From pharmacist Allan postgate:
The very pro-vax son of a good friend of mine told me he would rather defer to the authority of leading immunologists than to the non-peer-reviewed sources he claims I use to challenge the mainstream view on vaccination.Patricia McMahon Guy suggested I shared my response to this wider audience, and this is it:-
- So those would be the same leading immunologists that steadfastly refuse to put the vaxxed/unvaxxed debate to rest once and for all by doing a long-term large scale comparison of health outcomes of the two populations;
- the same leading immunologists that have so little faith in their products that they won’t indemnify them themselves but rely on governments to pay up vaccine-damage compensation;
- the same leading immunologists who, after losing the need to indemnify their vaccines in 1986, went on a development spree to the extent that the USA vaccine schedule is now at 72 vaccines by the age of 18, and the UK vaccine schedule 58;
- the same leading immunologists that never comment on the clear fact that the most vaxxed population in the developed world, the USA, which should be the healthiest, has by far the highest percentage of chronic childhood diseases;
- the same leading immunologists that never comment on why low-vaxxed populations like the Amish haven’t fallen prey to rampant pestilences and died out;
- the same leading immunologists that rely on maintaining and increasing the level of vaccination for their job security and fat salaries, taken from the $40 billion per annum turnover of vaccines;
- the same leading immunologists that don’t counter criticism with better science but with ridicule, sarcasm and ostracism, to the degree that any healthcare professional who wants to question the vaccine schedule had better be near to retirement age as it will be a career-limiting move, (which has given rise to the new verb ‘to Wakefield’);
- the same leading immunologists who deliberately destroyed 10,000 pages of data at the CDC in 2002 which proved a (rather inconvenient) link between the MMR jab and autism;
- the same leading immunologists who recommend the flu jab for pregnant women despite the vaccine insert leaflet saying it has never been tested on pregnant women and, presumably therefore, on developing fetuses;
- the same leading immunologists that would rather inject third world children with cholera and typhoid vaccines than sort out clean water and good sanitation for them;
- the same leading immunologists who claim the science is settled when science is never settled – how do they know what new evidence might need to be considered in the future?
I could go on, but I think by now you will appreciate I don’t trust the authority of your ‘leading immunologists’.
SHOULD ANYONE FIND IT USEFUL TO USE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.