Assumptions I had when I was a pro-vaxxer
1/2
As a parent who thought vaccines were awesome, I would like to share with you some assumptions I had before I had kids. Assumptions I had when I happily brought my own kid in for shots. Assumptions I did not bother to question until my own kid had a neurological injury.
-
I assumed that vaccines were the most tested thing ever for safety. I assumed that the vaccines on the CDC schedule were in the combinations they were in, because they somehow experimented and figured out what combinations would be safe at one time. This is not the case. http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf
-
I assumed that they studied vaccines for the cumulative effects of the entire CDC schedule. This is not the case. According to this Institute of Medicine report, "studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted". http://nationalacademies.org/HMD/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx
-
I assumed that during the FDA safety trials, that vaccines were tested against a real placebo, like drugs are. This is not the case. Rather, they are tested against another vaccine. When both groups have about the same amount of reactions, the new vaccine is deemed "safe". At 1:07:00, they explain how the Hep B shot (for example) was tested. https://youtu.be/v9bVeEwyxXk
-
I assumed that vaccines did not cause autism and the science was settled. I assumed that they had compared kids who got vaccines to kids who didn't get vaccines, and neither group had a different amount of autism. That's how you would do the study right? Well they don't do that. They have never done a vaxxed vs fully unvaxxed study. From #2's IOM report https://imgur.com/a/rUzNQEn and from the CDC itself https://imgur.com/3tH4GeG. So how do they come up with this "settled science" on autism? Epidemiological studies, which are easily manipulated, or studies where they look at people who have had LESS vaccines. So for example, they'll do a study and find that kids who got the MMR had the same rate of autism as kids who (got all the other shots but) didn't get the MMR. Here's the problem with that: Healthy user bias. The MMR isn't until 12 months, so if you give your kid the earlier vaccines, they suffer a neurological injury, and you stop vaccinating or slow down, you will be put in the "less vaccinated" category…and that's not a real control group; that's a concentrated-injury group. Here's a diagram that explains it better. https://imgur.com/zczKctf
-
Here's where we get more anecdotal. I assumed that the medical community was aware of vaccine injury if it were to happen. They're not. I had NO IDEA how in-denial pediatricians are. They don't know points 1-4 that I explained so far. They go by what the CDC says. Their livelihood depends on giving vaccines and they want to do what's right, they want to believe they're helping children. So reading anything against the narrative is too much cognitive dissonance for them. This leads me to number 6…
-
I assumed that doctors would want to know the cause of the kid's problems. Like on TV, those doctors really investigate! Kid came down with epilepsy? Okay let's get STAT imaging, blood tests, genetic tests, let's check the house for mold, let's look into environmental factors… So imagine my surprise when my kid is having multiple seizures and "uhh I don't know the cause but I can tell you it wasn't the vaccines". They ran a few basic tests but I had to push for everything. You'll be referred to a neurologist, who will prescribe medications and luckily they will work. Nothing wrong with that. But what surprised me is how they absolutely do not care about the cause (if it's not something glaringly obvious like a tumor.) As long as the meds are working, who cares?
-
I assumed that doctors would grant medical vaccine exemptions to people who have been injured by vaccines. They don't. In order to get an exemption, that would require admitting that vaccine injury exists, and the cause of your problems doesn't matter, remember? An example: Adult has to get a flu shot for work. Immediately feels like crap and within a few days has numbness to extremities. Doctors all have the same line, "Idk what this is, but I don't think flu shots cause it". Prescribe stuff like gabapentin and lyrica, go home. Does this person get a doctor's note to excuse him from future flu shots at work? No. Does this person get informed that he may be entitled to compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act? No. Does this person's issue even get reported to VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system)? No.