For so long there has been a ping pong match of evidence provision and quick denial, backwards and forwards between the groups and individuals involved in this two hundred year old controversy. Time and time again figures are tabulated and published to support and deny the propositions and yet there is no sign of our obtaining any resolution.
Clearly there is a profoundly strong case to be addressed. Today the products used for the processes of vaccination are produced by large, multinational companies and used by medical practitioners world wide. Standards of cleanliness and product purity needs must be very high and, as far a can be possibly managed, the methods of delivery to the clients follow good practice. These issues are not a concern.
However, and as with all pharmaceutical products, even the manufacturers clearly state that there are negative outcomes possible from their use. In every case the clear argument is put forward that the relative risk of patient damage is small compared with the benefits delivered to that patient in terms of their immunity against particular infective agents.
You cannot prove a negative benefit, of course. “Immunity” gained from vaccination is a far from established fact. Thus the whole population rates of both infection and of death from any of these ailments clearly show how the developed world, with greatly improved living conditions and diets, had reduced their impact to mild inconvenience in the majority of cases way before any vaccines were introduced. The developing world has slowly followed this pattern but patchily as living conditions vary dramatically from area to area and year to year. I will again quote Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ “Love in the Time of Cholera” as illustrant, here.
But what can be demonstrated, of course, is the ongoing impact vaccinations have in creating unplanned for outcomes, such as those listed on the product information sheets but extending to become a far wider list. These include deaths and chronic damage from smallpox vaccinations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (right from the very start with the first Jenner precipitated mass jabbing) which can be said to outweigh any benefit anyone might have received from such jabs and, more recently, the whooping cough, cot-death post vaccine delivery (See Viera Scheidner) and the MMR cases, emerging reports about terrible adverse reactions to the Gardasil jab and the linking of Autistic and other chronic outcomes to Total Vaccine Load.
With all this evidence the Medical establishment nonetheless puts up a strong defence. Well, a defence that is impenetrable but who’s content is highly questionable for a range of reasons:
- It is in house and so lacks any reasonable objectivity. The counter to this is that it is impossible for those outside the medical guild to assess the nature of an individual’s health progression. This is manifestly preposterous.
- Partly resultant from 1 is the nature of studies published, whereby the wrong questions are researched (eg the huge “Danish Study” that compared normally vaccinated children, half of whom had also received the MMR jab to say MMR does not cause autism ie using the wrong control group), the wrong data extracted or the wrong conclusions drawn. The case of the admirable Dr Jayne M Donegan and her dispute with the General Medical Council over the interpretation of published scientific results is exemplar here. She drew radically different conclusions from published data to those of the articles’ authors and published these interpretations. The GMC attempted to prove her wrong but her case was upheld.
- For the medical establishment to accept that there is widespread vaccine damage would be to leave them wide open to compensation claims. The United States Government has exempted Pharmaceutical Companies from any such liabilities and instead take liability upon themselves. To do this they set the “damage bar” very high.
- Spurious concepts such as “herd immunity” have been introduced to cloud the issue, holding the vague threat which says “OK, so your kid might just have some vaccine damage but at least the whole herd of us are safe”. Some of us must be lost to the wolves, you see. Tough if it’s yours: “It’s so uncommon so probably little Jonny had it coming anyway.”
My case is that there is a huge case to be answered and that an independent institute or institutes have to be established to seriously examine this issue. In the UK there are “Watchdog” organisations to scrutinise almost all public services and a lot of private ones as well. In medicine there is NICE – The National Institute for Clinical Excellence which is as independent as the General Medical Council ie not. I propose seeking funding to create an investigative research centre which has at its core the notion that vaccines are strong, impactful reagents which, if they can create specific immune responses to antigenic fragments introduced also have the capability to result in collateral reactions which may be, individually or collectively, over time, physiologically compromising to the recipient.
As levels of autism continue to increase (“One in fifty kids” this week.) and as the nature of other forms of vaccine damage become ever clearer it is time to codify this independently that we can move to eliminate the problems.
I move the IDPOV.