If I witnessed my child get bruised and harmed immediately after he was hurt by an air bag, and a journalist reported on it so that we could make them safer, no one would accuse the journalist or me of being "anti-air bag" or try to reframe our argument that we were "against air bags" or "anti-science". Instead, we would be applauded for trying to make the air bags as safe as possible. After all, I BOUGHT a car with an air bag, right? I was PRO-AIR BAG . But they didn't work as expected. I want them to work better. I want my son's suffering to prevent another child's suffering. I want air bags to save children but at the same time, be designed in a way that hurts as few as possible. If the injury is not acknowledged, how can we make the air bag better? If I am silent, they will not continue to refine the air bags or test them or find out why my son was hurt --what was different about him-- so that they can prevent future injury.
Only one source would try to make that bogus straw man argument. The car manufacturer, who did not want to go to the trouble to make the air bags safer. And agencies that actually think the populace is so stupid that if they knew air bags could harm some kids, they wouldn't buy cars with air bags.
The title lists some of the ingredients in a common vaccine. From the CDC:
Katie Couric just got shamed into retracting a story that reported on vaccine injuries from the HPV vaccine. She was accused of being "anti-science". Tell me. I have a B.S. from Carnegie Mellon. I am VERY far left life time liberal. I respect science. SO I know that nothing is 100% safe and if an industry is bullying us by demanding we say it is, or get shamed into silence, they are trying to hide something. This is not new to Pharma. They have done this with product after product. The only difference is that even the left has been duped by their accusation that any questioning of vaccine ingredients, policies, or side effects, is "anti-science". How is it "anti science" to point out that no medical product is perfect, and that we need to make them as safe as possible? How is it "anti-science" to say, I witnessed this from my child, and there are MANY credible studies that explain why this could have happened, why it is plausible: http://www.fourteenstudies.org/...
Mentioneing these facts make pharma shills go nuts attacking US rather than the facts in the studies. And they trot out suspect studies that were written by pharmaceuticals or those who make money off them. Doesn't this sound familiar folks? We are all being taken for a ride. Product is unsafe for some. Those who point it out in order to improve it are viciously attacked. Facts get left in the dust.
The following ingredients are in the DTaP-IPV/Hib (Pentacel) vaccine, just for example. This is from the CDC site. Is it not plausible that SOME infants might get a dangerous reaction from these? The package inserts on each vaccine, and on GARDISIL!, also mention that some patients may have allergic reactions, and worse, and if they do, you should stop vaccinating that patient with followup vaccines. Read this from the DTP 5-way shot:
aluminum phosphate, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde, gutaraldehyde,
bovine serum albumin, 2-phenoxethanol, neomycin, polymyxin B sulfate,
Mueller’s Growth Medium, Mueller-Miller casamino acid medium
(without beef heart infusion), Stainer-Scholte medium (modified by the
addition of casamino acids and dimethyl-beta-cyclodextrin), MRC-5
(human diploid) cells, CMRL 1969 medium (supplemented with calf
Is it really "anti-science" to point out that maybe we should rethink some of the ingredients in vaccines? Is it wrong to educate people to look for side effects, since many of us with injured children ignored side effects time after time until our children were too injured to recover? Tell me why it is wrong to let a grieving parent discuss what happened to their child in hopes of helping others save their when even the vaccine package inserts suggest that vaccination be discontinued when certain side effects are observed--something many doctors do not even read. .
Mothers Against Drunk Driving were not against cars or even drinking. They were for safer drinking. Nearly everyone I have ever known personally who fights for vaccine safety fight for vaccines to be SAFER not to eliminate vaccines. Yes, there are a few who are simply "against" vaccines with no coherent reason. But they are the straw men and they don't represent parents who have seen serious harm come to their infants, who just happen to have different, more sensitive metabolisms. Their only motivation is to prevent others from suffering as their family did, to acknowledge this occurs so that we can treat it accordingly, to identify who is at risk, and to make vaccines safer for others. What other product on the face of the earth is purported to be one hundred per cent safe? It is anti science to suggest that Vaccines are perfectly safe! That is it acceptable to allow harm to some "for the greater good" without acknowledging it, trying to identify who might be at risk, or trying to prevent it.
My son was born robust and healthy and ended up in the ICU immediately after his Hep B vaccine. He was there for 4 days. Vaccine side effects do happen. If I am silent about them, after what I saw happen with my son, I could not live with my self. Being silent about what happened to my son is selfish and unethical. Speaking out about it, educating others, is the only way I can see that we can make vaccines safer and figure out why this happened so it doesn't happen to others. Why is that considered a travesty? Why is it anti-science to bear witness to my family's truth?
Vaccines have the following ingredients that might surprise you. Ingredients you wouldn't want in your food are INJECTED into infants. Some are highly allergenic, and some are much worse when injected. Some are much worse when done at a bolus rate. These are scientific facts. Perhaps some of them are necessary. Perhaps they all are. But I doubt it. I think we can do better. I think it is unethical not to DEMAND that we do better. Because Vaccine manufacturers are exempt from normal liability (thanks to an exemption that was grandfathered in in the 2001 Patriot Act by George Bush) , there is no other pressure on them other than citizen demands. Read this list, then tell me if you think it is scientifically plausible hat some of these ingredients could cause harm to some infants. Especially if an infant gets multiple vaccines in one day.
Neurotoxicity in vaccines from NIH study:
And here is the Garidisil site, which CLEARLY admits to serious side effects, and recommend stopping the set of shots if they occur:
You cannot imagine my frustration as a lefty who has seen this happen with my own eyes and my own son, having my motives and experience attacked and misrepresented, by my fellow liberals. I know global warming happens and in fact, I equate vaccine injury deniers to global warming deniers. (The pharma industry flipped that analogy on its head and everybody bought it . . . . ) I think GMOs are dangerous. I campaigned for Obama. I love Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren. And my child WAS injured by a vaccine. A vaccine that is sold at great profit by a giant corporation that uses tobacco science tactics to silence those who have been harmed. Please start listening and stop attacking parents and vaccine injury victims. Support us in our quest for safer vaccines. For the good of your own future infant, or your teenager, so that his or her vaccines can be as safe as possible, just in case he or she has the metabolism that can't process heavy metal adjuvants or other odd ingredients. This is not anti-science. It's common sense. I know some of you will attack this. I am willing to pay that price in honor of my son's struggle. I hope others will start to wake up. Thank you.