Let's make one thing super clear: those who both support and condemn vaccinations have one striking similarity - they both want what's best for our kids.
Regardless though, this whole fiasco has become a giant mess.
The public debate is diluted, unfocused, emotional and abusive; both camps will sometimes even accuse each other of being 'child killers' and it has even fallen to the depths of a pro-vaxer saying “May your children die of a communicable disease”.
We're not going to get anywhere whilst we act domestically violent towards each other. There is simply no need for verbal or emotional abuse; we just need to reconsider our own and each other's views so that we can refresh the dialogue to achieve what we all want – a safer and healthier introduction to the world for our future generations.
So to begin, is there a difference between immunisation and vaccination? Yes, there is. Vaccinations are the injection of agents into the body which could potentially result in that person being immunised against a particular disease. Do all vaccinations then immunise? No, they don't; in fact occurrences and outbreaks can manifest in children that were vaccinated.
In addition, vaccines contain much more than just the antigen that is injected to immunise against a specific disease. For a comprehensive list of vaccines and their ingredients, as well as the potential side-effects to those ingredients, see this excellent summary.
As an introduction, this Natural News article notes that:
“Today's vaccines not only contain live versions of the diseases you DO NOT WANT, but also contain GMOs, hormones from infected cows, pigs, chickens and monkeys, untested virus combinations (like H1N1), aluminum, mercury, emulsifiers, and crossbred bacteria from animals, mosquitoes, and diseased humans.”
The truth is that it's less argued within the anti-vax movement that immunisation agents are harmful for our health, but more that it's the other ingredients which are. So who makes the decisions for the addition of these other questionable ingredients – some which are scientifically proven to cause disease – to the vaccinations that are injected into our kids?
In general, on one side there are the so-called experts and laymen alike who support blanket vaccinations which are developed by the pharmaceutical monopolies, and on the other side there are those who condemn vaccinations for their alleged role in the death and disability of an undisclosed amount of children.
Both sides ironically believe they have the science that proves themselves right. Why is there contradicting science around such a critical issue?
Anybody with any knowledge on the medical industry will know that it has long been corrupted by big money and big pharma. It is important that we start off with this established truth, because we have to understand that the pharmaceutical-industrial complex will one day be looked at by the mainstream mentality as we now look at the tobacco industry: deceptive, fraudulent, criminal and unethical.
For example, this Collective Evolution article captures important information on so-called peer-reviewed research:
"In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
In the same article, there is another confronting quote by a medical journal editor:
"Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
In addition, this article captures a scientist who needed to come clean:
"CDC Senior Scientist William Thompson has alleged that a 2004 study he co-authored omitted key data that would have revealed a link between autism and a commonly-required childhood vaccine, MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella).
“I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism,” said Thompson in a statement issued through his attorney Wednesday.
Moving on, a Harvard study published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, states that:
“An extensive range of studies and lawsuits already documents strategies by which pharmaceutical companies hide, ignore, or misrepresent evidence about new drugs; distort the medical literature; and misrepresent products to prescribing physicians.”
The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) is the US body which claims to be:
“responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.”
Yet, they don't have a good track record. For example, a Global Research article states that:
“The FDA continues to be one of the most dangerous government agencies in the United States. The sheer scope of people it affects with its corruption is staggering. As Jon Rappoport has highlighted, the FDA’s own webpage admits that the drugs it certifies as safe contribute to over 100,000 deaths per year.”
In this article titled 'FDA's Own Scientists Describe Intimidation Of Big Pharma', it states:
“A survey of 997 FDA scientists revealed that forty percent feared "retaliation" for voicing safety concerns over prescription drugs in public. Over one-third of the scientists didn't even feel safe expressing safety concerns inside the agency, behind closed doors!”
As mentioned, FDA approved drugs kill tens of thousands of people annually. Even more ironically, an FDA document admits that the Tripedia vaccine could potentially result with autism, among many other medical issues.
Regardless, it's clear from the above evidence that the credibility of so-called medical science has been compromised and therefore its validity should not be blindly accepted by Governments or the people.
The Reduction of Disease
It is claimed by pro-vaxers that vaccinations have reduced the contraction of various diseases, but is this even true? Those who argue that improvements in sanitation, hygiene, sewerage infrastructure, nutrition and anti-biotics were the true cause of declining disease, usually refer to the following chart.
Who's right? You decide.
The Increase of Disease
Follows is a chart showing the rise of Autism:
The official story is that Autism prevalence actually hasn't increased, it's just that diagnostic and other processes have been better refined. But is this true? As stated in the article 'Evaluating Change in Autism Prevalence: Change We Can Believe In?' (authored by Alycia Halladay and Michael Rosanoff from the Autism Speaks Science Team):
"Factors such as younger age of diagnosis, broadening of diagnostic criteria, improvements in the availability of services, and better awareness of the disorder have all been attributed to the change in autism prevalence. However, recent epidemiological studies indicated that, while these factors do account for a portion of the change, they cannot account for all of the increase alone (see Figure which was adapted from a presentation by Dr. Peter Bearman at the meeting)."
Regardless of what is causing this epidemic, surely we can all agree this is a real issue that we need to take seriously. As a side note, see this chart that maps the rise in Autism with the rise in Glyphosate:
This might be related, it might not, but surely we can also agree that robust investigation should result. Furthermore, other forms of disease are increasing too, such as allergies and obesity:
Then of course there's cancer:
Ultimately, we can all unite on the fact that there is a problematic rise in disease and other health issues, as well as that it's of serious concern. We must be authentic and transparent with our approach to identifying the causes of these issues, including thoroughly investigating the impacts of vaccinations.
Otherwise, we're just ignorant, hypocritical and emotionally-unregulated mouthpieces of big pharma propaganda.
The Conflicting Science
Collective Evolution has been one of the leaders in the alternative media who have been documenting the debate on vaccinations, as well as the competing science. It is highly recommended that every person, especially parents, read their article called 'The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never be Forced to Vaccinate their Children'.
In it they cite scientific evidence both for and against the allegation that vaccinations cause Autism:
"As you can see above, there are many peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals by experts at various institutions claiming no link. On the other hand, we have the same type of research, also in abundance that claims there could be a link, and that it is probable – and through science they’ve shown how.
What are parents who do their research supposed to think when they come across this information? Why is the “pro vac side” so adamant on saying that there are no scientific peer-reviewed published studies that posit a potential link to autism – when there are many.
So, this is one reason why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. To say there is absolutely no way a vaccine can be a contributing factor in causing autism is completely false and dangerous."
The Conflicting View Of Doctors
This article at Global Freedom Movement is an excellent introduction to the recent Centers For Disease Control (CDC) scandal, as well as a long list of quotes by medical professionals who have been courageous enough to tell their unpopular perspective regarding vaccinations:
"Are we ready and willing to grow up and acknowledge the literally hundreds of doctors and scientists who have changed their minds on vaccination due to carrying out their own serious investigation, or are we going to echo the mindless refrain of unconscious politicians like Jill Hennessy and Daniel Andrews who dismiss ALL of the above doctors and scientists as quacks on the internet?"
The Vaccine Court Payouts
Most people are unaware there was a vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) set up in the US in 1986. The following four articles that will help you understand its role and deceit, as well as the payouts to the victims of vaccine injury, disability and death:
The Vaxxed Controversy
Controversy surrounding the movie 'Vaxxed: From Cover Up to Castastrophe' being played at the Tribeca Film Festival has passionately ignited the public debate once again. Or should I say, ignited unsophisticated attacks, ignorant accusations and immature abuse.
In another sharp article by Global Freedom Movement, the author suggested that De Niro always knew that the movie wouldn't be screened at Tribeca:
“Tribeca disappointment aside, we have Robert De Niro to thank for turning VAXXED into a major media soundbite and turning it into a conversation piece for millions of people. What if he knew all along that TRIBECA’s sponsors would never willingly allow VAXXED to instigate the “conversation” that De Niro wished to take place around the autism-vaccine link?
And yet, now – possibly because of calculated shrewdness on De Niro’s part – the name of this very important documentary, Vaxxed: From Cover Up To Catastrophe, has been beamed into the lounge rooms of not just Americans, but those all around the world—multiple times! The old adage, “There is no such thing as bad publicity” rings true, and it is likely that Robert De Niro is but one person in a team of amazing people who deserve our immense gratitude for enabling this to happen.”
This might very well be the case, which is why it's important that we all watch it and decide for ourselves if it is a relevant contributor to the debate or not. For a short review of the Vaxxed film, watch this video by 'We Are Change', an independent media outlet who continues to expose the false narratives of the dying matrix-media:
It's clear that the masses have been brainwashed into blindly believing the official narratives on not just the supposed safety of vaccines, but also many other critical topics. The lamestream media has been fully exposed as a corporate and elitist propaganda tool for many years now, so why would the truth about vaccinations be any different?
Clearly we all want what's best for our children. Many people who are anti-vaccination would no doubt be pro-immunisation if the only ingredient contained in the injection was the specific agent that's required to immunise against for example, Whooping Cough.
So why can't these options be provided for parents who only want to inject a particular antigen in their children? What alternative ways exist to immunise children without needing to inject a cocktail of toxic materials?
There's no doubt that mechanistic medicine has made some wonderful achievements over the last century – especially surgery, anti-biotics and painkillers. But that doesn't mean that it's without flaw; it's become obvious to any person who takes an independent look at the evidence that the medical and pharmaceutical industries have become corporatized and institutionalized, as well as laced with corruption, immorality and illegality.
Therefore, why should we trust this industry? Why shouldn't the entire vaccination schedule be put on the table to be investigated by truly independent researchers who have no affiliation whatsoever to big pharma or the government? And until such time, all policies coercing people into vaccinating their children - such as that recently instituted in Australia - must be immediately withdrawn.
This circus has gone on long enough. It is time for the masses to wake up and understand that they cannot trust the official stories that they've been told. We need to come together as a united force and demand that the entire pharmaceutical industry, including vaccines, need to be robustly assessed to determine fact from fiction, once and for all.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Phillip J. Watt lives on the Mid North Coast of NSW Australia.
He has lived a life of self-determination and built a strong repertoire based in leadership, teamwork and seeking the essential knowledge and skills to holistically support himself, his family and his clientele. His written and film work deals with topics from ideology to society, as well as self-development.
Follow him on Facebook, watch his interviews with an array of inspiring guests at his YouTube Channel or visit his personal development website.
|Pushing the Tipping Point||
Pushing the Tipping Point
The mainstream media delivers false narratives that hold back our individual and collective consciousness in many harmful ways.
In stride, the alternative and independent media are doing their best to shatter the incompetence and fallacies contained in the propaganda press.
At Pushing The Tipping Point we do our best to provide the most accurate information we can, but we encourage everyone to do their own robust research when investigating any topic, no matter how simple or complex.