vaccine facts

[Guest guest]

Hi, Pepper,

This is the last time I'm going to post on this subject. If you are truly

interested in all the facts, please look into some of the research that many of

us have followed for years.

I looked into the two links you provided. First, I'm astonished that you

think that the fact that this information is posted by the CDC makes it " fact. "

The CDC has completely lost credibility with a lot of people, including a

growing number of physicians, for a shocking lack of attention to whether

individual

vaccines and the vaccine schedule as a whole is, indeed, safe OR effective.

As the number of legally mandated vaccines rose exponentially over the last

couple of decades, the CDC and other vaccine proponents paid little or no

attention to the effect of a cumulative buildup of ingredients in the vaccines

including heavy metals and other toxins. They then covered up this mistake by

citing

numerous studies that supposedly " prove " that vaccines have no correlation

with autism. The problem is that most of those studies were deeply flawed due to

problems in the way the data was collected or processed and/or because of

conflicts of interest, mainly because of funding from pharmaceutical companies.

Data has been obfuscated to the point of being useless. Meanwhile, funding for

meaningful, objective studies has been hard to come by. It takes a lot longer

for a grass-roots coalition of parents and physicians to find funding for and

insist on this kind of research. But a growing number of people are working on

it and are making progress. The truth will out, so don't worry about that.

Second, nowhere in either of those links did I see proof of the efficacy of

either of those vaccines, much less the vaccine schedule as a whole. If this is

there, please tell me where to find it.

Even if a particular vaccine does do more harm than good, it is meaningless

to talk about individual vaccines without considering the legally mandated

schedule. Right now parents do not have the option of choosing only certain

vaccines. It's all or nothing, on the mandated schedule. To say that you

personally

don't think vaccines should be legally mandated means nothing when you pair it

with the statement that, overall, vaccines do more good than harm.

And speaking of that statement, how do you know, other than what you've read

from the CDC, which has a vested interest in protecting its own butt?

When an issue is controversial, the first thing I consider is what the

interests are of the proponents of each position. It's easy to see what

pharmaceutical companies and government agencies have to gain by not considering

the

possibility that they've played a central role in injuring hundreds of kids.

It's

harder for me to see why parents would risk ridicule (from people like you who

accuse them of " fearmongering and paranoia " ), and buck an enormous system

intent on shutting them up unless they truly believed they were onto something.

Don't tell me they don't want to believe it's genetic bc they don't want to

blame their own ghenes. I would much rather believe that my genes, which I have

no

control over, were to blame than to think I held my kid's hand while he got

the injections that caused him a lifelong debilitating illness. That's one

reason the vaccine link is so difficult for even parents to fathom. It's also

hard

to swallow that all these years the people we thought we could trust for

guidance for healthcare for our kids may not have been so trustworthy after all.

That's a gut punch for anyone. And yet many of us have been forced to come to

that conclusion because of what we've seen in our families, other families, and

years of reading everything we could find, which we could ill afford the time

to do. What's more, a growing number of physicians are coming to the same

conclusion about vaccines because they've been finally persuaded by parents who

were willing to take them on and try to educate them, at the risk of being

condescended to and ridiculed.

Finally, even if you think you have all the facts, please remember that you

are talking to human beings about a topic that is inherently emotional. Think

before you accuse people of fearmongering and paranoia. Think before you take a

combative or condescending tone. People are responding to you on an emotional

level because you have knowingly approached them in an insensitive way about

a topic that is intensely personal to them. Had you approached us with your

skepticism in a different way I suspect we could have had a real dialogue

instead of the argument this has become.

That's it for me.

Carla

**************

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & amp;

Finance.

(http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)