As you’ve been reading the news these days, have you noticed a new angle on the “anti-vaccine movement?” The same old rhetoric is being employed, but a bit more subtly. It’s couched in the context of pseudoscientific inquiry into the “phenomenon and psychology” of anyone critical of the vaccine program. Conveniently, media coverage focused on the “state of being vaccine hesitant” draws the conversation away from the actual concerns of the “vaccine hesitant”––such as vaccine injury, zero liability for vaccine manufacturers, an ever-increasing vaccine schedule (72 doses by age 18!) and no double-blind placebo safety testing for any childhood vaccine on the schedule.
All these pieces depict the “vaccine hesitant” as if they are a singularly minded subgroup characterized by a shared “affliction” which requires intervention. This is a clever pretense, but one that many well intended people have been led to believe is actually in earnest, as suggested by articles such as this piece in the Atlantic.
Or this NBC News piece, underscored by the cartoon image of the “vaccine hesitant” family running fearfully from the dripping syringe.
And if you haven’t heard, WHO has even listed “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019! Yes, folks, humanity has finally reached the point at which asking questions threatens its very existence! Did you think you’d live to see the day?
But the most blatant tactic in creating a divide between folks on this issue––and ensuring that reasonable questions about vaccines won’t even be heard––is this 17 minute “How to Defeat the Anti-Vax Movement” video by YouTuber David Pakman.
In this presentation, Pakman repeats CDC and WHO talking points about the safety of vaccines, but never once cites any studies about vaccines themselves. Instead, he spends much of the presentation detailing “sociological and psychological surveys” of the “vaccine hesitant.” If you buy into this narrative, you’ll assume those with concerns about vaccines are simply rebellious conspiracy theorists who are squeamish about needles, “don’t value science” or “don’t even understand how science works.”
This video, like the print articles, advises that employing facts and data to dissuade the “vaccine hesitant” won’t work, and that more “subtle” strategies should be employed. This includes appealing to emotion, using comedy––and targeting children through video games. Packman quotes this article in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics:
‘We believe that public health efforts to address issues of vaccine hesitancy should increase their focus on childhood education. An opportunity exists to create positive, accurate vaccine attitudes through fun and interactive approaches early in life. Leveraging digital technologies may provide a way to deliver these messages to children in a way that complements immune system and immunization education in school curricula. We recommend that public health officials explore and identify the most effective ways to deliver positive digital messages to children in hopes of “inoculating” the next generation against vaccine hesitancy.’
Pakman covers this strategy and more in his video. Folks whose children play video games may be interested to know that pharma titan GlaxoSmithKline is collaborating with one of the video game companies in such efforts. Check out the video.
Furthermore, a US congressman has called on Facebook, Google and Amazon to remove content critical of the vaccine program. Amazon removed the documentary, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe” from its streaming service, Pinterest removed searches about safer vaccines and vaccine injury, and YouTube demonetized channels “promoting anti-vaccination content.” Apparently, folks who question the vaccine program are so dangerous that they can’t even be heard. Pinterest even removed sites which promote alternative treatment for chronic illness.
Actual censorship is being liberally and openly practiced now in the US, and there is certainly a great deal of effort, study, funding and strategy being employed to counter the anti-vaccine movement. But none of it will work.
I know what will. And I’m willing to share this information with everyone concerned about “vaccine hesitancy.” I’m going to share this from the perspective of an actual “vaccine hesitant.” Wait for it. Wait for it…Ready?
Address our concerns.
- Why don’t vaccine safety trials test against a saline placebo?
- Why are vaccines only tested against another vaccine or adjuvant?
- Why have aluminum adjuvants never been biologically tested for safety?
- A Harvard Medical School report estimated that the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System captures only 1% of vaccine adverse events.
In 2018 alone, 58,381 vaccine adverse events were reported to the VAERS database, including 412 deaths, 1,237 permanent disabilities and 4,217 hospitalizations.
How can CDC and WHO claim the safety of vaccines in light of these staggering numbers? Especially if these numbers only represent 1% of all adverse events following vaccines?
- The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986 removed vaccine manufacturers’ liability for injuries and deaths caused by their product.
How can we mandate a liability free product be injected into our children?
- The CDC now recommends 72 vaccine doses by the time a child reaches age 18.
Why have NO CDC studies been conducted on the cumulative effects of this ever increasing vaccine schedule?
- Finally, how can we reconcile CDC’s vaccine schedule and increasing vaccine mandates with the hundreds of peer-reviewed, published articles implicating vaccines in the rise of the childhood epidemics we are currently experiencing in the U.S. and other industrialized nations?
It is troubling for any of us to suspect that our regulatory agencies––the very agencies which were put in place on our behalf––may not be doing their jobs. It is disconcerting, to say the least, to conclude that we cannot trust everything they have told us. It is disheartening to realize that conflicts of interest and industry money may have corrupted our regulatory agencies and our legislatures.
But silencing questions, avoiding the discussion and pretending that such concerns are invalid will not solve the problem. Focusing on the psychology and sociological demographic of those asking the questions will only temporarily distract us from the real problem. We must hold our regulatory agencies accountable. We must demand transparency. And we must uncover the truth.
We, the “vaccine hesitant,” are willing to do the work it takes to get these agencies back on track. We will do the research. We will ask the tough questions. And we will take them to task and make them work for you again.
All we ask is that you hear us.