A Conversation About Vaccination

I would like to be able to share information and ideas without getting my head torn off and starting a screaming match.

Quick background on me:

- I have a degree in Biochemistry
- I'm prone to getting sucked into conspiracy theories

I want to talk about vaccination! I think both sides of the of the argument have some interesting points. I thought permies might be a good place to explore the concepts, with extreme politeness. We could share scholarly articles and actually read scientific papers instead of Huffington post blogs. We can also acknowledge that scientific literature has it flaws and debate the merit of certain findings/results. We can acknowledge the personal experiences and accounts can provide some insight. We could share alternative literature. We could debate our points of view with data, and facts, and even well articulated feelings (if polite!). Maybe we have some misinformation we didn't even know about!

I think the heart of the issue is the either side thinks the other is killing/hurting babies. I'd like to look at it a different way; that everyone wants the best for our children and communities. I feel like everyone on permies is vested in making the world a better place. That everyone wants things to be better for everyone.

Hey! Maybe together we can work our way through the mud so we can articulate to others why we choose to do the things we do.

So send me your best sources of information on the topic! AND GO! (... with extreme politeness)

I can only boil it down to my experiences, but I believe in vaccinations.

I say this because when I first got into sheep farming, I did not understand what vaccines were needed, and what was marketing ploy, and my farm in Maine is very different then a feedlot with 3000 sheep in Montana. But when I had 40 lambs die in a single season, and found out CD and T could have prevented it, this bares a striking resemblance to what happens to my kids at school if I did not give it to them, or other kids were not vaccinated.

I wish I could home school, or even send them to Christian schools nearby, but out of 4 children, three have other parents that would NEVER allow that. So for me, public school is the ONLY option, at least for 3 of 4 children.

And I have seen some scary stuff, like a 9 year old who had the side of ger face get all swollen because she drank unpasturized goat milk, or a farm close by that had to shut its door because it sold unpasturized milk and a man got sick and sued them. (Selling raw milk is legal in Maine...one of few states where you can).

I do give my kids limited vaccinations, and always refuse the flu virus vaccinations and that kind of stuff, but for the bigger ones, I want them to have it...as well as the kids they are around.

My feelings about vaccinations come almost exclusively from personal experiences. One of my best friends kids had whooping cough as an infant. It was devastating she almost died, and has brain damage as a result. My oldest daughter has HPV and has had to endure numerous biopsies as a result. My third child is immune deficient and while he receives vaccines they don't work like they are supposed to in him, so herd immunity is important. Things the others can handle, he gets very ill for a long time from.

I know some people who don't vaccinate and some of it I just don't understand. If you don't interact with others, I can see how the vaccines for infectious diseases would be less meaningful, but what about tetanus. Living rurally without a tetanus vaccine seems like a bad idea. It's supposed to be a fairly nasty death.

Just a heads up ...     the staff are watching this thread carefully.   If any of 40 different (untrained volunteer) staff find any post on here violates our publishing standards (by the iterpretation of even one staff member), the post will be removed.   And it is possible that apple cores will be doled out for good or errant (depending on your views) reasons.  

I think this is a good time to remind people to state your position and not "the truth."

We have staff on both sides of the fence on this issue - and most of the staff are choosing to not post here because they have been down the road of controversy in the cider press before.

would you get your pets shots for distemper and rabies?why not protect yourself or your children from mumps, measles ect
whats happening with adverse reactions to vaccinations could be something like why are so many people now having alergic reactions to stuff like peanuts.

better go fill your car with voters next election so national institute of health, national labs and usda scientists can be rehired to answer some of these questions with scientific facts rather than propaganda and rumors created by chemical marketing firms and pr comanies

I guess I play devil's advocate to try and draw out some of the topic I'm interested in. I'm going to be COMPLETELY HONEST HERE. I watch the documentary series "The Truth About Vaccines". It seems really convincing but I'm at a loss as to where to start my own research to confirm or deny these points. I can't be the only one, I have sold background in the sciences and even I'm feeling dizzy.  

1) Andrew Wakefield Study

Has anyone actually read the original study? I can't seem to get my hands on the original study.  Why is this important? Because all I hear about the study only through second or third hand account of the information contained in the study.

I'm going to use the term conspiracy in the way it's actually meant to be used (someone conspired against not a crazy or alternative idea).

The argument I hear is that the study was pulled by 'big pharma' to hide that there is an issue with vaccines. I say this not to start diving into the whole 'big pharma' (which I do want to explore but not with an into like that). I've 'heard' that his research was actually into the correlation between autism and gastrointestinal disorders and that in his discussion section (not his results) he hypothesizes that one of the influences for these gastro issues is linked to vaccination and recommends further research. I find the concept of our gastrointestinal health being related to neurological disorders fascinating! Personal experience:  I have a friend with a little girl who is on the spectrum and she manages her behaviour largely through fermented food and avoiding sugar (super cool!).

Would love to hear if anyone has actually read the study or has more information on how the document was falsified.

I "hear" that in Egypt they have done studies supporting that vaccination is correlated with autism... I can't find them or they are not translated to a language I can read?

2) Toxins in vaccines (might require further break down).

Okay so this is a weird one for me in conversations that I've manage to have read angry blogs about. Here is an oversimplified version.

Anti- Vaxx : Vaccines contain mercury

Pro-Vaxx : The amount of mercury in a vaccine is less than in a tuna fish sandwich.

Me: Don't they tell pregnant women not to eat fish because of mercury toxicity (and other heavy metals) and the implications on the developing fetus?

The other argument I hear is our bodies have been evolved to handle some level of heavy metal toxicity, but again, we are exposed to it through our skin and digestive tract, not directly through our blood (skipped a few membranes and filter organs). The second argument I hear is that the form mercury found in nature is different than what is found in vaccines and this form is smaller compound that can more easily pass through the blood brain barrier.

Do they even still use mercury in vaccines? Man I need an immunologist for a friend!

Honestly, I'm too scared to bring it up with nurses and doctors I know for fear of being exiled

I guess this still doesn't address the sort of "cost-benefit" analysis. If there is a risk for vaccination does that out way overall population health? Wow I think that would start to pull in a lot of other environmental factors but the literature I've seen is still a resounding yes- heard immunity is awesome.

I guess I struggle with the fact it seems like the fox is guarding the hen house. Vaccines are largely developed and tested by the companies that would be benefiting from them. FDA studies are often not completed by unbiased third parties. I've also 'hear' about account of companies falsifying human trials to get their product to market. I think flu shots are the perfect example. The flu virus mutates so fast that when the develop a vaccine it often "fails" because by the time the get it into production it has already mutated. Does the chance of it helping off set the millions of dollars it costs (I live in Canada so yay health care!) or would that money be better spent in preventative care (access to healthy food). Also the fact that the HPV vaccine is so heavily advertised to my on YouTube. I swear every other add is for the vaccine. Is it a PSA or a money making scheme?

Ahhhh.... so complicated. Anyone have some books on the subject? I would love a good immunology book that has been updated with research past the 2000s. Would love some comments.

My general sense is that antivaccination sentiment is a direct result of a deep mistrust of the companies that produce them and of the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee those companies behaviors. A large swath of the population simply doesn't trust companies like Ely Lily and Merk and doesn't trust the integrity of the FDA in their role as objective verifiers of the safety of pharmaceutical products. this distrust is amplified by the general situation of people who are provaccination misunderstanding and misrepresenting these concerns. Of the people I've talked to, very few of them are at all concerned about autism, they are generally concerned about 'allergic' type reactions and inflammatory responses.

There is also the alienation of unvaccinated kids/families. As we've already seen on this thread there is a perception that an unvaccinated child must be carrying infectious diseases and that they are inherently a danger to the general population. My understanding is that even vaccinated people can carry a disease they are vaccinated against, but an unvaccinated person is more likely to be showing symptoms and thus know that they are carrying the illness.

Hyperbole on both sides seems to be the biggest hurdle to a productive discussion

https://www.learntherisk.org/news/harold-buttram-md/

I felt fortunate 30plus years ago to have this doctor in my corner (and right AROUND the corner) when I struggled to decide whether or not to continue immunizations after my 1st son had a bad reaction to his first set of shots.  This decision should be VOLUNTARY, not mandatory.

Hyperbole on both sides seems to be the biggest hurdle to a productive discussion

So true! I often think that people's passion often inhibits their ability to convince/enlighten people of their perspective.

Back to Micheal's point: I read the book "Escaping the Rabbit Hole" how to debunk conspiracy with fact, logic, and respect.

I feel like the conversations these days really lacks the RESPECT aspect. Aren't we all trying to make the world a better place?

There's a basic intro the US process here: https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/resources/84521booklet.pdf

My understanding is that you're required to submit a claim with the VICP before trying to sue, to avoid tying up court time on cases that can be resolved through the simple submission process. If the VICP denies your claim, you can then sue in civil court. See p8 point 10: "The... decision may be appealed to a judge of the Court by the petitioner or HHS, then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, finally, to the U.S. Supreme Court."

1. I'm not personally interested in reading his work because I don't have anywhere near the expertise needed to assess it myself. If you have pubmed access through work, have you tried starting there? If you don't or it's not there, have you tried sci-hub?

2. I didn't know the answer to this so I looked it up and found this: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-thimerosal-color-office.pdf It sounds like the type of mercury in vaccines is different from the type of mercury in fish (which is methylmercury) and they are metabolized differently. Also sounds like they've removed mercury from almost all of the vaccines now.

Another part of this not mentioned in the link is the tradeoffs of the mercury in fish vs the mercury in vaccines. There's not really a big serious downside to avoiding tuna fish while pregnant. But if the mercury in the flu vaccines and older versions of other vaccines is what prevents it from causing deadly bacterial infections, that's a much bigger issue. Avoiding vaccines for easily-preventable diseases can also be deadly. If not eating tuna fish while pregnant could potentially kill your baby, the CDC would probably recommend pregnant women eat it despite any small chance of the mercury causing problems.

Big Pharma definitely needs as much oversight as possible IMO, as with any other large industry, especially one so connected to human health. But I don't really think that other forms of preventative medicine could fully replace vaccines. I think it can work to some extent for the flu, if you're otherwise healthy, but I would be very worried if I was relying on good diet and exercise to fend off more serious diseases like MMR, polio, tetanus, etc.

From what I understand the main issue with flu shots is less that they mutate too fast and more that there are a whole bunch of strains and different ones "take off" each year. It's not reasonably-possible to vaccinate against every possible strain so the epidemiologists have to predict which strains are going to take off this year, and sometimes they get it wrong. Here's a Canadian article from last year's flu season about this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-vaccine-health-canada-1.4865403

I haven't seen any ads for HPV vaccine on YouTube or really anywhere. YouTube ads are personalized, so if you've been spending a lot of time reading articles and watching videos about vaccinations, that might be why you're seeing them. Now that I've spent all this time poking around I will probably start getting them now too. :P  

Wow! Thanks Meg! I'll start chipping away with that.

Unfortunately I no longer have pub med access as I'm no longer-affiliated with any university.  I'll see what else I can try.

Laura: His book looks very interesting. Maybe I can get a copy through my library.

Ashley Cottonwood wrote:
I would like to be able to share information and ideas without getting my head torn off and starting a screaming match.......Aren't we all trying to make the world a better place?

Given the diversity among those within the Permies community, I suspect there will be varying views with what constitutes "better place", although because of the interests of the group at large, less varying than if polling the general population.  The following not my idea, but certainly one that should be considered for the wider discussion:  Vaccination is a band-aid against the natural selection that would normally be acting on the human population.  There are many Permie-based plant breeding approaches that seek to maximize genetic diversity and encourage exposure to pathogens and extreme environments with the goal of selecting for the most adapted crop lines.  Yet even here, in some cases, intervention occurs via picking bugs off of a valued variety or venturing to use organic amendments for which evidence exists that such amendments reduce crop disease.  (Although plants share components of the "primitive" immune system with humans, it is the more recently-evolved immunoglobulin system that (along with the primitive system?) is what is primed in animals by vaccination.  'Induced systemic resistance' is conceptually the same in plants as vaccination, although the primitive system is what is being primed against the pathogen in this case.)  As with all new technologies of this nature, it's a tough call as to what degree of risk to self and species must arise before vaccines/antibiotics might be mandated.

Laura Emil wrote: This decision should be VOLUNTARY, not mandatory.

I don't have a problem with that as long as people who have not been immunized do not go among the rest of the "herd" but stay off on their own, not part of society.  Society as a whole has agreed to herd immunity, to prevent illness and death from disease and to protect those who are immunocompromized (such as my husband who has leukemia).  Those who do not agree to society's standards may enjoy living outside of society.  That is their voluntary decision.

John Weiland wrote: Vaccination is a band-aid against the natural selection that would normally be acting on the human population.

Human technology has enabled us to avoid a lot of "natural selection."  Technology is human, part of what makes us Homo sapiens sapiens.  Where do we draw the line on what is "natural"?   Paleolithic?  Neolithic?  Civilization?  Industrial?  Space Age?  ?

Tyler Ludens wrote:

John Weiland wrote: Vaccination is a band-aid against the natural selection that would normally be acting on the human population.

Human technology has enabled us to avoid a lot of "natural selection."  Technology is human, part of what makes us Homo sapiens sapiens.  Where do we draw the line on what is "natural"?   Paleolithic?  Neolithic?  Civilization?  Industrial?  Space Age?  ?

To be honest I'm not wholly against moving to the tropics so I can lay in a tree all day and eat mangoes, but I don't think the world can support 8 billion people on that lifestyle, and other people would probably get pretty mad, the ones calling themselves "governments" and "landowners" particularly.  This whole thing really started to go downhill when we discovered fire and learned to talk. :P

Meg Mitchell wrote: This whole thing really started to go downhill when we discovered fire and learned to talk. :P

That was before we were even Homo sapiens sapiens!  Roll back the clock!  ;)

(early hominids got eaten by big cats a lot, so it wasn't all relaxation and mangoes!)

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Laura Emil wrote: This decision should be VOLUNTARY, not mandatory.

I don't have a problem with that as long as people who have not been immunized do not go among the rest of the "herd" but stay off on their own, not part of society.  Society as a whole has agreed to herd immunity, to prevent illness and death from disease and to protect those who are immunocompromized (such as my husband who has leukemia).  Those who do not agree to society's standards may enjoy living outside of society.  That is their voluntary decision.

this is the sentiment that is disturbing to me. Do we have any evidence that unvaccinated people are vectors for disease? The much touted outbreak of measels this past year affected primarily vaccinated people (which raises it's own set of questions about the efficacy of these) and I saw no reporting that indicated that an unvaccinated person was the vector that introduced the contagen. It's interesting to look at the correlation in timing between a decrease in these infectious diseases, vaccinations, and massive improvements in sanitation as well as the meeting of basic caloric requirements for large swaths of the population. And the same thing is happening now, the few places where many of these diseases survive happen to be extremely remote and experience almost unbelievably low levels of sanitation and high levels of near starvation. And again, I don't see any evidence that vaccinated people cannot be vectors of disease (and it appears to me might be more effective vectors because their vaccination would spare them the outward symptoms) and I don't see evidence that herd immunity works (afterall commercial livestock which is literally 100% vaccinated still experiences periodic outbreaks of disease and feedlots are a disturbingly accurate model of human cities) so this push to say that unvaccinated people must be ostracized doesn't seem to be rooted in anything substantial beyond raw emotion (which is certainly substantial, and I can see the argument that people conforming to a group have a right to have their negative emotions assuaged even if there isn't hard evidence of the efficacy of the solution).

Medical mistakes and hospital born superbugs are statistically much more likely culprits in your eventual death (probably orders of magnitude more so for our immunocompromised compadres) than any vaccine preventable illness, and yet it is the system that creates medical mistakes and hospital born superbugs that insists it has the monopoly on medical truth and best practices. I personally find it surprising that more people aren't skeptical

My belief is that genuine research needs to be conducted and decisions about vaccination need to be voluntary. We all live in different circumstances and need to make the best choices we can identify for ourselves and our loved ones.

stephen lowe - I do agree that vaccinated people can be vectors for disease. My son, who is immune compromised, has had shingle over a dozen times. If one has shingles, you are infectious with chicken pox. But I think that's why herd immunity is so important. It isn't enough to protect your own. My knowledge of livestock issues imply it's not so simple. In my experience, it's mostly affluent people, in the US, who are anti-vaxxers. They are not, generally, at risk for unclean water or lack of medical care.

And as someone who's whole family is colonized with MRSA, I don't disagree with that threat, but one doesn't exclude the other.

Tyler Ludens wrote:I don't have a problem with that as long as people who have not been immunized do not go among the rest of the "herd" but stay off on their own, not part of society.

IMO this reasoning suggests that ALL unvaccinated people stay outside society. Why are healthy people demonized as being vectors for disease?

I'm pro-vaccination. That doesn't mean I get every jab that exists - some discretion, particularly in regards to flu shots where immune system learning is important for normal, healthy people.

People who are totally anti-vacc would be better served concentrating on the horrific consequences of diseases that vaccines prevent, than on the minuscule risk vaccines present.

My older brother was born before polio vaccines were available. He caught the disease, but fortunately was given a rigorous exercise and manipulation program that reduced damage. Others weren't as fortunate - Google 'Iron Lung', 'Sister Elizabeth Kenny'.

On another thread concerning this same discussion, I noted that many cancers are linked to viruses e.g. 70% of Cervical cancers are caused by HPV, which now has a vaccine.

The discussion on vaccination cannot be separated from food treatments like pasteurisation.

Before such treatments, diseases like Tuberculosis, Brucellosis, Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever, etc were MAJOR killer of all ages. And, if the disease didn't kill, the resulting ongoing effects certainly reduced quality of life and life expectancy.

Two or three of my Great Aunts died from tuberculosis, my Uncle survived Scarlet Fever.

I cringe when people start espousing the benefits of 'raw milk', 'raw cheese', etc. Look to history ... failure to learn from it, doomed to repeat it.

Ironically, if you do catch one of these preventable diseases, it will be followed by a lengthy stay in hospital (probably an 'Infectious Ward') and loaded up with mass injections of drugs to combat the disease and the accompanying effects on the body!

Statistically, the longer the stay in hospital, the higher the chances of catching something worse than what caused the initial hospitalisation.

So, to reduce all the above mentioned risk to an extremely small percentage, I opt for vaccination thanks!

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Laura Emil wrote: This decision should be VOLUNTARY, not mandatory.

I don't have a problem with that as long as people who have not been immunized do not go among the rest of the "herd" but stay off on their own, not part of society.  Society as a whole has agreed to herd immunity, to prevent illness and death from disease and to protect those who are immunocompromized (such as my husband who has leukemia).  Those who do not agree to society's standards may enjoy living outside of society.  That is their voluntary decision.

I agree wholeheartedly. Make it part of school enrolment. I was given a choice when I went to Kenya. Get vaccinated for yellow fever and we will let you in. Sounds reasonable. So I did. Stacks of dead visitors are bad for business. When they put the railway from Uganda to the coast, the British lost about 75% of their men to disease.

The majority of visitors now return home healthy. I avoided tetsi fly areas, and crocodiles, since they can't vaccinate against everything.

Dale Hodgins wrote:

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Laura Emil wrote: This decision should be VOLUNTARY, not mandatory.

I don't have a problem with that as long as people who have not been immunized do not go among the rest of the "herd" but stay off on their own, not part of society.  Society as a whole has agreed to herd immunity, to prevent illness and death from disease and to protect those who are immunocompromized (such as my husband who has leukemia).  Those who do not agree to society's standards may enjoy living outside of society.  That is their voluntary decision.

I agree wholeheartedly. Make it part of school enrolment. I was given a choice when I went to Kenya. Get vaccinated for yellow fever and we will let you in. Sounds reasonable. So I did. Stacks of dead visitors are bad for business. When they put the railway from Uganda to the coast, the British lost about 75% of their men to disease.

The majority of visitors now return home healthy. I avoided tetsi fly areas, and crocodiles, since they can't vaccinate against everything.

Yes, this. I hate being forced into things. But, the whole thing does not work if a modest number opt out and stay mixed in.

It's kind of like smoking. Within my life, most places I visit have figured out that the right of people in general to breath cleanish air, must trump the right of certain people to smoke in certain public spaces.


I can entirely empathize with those who are scared of government incompetence/corruption and corporate self interest leading to mistakes, cover-ups, and decisions to sacrifice the few for the many, which only work well if you/yours are not part of the few.

These are real and reasonable concerns.

I strongly believe the way to address them is not boycotting vaccines, but rather pressuring governments and corporations for greater oversight, accountability, and transparency.


(Of course, the option to leave would be much more palatable if there was an 'anywhere' left to go. There is no great empty this side of escape velocity... )


Would a crocodile vaccine entail feeding just a few toes to one, so your body can react by growing armour and developing a pathological terror of bodies of water?

Today's old people who lived through a time when diseases like polio were still around in WESTERN society seem pro-vax because they've seen first-hand the horror that serious but preventable diseases can wreak on people. It seems to me that the privileged, white, younger generations who never saw or dealt with these diseases are the ones most willing to take the risk of not vaccinating. In the third-world, the only anti-vax movements seem to be Muslim fundamentalists who think anything modern and originating from the west (other than weapons) is inherently bad and so must be resisted.

Australia's government stopped giving child welfare payments for unvaccinated kids a few years ago and I think children who attend school are required to be vaccinated now.

Ashley Cottonwood wrote:1) Andrew Wakefield Study
 Has anyone actually read the original study? I can't seem to get my hands on the original study.  Why is this important? Because all I hear about the study only through second or third hand account of the information contained in the study. 

 I've 'heard' that his research was actually into the correlation between autism and gastrointestinal disorders and that in his discussion section (not his results) he hypothesizes that one of the influences for these gastro issues is linked to vaccination and recommends further research.

I believe this is the paper you are asking for(attached at the bottom). It's still available full text on the lancet website, which is easier to read through the retracted stamps all over it.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

It may be hard to find because neither the title nor the experiments conducted have anything to do with vaccines.

I gave it a quick read and it's pretty much what you said:

"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."

Looking at the paper on it's own, without even getting into why it was retracted, I see a couple red flags:

First, the small sample size:

"12 children (mean age 6 years [range 3–10], 11 boys)"

Second, the vague method of collection and description of behavioral histories:

"In eight children, the onset of behavioural problems had been linked, either by the parents or by the child's physician, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination."

Sounds vague to me, only eight? by the parents? no offense to other parents, but I don't remember how my two year old behaved a year ago. By the physician? Linked how? 

It seems to me like the mmr vaccine comments are shoehorned in, unless you were writing a proposal for further funding or something. The paper mostly has to do with gastrointestinal symptoms and immunology. At best, I think this paper says that a few people seem to have experienced autistic symptoms shortly after their mmr vaccine, we should look into if there could be a link...

This paper is from 1998, seems recent to me until I remember that is twenty years ago! This paper was interesting at the time and merited more research, which has been done.

This paper in no way supports  the claim that there is a causal link between vaccines and autism. 

One more time: 

"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."

I feel that the fact that this one paper is still, twenty years later, being touted as proof (which science doesn't do anyway) that vaccines cause autism is a testament to the scientific literacy of the population. 

Anyway, give it a read. I'm happy to discuss further!

Once again, I agree with Tyler. I can be lazy and just watch .
........
They don't have a crocodile vaccine. My friend had a schoolmate who was bitten as a child. Every kid at school saw those wounds and heard the stories of where it is safe to swim, (upland streams) and where it is not.
(swampy margins of Lake Victoria and large rivers) The hippos are worse.

What I don't like about the vaccine issue is that there are no debates.....


I would love to see both sides of the issue in public debate on TV.      


The line was crossed for me when they removed the exemption for taking vaccines in NY, and now being pushed in CA.


I believe people should have the right to choose the medical care they are given them, when you take that right away you are no longer function as a care giver but as  their God, you take this vaccine regardless of what you believe, and regardless of your research.


Just like I can choose strawberries or choose apples, I should have the right to choose what medical care I get,  I do not trust government to make that choice for me.


The problems I see with vaccines as they sit.


1)   You cannot sue the vaccine manufactures for damage the vaccines cause.     Instead it goes to a special court and our tax dollars pay for the damages.     How is this justice???

2)   The vaccines today are not tested before they are deployed we are the test subjects.

3)    Injecting me with mercury and baby / animal body parts does not set right with me.

4)    Those who ask questions are vilified for asking questions.        

5)     The CDC   has hidden reports from the permies.        This does not bode well for my trust of them.

https://www.brighteon.com/channel/liverpool8997


Play list of videos that are banned off platforms like Amazon, and Pintrest.

stephen lowe wrote:

Medical mistakes and hospital born superbugs are statistically much more likely culprits in your eventual death (probably orders of magnitude more so for our immunocompromised compadres) than any vaccine preventable illness, and yet it is the system that creates medical mistakes and hospital born superbugs that insists it has the monopoly on medical truth and best practices. I personally find it surprising that more people aren't skeptical

My belief is that genuine research needs to be conducted and decisions about vaccination need to be voluntary. We all live in different circumstances and need to make the best choices we can identify for ourselves and our loved ones.

This seems a bit of a red herring, no?

Populations where people are largely dying of medical mistakes and hospital superbugs, are statistically speaking living longer than people who lack modern hospitals. It seems likely to me that there is a connection there... everyone dies of something, and the somethings that get you if there is no hospital, tend to get you sooner.

There are many flaws in the western medical system and a massive amount of genuine research needing done, this is absolutely true..