WHO Says Vaccine Conscientious Objectors Threat to Global Health
“The World Health Organization rolled out its top ten threats to global health in 2019, and vaccine hesitancy made the list. … Since 2009, the number of ‘philosophical-belief’ vaccine nonmedical exemptions has risen in 12 of the 18 states that currently allow this policy… ” https://www.theblaze.com/news/who-anti-vaccine-threat-health
WHO has cited measles “outbreaks” as “proof” that increased conscientious objections to vaccination is harmful to public health. Was the original decrease in measles caused by vaccines, or despite it? Here is another view.
“What is clear is that the official figures for the incidence of measles during the 1960s are probably highly inaccurate, and thus unreliable. Atypical measles [caused by vaccines] was not taken into account, and doctors likely overlooked or misdiagnosed many cases of measles in children who had been vaccinated for the disease. …While the number of reported cases of measles went up and down from year to year, the overall trend line was downward. In fact, the trend line had been going down since 1941, when the number of reported cases totaled 894,134. Interestingly, in 1964 (the year after the introduction of the first killed measles vaccine), the number of reported cases of measles actually went up to 458,083. … In short, what happened with reported measles cases in the 1960s is similar to what happened with reported polio cases in the 1950s. In both cases, a vaccine was introduced that was given credit for nearly wiping out the disease it was designed to combat. The vaccines were so widely hailed that the public came to view them as miracle cures to infectious disease, when, in fact, the evidence does not confirm that belief.” https://thevaccinereaction.org/2016/04/the-story-of-measles-sharp-decline-2/
Have recent outbreaks been triggered by viral shedding from the vaccinated? If vaccination “works” then the vaccinated have nothing to fear from those who choose to reject this medical intervention. Every person has the universal right of Informed Consent [see: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard] to accept or reject any medical intervention for any reason, or no reason at all.
The claim is that “only” live-virus vaccines can cause viral shedding and possibly infect others. The further claim is that this is “rare.” Leaving aside the issue of what it means to be a non-live virus vaccine, since viruses are not alive in the first place, there is clear evidence that viral shedding is not a rare event, but rather can occur in a significant number of vaccinated persons.
In the case of the MMR vaccine, here is what Merck informs the public in the product insert: “Excretion of small amounts of the live attenuated rubella virus from the nose or throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7 to 28 days after vaccination…” http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
Perhaps WHO should amend its 2019 Threats to Global Health list to remove vaccine conscientious objectors and include the use of vaccines instead. Since courts around the world have held vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe”* once you are informed how can you consent?
Protecting the right of Informed Consent against pro-vaxx propaganda should be the policy of every enlightened public health agency. That is what is required by the UN Bioethics Declaration.
While vaccine conscientious objectors may be a “threat” to the globalist agencies and crony drug companies, pushing vaccination as a public policy is just plain wrong.
Ralph Fucetola JD
President
Institute for Health Research
www.InHeRe.org
* See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.”