Chronic Lyme Disease Summit 3

Friday, February 13, 2015

The Guggie Daily: Shepherds are Supposed to Protect, not Sacrifice Lambs...

The Guggie Daily: Shepherds are Supposed to Protect, not Sacrifice Lambs...: When people discuss vaccinations, they are typically referring to the vaccination program for infants and children. This program, including prenatal vaccines, just reached 58 vaccines by age 6 for 2015...

The Guggie Daily
I've been meaning to address something in the vaccine debate that isn't being directly confronted. 
When people discuss vaccinations, they are referring to the process of injecting a minor (infant, child) with a prophylactic medication. When people discuss vaccine compliance, they are referring to forcing parents to vaccinate minors. 
They rarely discuss consenting adults who make a voluntary decision to vaccinate THEMSELVES.
In other words, the debate itself is rigged. It's inherently flawed. If this was really about the noble aspects of protecting the helpless and the innocent, then our program would be backwards. We would be calling for all adults to roll up their sleeves for complete vaccinations, and regular titre testing then re-vaccination if immunity thresholds weren't high enough. The adults would be sacrificing for the children.
Instead, what we want is for the MOST vulnerable to be fully vaccinated. We want the people with the LEAST DEVELOPED IMMUNE SYSTEMS and the MOST TO LOSE, the ones who cannot consent, and who cannot even talk to describe their pain and adverse reactions to forcefully endure prophylactic medical interventions.
Taking a vaccine is a risk to yourself, to others, and to society as a whole. Every vaccine has side effects and risks, short term and long term. You risk injury or death to yourself. You risk spreading the vaccine-disease to others and injuring or killing them. And you risk altering the epidemiology of society as a whole, including through multiple generations.
Let's look at antibiotics as an example (although a restricted one b/c antibiotics are usually given to a treat an existing disease and not injected into healthy people.)
When you take antibiotics, you have a risk to yourself and a risk to others. You can directly injure or kill yourself, and you can alter the bacterial ecosystem, resulting in resistant strains that put the entire world at risk.
So, for example, thanks to people and the agri-industry overusing antibiotics, we now have super-bugs as the media calls them, showing resistance to antibiotics and increasing the risk for complications and death.
Similarly, the decisions you make regarding vaccinations will alter your health and the rest of society.
BUT, that's not the whole story. Because this isn't about adults freely consenting to what products they put into their body that might risk others, such as smoking or driving drunk, or using carcinogenic household products that are washed into our water supply.
This is about demanding that parents force vaccines into their non-consenting children, when no disease is present and lesser treatments (nutrition, supplements, etc) have not been tried first. This violates every aspect of ethical medicine in our human existence.
Not only are proponents of vaccination demanding that parents use vaccines, which carry risks for individuals and society, but they are demanding that we do so over the bodily integrity and human rights of the children, the most innocent and defenseless.
This is a program directed towards minors who cannot consent and it involves a prophylactic medical intervention without any immediate lifesaving indication.
The vaccine debate is not only about diseases and efficacy, studies and money. It's about basic human rights to bodily integrity and informed consent in the medical system.
If you believe in vaccine theory and you want to alter society's epidemiology of disease for better or for worse, then YOU roll up your sleeve and YOU make that choice. Don't pretend your desire to force every infant and child to endure 58 vaccines by age 6 is somehow altruistic.

No comments: