This opinion is in response to the recent opinion-piece dated March 6, 2019 by authors, Dorit Rubinstein Reiss and Arthur Caplan entitled Don’t make measles great again in Arizona.
First, let’s make a distinction between the terms “immunize” and “vaccinate.” Immunize also known as immunity, is something that happens to a living being when it is exposed to naturally-occurring pathogens that naturally builds an immunity or resistance to said pathogen(s) as a normal growth process. Natural exposure to a pathogen or multiple pathogens confers lifetime protection to said pathogen(s). Pathogens can be introduced to the living being via air transmission, ingestion or other forms of physical contact. In this case, the pathogenic exposure would be addressed by one’s bodily defenses like the digestive system, respiratory system, lymph system and the like. Typically, the exposure to the pathogen is minute and without the risk of artificial excitotoxins as is the case with artificial means of attempted immunity.
“Vaccinate” on the other hand, is a process of artificially introducing a pathogen to a living thing, often through vaccination/inoculation, with the intention of conjuring temporary protection from a pathogen or pathogens. Vaccines are medical products containing not only pathogens but a host of other ingredients used to stimulate the immune system. Depending on the vaccine, ingredients can include heavy metals, formaldehyde, detergents, adjuvants, RNA and DNA fragments from aborted human fetus cell lines like MRC5 and WI38, RNA and DNA from animals and insects, as well as preservatives, among many other things. Each of these ingredients serves a purpose to make the vaccination work, however, no vaccine is 100 percent safe nor 100 percent effective. Further, because vaccines are a medical product, they come at a cost whether out-of-pocket or via insurance premiums paid by a person, employer or state. Lastly, because immunity is temporary, scheduled booster shots are necessary for the remainder of one’s lifespan giving potentially trillions of dollars to the vaccine manufacturers.
These terms, immunize and vaccinate, are often erroneously used interchangeably in our modern language in the United States but it must be made abundantly clear these two terms are distinctly different and must be used properly when discussing such things as outbreaks and/or legislation. In a nutshell, vaccination is NOT immunization.
There are multiple vaccine-related Bills in the AZ Legislature: HB2471 would require product inserts and ingredient lists be provided to individuals before consenting to vaccination and HB2470 would allow a religious exemption or personal written statement to exempt children from vaccines for grades K-12.
Let’s first address the issues surrounding comments made about HB2471. As Reiss and Caplan attempted to undermine parental rights and authority in their op-ed dated March 6, 2019, they also managed to completely insult the intelligence of readers by maintaining that parents could essentially be confused by the ingredient language used in product inserts. May I be so bold as to remind my fellow readers that nearly every product we have the option to buy, comes with a list of ingredients. The FDA has made sure that we know what’s in our gum, lotion, shampoo, oatmeal, bread, juice, cereal, you name it.
But Reiss and Caplan think vaccines, the one recommended and sometimes required, product that can puncture through the skin, bypassing typical bodily defense systems, are essentially too complicated for people to understand or even read about before making a decision.
Reiss and Caplan have a belief that HB2470 would be too easy for parents to opt-out of vaccinations if there are religious belief or personal written statement options available to them. The fact of the matter is, constituents are demanding access to these exemption options. Last I heard, we lived in a Constitutional Republic, which is a Government of the people, for the people and by the people. It’s a good thing the Legislators who authored these bills have actually listened to their constituents because frankly, parents likely wouldn’t be asking for these options if they hadn’t already experienced serious problems and complications from the liability-free medical interventions known as vaccines.
The news media continues to blame the rise in the number of requests for exemptions on something called “anti vaxxers” but the reality is, it is simply too hard to sue the Government for vaccine side effects so parents would rather be able to forgo the vaccines. Oh, maybe you hadn’t heard that you can’t sue the vaccine makers? Yeah, that happened under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA). Not only can you not sue manufacturers for defective products that can harm and possibly kill your child, but we are all paying for the fund. There’s an excise tax of $0.75 per dose set aside into the Vaccine-Injury Compensation Program. Since the NCVIA’s inception, taxpayers have funded over $4.2 Billion in vaccine related side effects and deaths. I’m not even talking about autism because they stopped paying for autism in 2002 when they realized how expensive it would be to pay off the-over-5,000 families suing for vaccine-induced autism (See OAP). Let that sink in for a minute. I’m talking about brain swelling, allergies, tics, seizures, diabetes, learning disabilities, digestive issues, ear infections, eczema, failure to thrive and a host of other chronic health issues like cancer caused by the SV40 virus or other toxic ingredients. It’s not the “one in a million” you keep being told. Think about it, you probably know at least one person with one or more of the aforementioned and those are just a small handful of vaccine side effects.
Blind faith is essentially what Reiss and Caplan are asking parents to do. They want you to blindly accept vaccinations like some archaic religious practice. Reading their opinion felt a little more like, “Hey parents, no need to know what’s in these vaccines. Look away and simply trust us because you’re simple-minded and we know better than you how to raise your child.”
Call it what it is, blatant disregard and blatant disrespect for parents and parental rights, and an unholy alliance between the pharmaceutical industry, politicians, regulatory agencies and doctors who collectively may have the right to stand between you and your child’s access to education. I don’t blame the doctors by the way. They are the unsuspecting victims of an industry gone awry, wrought with conflicts of interest, and an industry void of scientific integrity because of said conflicts. What other outcome could we possibly expect? These are products that are liability-free, recommended (sometimes mandated) for all school age kids in America, viewed as a religious tenet of health care, protected by industry and promoted nearly everywhere. Not only that but apparently, parents who are ringing alarm-bells have been listed as one of the “top 10 greatest threats to global health” by the World Health Organization (WHO). That’s laughable because the WHO is pointing the finger at the messenger instead of the culprit. The culprit is the filthy industry that’s getting away with this nightmare while laughing all the way to the bank. Don’t blame the messenger, pay attention to the canary in the coal mine.
Michelle Ford is president of the Vaccine-Injury Awareness League