Uncategorized
My Article: When Vaccine Patients Act Like Consumers
When Vaccine Patients Act Like Consumers
What if vaccines were sold like cars? Instead of having them pushed on you, what if you had a real choice, with real information and competition? Now that a greater & greater number of people are acting like consumers & asking questions, the WHO & UNICEF are taking steps to counter it, and some plans are downright scary.
by Jagannath Chatterjee
How would you act if you have decided to buy a car? You would probably visit the car showrooms, talk to the salesmen, collect literature on the cars, visit other showrooms, search the internet, talk to people who have purchased cars, exchange ideas with your friends, talk to the mechanics, and find out more from people who have faced problems with a particular brand. You would also be concerned about the performance and the safety features and wonder if they are up to the advertisements and sales pitch. Pretty much normal, is it not?
Car manufacturers take it on their stride. They know that this is a typical consumer behaviour pattern. The consumers are choosy, picky, and try to have the best value for money. They have distinct individual needs and choices that have to be met in order to stay afloat and be profitable. The manufacturers respond by manufacturing quality cars that are better than the competitors’ and take great care to ensure that both performance and safety aspects are above reproach.
But what if the car manufacturers had an association and a huge political lobby that ensured there was no competition? What if all the car salesmen were taught by the same institution? What if the manufacturers decided what the salesmen read and understood? What if all the salesmen were given licenses that could be revoked if they did not speak the same language? What if they had laws that protected them from lawsuits?
You know what would happen, don’t you? You would then be dealing with a cartel. A cartel that would take the decisions and force them upon you. You would end up with products you do not want. Products that would neither perform nor be safe, for these would not be ensured in such a situation, simply because they would not matter.
The entire pharmaceutical market is such a cartel—and more so the vaccination industry.
The movement against vaccinations, both by victims as well as by discerning doctors, is based upon the consumer behaviour pattern. People are now comparing products, reading the package inserts, logging on to the internet and discussion boards, social media; they are talking to people whose children have suffered adverse reactions, or they have themselves, and they are reading books that gives a glimpse beyond the hype.
The WHO & UNICEF are not happy with this.
For the entire article please visit:
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-08-10/when-vaccine-patients-act-like-consumers/
In
two recently released documents, these two institutions we have been
indoctrinated into believing that they had our best interest in their minds
have reacted rather strongly. They may have been compelled to do so by their
biggest funders, philanthropists and philanthropic institutions that have
perfected the art of corporate philanthropy, and the money that freely flow to
them are used for agendas that are rarely public. You can read up on Bill Gates
and George Soros if you have not done so already.
To
keep the medical fraternity on check, and to provide ample scope to those who
toe the line for favours earned, the WHO has devised a document named,
“Causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization (AEFI)”. It is
the revised WHO classification prompted by the way recent products like the
oral polio vaccine (OPV), Pentavalent, the Rotavirus vaccine and the HPV
vaccine have behaved in the market.
As
pointed out by doctors in India, reacting to the deaths from the Pentavalent
many countries suspended its use. The WHO did not like this attitude which went
against its policy of imposition. They responded by reclassifying the way the
doctors would report the adverse effects. While earlier the doctors had more
choices, the WHO reduced them to two; due to the vaccine and not due to the
vaccine. After the Andrew Wakefield witch hunt few doctors have the courage to
associate any adverse event directly to any vaccine. So the vaccine became safe,
as all adverse effects were recorded as not due to the vaccine.
Unfortunately
some black sheep did not like the way the issue was handled. They continued to
point out that the vaccine was killing children and also that there was no
other cause besides the vaccine as the children were perfectly healthy before
they were vaccinated. They suggested that the vaccine was causing an allergic
reaction and also that SIDS was not the possible explanation just because SIDS
is a classification made if there is no exciting factor in sight. In case of
the Pentavalent there was indeed an exciting factor – the vaccine.
Instead
of testing the vaccine on laboratory animals to check if indeed there was any
allergic reaction, the WHO studied the contents and reiterated the safety of
the vaccine. It also sought approval from vaccine industry funded associations
who declared that they have been using the vaccine without any side effects
noticed and that the deaths were indeed SIDS. It did not matter for them that
the death rate from the Pentavalent was more than the infant mortality rate of
the state in which the maximum number of deaths occurred.
The
WHO then realized that it had to act sternly to save its crumbling empire. It
thus came out with its revised classification, which the rogue doctors promptly
pointed out that if one followed the new classification, no vaccine could ever
be associated with any adverse event.
Dr
Paul G King went through the document with a lens and came out with a
classification that has shocked the entire establishment; not because it is
implausible but because it is the right way to classify an adverse event!
Dr
King’s classification contains the following choices;
·
Caused by
·
Probably caused
by
·
Possibly caused
by
·
Unclassifiable at
present (because of lack of critical information)
·
Possibly not
caused by
·
Probably not
caused by
·
Proven not caused
by
The
last choice could only be made after a proper autopsy of the case was made and
all possibilities were ruled out by an impartial investigating team.
Writes
Dr King, “In general, the designation of an infant's
death following shortly after an inoculation session as "SIDS" is
inappropriate absent a complete detailed autopsy that rules out any brain,
brain stem or cardiovascular inflammation as well as any and all out-of-control
immune-system aberrations. Thus,
in many cases, the "SIDS" label is misused to hide "death by
vaccination" especially when high fever, wailing, seizures, convulsions,
body rigidity and/or body flaccidity are observed just after vaccination.”
It
remains to be seen how the WHO responds to these suggestions. As has been
observed in the past, this august institution frames its own rules and ignores
sane voices.
The
UNICEF, reacting to the public outcry against vaccine reactions and the
absolute disregard for all calls for a transparent and just system of
evaluation, came out with its own document titled, “Tracking Anti-Vaccination
Sentiment in Eastern European Social Media Networks”.
The
document reveals the obvious; parents are today looking for alternative sources
of information and are suspicious about the official handouts or assurances
that vaccines are safe and effective. In other words the parents are now acting
as consumers and not as sheep as they did in the past. There has been an
awakening and it is not going to go away.
Imbibed
in this document is a subtle threat; while doing its research on internet based
personalities and groups the researchers could actually pinpoint the locations
and the computers from which the messages emanated. However, bound by ethics,
the organization declares that it has not captured the information. The message
is clear – we can get you when we want to.
It
finishes by saying that it is all about conspiracy theories, Western plots, and
conflict of interest. It also acknowledges that there are “influencers” who
have a considerable hold on those seeking information. In its chapters it
quotes exact sentences which the activists will identify as their own. These
quotes are about those expressing concerns about side effects, development
disabilities, chemicals, toxins, contaminants and religious and ethical values.
It
recommends that powerful search engines should continue to be used to track the
influencers, groups and sentiments. They should also be optimized such that
official views turn up in the top while users search for information. It
advises that, “Members of the individual sphere should be approached with an
emotional appeal”. It divides the public into three sections; core, intense and
alert, and concedes that the first two categories have already made up their
minds. It is the “alert” category that are yet undecided and should be targeted
by staff trained by communication experts.
It
is very interesting to note that the UNICEF wishes to take advantage of its
brand value. What it wants is “Empower through delivering key information and helping to ask
the right questions. Leverage strong UNICEF brand proposition.
The
public should now be aware about what they are dealing with. Technology, money
power, institutional power, the power of indoctrination, the power to segregate
information and blocking unwanted sound bytes, the power to intimidate and
threat and the power to lie in an official imposing tone will be the tools
through which the vaccination dogma will be promoted.
Buyers
Beware!
Post a Comment