Anti-vaxxers are winning the war on social media? REALLY?
By Christine Howard
I find the reverse to be true ... pro-vaccine rhetoric is everywhere - media, social media groups, the 'trusted' medical profession (so yes, you've done more than enough, you dictate and dominate health care globally).
However, what you have in your disfavour are things like this CNN article by Elizabeth Cohen: Anti-vaxers are winning the war on social media. What's the CDC going to do about it? - because you're wrong, everything you do is wrong, you spread misinformation, you're dangerous (because the information and recommendations you provide are one-sided, incomplete and quite often downright fraudulent) AND you succeed by instilling fear. Therefore you think ridiculing and shaming is morally justifiable at every available opportunity. And your pro-vaccine activity is all pervasive from the WHO to the CDC, to every health department across the world that you control. You infiltrate main media outlets, pro-vaccine websites or pro-vaccine pages and groups on social media (in their thousands) to exert influence and fear. You are obsessively busy with 'debunking' and ‘using fear persuasions’ to vaccinate, like ‘unless you want your child to die, vaccinate’ (untrue moral coercion of the worst order). Global populations are pummelled from every direction with how great vaccines are, how effective they are, how serious reactions are rare. You claim 'science is on your side' (proven by global consensus of opinion - which by the way isn't science, it's back-patting, head nodding - your peer-reviewers are your in-circle buddies, your conflicts of interests are prolific), and therefore the science you do put forward is only that which supports your vaccination or pharmaceutical drug agenda.
Presented with other scientific publications alerting you to issues with your vaccines and the scientist is ostracised, criticised and their papers discredited, ignored, debunked, withdrawn - but immediately. The same happens to highly qualified excellent doctors who notice that their patients are affected after vaccination and begin questioning it - and dare to speak out.
And yet you don't seem to evaluate your own highly acclaimed studies and clinical trials with the same scrutiny. Your safety trials use questionable science, for example, the use of aluminium adjuvants as placebos even although they themselves lack sufficient safety trials to begin with.
There are totally inadequate, unscientific, passive, under-utilised postmarketing surveillance systems, which by the way do not detect the universal damage done to children and do not detect the regressive harm caused by the whole schedule over time - they only record an acute event at the time, or within days of the vaccination. In fact, what you do is totally deny any relationship, if at all possible. So you continue hiding behind big terms and big organisations - CDCs Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Health Care professionals, the WHO, the FDA, infectious disease specialists - titles and global prominence - but in the end, you are all only YES-men and women.
On the ground however all this doesn't match reality.
What you don't have with your PV rhetoric is listening or sincere dialogue or any acknowledgement of what is happening to people's children in front of their very eyes. Parents know their child, love their child and they're the only ones who love their own child, exclusively and wholeheartedly. These parents take your advice and have their children vaccinated, because they trust you and the idea that the whole world agrees with what you say - 'vaccines are life saving, vaccines are safe and effective and severe adverse reactions are rare'. But then their child changes or dies within hours, or days, or weeks of your ‘safe’ scheduled vaccines. Then they return to you (because they still trust you), crying, desperate, for your 'expert advice'. They are told, 'No, definitely not, not the vaccine, vaccines don't do that, your child probably had something brewing already' or 'this is normal, your child will be fine in a few days, just administer some Calpol (Tylenol)'. Then after some days, the child is not fine, so the parents return and perhaps the child is subjected to a barrage of tests, which are mostly inconclusive and mostly unnecessary (but they do generate income). If the parent tries to insist that something changed after the vaccines, they might even be thrown out your practice. Odd behaviour for a professional doctor? Or they are told, 'It's genetic (your fault) and something waiting to happen, would've happened anyway'. Well, on what basis are statements like that made? What vaccinating paediatrician ever sees what might have happened if the child hadn’t been vaccinated? Well, ask Dr Paul Thomas - he has some experience with this.
The parent is seldom informed of the adverse event reporting system (VAERS in the US and AEFI Reporting System South Africa) and the doctors and nurses themselves seldom report these events - because in their 'educated' minds, they believe that this has nothing to do with the vaccines. So they've been told. Don't let me get going on the adverse event reporting systems and the battle for compensation! After some time a parent may get an autism diagnosis and then they are told by their medical (pharma-driven) health professional (if they still reluctantly, or trustingly continue going there) that unfortunately, there is no cure for autism. Dare they suggest an alternative treatment success story they've been told about and it is treated with the same disdain. In fact, all the parent is told is that alternative treatments are dangerous and insufficiently tested. So the parent is offered a range of symptom suppressing drugs to help control behaviours (e.g. Ritalin) or whatever else. And these are safe, not dangerous? (Autism being only one example of vaccine injury).
Following these traumatic events and desperate to help their child, they start looking elsewhere for advice, for others in their situation, for alternative medical help. And what do they find?
Sympathetic competent doctors and practitioners whose help makes the world of difference to their child. They meet thousands of other parents in the same situation as themselves. They have a huge burden on their hands, but here they find hope and success, and a community.
The light goes on - and they realise they no longer trust the medical establishment - they know they’ve been consistently lied to. Too much deceit, too much lack of transparency, too much denialism, too much blindness resulting from the constraints of medical education, too little listening, too much 'I'm the doctor and the expert' - so they change direction and find success, and in the very least, vast improvement and healing.
So good luck to CNN and all the organisations and academies they represent and who fund their bills. You've missed the boat. The ship has sailed and where it has landed has greener pastures and abundant positivity and support.
When trust goes, it usually goes forever.