I've been slowly reading Vaccination Deception: How Vaccines Prevent Optimal Health by Teddy H. Spence, DDS, ND. It's a hard one for me, because I really don't like two opposite views without being able to really find truth. And even though I'm not even half through the book, I'm struck by the claims within it. And because those claims are so very bad, I can't easily come to grips with it in my mind. If the things this book claim are true (and at least some of them seem very plausible, without having double-checked the research myself), then I can't just chalk it up to a 'difference of opinion.' No, if these things are true, then the 'other side' isn't just lazy, it's wicked. THAT'S what's hard to swallow.
For one: He links vaccines to cancer. Me: Plausible - vaccines are often created using animal DNA, and foreign DNA seems unwise to introduce straight into our systems without expecting some eventual reaction. Isn't cancer intentionally caused in lab animals by that practice?
He links to SIDS, which seems to hold up, if the statistics on countries where infant vaccination isn't done are accurate. No infant vaccines, virtually no SIDS.
Some things I'd like to know more about: The 'renaming' of polio and other 'vaccination-eliminated' diseases. Spence claims that the incidence of polio and other diseases only seemed to drop because of a change in classification. Polio became "aseptic meningitis," "atypical measles" became a common diagnosis, etc. "Call it anything, but don't call it by the diseases for which you were vaccinated or the vaccine would be implicated." Something I found intriguing was the way polio was dealt with in one area: They eliminated "sugar and ice cream" and polio rates dropped drastically that year. When the sugar industry responded the following year, the rates rose again. Another 'cure' was being administered in Australia; a woman was treating patients with muscular training exercises and physical therapy.
(*side note - this fits anecdotally with family history. Gigi was very sick for a long time during her childhood, after which she couldn't walk. Her brothers thought she'd "forgotten how" and spent no small time dragging her up and down the fields, one on each side of her, until she 'relearned' how to walk. Some years ago a doctor asked her if she'd had polio, and she described that time in her life. He 'could tell' by her inability to wrinkle or fissure her brow, which, at least to him, signified having polio at some point.)
Also, why the "48-hour" window within which time a vaccine can be blamed for a reaction? That seems highly suspect to me. Is it truly so they can avoid facing the possibility that a condition 3 days later, or 3 weeks later might have something to do with the barrage of injections given a newborn or infant?
Will we ever get to real truth in this issue? I attribute many claims above to the author, but truly he defers to several different authors, scientists, and researchers for his claims. I could google them, but I have no doubt that, being controversial as this issue is, I will find each and every one of them 'discredited' by some medical association or government institution.
The last thing, the thing that's hard to wrap my mind around, is what in the world could be the motivation for perpetrating such a worldwide deception? I have to get out my tin foil hat here, because the only things that fit are pretty dark and conspiratorial. Population control? Doing away with the lower classes a la Margaret Sanger repackaged? Perhaps the last two-third of the book will offer some insight.
I'll keep you posted.
5 comments:
That's truly disturbing. I don't know the laws and such here... are kids required to get all those vaccines?
Yes, do let us know your opinion of the rest of the book and the conclusions you draw. I haven't read it (haven't even heard of it) and I'm tired of biased arguments on both sides, especially ones that make the other side out to be wicked or evil. I have researched and researched both views of the vaccination controversy and I know what my intiuitive opinion is after reading through everything. Doesn't help me much.
Some random woman started an argument with me the other day (she interrupted a conversation i was having with a friend) and told me I was a parasitic internet-paranoid who was basically responsible for her ending up in the hospital. I'm sorry, but it's not my job to watch out for all the immuno-suppressed people in the world. I should put my child in possible serious danger because someone else might get sick? That makes no sense.
So, read the book and tell me what happens in the end. :) What he's saying about re-labeling diseases kind of makes sense, but like you said, I can't come up with a good reason why the entire medical community and government systems would want to do that. I can't see the benefit, other than them making money off of the sick and whatever. I think there are a lot of connections between vaccines and illnesses and the drug companies will come right out and say what the potential side effects of the individual chemicals are (many are life-threatening, but sure! let's inject them into newborns). Maybe all it comes down to really is money and the people who are making money off these vaccines and side effects and 'research'.
Vaccines are an interesting topic.
Ooh, re-labeling diseases, huh? I am intrigued. We are planning to vehemently turn down any vaccines given at the hospital when Baby Girl comes. We've been told we'll have to tell every single nurse that comes in contact with her until they get the point. Sounds like a lot of fun...
As someone whose child had a vax reaction, I feel that the layers of truth and deception are so intermingled on this topic that we will never get to the bottom of the issue. Some vaccines save lives; I believe in my heart that this much is true. Some spare us from horrible diseases; I believe this as well. But across-the-board vax for all, regardless of risk or personal physiology? That I have a problem with.
So...These anthrax vaccines I've been taking, are they bad? :)
Post a Comment