dead. Francie

The United States, Papua New Guinea, and Oman are among the only countries that have no guaranteed paid maternity leave for working women.

Muslims are bad because they are, that’s all. Why would you need a reason? It’s one thing to let your child go blind because you read on Facebook that the measles vaccine would make him autistic, it’s another to ship him off to a work camp because he inherited his grandmother’s genes instead of Grandpa’s. Our entire race is trying to lobotomize itself. It’s as moronic and repulsive as someone cutting off their own legs.

What I really don't understand is why many doctors kick patients our of their practice over this issue. What's wrong with simply disagreeing with parents but still providing medical care to their child? That's what the American Academy of Pediatrics tells us we should do. Read them the riot act once then move on and be their doctor. A family that chooses not to vaccinate still needs medical care. Sure, their child may catch a vaccine-preventable disease, and yes, their unvaccinated child decreases the local herd immunity and puts other kids at risk, but that is still their choice. Parents of patients refuse to follow my medical advice every day.

Vaccine trials are done on healthy individuals. Let’s say they measure the safe rate of replication for a healthy child and then use that same vaccine on a child with a compromised immune system. What appears to happen at times, is that some children have such a severely compromised immune systems that it causes the virus to replicate out of control[68]. Vaccines that are manufactured this way are the rotavirus, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), smallpox and chickenpox vaccines.

Obviously, the more kids who are vaccinated, the better our country is protected and the less likely it is that any child will die from a disease. Some parents, however, aren't willing to risk the very rare side effects of vaccines, so they choose to skip the shots. Their children benefit from herd immunity (the protection of all the vaccinated kids around them) without risking the vaccines themselves. Is this selfish? Perhaps. But as parents you have to decide. Are you supposed to make decisions that are good for the country as a whole? Or do you base your decision on what's best for your own child as an individual? Can we fault parents for putting their own child's health ahead of the other kids' around him?

The child mortality revolution has used vaccines, treatments for diarrhea, micronutrients, and improved nutrition to reduce the number of child deaths worldwide each year from 20 million in 1960 to 6.6 million today—even as the number of children has risen.

In 2011, defying most expert predictions, India became polio free. It was one of the greatest accomplishments in global health, and India did it with an army of more than 2 million vaccinators who traversed the entire country to find and vaccinate every child.

One of the interesting takeaways from both the Antonine plague and polio is what a difference a strong leader can make during an epidemic. Marcus Aurelius’s swift response to the Antonine plague—and his attempt to help cover expenses for the general populace and rebuild the parts of the army decimated by the disease—staved off the fall of the Roman Empire, at least temporarily. When FDR took up polio as a cause, America followed his lead and went to work eradicating it. Although his role may not have been as significant, Eisenhower is also to be commended for trying to ensure that cost did not prohibit any child from receiving the polio vaccine, and that the vaccine was shared with the world. Those men each acknowledged the seriousness of their crises and went about bravely confronting the disease in their midst head-on. They did not ignore it or glamorize it or shame people for having it, because that never works. That strategy just gives diseases more time to multiply and kill people. Diseases are delighted when you refuse to take them seriously.

In a section of The Vaccine Book titled “Is it your social responsibility to vaccinate your kids?” Dr. Bob asks, “Can we fault parents for putting their own child’s health ahead of that of the kids around him?” This is meant to be a rhetorical question, but Dr. Bob’s implied answer is not mine. In another section of the book, Dr. Bob writes of his advice to parents who fear the MMR vaccine, “I also warn them not to share their fears with their neighbors, because if too many people avoid the MMR, we’ll likely see the disease increase significantly.” I do not need to consult an ethicist to determine that there is something wrong there, but my sister clarifies my discomfort. “The problem is in making a special exemption just for yourself,” she says. This reminds her of a way of thinking proposed by the philosopher John Rawls: Imagine that you do not know what position you are going to hold in society—rich, poor, educated, insured, no access to health care, infant, adult, HIV positive, healthy immune system, etc.—but that you are aware of the full range of possibilities. What you would want in that situation is a policy that is going to be equally just no matter what position you end up in. “Consider relationships of dependence,” my sister suggests. “You don’t own your body—that’s not what we are, our bodies aren’t independent. The health of our bodies always depends on choices other people are making.” She falters for a moment here, and is at a loss for words, which is rare for her. “I don’t even know how to talk about this,” she says. “The point is there’s an illusion of independence.

We are at the tail end of a decline in infant mortality that began just over a century ago. Babies no longer wander into open hearths or are mauled by marauding pigs. We have vaccines, lead-free educational toys, diapers that can sop up a typhoon. But we have never been more worried.

Fifty-three individuals met at the Simpsonwood Conference Center over the weekend of June 7 and 8, 2000, to discuss troubling findings regarding mercury and aluminum in the new vaccine schedule and the link that kept coming up in the data that the more vaccines you gave a child, the more likely they were to have a neurological problem.

Even if you are a moderate believer who is open to almost everything science provides, the very fact that you still indulge in magical thinking leaves you prone to making decisions in your life based on ideas that have no rational support. For example, you might deny your child medical care or vaccination because to do so would conflict with the teachings of your church.

In particular, global child mortality is at an all-time low: less than 5 per cent of children die before reaching adulthood. In the developed world the rate is less than 1 per cent.11 This miracle is due to the unprecedented achievements of twentieth-century medicine, which has provided us with vaccinations, antibiotics, improved hygiene and a much better medical infrastructure.

course, Child A who takes all the risk. If you're a public-spirited parent then you perhaps won't mind risking your child's health for the sake of the State. But it would be nice if they told you all this, wouldn't it? Maybe they don't because, deep, deep down, they rather suspect that most parents would be touched by unpatriotic reluctance when expected to risk their child's health for the sake of the nation (or, more accurately, our EU region).

Another way is via genetic engineering. Here the germ is inserted into plasmid that has been manipulated by scientists. This type of plasmid is circular segments of DNA extracted from bacteria to serve as a vector. Scientists can add multiple genes and whatever genes they want into this plasmid. In case of vaccines, this includes a genetic piece of the vaccine germ and normally a gene for antibiotic resistance. This means that when the toxic gene is cultured inside the yeast, it has been designed with a new genetic code that makes it resistant to the antibiotic it’s coded for. The gene-plasmid combo is inserted into a yeast cell to be replicated. When the yeast replicates, the DNA from the plasmid is reproduced as a part of the yeast DNA. Once enough cells have been replicated, the genetic material in the new and improved yeast cell is extracted and put into the vaccine. Examples of this vaccine are the acellular pertussis and hepatitis B vaccines. One thing that doesn’t seem to concern scientists is the fact that the manmade genetic combination becomes the vaccine component. This mixture of intended and unintended genetic information may cause our immune system to overreact. This can be especially complicated for a child with compromised immune system. Another concern is that this new genetic code can become integrated with our own genetic material. Yeast, for instance, is very much like human DNA. It shares about one third of our proteins.

The idea of denominator neglect helps explain why different ways of communicating risks vary so much in their effects. You read that “a vaccine that protects children from a fatal disease carries a 0.001% risk of permanent disability.” The risk appears small. Now consider another description of the same risk: “One of 100,000 vaccinated children will be permanently disabled.” The second statement does something to your mind that the first does not: it calls up the image of an individual child who is permanently disabled by a vaccine; the 999,999 safely vaccinated children have faded into the background.

Before school, there had to be vaccination. That was the law. How it was dreaded! When the health authorities tried to explain to the poor and illiterate that vaccination was a giving of the harmless form of smallpox to work up immunity against the deadly form, the parents didn’t believe it. All they got out of the explanation was that germs would be put into a healthy child’s body. Some foreign-born parents refused to permit their children to be vaccinated. They were not allowed to enter school. Then the law got after them for keeping the children out of school. A free country? they asked. You should live so long. What’s free about it, they reasoned, when

Homologous recombination occurs naturally to create genetic diversity in our offspring and is also conveniently harnessed by scientists to introduce experimental DNA into cells or animals. We do not yet know if this occurs with the contaminating human DNA found in some of our vaccines, and if so, to what extent. Imagine the potential consequences of human DNA from a vaccine, a vaccine that is given to children at an average age of 15 months, being incorporated into a child’s developing brain. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that this potential has to be studied. In addition to the potential for homologous recombination, DNA is known to be a powerful immune stimulant. Diseases like graft versus host, juvenile (type I) diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus and some forms of arthritis are what are called auto-immune diseases. These are diseases driven by immune attack from our own immune system on our own organs, a system normally responsible to attack invading bacteria and pathogens. Targeted self-destruction, if you will.

When I was in the seventh grade, in a health class, the teacher read an article. A mother learned that the neighbor children had chicken pox. She faced the probability that her children would have it as well, perhaps one at a time. She determined to get it all over with at once. So she sent her children to the neighbor’s to play with their children to let them be exposed, and then she would be done with it. Imagine her horror when the doctor finally came and announced that it was not chicken pox the children had; it was smallpox. The best thing to do then and what we must do now is to avoid places where there is danger of physical or spiritual contagion. We have little concern that our grandchildren will get the measles. They have been immunized and can move freely without fear of that. While in much of the world measles has virtually been eradicated, it is still the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death in children. From money generously donated by Latter-day Saints, the Church recently donated a million dollars to a cooperative effort to immunize the children of Africa against measles. For one dollar, one child can be protected.

Immunisation may not work so well because ‘take up’ (ie antibody response) of vaccines is poorer in a child deprived of the immunological effects of breastfeeding.8

Vaccines do not work as well if a large number of folks opt out of the system. Vaccines are not 100% effective in any one individual. It is the collective immunity of the population (known as herd immunity) that keeps a germ from reaching epidemic proportions. You may think that if everyone else’s kid is protected then your child doesn’t need to be. But . . . germs don’t think that way. They just look for a new person to infect. And the more people who opt out, the more vulnerable the entire population is (particularly its youngest members).

One city, Ashland, Oregon, has an elementary school in which not a single child is vaccinated.

Getting its target audience to conclude that facts and truth are “unknowable” is the true objective of any disinformation campaign. Climate change deniers aren’t trying to convince people that surveys they commissioned are better than those agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists. Antigovernment conspiracy theorists aren’t really trying to convince people that some towns in the Midwest are governed under Sharia law, or that Jade Helm was an attempt by Obama to come for their guns. If someone actually believes the falsehood, that’s a bonus, but the primary objective is to get readers or viewers to throw their hands up and give up on “facts.” Do vaccines cause autism? Maybe. Was Senator Ted Cruz’s father involved with President Kennedy’s assassination? Anything’s possible. Is Hillary Clinton running a child-sex ring out of the basement of a DC pizza parlor? Who knows?

However, our culture's emphasis on the importance of reading to children creates the impression that it plays the same role in learning to read as speaking to children plays in their learning to talk. That's not correct. Whereas talking with children guarantees that they will learn to speak (in the absence of pathological interference), reading to children does not guarantee that they will learn to read. In short, reading to children is not the same as teaching children to read. I emphasize this point because the mantra about reading to children makes it seem that this is all that is required. A child who has difficulty learning to read therefore has not been read to enough. Among the first questions that will be asked of the parents of a childe who is struggling is whether they read to the child and if there are books in the home. Reading to children is important but not sufficient; children benefit from it, some quite a lot, but it neither obviates the role of instruction nor vaccinates against dyslexia. Children who are read to until the cow jumps over the moon can still have difficulty becoming readers.

After the antivaxxers’ claims that the MMR vaccine caused autism were debunked, they argued that the thimerosal in vaccines caused autism. After this was debunked, new claims surfaced that the cause was the vaccines being given too close together and too early, somehow shocking a child’s immune system and resulting in autism. This, too, was debunked. Science shows that even though the number of shots has risen over time, the actual load on the immune system has decreased because today’s vaccines are better engineered. Before 1991, the whooping-cough vaccine had three thousand different antigens. Today’s whooping-cough vaccine has no more than five particles—just as effective, but much easier on the immune system. After the “too many, too soon” myth was debunked, antivaxxers began claiming that the MMR vaccine was “triggering” autism in children who were somehow genetically predisposed to it. That, too, was debunked.

Thirty years later, at the end of Huddleston’s career, formal portraits of the dead were no longer fashionable. The very idea was labeled morbid and ghoulish in the determinedly cheerful post-war, post-Depression boom times. Miraculous antibiotics had just been introduced, vaccines protected the young from the diseases that had decimated earlier child populations. Birth and death had been shuttled behind hospital screens to be dealt with by white-gowned professionals. For the first time in human history people could afford the luxury of declaring death to be in bad taste.

James Young Simpson studied medicine in Edinburgh, Scotland, graduating in 1832. By the mid-1840s, Simpson had climbed the ranks to become a professor of midwifery in Edinburgh, relieving the pain of childbirth with ether, like his American colleagues. But Simpson wasn’t satisfied. He wanted a more potent agent, one that was pleasant to inhale, worked quicker, and didn’t cause vomiting upon awakening. He settled on chloroform, a combination of hydrogen, carbon, and chlorine. On November 4, 1847, Simpson invited two of his assistants, James Duncan and George Keith, and some of his friends, including a Ms. Petrie, to a dinner party. When the dinner was over, he asked his guests to sniff a variety of volatile gases, including chloroform. Duncan and Keith immediately lost consciousness, falling under the table. Ms. Petrie also lost consciousness, but not before declaring, “I’m an angel! I’m an angel! Oh, I’m an angel!” The next day, without animal studies, clinical trials, or federal approval, Simpson administered chloroform to a woman during a particularly painful delivery. “I placed her under the influence of chloroform,” recalled Simpson, “by moistening half a teaspoon of the liquid onto a pocket handkerchief [and placing it] over her mouth and nostrils. The child was expelled in about twenty minutes. When she awoke, [the mother] observed to me that she had enjoyed a very comfortable sleep.” The parents were so elated that they named their daughter Anesthesia. On November 10, 1847, Simpson told a group of colleagues what he had done. Ten days later, he described his experience in a medical journal, claiming that chloroform was more potent and easier to administer than nitrous oxide, and quicker to induce unconsciousness and less flammable than ether. Now the entire medical world knew about it.

Empathy is particularly insensitive to consequences that apply statistically rather than to specific individuals. Imagine learning that a faulty vaccine has caused Rebecca Smith, an adorable eight-year-old, to get extremely sick. If you watch her suffering and listen to her and her family, the empathy will flow, and you’ll want to act. But suppose that stopping the vaccine program will cause, say, a dozen random children to die. Here your empathy is silent—how can you empathize with a statistical abstraction? To the extent that you can appreciate that it’s better for one specific child to die than for an unknown and imprecise larger number of children to die, you are using capacities other than empathy.

Leigh Anne Tuohy was trying to do for one boy what economists had been trying to do, with little success, for less developed countries for the last fifty years. Kick him out of one growth path and onto another. Jump-start him. She had already satisfied his most basic needs: food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and health care. He had pouted for three days after she had taken him to get the vaccines he should have had as a child. It was amazing he hadn’t already died some nineteenth-century death from, say, the mumps. (When she tried to get him a flu shot the second year in a row, he said, “You white people are obsessed with that flu shot. You don’t need one every year.”) Now she was moving on to what she interpreted as his cultural deficiencies.

The majority of what's happening at any given moment in the global economy can be tied back to a handful of past events that were nearly impossible to predict. The most common plot of economic history is the role of surprises. The reason surprises occur is not because our models are wrong, or our intelligence is low. It's because the odds that Adolf Hitler's parents argued on the evening nine months before he was born were the same as them conceiving a child. Technology is hard to predict, because Bill Gates may have died from Polio if Jonas Salk got cranky and gave up on his quest to find a vaccine. The reason we couldn't predict the student loan growth, is because an airport security guard may have confiscated a hijacker's knife on 9/11. That's all there is to it.

At the time of this publication Hepatitis B vaccine is the first vaccine given at birth, usually in the first twenty four hours. In other countries this vaccine is given in combination with BCG (for tuberculosis). In the U.S. infants are inoculated against eight different diseases at two months of age. This process is repeated again at four and six months of age. At twelve to fifteen months the process is repeated with twelve different diseases at one time. The vaccine schedule repeats most vaccines again at four to six years, and again at eleven to fourteen years, for a total of fifty different doses of these sixteen diseases. With the recommended annual flu shots beginning at six months of age, and three HPV shots, the child has a total of seventy-two doses before the age of twenty.

Emotional Vaccination to Prepare for the End of Screen Time Parent: “Before we begin screen time, let’s think about how it’s going to feel when we end. It’s hard to stop things we love, right? For me too.” Child: “Can you just turn the show on now?” Parent: “We will, soon. I’m going to take a deep breath now and get my body ready for when we stop watching screens.” Model this pause. “Also . . . I’m wondering if we can get out some of those end-of-screen-time protests now, to get our bodies ready.” Find a lighthearted, but not mocking, tone as you protest: “Five more minutes! My friends get so much more! I was just about to . . . please please . . . you never let me do anything I want to do!” What are you doing here? You’re infusing connection and silliness into a difficult transition before it happens. This doesn’t mean that at the end of the show, your child will say, “Here’s the iPad, Mom, easy-breezy!”; it does mean that you’re building the skill of managing tough emotions, and there will be a moment soon that your child looks at you and says, “Aw, I wish I could watch another episode!” instead of screaming and throwing a remote control.

Children’s bodies and brains are still in an early developmental stage of growth until at least the age of three. To inject infants with a variety of vaccines, which contain toxins and materials the body will recognize as foreign contaminants seems an ill-conceived “health” policy. Before the age of one, it is not recommended by our healthcare organizations to allow a child to eat honey, because a child’s system is not developed enough to handle “natures perfect food.” Currently, we are not only injecting infants with a plethora of vaccines in their first year but are starting them out with a vaccine on their first day on the planet. Is it any wonder why we have such rampant illness in the infant and adolescent population today? A little common sense appears to be needed here.

Solution #4: DELAY HEP-B VACCINATION UNTIL A PRE-TEEN YEAR. This is not a vaccine for infants. Hepatitis B vaccine should not be administered to infants directly after birth, unless the mother is infected with this virus and could pass it along to the child. All pregnant women should be screened for hep B infection. Recommended age of hep B vaccination should be changed to a preteen year just before high school. Notify the parents/guardians and mandate that a warning label be placed on hep B vaccines indicating aluminum levels within the vaccine exceeds FDA safety levels for parenteral aluminum, which may result in aluminum toxicity.

That’s the problem with vaccines. When they work, absolutely nothing happens. Nothing. Parents go on with their lives, not once thinking that their child was saved from meningitis caused by Hib or from liver cancer caused by hepatitis B or from fatal pneumonia caused by pneumococcus or from paralysis caused by polio. We live in a state of blissful denial.

We all think we would never fall for brainwashing. Consider this analogy: You have a little five year old child, whom you have convinced there are monsters in Canada, maybe because you were told there were monsters in Canada. If you told them this often enough, even when they had evidence to the contrary, by the time they reached adulthood they would still suspect this was true. It would take a lot of explaining, unlearning, teaching and fact finding to get them to understand otherwise. And still, they might be very apprehensive to take a vacation to that beautiful land. It might take years to dispel the lies that they were told so often. And even then, they may never visit Canada…they

The major credit for the decrease in child mortality and the resultant increase in life expectancy must go to the control of disease through public health measures. At first, this took the form of improvements in sanitation and in water supplies. Eventually science caught up with practice and the germ theory of disease was understood and gradually implemented, through more focused, scientifically based measures. These included routine vaccination against a range of diseases and the adoption of good practices of personal and public health based on the germ theory. The

That’s the problem with vaccines. When they work, absolutely nothing happens. Nothing. Parents go on with their lives, not once thinking that their child was saved from meningitis caused by Hib or from liver cancer caused by hepatitis B or from fatal pneumonia caused by pneumococcus or from paralysis caused by polio. We live in a state of blissful denial.

Kim Ess So of someone leaves their child vulnerable to deadly diseases like measles by not vaccinating, I will speak up. Parents refusing to vaccinate their children are doing something akin to allowing their kids to run about in traffic because they are irrationally afraid of sidewalks or they believe being struck by an oncoming car might be good in the long run. And it's not only their own children they are putting at risk. If you have children, they're also putting your children at risk. – Jennifer Wright (Get Well Soon)

So of someone leaves their child vulnerable to deadly diseases like measles by not vaccinating, I will speak up. Parents refusing to vaccinate their children are doing something akin to allowing their kids to run about in traffic because they are irrationally afraid of sidewalks or they believe being struck by an oncoming car might be good in the long run. And it's not only their own children they are putting at risk. If you have children, they're also putting your children at risk. – Jennifer Wright (Get Well Soon)

Why target two and a half million innocent newborns and children?” Barbara Loe Fisher asks of the hep B vaccine. The implication behind the word innocent is that only those who are not innocent need protection from disease. All of us who grew up during the AIDS epidemic were exposed to the idea that AIDS was a punishment for homosexuality, promiscuity, and addiction. But if disease is a punishment for anything, it is only a punishment for being alive. When I was a child, I asked my father what causes cancer and he paused for a long moment before saying, “Life. Life causes cancer.” I took this as an artful dodge until I read Siddhartha Mukherjee’s history of cancer, in which he argues not only that life causes cancer but that cancer is us. “Down to their innate molecular core,” Mukherjee writes, “cancer cells are hyperactive, survival-endowed, scrappy, fecund, inventive copies of ourselves.” And this, he notes, “is not a metaphor.

Why he was going to check on some child who more than likely was a zombie playing ball in an empty grocery store, was beyond me. It

Our collective nausea can only amplify when we ask, “Why are we vaccinating children?” Kirsch’s model estimates that 600 children have already died from COVID vaccines as of September 2021. A recent Lancet study shows that a healthy child has zero risk for COVID, suggesting that most of these kids are dying unnecessarily.99 Some 86 percent of children suffered an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID vaccine in clinical trial. And one in nine children suffered a serious reaction grave enough to leave them unable to perform daily activities. How can we then justify forcing a healthy child to take a vaccine that is dead certain to injure many and kill some while bestowing no benefits? “How can anyone consider it ethical,” asks Kirsch, “to put a child at risk, for the pretext that it might shield an adult? Show me any adult who thinks this is okay, and I’ll show you a monster!

the sketchy premise that his vaccines reduce child mortality—a proposition that Gates has never demonstrated and that current science does not support. His peculiar choice of words naturally fueled speculation that he was engaging in a premeditated campaign to use vaccines to sterilize women.

US vaccinologists like Hilary Koprowski and Stanley Plotkin worked with Belgian colonial authorities in the Congo to recruit millions of Black African child “volunteers” for dozens of mass-population trials with experimental vaccines that were perhaps considered to be too risky to test on white children. As late as 1989, the CDC conducted lethal experiments with a hazardous measles vaccine on Black children in Cameroon, Haiti, and South-Central Los Angeles, killing dozens of little girls before halting the program.4 CDC did not tell “volunteers” that they were participating in an experiment.

Perhaps it does come back to valuing community, after all. Recent studies in science communication have suggested what I've sketched out in this chapter: that scientific literacy is not the variable that determines whether or not a group will accept the reality of a public health issue like vaccination or global warning: social groups are. While those individuals tested demonstrated a surprising ability to factually interpret scientific findings, they tended to eventually revert to in-group thinking about the issue, siding with whatever their main social group already believed. We humans are social, after all. Our social nature is why solitary confinement is potentially a human rights violation, why just about all of us wish we weren't having to stay home during the COVID crisis, why we all cling to Zoom meetings-why children yell at one another across balconies, starved for the sound of another child's voice. We all do the same dance of retreating to our social safety spaces. And if our 'safe' social group told us that our experience during the pandemic was a lie? Well, it seems we'd be more likely to believe our friends than science, because, as I've argued elsewhere...in times of desperate calamity, all we humans really have is one another. I have no answer to this twisted dilemma that the healthy carrier narrative, via the vehicle of COVID-19, has presented to us in the United States, but understanding the dilemma rightly is surely important.

In the 1980s, Australia had a few home-grown immunisation sceptics, although the great majority of parents immunised their children. In 1996, a film-maker made a supposedly scientific documentary for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). She interviewed people who were both pro- and anti-immunisation in equal numbers, ‘for balance’. She was pregnant with her first child, and concluded the documentary by saying that she had not yet decided whether or not to get her baby immunised. I was one of the doctors interviewed. When the documentary was shown in Australia it generated considerable debate and controversy. Two weeks later I was in Port Moresby, the capital of Papua New Guinea, and gave a presentation to the hospital about immunisation. A number of the audience told me they recognised me from the documentary, which had been shown that week on PNG television. They were puzzled as to why anyone would make such a film. Their wards were filled with children with severe tuberculosis, newborns dying from tetanus, and babies with severe rotavirus gastroenteritis, all preventable by immunisation. On their streets were people crippled forever by poliomyelitis. But Papua New Guinea did not have the money or the public health infrastructure to deliver vaccines effectively to its population. Papua New Guineans knew vaccines could prevent the devastating diseases they saw every day, and could not understand why anyone in Australia would dream of not immunising their child. Immunisation scepticism is very much a first-world problem.

Wolf has similarly twisted the feminist movement’s core tenet that all people have the right to choose whom they have sex with and whether to carry a child. Now she was distorting that principle to cast Covid tests and vaccine mandates as violations of “bodily integrity” akin to those endured by women who underwent forced vaginal exams, claiming that all are examples of “the state penetrating their body against their will.” Clearly, that kind of language fills a cultural need, one bound up in the social currency of victimization, a theme I’ll return to later. But the point here is that abusing such terms is dangerous: it drains them of their intended meaning, their legibility, and their power.

It is a source of constant amazement to public health doctors that you can buy a cold Coke almost anywhere on earth but keeping a vaccine cool enough to get it from a factory to a child is a huge problem.

Vaccinating Children is Unethical Our collective nausea can only amplify when we ask, “Why are we vaccinating children?” Kirsch’s model estimates that 600 children have already died from COVID vaccines as of September 2021. A recent Lancet study shows that a healthy child has zero risk for COVID, suggesting that most of these kids are dying unnecessarily.99 Some 86 percent of children suffered an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID vaccine in clinical trial. And one in nine children suffered a serious reaction grave enough to leave them unable to perform daily activities. How can we then justify forcing a healthy child to take a vaccine that is dead certain to injure many and kill some while bestowing no benefits? “How can anyone consider it ethical,” asks Kirsch, “to put a child at risk, for the pretext that it might shield an adult? Show me any adult who thinks this is okay, and I’ll show you a monster!

How Frequently Should a Child See a Paediatrician? Some parents may be over cautious while visiting the best paediatrician in Zirakpur. The other set of parents may become worried about the thought of visiting a paediatrician in Zirakpur and delay until the very last minute. Often, parents do not want to take their child to see the doctor until their child is certainly ill. According to Dr. Pawan Deep Singh, MBBS, DCH, DNB Paediatrics, parents should at least take their child every year for a wellness check. Yearly visits allow the doctor some time to assess the child and pinpoint any possible physical, mental, or emotional problems. Once a yearly visit helps the doctor to keep a tab on any medical changes and required vaccinations to protect your child.

I WAS THE CATCHER for the Lake Luzerne Dodgers, a catcher with meager talent, a catcher in awe of Danny and Teddy. Danny was the first baseman and Teddy, the coach's son, was the left fielder. They were natural athletes: they could hit fastballs (a small miracle of hand-eye coordination that I never mastered), and they glided around the base paths with the grace of gazelles. They were, to a ten-year-old who was batting .111, the embodiment of beauty and summer and health. As I drifted to sleep at night, it was often with the image of Danny, horizontal and three feet off the ground, spearing a line drive, or of Teddy stretching a single into a double by slipping under the tag. In the early hours of a chilly, August, upstate New York morning, my father woke me. "Danny's got polio," he said. A week later Teddy got it too. My parents kept me indoors, away from other kids. Little League was suspended, the season unfinished. The next time I saw Danny, his throwing arm was withered and he couldn't move his right leg. I never saw Teddy again. He died in the early fall. But the next summer, the summer of 1954, there was the Salk vaccine. All the kids got shots. Little League resumed. The Lake Luzerne Dodgers lost the opening game to the Hadley Giants. The fear that kept us housebound melted away and the community resumed its social life. The epidemic was over. No one else I knew ever got polio.

knows exactly how serious this threat could be. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to take a chance with the health of our nation.” With that preamble, Ford announced that he was asking Congress to appropriate $135 million “for the production of sufficient vaccine to inoculate every man, woman, and child in the United States,” for a disease that no one could even prove to exist.

vaccinators—recruited by the committees and trained for just half an hour—administered candies or sugar cubes permeated with live attenuated poliovirus. The goal was to immunize every susceptible child in Cuba. Castro’s invention of vaccination days, coupled with the use of Sabin’s doses, achieved rapid success in interrupting transmission and making Cuba the first country to eliminate polio.

In fact, the vast majority of the world’s population lives somewhere in the middle of the income scale. Perhaps they are not what we think of as middle class, but they are not living in extreme poverty. Their girls go to school, their children get vaccinated, they live in two-child families, and they want to go abroad on holiday, not as refugees. Step-by-step, year-by-year, the world is improving. Not on every single measure every single year, but as a rule. Though the world faces huge challenges, we have made tremendous progress. This is the fact-based worldview.

How dangerous is the disease for which the vaccine is being given? (Exactly what are the chances that it will kill or cripple?) 2. How effective is the vaccine? 3. How dangerous is the vaccine? (Exactly what are the chances that it will kill or cripple?) 4. What side effects are associated with the vaccine? 5. Which patients should not be given the vaccine? 6. Will you guarantee that this vaccine will protect me (my child)? If not - exactly what protection will it offer? 7. Will you guarantee that this vaccine will not harm me (my child)? If not - exactly how risky is it? 8. Will you take full responsibility for any ill effects caused by this vaccine? 9. Is the vaccination essential?

Living on 99 cents a day means you have limited access to information—newspapers, television, and books all cost money—and so you often just don’t know certain facts that the rest of the world takes as given, like, for example, that vaccines can stop your child from getting measles. It means living in a world whose institutions are not built for someone like you.

So for people who do not wish to vaccinate their children, let me say that raising children seems very difficult. My job, as I see it, is to support my friends in their child-rearing decisions. They want to send their toddler off to a Swiss boarding school? That’s great! Four-year-olds who know how to play polo inspire not only admiration but terror, which in my mind means respect! They’re going to let their daughter choose her own name and send her to a hippie academy where the students learn to draw instead of read? Also great! It sounds like Princess Jellybean Frostina Elsa will be very creative or, as she would write, “!!☺ ☺****☺!!

Amma, Make me an instrument of your fire. Make me the breath in the lungs that scream for justice. Make me the tears on a mother’s face holding the body of her child scorched by war. Make me a stone thrown at a tank. Make me the key to open cell doors. Make me the darkness to hide those fleeing across a desert. Make me the ocean that guides a refugee’s boat. Make me the scarf covering the face of Antifa. Make me a vaccination in a free clinic. Make me farmland never touched by chemicals. Make me a guitar played by a prisoner’s hands. Make me a song of joy on a child’s lips in Syria. Make me, make me, just keep making me, God, until there is nothing left to transform, and then let me dissolve into you.

Moreover, in light of OLPC’s mission to bring these ideas to children across the Global South, constructionism and OLPC could also be seen as imperialist, and Paraguay Educa’s faithful adherence to OLPC’s vision as problematic.34 After all, Paraguay Educa uncritically adopted a set of ideals largely developed at MIT, an elite institution in a country with a history of both military and cultural imperialism in the region: the United States. It moreover chose to invest in an untested technological intervention instead of food, vaccinations, working bathrooms, or any number of other kinds of much-needed aid. OLPC’s claim that a country could merely replace its textbook budget with a laptop budget and access online textbooks, for instance, assumed that the target country had a textbook budget to begin with and that schools in that country regularly used textbooks. In Paraguay, for one, this was not true.

Do you realize how horrifying that is? We’re talking about human beings making a conscious effort, going out of their way, to be ignorant. Willfully stupid. They’re proud of it. They take pride in idiocy. There’s not even an attempt to rationalize things anymore. Muslims are bad because they are, that’s all. Why would you need a reason? It’s one thing to let your child go blind because you read on Facebook that the measles vaccine would make him autistic, it’s another to ship him off to a work camp because he inherited his grandmother’s genes instead of Grandpa’s. Our entire race is trying to lobotomize itself. It’s as moronic and repulsive as someone cutting off their own legs.

So if you are skeptical about the measles vaccination, I ask you to do two things. First, make sure you know what it looks like when a child dies from measles. Most children who catch measles recover, but there is still no cure and even with the best modern medicine, one or two in every thousand will die of it.

Up to 7% or more' of newborn infants are given antibiotics within the first three days after birth and almost all of them will receive a hep-B shot within the first day or two of life. This is a bad combination. To protect them from sepsis is understandable, but it is obviously overdone. This is another reason why hep-B vaccines should not be given routinely to all newborns. Toxins within the hep B vaccine plus antibiotics equals potentially adverse outcomes for these infants which can easily be avoided. After taking antibiotics yeast in the body can grow out of control, causing a variety of problems. Then to make things worse, we add more yeast into the infant’s body with the hep B vaccine, which contains brewer’s yeast. The combination of hep B vaccine and antibiotics directly after birth is not a good idea.

The only reason for a newborn to be infected with the hep B virus is that the mother who is infected can pass this virus to her child during the birthing process. Therefore, any vaccine injuries or related deaths for infants caused by the hep B vaccine for other than an infected mother are unnecessary.

Solution #1. ELIMINATE PAYOFFS IN CLINICS TO PROMOTE VACCINATIONS. It should be illegal for doctors to accept bonuses or other incentives from insurance or pharmaceutical companies for vaccinating patients. This practice is clearly a conflict of interest. When you take your child to a doctor, you want them to focus on your child and their health, and not on a yearend bonus some other company is paying to push vaccines. These bonuses/kickbacks provide a monetary incentive to the doctor and their office not related to the patient’s health, which is clearly a conflict of interest, and should be illegal. Without this bonus/kickback in their minds, perhaps the doctors can get back in the business of simply taking care of their patients, answering their questions, and providing them with better overall healthcare. If the pediatric office has no money dangling over them in the form of bonuses/kickbacks, then there should be no incentive to bar entrance to any family who wants to receive healthcare, unless the office is so full that they cannot accommodate new patients. This taking away of the bonus/kickback money will remove prejudice and bias against those who do not want to follow the recommended vaccine schedule, or who question the safety of the vaccines. And thereby, all patients will receive equal healthcare service under the law without bias. After all, isn’t this, shouldn’t this be the goal?

Pediatric offices are receiving money from Big Pharma, insurance companies, and/or the government to promote vaccinations. (Chapter 3 and 4 – Solution #1). This is a blatant conflict of interest. This corruption has gone too far. If you decide you don’t want any vaccines for your child, or you decide to stop the vaccines due to a post vaccine reaction or illness you suspect may be due to the vaccines given, then the pediatric office may kick you out or turn you away from their practice. (Chapter 3 and 4 - Solution #2). This is unconscionable. But it is happening somewhere every day in our country. This is wrong. These offices should be there for their patients. They should not rule over us. Pediatric offices are businesses. As businesses, they should not be able to discriminate against people due to their personal beliefs and choices.

Solution #2. PRACTICE INFORMED CONSENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Parents and their children should not be refused service by any pediatric office due to their personal beliefs on vaccinations, nor should they be kicked out of these offices for refusal to take any vaccines or by not complying with following the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule. The doctors should be practicing informed consent, educating parents and children on vaccines and their benefits and risks, and allowing them to decide whether or not they wish to vaccinate. Conflicts of interest should be removed from these offices, and families should never be forced to “follow the vaccine schedule, and keep up with the vaccines, or find a new pediatrician.” The pediatrician’s job should be to inform and advise, and not to use excessive force or pressure to promote vaccinations. Who is serving who? Parents should have the ultimate authority to decide if and when vaccines should be given to their children.

It is often after this round of vaccines in the second month that the problems with the CDC recommended vaccine schedule come to light in the form of allergies and/or other autoimmune diseases emerging in our infants. Do not listen to your doctor if they say these conditions are typical and common. These conditions have become common, most likely because all the other children have overdosed on aluminum as well and are suffering along with you. The FDA and CDC appear to have approved and promoted toxic conditions to occur in the children of the United States.

Self-esteem is the likeliest candidate for a social vaccine, something that empowers us to live responsibly and that inoculates us against the lures of crime, violence, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, child abuse, chronic welfare dependency, and educational failure.” There was one little problem. The conclusions were a lie, based on opinion, not what the research actually found. According to the data, the lone scientist, Smelser, concluded, “Self-esteem remains elusive because it is difficult to pinpoint scientifically. . . . The associations between self-esteem and its expected consequences are mixed, insignificant, or absent.” The scientific validation was not there.

Solution #3. PARENTS SHOULD DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEIR CHILDREN. No drugs, vaccines, or medical procedures of any kind should be given or done to any child without the knowledge, approval, and consent of the parents or guardians of that child. No federal funding for children’s services within individual states for foster care or adoption should be allowed, as this violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, and encourages medical kidnapping by the states. Medical kidnapping by the state and their children’s health services due to a difference of professional medical opinion in health treatments for children should be disallowed. Doctors make mistakes. Therefore, one doctor’s diagnosis or opinion should never be considered enough evidence to take a child away from their parents. The parents/guardians, along with the advice of their own healthcare providers and not the state, shall determine what the acceptable treatment, if any, for any health condition present in their children should be. Parental rights and determination regarding children’s health treatment in cooperation with a licensed healthcare provider supersedes any local medical or governmental authority. This recent movement to take away the rights and responsibilities from parents or their guardians must stop. It makes no sense. Children are not old enough or mature enough to make decisions which could affect the rest of their lives. They are children, and do not have the experience to make such decisions. This is a parent’s job. Parents are the ones responsible for their children, not the state, the school, or the doctor’s office. If others do these things without parental consent or knowledge and the child is killed or injured permanently from medical treatments, procedures, drugs, or vaccines, then who will be responsible for burying the child, or taking care of the disabled child for the remainder of their lives? It is the parents. Therefore, parents should have the ultimate authority over their children and their healthcare until the children become adults, at which time they can then make their own decisions for their lives and their healthcare options. The exception to this rule is if the children (<18 years old) are emancipated from their parents and/or are living apart from their parents and are responsible for their own welfare.

It is no secret that our state and federal politicians are taking money from Big Pharma, and have thereby become their minions, and do their bidding. They no longer represent us, the common people, but rather the interests of Big Money such as Big Pharma... Likewise, it is no secret that our government regulators who are supposed to be watchdogs for the people of America have been corrupted. They are more like a watchdog who opens the door for the criminals and helps them carry away the ill-gotten goods. Who needs a watchdog like that?

Solution #14. BAN CONSUMER DRUG AND VACCINE ADVERTISING. There should be no direct to consumer (DTC) advertising of vaccines and/or drugs. DTC marketing and advertising of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not in the public’s interest and should be made illegal. When advertising dollars are at work, then TV stations, newspapers, medical journals, radio stations, and all other commercial media companies become pressured by these Big Pharma companies to displace truth with what will be most profitable to the media company, which means what will benefit their advertisers. The promotion of these products is often deceptive, and predominately shows potential benefits while discounting any adverse effects. Only the United States and New Zealand currently allow these types of ads. The other countries of the world had the foresight to realize that allowing Big Pharma to advertise their products would grant them too much power over us, which they could then abuse. Money which is currently used to promote drugs and vaccines increases the cost of these products, while at the same time limits the money available to do research for the safety of these products. Drug and vaccine advertising does not benefit the public welfare.