Welcome to Pro-Informed Consent
I’m writing this to all of you who have posted those tragic tales of kids with cancer leukaemia who might die because of threats from unvaccinated children, or of your elderly mother who is somehow in danger because of antivaxxers, or who has stated in a public forum that vaccines have been proven safe (actually per the US congress and subsequently the Supreme Court, they are declared “unavoidably unsafe”) and that anyone opposed to the vaccine schedule and practices is somehow unhinged-you know I’m talking to you.
This informative reality check is for you, because it’s never too late to start walking your own walk
You really ought to know that just by virtue of using a term like “antivaxxer” you are informing your audience of two things: you likely haven’t read any vaccine-related studies, and definitely never a double-blind placebo, peer reviewed study, AND you have adopted a belief based purely on internet rhetoric which was fervently designed to appeal to your ego and leverage you as intellectually superior, knowing you would never actually look at the Science for yourself.
You might wonder right now how I could dare to presume you had never read a double-blind placebo study proving that every vaccine on the schedule is either safe or effective, because frankly, they don’t exist.
That’s right, double blind placebo studies are not commonplace in getting those childhood vaccines to market. Published vaccine trials still use adjuvants containing ingredients like aluminum and mercury (both neurotoxins). The cited reason for this is a need to “invoke an immune response” in the placebo group-this also removes any possibility of capturing useful data about the injury rates (or lack of), with adjuvants removed. This would seem like a fairly important avenue to explore-whether the adjuvant is the cause of known adverse vaccine responses.
The dissonance is strong now and You probably don’t believe what I just wrote because your natural reflex is to believe that institutions, governments and general “well wishes” are in place to protect you as a consumer-but that is also false. You likely think there’s a rigorous approval process and required peer reviewed evidence before a medication goes to market, and you are partly correct. Vaccines, however, are vaccines. They are not classified as medicines per se, and therefore do not follow the same process of testing and approval that is required of medicines and medical devices. You might also believe that a corporation could never knowingly sell a dangerous product to the public because they would be subject to lawsuits and repercussions. This is true for medicines and medical devices. This is not true for vaccines. It hasn’t been true since 1986 in the USA. In Canada, we lack a Vaccine Compensation program yet vaccine manufacturers have enjoyed a similar protection. I suspect we will see this program emerge in the coming months (after decades of parents lobbying for help) to shield government and manufacturers in what can only be called the greatest rush to market in history with the coming vaccine products.
Now I know that you pride yourself on your Science-loving, Twitter-trolling defence of what you believe to be an “evidence based” position, but the truth is, you’ve never looked at the evidence and you are far more dangerous than the moms and dads of injured children who can’t help but share what they’ve learned after years, decades, of reading those very studies. Because that’s who you are talking to when you cite “antivax” rhetoric. You are trolling people who know far more than you. We aren’t a radical group at all, we are witnesses. We aren’t trouble makers, we are defenders for our children and loved ones, whose ability to defend themselves has been compromised, we defend your children, too. We have scoured studies, but we have also met whistle blowers. There have been numerous whistleblowers as credible as one could be, but you discard them instantly. Expert people who were well respected right up until the moment they admitted to burying study results with undesirable outcomes, or outright lying about outcomes, under instruction to do so. There have been great doctors whose entire careers were destroyed under the guise that “they were discredited”, the most famously cited being Dr. Andrew Wakefield. You will lament about how he was “totally debunked and discredited” (because you read it somewhere, so facts and science!) No, he wasn’t debunked. He actually never said the MMR vaccine caused Autism-although he definitely altered the world that it was worth investigating. These are mostly statements attributed to him out of reflex fear that he might be about to prove exactly that. His suggestion that it might be worth separating the shots to limit effects did cause a large wave of concerned parents wanting to take every precaution and spread out the M-M-R shots-a move that was damaging to profit margins and as a result the choice to get these shots separately or discriminately was removed. He wasn’t debunked, but he has been vindicated. Discredited? Yes. Absolutely. With the full resources and machine of the medical establishment and Pharmaceutical industry- no expense was spared to destroy this doctor who was merely on the cusp of a revelation they intended to keep secret, forever.
Despite the fact that I’ve spent 17 years engrossed in this information, I am frequently confronted by people with ten minutes in the game, educated by Instagram, who throw these little tropes around as though they mean something. They never believe we have “read the Science” and it’s always painfully clear they haven’t, as they are dripping with naïveté and tales of Administration’s who will protect them and would never allow a known risk to the public.
What you miss is this: the only people who are truly “antivax” might be a small group of religion communities who reject ALL medical interventions as a matter of faith. You could reasonably say they are “anti” or against, the concept of vaccines. The parents of injured children you’ve been insulting on Facebook, the one who used to feel like you do, but after their child’s injury they DID read the Science, they aren’t antivaxxers, they are advocates of Pro-Informed Consent. They are asking for disclosure, not abolition.
So what does that mean? Let’s break that down: PRO-we are FOR something, not against it. We advocate for honesty, disclosure and free access to medical information. INFORMED: we advocate that the public be given the facts, the Science, and the truth about the risks, to do with as they choose. CONSENT, armed with all of this information, we want to be allowed to choose. We aren’t trying to take your right to vaccines away, we are literally fighting for you to know what’s in them, and to understand the many possible outcomes. We should not need to spend decades of our lives hunting this information down. We should not face the targeted harassment of social media platforms and people made hysterical by a desperate need to appear in line with the narrative. We are seeing this hysteria in epidemic proportions at the moment, I dare say, pandemic. The weapononization of people is alive and well, as they accuse each other of causing the deaths of their neighbours and friends for either not wearing a mask or choosing not to receive a vaccine. Once you decide you are willing to surrender the right to make choices over your health, because you are in a state of panic (as desired), you won’t ask questions. You won’t read the Science. You won’t even care,and your complicity in what follows will be yours to own, but it will punish others as well. What possible reason could one have for campaigning against disclosure? If you don’t want to know what’s in the vaccine or the adverse reaction possibilities, we defend your right to ignorance. You can protect your families with faith-you have that right. We choose to depend on information, and we will fight for you to have the option, or not.
To my fellow Pro-Informed Consent families-thank you for the tireless work you do, not only to protect your families, but in the end, your gaslighting neighbour, too.
There’s never been a better time to evaluate whether you know something is true, whether someone told you it was true and you merely accepted it, or whether you are absorbing the messaging you want, because it feels like the smart side to stand on. It might surprise you to know the Pro-Informed Consent community is filled with doctors, scientists, educated people and families. You must surrender the idea that we are misinformed, disinformed or silly.
We are your friends and neighbours. And we have ‘read the Science’.