Everything You Need to Know About the Vaccine Debate in 1 Minute and 34 Seconds?

by Mar 31, 2016Health & Vaccines67 comments

The Washington Post and other mainstream media choose to insult their readers' intelligence rather than properly inform them about the risk from vaccines.

UPDATE (Aug. 14, 2017): Since I published this post, the Washington Post has reedited the video, cutting it down to one minute! Read on to learn how utterly dishonest and downright idiotic the Post is being to say you can learn everything you need to know about vaccines in one minute.

The Washington Post has this video presenting “Everything You Need to Know About the Vaccine Debate”. It’s 1 minute and 34 seconds long.

It opens by suggesting it is presenting “Arguments for and Against Vaccination”. But it actually presents only arguments for vaccination. It spends 38 seconds on the “Pro-Vaccine” arguments: Vaccines save lives; vaccines protect the “herd”; vaccines are safe and effective. The same old spiel.

Then it presents the “Anti-Vaccine” arguments in about 45 seconds:

  • Unsubstantiated claims of autism despite numerous studies finding no link;
  • Vaccines contain ingredients that can be harmful in large doses, like aluminum, but which the FDA assures us are safe in the small amounts contained in vaccines. Reassuringly emphasized across the bottom of the screen are:
    • “FDA STUDY: ALUMINUM IN VACCINES POSES EXTREMELY LOW RISK TO INFANTS”
    • “THE FDA REQUIRES 10+ YEARS OF TESTING FOR ALL VACCINES BEFORE THEY ARE LICENSED”
  • Natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity
    • “PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL: IMMUNE RESPONSE OF VACCINATED INDIVIDUALS JUST AS GOOD AS PEOPLE WHOSE IMMUNITY COMES FROM INFECTION”

So here is just a tiny little sample of facts the Washington Post thinks you don’t need to know about vaccines:

  • Despite reassuring claims from the government, media, and medical establishment that studies have conclusively shown that there is no association between vaccines and autism, they admit they don’t have any other answer for what does cause autism, and there has never been a study comparing rates of autism in children who’ve received the CDC’s scheduled vaccinations and children who remained unvaccinated.
  • Aluminum is a common vaccine ingredient despite being a known neurotoxin that can pass the blood-brain and placental barriers.
  • While some individuals may be able to tolerate the accumulated amount of aluminum from doses of vaccines, others might have an impaired ability to eliminate it from their body or genetic susceptibility to greater harm.
  • Studies have linked vaccinations with development of autoimmune diseases, with the use of adjuvants like aluminum being of particular concern in this regard.
  • Some individuals may be genetically predisposed toward adverse events or injury from vaccines, yet public policy is one-size-fits-all, thus playing Russian roulette with our children and laying down those children who are damaged by vaccines on the sacrificial altar in the name of the “greater good”.
  • The FDA doesn’t conduct its own studies or tests to determine the safety of vaccines. The drug companies conduct their own studies. Those that produce the desired result are submitted to the FDA; those that don’t can be avoided by asking the right questions during study design, or by doing such things as using a “placebo” that isn’t a placebo at all, but another experimental injection; e.g., sometimes another vaccine is used.
  • Clinical trials consider only short-term adverse events, i.e., reactions that might occur within weeks of having received a vaccine; long-term health outcomes aren’t a consideration, e.g., to determine whether vaccines might increase the risk of children developing asthma, allergies, or autoimmune disease.
  • Since the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act was passed, pharmaceutical companies can pay the FDA to get their products fast-tracked for approval (a process that a BMJ study found was associated with a higher rate of subsequent safety withdrawals).
  • The claim that vaccine-induced immunity is “just as good” as natural immunity is an outright lie.
    • Influenza vaccines, for example, favor a humoral response, i.e., the production of antibodies, while inhibiting the cell-mediated response that would otherwise occur through natural infection; hence while flu shots can protect against the specific strains of the flu contained in the vaccine, there are hundreds of known strains of virus that can produce influenza or influenza-like symptoms, and natural infection confers immunity against not only the specific strain of infection, but against other strains as well (leading to possibility that getting the flu shot could actually increase your chances of getting the flu).
    • Vaccine-induced immunity for measles is less robust than natural immunity, leading to waning immunity over time, whereas birth before 1957 is considered “evidence of immunity” to measles by the CDC since natural infection generally confers permanent, lifelong immunity.
      • Mothers who were naturally infected in their youth are able to pass on their antibodies to their infants through their breastmilk. Infants born to vaccinated mothers, on the other hand, are at a higher risk in the event of an outbreak since their mothers are less able to protect them due to waning vaccine-induced immunity.
    • Immunity from natural infection with pertussis may last from 4-20 years, whereas protection from the vaccine lasts only 2-4 years.
      • Furthermore, pertussis vaccine doesn’t prevent infection and transmission. Vaccinated individuals can carry and spread pertussis, falsifying the claim that vaccination is necessary for “herd immunity”.
  • Widespread vaccination can cause evolution of pathogen strains into potentially even more virulent forms. For example, the use of the pertussis vaccine has resulted in a genetic shift so that today the dominant strains in circulation are not only resistant to the vaccine and capable of producing more pertussis toxin, but seem to have a selective advantage in infecting individuals who are vaccinated.
  • In the 1980s, vaccine manufacturers were facing so many lawsuits for vaccine injury that it threatened public policy, prompting the government to intervene by granting the pharmaceutical companies legal immunity. The Supreme Court has upheld legal immunity for the vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. The law granting this immunity established a separate “court” where parents of vaccine-injured children can go to try to win some compensation, paid for out of a fund that comes from a tax on every dose of vaccine — which is to say the government shifted the financial burden of compensation for vaccine injuries from the manufacturers onto the consumers. Families have been awarded compensation through this court after their children developed autism following vaccination. Former CDC director Julie Gerberding acknowledged after one of these cases that vaccines can cause “symptoms that have characteristics of autism” in children with mitochondrial disorders. After her stint at the CDC, Gerberding went on to head up the vaccine division at Merck.
The Washington Post building in Washington, DC (Daniel X. O'Neil/CC BY 2.0)

The Washington Post building in Washington, DC (Daniel X. O’Neil/CC BY 2.0)

We could go on and on. This is just barely scratching the surface, but it’s enough to sufficiently illustrate how utterly idiotic and dangerously irresponsible it is for the Washington Post to say that you can learn “Everything You Need to Know” about vaccines in under two minutes.

The fact that the mainstream media thinks you don’t need to know any of the above information, or any of the wealth of additional information from the medical literature that doesn’t conform with government/industry propaganda, speaks volumes.

It pretty much summarizes the nature of the discussion about vaccines in the mainstream media. The Post and the rest of the mainstream media are constantly insulting their readers’ intelligence when it comes to the subject of vaccines.

The government and media not only don’t educate the public about vaccines, but routinely lie to maintain public policy and ensure that parents remain obedient to the state, fall in line, and get their kids the damn shots.

For example, along the lines of the Post’s lie above, a CDC information sheet I picked up at a pediatrician’s office states that vaccines confer immunity “in the same way” as natural infection, but without causing symptoms of the disease — an outright lie, as already illustrated.

Another thing I picked up at the doc’s office is a pamphlet reassuring parents febrile seizures occur naturally in a certain percentage of the population and are no cause for great concern. Nowhere does it inform parents that vaccinating their child can increase the risk of febrile seizures. The pamphlet thus serves the propaganda purpose of conditioning any parent whose child suffers febrile seizures as a result of vaccination to believe that it is just a normal event completely dissociated from the shot they just got their child.

And on and on and on we could go.

Now, how does it make you feel to have your intelligence insulted and to be routinely lied to by the government and media?

There is a discussion to be had about vaccines. The media ought to start having it instead of exerting such tremendous effort to avoid doing so.

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!

 

Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

Download my free report 5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process.

My Books

Related Articles

67 Comments

  1. leaningona

    I enjoyed reading the article. How to explain to people about the info you’ve just presented? Hopefully the message will get out to as many people as possible. Again, it’s great to read something logical and wise.

    Reply
  2. Ben Price

    Brilliant article, thank you Jeremy. We are a country of vaccine zealots–despite the facts most believe the propaganda. (And, to be fair, citizens should be able to trust the CDC and FDA.) But why is mainstream media also a mouthpiece for the lies? What happened to the fourth estate?

    Reply
  3. Jeremy R. Hammond

    Thanks for your comment, Ben.

    To answer the question, in my analysis, it’s the adherence to the state religion that results in this phenomenon of media serving as the mouthpiece for government.

    Reply
  4. sabelmouse

    great article. i wish there was a pin button. it’s sooo hard to do manually!

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Where you see the social sharing buttons, if you click that gray button (with the three dots … ), it will bring up more options. A Pinterest button is one of them.

      Thanks!

      Reply
      • sabelmouse

        i am not sure that i’ve seen this share this pop up before.
        but thanks.

      • Graceds

        Sable, you have to go to the actual article, hit the headline, it will be on the left hand side.

  5. sabelmouse

    corporate power/money.

    Reply
  6. Myrto Ashe

    That is such a great question! Why isn’t the press on the side of the public interest? What side are they on and why? I think we have had a vicious cycle of corporate interests influencing everything including legislation and taxation, which leaves them with more money to do what they do. There is no question that journalists are offered “education”, and all repeat the same memes they learned at CDC’s vaccine school, or Cornell Alliance for Science GMO school (in fact they reference each other, with vaccine articles making fun of anti-GMO activists and pro-GMO articles making fun of anti-vaxxers). Yet, the only way to have a pro-complete-science opinion is to base an analysis on facts and not memes. It is a testament to people’s common sense that they even continue to question chemicals, GMOs, medications and vaccinations. It wouldn’t take much to have a revolt if people actually were presented with both sides of the argument. But the fact that a corporation can pay a journalist means that the richest corporations get their word out more effectively, passively (and actively) crowding out anyone else.

    Reply
    • Judith

      I often wondered how mainstream news seemed to collectively have similar news eulogizing the wonders of the latest vaccines and condemning people who question.

      “During a recent interview on the Progressive Radio Network, award-winning investigative medical journalist Celia Farber introduced an organization that has remained relatively hidden from the public’s view: Hollywood Health and Society (HHS), headquartered at the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications.[6] According to its website, the organization “provides entertainment industry professionals with accurate timely information on health storylines.” Farber describes HHS as “both horrendous and fascinating.” It delivers consultation, writers and scripts for television, Hollywood films and documentaries. And who offers this expert consultation? HHS’ top funders, including the CDC, the National Cancer Institute, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the world’s largest private financial source for vaccine development and propaganda the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

      HHS’s mission states:

      In partnership with our funding agencies, we offer several resources, including quick facts, briefings and consultations with experts, case examples, panel discussions about timely health issues, a quarterly newsletter with health updates called “Real to Reel,” and an expanding list of tip sheets written specifically for writers and producers. Tip sheets are available on the CDC website, as well as the NCI website. The broad range of topics includes influenza, toxic mold, smallpox, cancer, autism, motor vehicle crashes, obesity, adolescent health issues, antibiotic resistance, clinical trials and much more.[7]

      Consequently there is no surprise genie behind the media undertaking a collective effort to denounce the Vaxxed documentary. It also explains why these writers in unison condemned an unreleased film. What responsible reporter, with any degree of journalistic integrity, would judge a film based upon a three minute trailer? Yet that is exactly what occurred.”

      Reply
      • AutismDadd

        In today’s world they have news lines they all follow. They all use them rather than sending their own people. So easy to spread gossip that way.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      “It wouldn’t take much to have a revolt if people actually were presented with both sides of the argument.”

      Seriously!

      Reply
    • AutismDadd

      When someone is given the choice of SCIENCE verses ANTI-VACCINE NUTTERS there is no contest, even though that’s how that strategy works for Pharma and Government. Wakefield being the Number One Answer and example of attacks on his professional credibility. How 13 medically trained and experienced Royal Free Staff were backed into a corner by threat speaks volumes about whose side the General Medical Council was on. How these 13 went from doing jobs they were hired to do, trained to do, to become criminals because of a medical intervention and report is bizarre. The report published and hailed as a breakthrough regarding autism because it was the first time anyone even cared to try. We know media twisted the facts, as did Brian Deer (working for the British Medical journal at the time, funded mainly by GlaxoSmithKline and MERCK) and by the General Medical Council who publishes the BM Journal. The ties are obvious. The cherry on top? James Murdoch being appointed to the board of GSK after Wakefield was “convicted” by the kangaroo court.

      Reply
    • AutismDadd

      The main reason we seem to have consensus which includes the media, is that they tend to report what is mainstream. They are another form of parroting and because they are lazy and profit based, they will go where the $$$ is. Only some individuals (Del Bigtree) will fight back knowing they will be criticized, but its the individuals with this brand of courage that have always lead people, while those with much to lose discredit them. Media can also be part of Big Corporate and Big Investment, and they function as marketing tools for selling consumer goods like vaccines.

      Reply
  7. eggman2

    Good article

    Reply
      • eggman2

        Your , welcome

  8. Judith

    Thank you Jeremy – Debate has always been denied. There have been many doctors and scholars who have offered to debate but they have been refused every time. The film VAXXED has opened the door to debate but how vigorously will those invested in the vaccine industry oppose the smoking guns shown in this film De Nero has now come out saying he feels vaccines cause his son’s autism. What used to be taboo i.e. questioning vaccines is now becoming more mainstream. I predict mainstream media will not be able to hold the floodgates of truth much as they want to. Everyone who watches Trace Amounts and VAXXED is going to be asking questions…can they keep the silence going – I think not.

    Reply
    • padawan

      Good point! I will watch VAXXED tomorrow.

      Reply
      • John

        Don’t bother,it’s a load of crock.

      • padawan

        Oh, I’m sure it is.

        That’s the point.

        Have you seen Autistic Against Antivaxxers?

      • AutismDadd

        That’s another issue.

      • sabelmouse

        the slightly quirky fighting for their special,special, snowflake sttus not gigging a rodents behind for the seriously disabled? and maybe getting some kickbacks as well?

      • On Its Own Merits

        Please can you tell me how claiming it’s worse than a plague is ipso facto helpful to anyone?

        And stop using me in your epidemic figures and I’ll stop calling myself autistic.

        And your baseless shill gambit earned you a flag & a downvote.

        For the record, I fight for everyone.

      • sabelmouse

        worse than plague what?
        i barely ever talk to you, what would i use you for?
        you call yourself autistic?
        looked after a severely autistic person lately?

      • On Its Own Merits

        Autism, obviously. The 1 in 68 figure refers to all of the spectrum including Asperger’s. I’ll answer your questions when you answer mine.

      • Judith

        As a member of the pharma choir I am sure you would find the answers you want among them

      • On Its Own Merits

        And your evidence I am part of the pharma choir is what?

      • AutismDadd

        Your posts on all vaccine forums of course. Who but someone with a dog in the fight would be here daily?

      • 655321

        AD, I thought that’s normal people did…push agendas for private interests online daily?

      • One Other Person Is Typing

        Well, I didn’t say I didn’t have a dog in the fight, did I? I asked for evidence of being paid.

        You post on vaccine forums daily too – does that automatically mean you’re being paid? No.

      • AutismDadd

        I’m not a shill. Its obvious you are.

      • AutismDadd

        Its common knowlege you shill

      • Jonathan Graham

        See that phrase “vaccine choir” rings pretty hollow. Most of the frequent pro-vaccine posters here write original responses. People like yourself, Ron Roy, Lowell Hubbs, nwo just provide copypasta.

        Which is more choir like, the people composing thoughtful arguments or your lot just regurgitating?

      • Renè

        Jonathan Graham is certainly a Pharma Choirboy [he gets bμttrαped by the Pharma Bishop too].

        I say him sing Ode to Glaxo last year at the Pharma Church in Atlanta last year. I’m pretty sure it was him in the third row, but it could have been some other ginger kid.

      • 655321

        Lol, rings as hollow as the nonsense you post here daily.

  9. Barbra Barbour

    Why isn’t this article sourced? In the entire list of “facts” presented by bulletpoints, there is not a single reference cited. No authority, no scientific article, nothing.

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      If only people were as skeptical of what they read in the propagandistic mainstream media about vaccines…

      There are several reasons I didn’t provide sources for the bullet points, among them being: the facts I stated aren’t controversial, I had limited time, and I’ve already written about them in other articles where I did provide sources, i.e., papers in the medical literature.

      If there’s something specific you’d like a source for, feel free to let me know.

      Reply
      • Barbra Barbour

        Then let’s take your first bullet point: The claim that no studies have been done between kids with no vaccinations and kids with vaccinations and ASD:

        “In all, the researchers analyzed the health records of 95,727 children, including more than 15,000 children unvaccinated at age 2 and more than 8,000 still unvaccinated at age 5. Nearly 2,000 of these children were considered at risk for autism because they were born into families that already had a child with the disorder.

        The report appears today in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.

        “Consistent with studies in other populations, we observed no association between MMR vaccination and increased ASD risk,” the authors write. “We also found no evidence that receipt of either one or two doses of MMR vaccination was associated with an increased risk of ASD among children who had older siblings with ASD.”

        https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/no-mmr-autism-link-large-study-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-kids

        I’ll stop here and leave some of the more extraordinary claims in your article to others with more time on their hands. This was a basic Google search that took me just a few moments.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        What a wonderful attempt to obfuscate the truth of what I stated, that “there has never been a study comparing rates of autism in children who’ve received the CDC’s scheduled vaccinations and children who remained unvaccinated.”

        What I actually said, of course, remains true.

      • Judith

        The claim that there have been no studies on unvaccinated/vaccinated apart from tiny under 100 unvaccinated children – is correct: Lets look at your Jama study:

        The Lewin Group who funded this study have strong ties to pharmaceutical companies and this was NOT a vaccinated/unvaccinated study

        “As it turns out, the Lewin Group works directly with drug corporations like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk, two of which actually manufacture vaccines. The Lewin Group is also in partnership with pharmaceutical associations and organizations like the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), whose “Fact Book” claims that “governments have reasons to promote vaccination.”

        This same group advocates for the continued development of new vaccines to address infectious diseases that it claims “remain uncontrolled.” This is a clear conflict of interest because it is highly unlikely that PhRMA or any other association that works with the Lewin Group would ever play a part in producing a study that questions the safety or effectiveness of the products it markets and sells.

        It is worth noting that some of the other organizations in partnership with the Lewin Group include the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, not to mention a number of other hospitals and healthcare systems that actively promote vaccines as being among the greatest public health achievements of the Twentieth Century.”

      • Barbra Barbour

        Jeremy: This is your statement: “there has never been a study comparing rates of autism in children who’ve received the CDC’s scheduled vaccinations and children who remained unvaccinated.”
        I posted exactly such a study, so your claims of obfuscating the truth are wrong.

        Judith: You claim that “The claim that there have been no studies on unvaccinated/vaccinated apart from tiny under 100 unvaccinated children – is correct: Lets look at your Jama study:”
        Yes, let’s look at that study that involved 15,000 kids – far more than 100 – and please tell me what you are talking about.

        As far as the study being biased goes, if you can find a research study not funded by someone, I’m interested. Everything is funded by someone, and the claims that if an organization with an interest in the research necessarily negates that research, then there isn’t a good study around.
        The farmers who grow broccoli pay a marketing agency to tell you that broccoli is good for you, and I don’t see you questioning that clear conflict of interest.

        This article is unsourced and full of garbage. The logical fallacies are rampant. This jumps out:
        “Despite reassuring claims from the government, media, and medical establishment that studies have conclusively shown that there is no association between vaccines and autism, they admit they don’t have any other answer for what does cause autism, and there has never been a study comparing rates of autism in children who’ve received the CDC’s scheduled vaccinations and children who remained unvaccinated.”

        And by your logic that means vaccines cause autism? That’s your first bullet point, what a way to get off to a terrible start.
        Perhaps you have a lot of tin foil hat wearing people that think you’re awesome and don’t mind the lack of facts, but your journalism is about as lacking as could be.

        I’ve noticed two things about the people who claim vaccines harm you:
        1. They are all vaccinated
        2. None of them have autism.

        And the 3rd thing that seems pretty obvious is that not a one of them can read past the source list on a study. Maybe that’s why you don’t bother posting anything to back up your claims.

      • Judith

        You claim that the JAMA study was a vaccinated/unvaccinated study – it was not
        They only compared children who did not receive the MMR vaccine – and called them unvaccinated – when in fact, they received other vaccines. Also they included the *unvaccinated* if they did not receive BOTH doses of MMR (but indeed received the first MMR dosage).

        Tom Jefferson of Cochrane acknowledges there has been no proper placebo group.

        “As MMR vaccine is universally recommended, recent studies are constrained by the lack of a non-exposed control group. We were unable to include a majority of the retrieved studies because a comparable, clearly defined control group or risk period was not available.

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6264697_Unintended_events_following_immunization_with_MMR_A_systematic_review

        The Placebo is almost always another vaccine.

        Before a new vaccine can be licensed by the FDA, it must first be tested by something called “concomitant use studies.” Concomitant use studies require new vaccines to be tested with existing vaccines. (A bit like a tobacco company testing cigarettes with another brand of cigarettes and declaring its product safe because there is no difference in the health outcomes of the two groups).

        Also you would know that the excuse given for not doing controlled randomised double blind studies on vaccines is always: controlled randomized double blind studies are unethical in certain circumstances, including the testing of vaccines.

        http://www.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/too-many-vaccines.pdf

        Dr Colleen Boyle of the CDC testified under oath that no studies have been done on vaccinated/unvaccinated populations

        Posey: My time is very limited here. Clearly, definitely, unequivocally you have studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated?

        Boyle: We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated ..

        if you have an example of a vaccinated/unvaccinated study I would be very interested but have never come across one.

      • padawan

        Lurkers:

        Judith is unaware that 15,000>100. Sure you want to take medical advice from them?

      • AutismDadd

        Oh lurkers. Yes Vaccine Safety Advocates must stalk people. Well we do stalk the truth and we want it now!

      • AutismDadd

        Mr Trailer Park Stupid posts more nonsense.

      • AutismDadd

        Fix your juvenile brain

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Jeremy: This is your statement: “there has never been a study comparing rates of autism in children who’ve received the CDC’s scheduled vaccinations and children who remained unvaccinated.”

        I posted exactly such a study…

        No, in fact, you did not.

        And by your logic that means vaccines cause autism?

        I’ve no interest in debating a strawman argument.

        Once again, you’re comment is a wonderful example of an attempt to obfuscate the issue.

      • AutismDadd

        All the pro talking points including tinfoil hats. Yawn you must all take the same course.

      • 655321

        Yes, they do. In the financial industry they have the morning “squawk box” , its a company directive on what to sell and push. Safe to assume it’s similar in the paid to post for pharma industry.

      • AutismDadd

        What’s your point? You aren’t clear.

      • AutismDadd

        Jama and Autismspeaks are pro-vaccine and use of them as an “independent” source is on shaky ground.

      • padawan

        Try – I read Pubmed.

      • Nom De Disqus

        Yeah…that’s what I thought.

        Pubmed. You do know what that is, right?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Yes, I know what PubMed is. I’ve spent a great deal of time there. Hence the above blog post. If you have a criticism about something I’ve written, I welcome you to try to point to any error in fact or logic on my part.

      • AutismDadd

        Shill justthefacts is now One Other Person Is Typing, a poorly informed misinformation spreading trouble maker.

      • AutismDadd

        Here to spread misinfo as usual?

    • AutismDadd

      But its fine for media to do it in newspapers and TV commercials?

      Reply
  10. padawan

    Hired the independent scientists yet?

    Reply
  11. AutismDadd

    Read a bunch about Vaccinosis in animals and many stories from pet owners whose dogs had seizures after vaccines. Similar to vaccines pushed for profit in humans, vets push them as YEARLY shots.

    Reply
    • 655321

      Spoke with my dogs vet, and she the following almost word for word…they only give 1 vaccination per visit because they know the detrimental effects on the animals by giving more than 1 vaccine per visit. She also stated they wait at least 2 weeks between individual shots. She said they as a clinic would never do that(multiple shots) to a dog, cat or horse, and that she thought we were crazy when doing this to children. She said we are treating animals better than humans, and that she didn’t believe individual vaccines were bad, but that they way are being given to humans is “very, very bad.”

      Reply
  12. AutismDadd

    It was BOUGHT in one way or another

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This