So many people vaccinate their children. So many doctors "just do it". They give the same dose for all children, same amount of boosters, as if it's a "one size fits all" drug. It's the only drug that is the same for all recipients. The only drug that, according to doctors (not the scientists or manufacturers, just doctors), is perfectly harmless.
When you research vaccines, you might come to websites that give a list of questions to ask your doctor about them. These lists are, well, all too easy for doctors to give a nice, comforting answer to, and they fail to make them (doctors) think. If you intend to vaccinate, or you're not sure and want to talk to your doctor, skip the rehearsed charade and ask some questions that will force your doctor to act and give you the truth.... Of course, it helps to know as much as possible before hand, so that you don't get an "on the spot" lie, as I have had from doctors, until I made them look it up in their books, because I already knew the answer. As it turned out, I was right, and the doctor was wrong about the information that she so confidently and assertively believed to be true. Doctors are only human. They don't know everything.
In light of this, I've devised a list of questions for anyone and everyone to ask their doctor when this touchy topic is in question;
1. What is my baby already immune to?
"Get your children vaccinated."
"Do they have their shots?"
"Are they up to date with their immunizations?"
Does anyone see anything wrong with those quotes? They're used constantly, but there's a huge flaw that no one seems to recognize, and even to those completely for vaccines, the flaw still stands.
This flaw makes the focus sales based, rather than health based, as they claim vaccines are suppose to be all about. How can vaccines be about health if the question is "did you take that drug?" Rather than "do you need that drug? Did that drug work for you? How did it make you feel?"
If it was about our health, the question would be "are they immune?" But it's not. No one cares about whether or not the drugs worked, the only concern is if they've taken them. "Are they up to date on their immunizations" really just sounds like a sales pitch gone viral.
It should be about immune status, not vaccine status! If your baby is already immune, and is given the dose, there is only risk. Would you want to put your baby at risk for nothing? They aren't just given a drink of water, it's a drug with the potential to damage for life. Doctors sell TDaP and the flu shot to pregnant mothers under the notion that momma's immunity is passed on to baby, right? Natural immunity is typically for a lifetime, so it would be wise to assume that baby may have acquired immunity from momma -but people aren't taught to wise up to vaccines... No other drug is prescribed without first assessing the need for it. We aren't all on antibiotics and steroids simply because the CDC says they save lives; there must be a clear and proven or obvious need first. Yet vaccines are given to all, without first knowing if the patient lacks immunity. A titer test can be performed to determine immune status, but this simple blood test is incessantly omitted for infants and young children, who would be most likely negatively affected by the medication that they may not even "need."
Such a quick and simple way to turn it around so that it actually seems like they care about our health instead of their sales, yet they just won't incorporate that step. Take all the drugs, and keep talking all the drugs. Are they needed? Are they working? Who cares. Just take all the drugs.
2. Is my baby allergic to any ingredients? Is my baby one of those people who can't be vaccinated?
It shows up whenever you look up the risks of vaccination in authoritative sources; how there's a chance of severe reactions, such as anaphylaxis. Of all the serious adverse reactions that can happen, they picked the least severe of them to use as an example. Curiously, they are only trained to deal with these events after they've taken place, even though they could kill. If they're so big on prevention, that everyone must use a plethora of preventative medication on their babies, why are they so lax on serious reactions like that when they could be easily prevented? Instead, they have it so that you just don't know if your baby can't have vaccines, until it's too late.
3. Who is liable if anything should happen to my baby? What type of help and compensation could I expect?
There is no way to get compensation via any normal legal process. No one is liable for what vaccines can do. In the U.S, there's a "no fault" compensation "court", paid for by taxes through the national childhood vaccine injury act that limits what type of injuries can be compensated, and how much can be paid. In Canada, however, there is nothing. (Although, Quebec went against the government and made their own compensation plan because there's causal evidence of severe reactions that could not be ignored.) However, if you live outside Quebec and your child gets injured for life because of a vaccine, there's nothing you can do. The only one responsible is you, the parent. You would ultimately find out that the damage or loss from vaccines means nothing at all to the government masquerading as a caring group of people, and even the media won't touch your story to spread the word and prevent it from happening to others.
A good example is Nick Catone. Look for him on Facebook... He's a retired UFC fighter. He has been screaming about his son's vaccine induced death. Then go look for news articles about it... There's a few small news outlets that reported, they even quoted him, but omitted every single mention of vaccines from his quotes. Media won't touch vaccine damage stories. At the same time as Nick's story, however, a baby supposedly dying by blanket was plastered all over the news, even Global News. Warning parents not to give their babies blankets at any cost. So, blankets are fatal but vaccines are safe? Good one, media.
There's a reason why vaccines aren't mandatory. Well, two reasons. (Yes certain organizations, like daycares and some jobs can say it's mandated in order to use their facilities, but I'm talking in general life. It's not mandatory to be vaccinated just to live and breath.)
For those jobs and other places, they got you with a choice. Don't vaccinate, don't work here. Your call.
In doctors offices, it's a "recommended" schedule. Even though while you're there, they might make you feel as if you have no choice, you actually do. They may even fire you as a patient, but you still have the choice.
If you accept this choice and vaccinate, it was your choice. You are responsible. Nobody forced you, so you have no one to blame but yourself if anything goes wrong. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't buy my kids any product in which the manufacturer wiped their hands clean of everything to do with the product once it's sold. I mean, if vaccines are so great and life saving, don't you think somebody would stand behind that claim? Anyone at all?
Yeah... Nobody does.
"Buy our products all the time! They save countless lives! They're safe and effective! They're amazing science and everyone, everywhere needs them! We aren't liable for damages, though. Neither is the salesman who gives it directly to you. We can't stand behind our product. There's no guarantee our product is going to be perfectly safe or effective. If you get severely injured by our product, you can't sue anyone. You get nothing, no matter how long and hard you fight. Once you accept our product, our hands are clean. Because you accepted it, so it's all your responsibility." If that was on an infomercial, well, I doubt there'd be as many people buying it. But it's the cold hard truth.
Ask your doctor if they'd be willing to sign a full liability form, indemnifying you from damages and allowing you to sue them if anything should happen. I'm gradually working on a Canadian template that will state this. It will also make the doctor research and provide you with full studies, (not just abstracts or articles), showing each vaccine's safety and efficacy. It will outline key ingredients and make the doctor acknowledge that they are aware of each one and they are safe to inject into a baby. It will make doc provide you with full studies showing the safety of injecting each individual ingredient into an infant and full studies showing the safety of the combined recommended schedule as a whole. It will also include plenty of studies showing the dangers as well, for doc to read up on.
Once this is done, the doctor will not be able to simply sign on the spot to make you vaccinate quickly. Doc will have to take it home, review the studies and info, and find some of his/her own. Doc will be forced to research and provide clear evidence. Then it will need to be witnessed and notarized, along with your signature, to make it a legally binding contract. Even when/if this gets done, vaccination will not happen immediately. A titer test and allergy test (for each ingredient) will be done first. Any disease that there is no immunity for will need to have a special single dose globulin ordered, so that there's less chance of a reaction and nothing more is given than needed. After the dose(s), a second titer test should be done to ensure it worked.
It's highly doubtful that any doctor would accept full legal liability, find studies and not see contradictory or questionable information, have the contract notarized, do titers and allergy tests, and then special order single dose globulins. That's too much effort and risky on their part... Even though that's how it should be done.
Hopefully these questions will throw the doctor off guard and make them really think about what they're doing, even without an indemnity form. It will at least buy some time to research more before being pressured into anything. The same old parroted questions has made doctors lazy, it's time to demand some real answers! It is for your children's health and well being, not the doctor's ease, comfort and wallet, after all.