by Jon Davy
The British Prime Minister recently reduced the vaccine safety debate to the utterly puerile and managed to dis-respect millions of British citizens into the bargain. You can see him make a prat of himself here, but his words quoted from the video are as follows:
“Cause there’re all these anti-vaxxers now isn’t it? They are nuts. They are nuts”
Well, thank you Prime Minister for your cogent and well-reasoned response to the concerns of your citizens over the safety of vaccines. I suggest that if you are going to accuse millions of people of being nuts, it is best to not act like a demented Muppet yourself.
Accusing someone with ideas they find difficult to counter of being mad is the last resort of those who are right out of sensible ideas. The “ah, you’re nuts!” response is what we expect of a schoolboy not a ruddy Prime Minister and I am beginning to wonder if we would not have been better off to elect an adult to the highest office in the land.
The PM’s disgraceful outburst, however, does us all a favour as it neatly illustrates a propaganda ploy oft-used by pharmaceutical vested interests. It goes like this:
- Lump millions of concerned citizens together under a single generalised and largely inapplicable label. In this case, “anti-vaxxer”.
- Then accuse everybody who comes under this label of being “nuts” or “anti-science” or some other such meaningless drivel.
- Keep repeating it in the hope that it will shut up anyone who has reservations about vaccines for fear of being seen as “nuts” or some sort of hippy or some such thing.
The fact that this ploy is being used in order to ridicule anyone who dares voice doubts or concerns about vaccines tells you right there that the proponents of vaccines are hiding something, so instead of addressing the questions they simply discourage people from asking them.
“Anti-vax” implies “against vaccination”. The label suggests that anyone thus labelled is rabidly opposed to vaccination, period – and with no other motivation than sheer bloody mindedness or a desire to see the human race wiped out by horrible diseases.
This is simply not true. Even the makers of the famous “Vaxxed” video the vaccine industry tries so hard to discredit are not actually anti-vaccine.
Here’s a crude analogy:
Imagine the town’s drinking water supply comes from a well on a local farm.
The farmer supplies the town with water from his well at a reasonable price, there is nothing wrong with the water and nobody goes thirsty.
One day, for one reason or another, the well becomes slightly contaminated and people start getting sick.
Someone makes the connection and says, “We need to check the water! It is contaminated and not safe to drink!”
This gets around and soon a number of people are unwilling to buy the farmer’s water and want it checked for contaminants before they will drink it.
The farmer who owns the well and makes a profit from supplying the town with water does not want his well examined so accuses his accusers of being “anti water”.
So every time someone tries to raise the question of the condition of the water supply, pressuring for safety checks and so forth, the charge of being “anti water” is leveled at them.
By now the farmer has mobilised his mates on the local council to really hammer the anti water thing home and has even hired a PR firm, or had a word with the editor of the local newspaper . . .
“Now there’s all these anti water agitators … ” says the farmer’s pal who happens to be the mayor. “They just want you all to be thirsty because they think water is evil. Don’t listed to them! Keep drinking the water and keep the threat of thirst at bay!”
“But why would anyone campaign against water?” asks the citizenry, “Maybe we should find out what they are worried about.”
“Oh no, don’t communicate with those guys because they are anti water nut jobs. That’s all it is, they’re nuts! And don’t get too close to them in case people start thinking YOU’RE nuts too . . .
But they are not anti water. They think water is just fine, provided it is not contaminated with toxins that make people sick. They think the well should be checked and if found to be contaminated, cleaned up until it isn’t. And then nobody will have to get sick trying not to be thirsty.
They contend that if the local authorities were more diligent in ensuring the safety of the water supply, the owner of the well would raise his game and make more effort to ensure the well remains clean.
So let’s do a quick in-a-nutshell breakdown of the valid concerns disingenuously included under this specious anti-vax label.
Concern 1: is vaccine technology scientifically sound? Are there any risks inherent in it? Any drawbacks? And if there are, are they outweighed by the benefits? For the sake of argument I am going to assume that the technology is sound in principle and the benefits in principle outweigh the risks.
Concern 2: although the technology itself is workable, is EACH VACCINE safe in its own right? Each vaccine must be studied and thoroughly tested for safety and to discover whether it actually does the job its manufacturers say it does.
By way of an analogy, we can all agree that air travel is a great idea and generally safe but that does not obviate the need to ensure that each aircraft passes rigorous safety checks and that each new design is thoroughly airworthy. The concern of many who are mislabeled anti-vax is simply that each vaccine that comes onto the market is not as thoroughly tested and its health and safety as thoroughly verified as it should be. Which brings us to concern 3.
Concern 3: The overall SAFETY of vaccines has never been properly examined, tested and verified under full scientific rigor by scientists without ties or obligations to the industry that profits from the sale of vaccines. A case in point is this article, which details the trickery that is used to “prove” vaccines are safe
Concern 4: The industry is notorious for its history of deceit, false claims and dodgy science and simply cannot be trusted.
Concern 5: There are those who are concerned that NO STUDY HAS EVER BEEN DONE to compare the overall health and longevity of vaccinated people with un-vaccinated people.
Concern 6. we do not know because it has never been scientifically studied, tested and verified, whether there is any liability to the NUMBER of vaccines given to a person, especially a child. How many vaccines are safe to inject into a human being? One? two? Five? Twenty? An unlimited number? How many are safe for a child? We simply do not know and we NEED to know because the vaccine industry is pressuring to inject us with more and more and more vaccines.
Concern 7: nowadays toxins such as mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde and so forth are added to vaccines. Do they cause short- or long-term damage? What are safe amounts (if any)? Are the harmful effects compounded as we inject a person with more and more vaccines containing these toxins?
Concern 8: if one is going to be injected with a vaccine one needs to be able to evaluate the benefits thereof against any risks. This would depend upon the seriousness of the disease the vaccine is supposed to protect one from, how thoroughly it protects one and what are the chances of serious side effects. This becomes even more important when it is a matter of injecting one’s children with an entire battery of vaccines.
The concern of those who are reluctant to go the vaccine route is that in the effort to market and sell vaccines, the manufacturers are not always truthful on the benefits/risk issue and the government does not do enough to MAKE them more honest.
There are those who consider more pressure must be put on the industry to guarantee health and safety. That pressure will then force the industry to raise its game in terms of producing proven safe vaccines and enable us to make use of its vaccines in greater confidence that they are as safe as the manufacturers say they are.
These are genuine concerns and valid questions. We actually need to have them answered thoroughly and beyond reasonable doubt because the possible consequences of getting this wrong could be catastrophic.
The reluctance of vaccine proponents (mainly the vaccine manufacturers and their proxies) to support a full, IMPARTIAL, SCIENTIFICALLY RIGOROUS investigation to answer them once and for all is another serious concern. If vaccines are innocent, why the reluctance? Why the resort to disingenuous generalisations and puerile ridicule?
Millions of people, apparently as many as half the ruddy population in some countries, are skeptical about the safety of vaccines or of possible harm weighed against possible benefits. Not AGAINST vaccines, but SKEPTICAL for the very good reason that their concerns have not been addressed and their questions not fully answered.
It is not “all these anti-xaxxers ” who are responsible for an erosion in confidence in vaccines, but the industry itself on account of its past record and of its ongoing reluctance to address the legitimate concerns of consumers as it seeks to push more and more vaccines on them and their children.
Instead of trotting out a tame Prime Minister to ridicule those who are concerned, it would be best to directly address those concerns with honest science.