Cynthia A. Janak
February 9, 2011
The pro-vaccine rhetoric makes me sick
By Cynthia A. Janak

I have not written in over a year due to my own experience with a doctor (which I now call snake oil salesmen) who prescribed an antibiotic, I believe inappropriately, without reading my chart or talking to me first. This happened when I was in the hospital for a brief time in the beginning of December of 2009. Within 6 hours I started to experience swelling and extreme pain in my left hand making it difficult to use a fork or anything. The doctor dismissed this swelling as I must have hit my hand. In two months after leaving the hospital the swelling and pain came back with a vengeance and affected my feet, hands and other parts of my body. This was not a good time.

During the last year because of this I have researched and read many scientific papers and studies to ascertain why this could have happened to me. What I found was amazing and informative and a topic of future articles. So, I changed my diet to a degree and in time the swelling and pain subsided for the most part. It has also brought me closer to the debate about autism, HPV vaccine injuries, other diseases and their causes.

Now that I am back from my forced hiatus I am going to rebut an article posted on Bloomberg, February 7, 2011, by Amity Shlaes. The title is "Parents who don't vaccinate children make us sick." I thought this article was funny in a sad way because crucial information was left out and the comments she made. Let me start.

In the beginning she talks about parents and how we are hardwired to respect their decisions with child rearing. Here is the first quote. "We gave them a job to do, so we should let them do it." Unfortunately, her article is anything but what she states here.

I believe that she fails to understand that children do not come with an owner's manual so as parents it is our responsibility to use our own experiences and research via inquiry or reading books, articles, etc. to determine what is best for our own children. Those parents should be commended for doing just that and taking responsibility.

Shlaes admonishes this group of concerned educated parents as being "treacherous." This is what she said, "The treacherous group is those parents, predominately those of some financial means, who refuse to vaccinate their children."

She also believes that "poor parents are more sensible" and touts this statistic as proof "report that 91.2 percent of Medicaid children receive the measles-mumps rubella vaccine." These parents usually are more concerned with putting food on the table and a roof over their children's head. They do not have the luxury of being able to do the research or buy the books to become informed on this issue. They have to rely upon the opinions of doctors (snake oil salesmen) and the media.

What is really going on here is that "those parents, predominately those of some financial means" took an extra step to do their own research. I believe they wanted to find out for themselves if there was any truth to the debate over Autism and vaccination. The truth is that this educated, "treacherous" group of parents either does not vaccinate or limit the vaccines their children receive with a modified vaccination schedule.

Let us examine why this might be happening. Could it be that they found the research that references aluminum is a neurotoxin and has the potential to cause brain damage or neurodevelopment disorders? Do you think they heard, at some point in time, Bill Gates reference vaccines and reduce population growth in the same sentence? [1] Another reason could be that they know a family whose baby was developing normally and when that baby received a vaccination regressed and was diagnosed as Autistic? We do not know their reasons because these questions were never asked by Ms. Shlaes.

Every day we listen to individuals with PhD's, MD's, and other consonants behind their names because they are educated. Why are we not allowed to listen to other educated individuals who do not have the education designation after their name? Instead, this class of educated individuals is berated, called names and other designations by the media and pharmaceutical companies (who stand to make a profit). Interesting.

Here is another choice quote. "Fortunately, the anti-vaccine crowd's ability to create public-health problems was limited by the federal government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program." My question is this. How does this limit the creation of "public-health problems"? This program was to compensate parents in the event that their child does suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccine. This shows me a possible lack of research into this program and misrepresented facts.

She goes on to admonish former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jenny McCarthy. I wonder if she feels the same about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Joe Lieberman and Joe Scarborough to name a few. These are also educated individuals.

Then Shlaes goes on to mention a mumps outbreak in New York and measles in San Diego. What she fails to tell you are how many of the children contracted the mumps or measles were properly vaccinated. This important information was omitted. OOPS.

She then brings up the infamous Dr. Paul Offit. "Offit is beholden to the pharmaceutical business, having developed RotaTeq," He takes pro-vaccination to the point, in my opinion, of a compulsive behavior disorder. She further states, "Offit said in an e-mail that he receives no royalties from RotaTeq sales." Did Shlaes ask to see if Offit has stock in Merck? We will never know.

This is my favorite. "Non-vaccinators aren't merely endangering their own children, or even other children whose parents oppose vaccination. All newborns must wait several months to be old enough for vaccinations. Vaccines are often too risky for people with compromised immune systems, regardless of age. It's newborns and chemotherapy patients, already physically vulnerable, who pay the price for parental NIMBYism [2]."

It is obvious by this statement that she did not do much research into the vaccination schedule. Newborns get vaccinated within the first day of birth with the helpatitis B vaccine and other vaccines in those first few months another OOPS by omission on her part.

Another omission is that most vaccines have a virus either dead or attenuated as a component. These viruses have the potential to be shed for 21 days after administered. So, my question here is whether it is the un-vaccinated giving the disease to these individuals or the vaccinated giving the disease to the un-vaccinated and these individuals via shedding? No one is asking this question. Why? I think it is because if this was a fact known to the general population then vaccinated children would have to be quarantined for three weeks after vaccinations because the safety of the public would demand it.

It is my wish that anyone who writes an article for any publication should be required to research fully each item presented for accuracy. I am a lay person and I can back up all my statements with scientific proof. Why can't they?

To finish here is her bio for this article. "Amity Shlaes, a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)" Emphasis is mine.

If you look at this debate from an economic stand point the pharmaceutical industry stands to make a profit from every vaccine that they create and they do employ many people.

Personally, I would rather see all the money that is made from the manufacture of vaccines to go to better health practices like clean water, food production, better sanitation, environmental toxin remediation, clean energy and a host of other programs that would benefit the world and not only an elite few.

My opinion is that this is just another example of the type of journalism predominate in the media today. It is biased and not well researched by this independent. I find it sad that Bloomberg did not require accuracy and just put a disclaimer "The opinions expressed are her own."

Off topic side note: Doesn't Bill Gates understand the concept that if you plant more trees you can remediate the CO2 in the atmosphere naturally? [3] I wonder how many trees Gates could have planted in the world with the billions he spends on promoting vaccine programs. Or how many families would appreciate him for providing clean drinking water, better sanitation and food. What is the point of getting a vaccine if you could die from dysentery or malnutrition anyway?

NOTES:

[1]  http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/03/gupta.gates.vaccines.world.health Bill Gates: Vaccine-autism link 'an absolute lie' By Danielle Dellorto, CNN, February 4, 2011 11:25 a.m. EST

[2]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY Not in my backyard — "NIMBY and its derivative terms NIMBYism, NIMBYs, and NIMBYists, refer implicitly to debates of development generally or to a specific case."

[3]  http://www.botany.org/planttalkingpoints/co2andtrees.php "Plants are the air-purifiers for planet earth. They clean it, and in doing so produce the oxygen we, and all animals need to survive. This happens through one of the most amazing chemical reactions you can imagine, photosynthesis." "Photosynthesis is an extremely complex process. In its simplest form, this important reaction convert CO2 [carbon dioxide] and H2O [water] plus energy [sunlight] into O2 [oxygen] and (C6H12O6) [glucose]. The oxygen goes into the air you breathe."

© Cynthia A. Janak

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Cynthia A. Janak

Cynthia Janak is a freelance journalist, mother of three, foster mother of one, grandmother of five, business owner, Chamber of Commerce member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Cynthia A. Janak: Click here

More by this author