I used to think vaccines were safe. It wasn’t something that I consciously mulled over, it was more subliminal. Anytime you were told you should get one for yourself or your children it never crossed your mind that you shouldn’t. They were safe. Doctors unanimously told you so.
Over the years the propaganda concerning vaccines became so pervasive and persuasive that people who started asking questions about them were mocked and marginalized as crackpots and Luddites. (Strictly speaking those are people who are against industrial change and innovation but how often do you get a chance to use Luddite?) Now we have massively increased numbers of vaccines at younger ages, (hep B 12 hours after birth. seriously?), and an almost unbelievable increase in diseases that either did not exist or were rare 50 or 60 years ago, like Autism, SIDS and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
What do we hear from the medical community? “There is no connection between the increase in (insert side effect or disease here) and vaccines”. The World Health Organization says vaccines are safe. Canadian Ministry of Health says they are safe. CDC says they are safe. CMA, AMA, UK Health Ministry, EU Health Ministry. Hell even umpires say they’re safe! All aver that vaccines are perfectly safe with some minor side effects like rashes, slight swelling at injection site or fever. This stuff is as safe as water. Those people who are against vaccines must be wack-a-doo.
There was a slight problem though. People prior to 2011 had sued the vaccine manufacturers for damages due to vaccine side effects. These were vigorously downplayed by the industry and the complicit media and included Autism, paralysis and death. So what happened in 2011?
The Courts ruled that vaccine manufacturers were immune from litigation or criminal prosecution because vaccines were “Naturally unsafe”.
Hold the phone! Naturally UNSAFE? What the hell? They’ve told us all these years that vaccines are safe. Perfectly safe. Absolutely safe. So what is it, safe or unsafe? you can’t have it both ways. What? You can? How’s that exactly? Oh. The benefits outweigh the dangers. So now you admit there are dangers involved? So you’ve said all along that they’re safe, so you must have something to base that on right? Where are your long-term studies showing they are safe? There are none. But they’re safe in a naturally unsafe way – right?
So let me ask you this. Let’s apply a 1% criteria. A 99% safety rate seems pretty good doesn’t it? Apply that to air travel. Let’s say there are 1,000,000 flights yearly around the world. Now let’s say that 1% crash every year. That would be 10,000 crashes every year. Now let’s say that the Courts decided that nobody could sue anybody and no criminality could be assigned to any airline because although air travel is safe, it’s naturally unsafe. Would you ever fly again? That’s just 1%.
Say there are 200,000,000 cars in the U.S. (the actual number is unknown but it’s good enough for this example). 1% crash every year resulting in injury or death. That would be, (drum roll), 2,000,000 injuries or deaths. According to the CDC:
Motor vehicle crashes are one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005.
CDC’s research and prevention efforts target this serious public health problem.
So a 1% crash injury rate is considered a “serious public health problem” but an Autism rate increase from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50 is not only ignored but a link between Autism increase and toxic poisoning due to vaccines is rejected out of hand. Yet without any studies, and testimony after testimony of perfectly healthy children being damaged after taking vaccines, the media and medical community continues to shout the tired refrain that vaccines are safe, (in a naturally unsafe sort of way).
In light of this information, which just scratches the surface, some questions should perhaps be asked:
- How is it that vaccine producers can be allowed to distribute a “naturally unsafe” product with immunity from lawsuits or regulatory interference?
- How is it that the medical community and the whores in the media can continue to falsely claim that vaccines are safe?
- How is it that people can be forced to vaccinate their children when they realistically, (according to SCOTUS), believe them to be unsafe and possibly harmful to their children?
- Where are the long term studies on the efficacy of vaccines?
Included below is the dissenting opinion of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg as well as a link to a very interesting video comparing media hype and scare tactics to facts.
“If vaccines really work then what does your vaccinated child have to fear from my unvaccinated child?” (I would attribute this to Unknown but, in fact, I can’t remember who said it and it’s not mine. So in a way it is unknown . . . sorta)
Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent.