http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=Article&ID=622
|
|
Vaccine Information
Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Healthy
People |
Forward to the
Vaccination Literature of Harris L. Coulter The
literature against compulsory vaccination is expanding almost as rapidly as
the list of new vaccines which a hyperactive drug industry is preparing for
us -- great medical discoveries "tending to the depopulation of the
earth," as a physician in the 19th century put it. This literature,
contrary to the expectations of many who read it and write it, will never
change the views of the other side, as the position of the vaccine
establishment is rooted in a clear understanding of its own self-interest.
The manufacturers of vaccines and the pediatricians who administer them are
simply unwilling to criticise their source of livelihood; they are remarkably
incurious about new knowledge, and in that sense it is a waste of time to
argue with them. If pediatricians could not schedule "well baby"
visits (it's the last time the baby is really well), they would have to fold
their tents and ride off into the sunset. Vaccinations provide such a large
proportion of their livelihood that without them they would have to change
occupation and practice another specialty. Vaccines, of course,
also account for a substantial portion of drug industry profits. The only really
effective response to this assault upon our neurological and immune systems
is for the public to insist that state legislatures abolish the laws
mandating compulsory vaccinations. For this the public
itself needs to be educated about all aspects of vaccine issues, and of the
many areas of discussion and argument I have selected two for particular
emphasis: . The following pages cover two themes: (1) the errors and
shortcomings, even the actual bad faith and fraud, which stigmatize the
pro-vaccination literature, and 2) some of the unnoticed, or neglected,
short-term and long-term effects of vaccinations. The second of these two
themes is self-explanatory, as is my contribution. The first is a little more
complex. Much reading and
rereading of the productions of the physicians and scientists who take money
from the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH for articles favoring government policies
has convinced me that these articles are always methodologically defective.
The authors themselves are in a serious bind because, when they apply for and
receive a government grant to “study” a vaccination issue, it is understood
on all sides that their conclusions are not going undermine the government’s
vaccination program. When the outcome is foreordained, the data have to be
adjusted accordingly, and the result is a lot of bad epidemiology. The Government commenced
its vaccination campaigns in the 1940's without adequately testing these
vaccines at all (whooping cough, for instance), or without testing them
adequately (measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis-B, influenza). Now the FDA and
the CDC are trying retrospectively and retroactively to justify these hastily
reached and hastily executed decisions. Articles which are not
government funded, on the other hand, can occasionally be honest and
objective. |
Health News Plant Stenols Included
for First Time in New... Food Contamination -
Tips For Avoiding It. |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||||
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.