Completely ignores all the vaccine reaction and damage cases but fine.
There was a study of mothers and their vaccine attitude, the rejecting mothers had higher average IQ. It was a minor point mentioned once.
The lower IQ tend to take all available medicines because they’re free or cheap and they trust the doctors.
The smarter people say “why should I risk my child for yours”?
And there is no rationally valid answer to this.
Doctors make mistakes.
It all comes down to emotional appeal.
The phrasing of ‘vaccine rejection’ implies they are the default. In medicine, there is no default treatment.
Every treatment must be tailored to the patient, and if there’s nothing wrong with them in the first place, there is no medical need for a treatment. Due to the legal protections of the companies and doctors’ kickbacks dispensing these vaccines, and the secrecy and fraud of medical research, there is a seriously imbalanced power dynamic. They’d hold down these kids screaming if they could get away with it. Would violating an adult’s body be treated so leniently by the law? Do children not have human rights?
There are many counter-indicators for vaccination, and this is what the parents reference.
For example, a history of chemical reactions and vaccine damage in the family point to a genetic vulnerability, unstudied. No amount of words is going to alter that.
Pregnancy is another one but sure, get the flu jab!
As covered previously, the ‘herd immunity’ hypothesis has been demonstrated as false. They are seriously suggesting 100% of people get them. Who TF are they protecting? Oh, but there’s a tiny asterisk to it – all who can get it.
Technically, we can all get it.
This is an is/ought problem. You can get it, but that doesn’t change the true Q: should you?
If Parent B’s kid dies, it isn’t Parent A’s fault. It is Parent A for putting them in the contaminating situation (if knowingly) and the Doctors’ faults for failing to treat it (AKA their job).
Shifting the blame makes them look impotent.
It is a parent’s obligation to protect their child. Their own. Beyond that, the responsibility ends. I am no more responsible for some random person in Africa than they are for me.
Nobody else has this duty to the individual child. Not the doctors, the manufacturers, the researchers or the lawmakers.
Naturally there will be a big T-rex size bone of contention.
Ad hominem along the lines of stupid all the way up to evil just makes the ‘professionals’ look like they don’t know what they’re doing, and confidence drops further. When they refuse to do a double-blind 50:50 split longitudinal study with placebos, who would trust them? They say it’s unethical but look at who’s talking – they’ve
bribed finagled it so they, a company, cannot be sued. They are not negligent legally and can maintain secrecy for withdrawn vaccines (the reasons), for example. The manufacture and testing procedure for vaccines does not follow the scientific method, so it is not scientific. They dodge the law and ideally, their service rendered is unnecessary.
- Vaccines wear off. Needing replacement of a different composition and batch to the original.
- Vaccines shed. Endangering those around you, especially those with compromised immunity.
- Vaccines interact. Nobody knows how, the studies don’t look for it, but the schedule list gets longer and longer. Kids like cocktail shakers.
- Vaccine adjuvants (deliberately included with the intention of distressing the body) like mercury (still in some vaccines) and aluminium may/probably caused the recent spike in autoimmune disorders and definitely brain damage (can we say special school) and probably caused the rise in retardation diagnoses. Not to mention how this combines with environmental pollutants like endocrine disruptors.
- Vaccine failure happens.
- Different demographics, different responses (most test patients are young adult male, without getting into race and drug abuse histories).
- Vaccines in children (developing bodies) will work differently than those in adults (studied).
- Vaccine studies constantly self-correct and it is invisible in wider public health studies. You will never see vaccinations accounted for as a factor. It is never controlled for as a variable. The information simply isn’t taken! Like the 50:50 thing!
None of these facts is accounted for in ‘soothing’ discussions.
The risk is taken onto the child using the parent’s ignorance. Because let’s face it, you’re going in blind.
There is a sin of omission argument they are trying to use.
Refusing an unnecessary chemical intervention is not a sin.
And who gets to decide who is worthy of the herd immunity protection? Who really deserves to be exempt?
Because that’s the real judgement they’re making, isn’t it?
‘Your healthy child isn’t worthy of this protection.
In my opinion, the risk of their pain and lifelong suffering is worth sparing this other, already-diseased child/adult.’
Forgive me for not killing/hurting MY (hypothetical) child so some deranged pozzed pig can fuck around at orgies a few more years before ODing.