Taking away the right to choose under the guise of informed disclosure/awareness

In case you aren’t aware there is a trend happening in the US as of late and it needs to be addressed before it spreads to neighbouring countries, namely where I reside. It is a trend that is very on the line of taking away our right to choice and freedom; all for profits. It is a trend that is making some parents feel forced; into doing something that they do not wish to do and it is also causing wrongful descriptions upon a categorized group of people.


What am I talking about? The bill that is requiring parents to get an extra signature on their vaccine exemption forms. Sounds pretty innocent when you word it like that; I mean what’s an extra piddly little signature anyway? I’m guessing that this is why it isn’t causing as big of a stink as it should but that’s not fact; it’s only a guess. I can only give my opinion based on the facts at hand because others may see this bill differently and I can only hope that what I have to say is considered by people in regards to this bill.

So why should I worry, why should my opinion matter since I do not reside in the states affected nor am I even in the US? Precedent, We see it all the time; one state passes a bill, other states follow and soon Canada may consider trying to pass their own similar bills. This is one reason why I am concerned and why my words should not be simply dismissed based on the fact that I do not reside in the area where the bill is passed. Is it really logical that my opinion is null based on that alone? Should we dismiss opinions or studies etc. because their origin is in another area? Does that make their information less valid because of this? No it doesn’t but alas there are those who use this excuse right away because they cannot dispute the information or perhaps they feel that the information is correct and try to make it seem unworthy of discussion; because there really are sides here and it becomes a very sad sorry world when one person’s choice or opinion is removed simply because another’s has basically taken over and deemed correct without any/very little information present.

Now how does a signature reduce people’s rights/freedoms and how can people possibly profit from this? It’s pretty clear once you understand the bill and I want to make it clear to people that while this bill does not state that vaccines are mandatory in anyway, it puts people in a position where they do not see the option to choose. So let us walk through it shall we. So if this bill were passed the situation would be as follows. You would need a signature from a doctor on an exemption form that can basically state anything as long as it includes that information about the benefits of vaccines were explained and still refused. There is no specific letter or form required to be signed, so doctors can pretty much make up their own form to be signed as long as it includes a statement about information being given. In a perfect world this would be no issue, but here in reality there are numerous problems to this and one of them being doctors lashing out and health facilities adding that little bit extra like, parents are aware that they are putting their child at risk or some other rubbish that could generate problems for the parents in the future.

A product should not be mandated; it should not be forced upon and for those that deny that vaccines are being forced upon the public must be blind to not see how they are. A ton of people truly believe that their children cannot survive without vaccines, that if they do not receive them in a timely manner that they will surely die a horrible, devastating death. While these misconceptions need to be addressed in another post altogether it helps form the picture of the constant push parents feel in regards to vaccines, which bring me to the next bit about freedom and choice. Parents who wish to get an exemption don’t want to sign a paper that says they are horrible for refusing something that they believe is not needed, goes against their beliefs or may bring harm to their child. How many doctors are going to be good about this and sign an exemption without the backlash? Especially when a lot of people who are getting exemptions do not see the mainstream doctors, run underneath the boheimeath health care empire, who are the only ones able to actually sign exemptions under the new bill. What if there is no doctor in your area willing to sign, since there is nothing in the bill to account for this possibility parents are left to go against their will and vaccinate, because even those who homeschool apparently fall under this bill as well. With no way to get a signature and the only option being presented is to give in, isn’t this essentially forcible vaccination under duress?

At first I didn’t even think about profit, normally it is usually the very last thing I look at which seems absurd to some people who have a base of “follow the money”. Now while I don’t think that, that method is horrible; in fact it is very useful and has brought about many conclusions, answers and motives to many interesting things. I though take information as my base and only use the money matter when I want to “plump up” the information, so to speak. Also since where I reside we have a slightly different system it didn’t even factor in at first. Of course that’s what research is all about isn’t it; discovering things you never considered. In the US it costs money to see a doctor, for each visit you have to pay, or your benefits company pays or like here; we pay in our taxes. In the US its more ‘out of pocket’ which also makes it easier to see that money is actually being made. So this extra visit (or possible numerous visits if it becomes difficult to get a doctor to sign) is making someone money. Not only that but you are required to go twice, since the bill also states that a new exemption is required again in grade 7.

If you look strictly at the money, you can see why this bill would want to be passed by doctors; and they have been making sure to show up in huge numbers to speak on behalf of the bill at hearings, also it should be noted that doctors are the only ones actively pushing for this bill. At a recent hearing for the bill the room was filled with two sides. At one end of the room were those who wished this bill to be passed and they were all doctors, every single one. On the other side of the room were those who opposed the bill and they consisted of people fighting for their rights to choose, doctors that were speaking out and most importantly; parents who have a child or children that were injured or died because of vaccines. Why do I think they are more important to note? Because unlike all the doctors who were there because of a conference with all the perks of a vacation, coincidentally taking place right next to the hearing, these parents had to take time out of their insanely busy lives (taking care of a vaccine injured child + working + the rest of the family’s needs + maybe just maybe, a bit of their own) to not only travel all the way to the hearing but also pay for the trip, out of their own pockets, when most of these parents are struggling already because of all the medical bills that they have to pay for their child who was injured.

So these doctors have every interest in this passing, they will get at the very least two paid visits from each exemptioner and if they’re lucky, the parent will give in and they will make money off of every vaccine that will be given; there’s what, almost 40 now? Why would doctors care so much about making money, is it perhaps that with all these people getting exemptions and having no need to visit their practices, starting to show up in their lack of profits? I can only guess as to why, but it all seems very sad to put people into this position all for money.

Not only are parents feeling forced to go against their choice, they are being shed in this shameful light that is so ridiculous and makes my head spin that people actually eat these lies up. This is being done namely through mainstream news reports and usually quoted from doctors or health care representatives. Over numerous articles, those who do not vaccinate are being put into a category with some or all of the following traits and also reasoning; too lazy to get their children vaccinated, stupid, do not understand science, living with misconstrued fear, abusive to their children, neglectful, burden to society by relying on others vaccination status, following a new trend, listening to misinformation and not reading “facts”, causing “outbreaks”, killing other people and children, have disease ridden children, do not know how to take care of children and/or keep them healthy, are poor and/or illiterate, are taking advice from a ‘disgraced’ doctor, taking advice from celebrities, taking advice from online, misguided, crunchy-granola-tree hugging-hippy people and the list goes on. Basically the general population is given the idea that those who do not vaccinate their children are uneducated, poor, awful parents who are creating these ‘bio-hazardous’ children that will go around and kill a bunch of people. Oh ya and they are lazy too.

Not only is this an unfounded, uneducated and completely bullshit bit of thought,, but people we are supposed to hold in high regard, people in charge of our health for f**sakes; are the ones saying this. Type in anti-vaccine into a search engine and site after site of remarks from people/authorities that push for vaccines; about an imaginary little group of people that are apparently bent on spreading fear, disease and killing a bunch of innocent people. Do the same search but for something like vaccine injury and you will see a different side; a picture more suiting of this “group” of people. What you’ll find is mostly people who has or whose children have been injured or killed by a vaccine and then doctors and other ‘specialists’ who are speaking out. They are well read individuals that take on the task – above their other responsibilities- to not only sift through countless amounts of information but also learn about studies, health, science, environment and other things they though they’d never have to know so much about. They aren’t people who have jumped on some ‘band-wagon’ and followed the crowd, they are not new and they are not some mob spreading fear. They are people who should be commended for their hard work instead of condemned for the knowledge they have learned. They know more about health and vaccines than most common doctors and their children are disease free, disease safely fought without spread and are lacking in nothing. Put simply; what is being portrayed is in fact the opposite of what is real.

If bills like this continue to be passed it will not only be taking away people’s rights, it gives a portrayal that vaccines should not be refused, that people who do are in the ‘low-end’ of society and put their children and others safety at risk, but most of all it sets precedent for other similar laws to pass easily. Bills like this only end up in the wallets of those who put them forth.


CDC: To Smoke or Not to Smoke

What has the CDC been up to lately? Well among other things they are focusing on a big anti-smoking push. It’s been a big focus, has taken up several posts, grown onto television and as usual is placed onto cigarette packaging. It’s not just the CDC however; Health Canada has joined the ranks as well.

This all seems good, on the surface at least. It’s a wonderful thing for people to be informed, to know all the possible risks; even if people feel bombarded by it. So far the only complaints that I have seen are in concern to the television commercials that CDC is airing as they are apparently very repulsive and also occur during the time that children’s programming is on. People have felt that this type of commercial should be aired much later, during more adult programming because of the content in the commercials. Health Canada has changed the packaging on cigarettes once again, in light of this new anti-smoking push, by attaching more grotesque pictures in hopes of giving more information and possibly to deter people from actually purchasing cigarettes that contain such disgusting pictures on them.

While this may have some effect from deterring people from smoking, it is a very small amount and in my opinion is a very big waste of money.  Let’s look at a before and after to compare shall we. Before this big anti-smoking push, even before the no smoking in buildings law we were taught in school what smoking cigarettes does. In kindergarten we were first made aware of the effects of smoking and we had to go through a mini-program to educate us on smoking and help us take a pact, so to speak, to never smoke. Throughout the rest of school we continuously learn about the dangers of smoking in health class and even then, there were a few commercials portraying people whose lives were put at risk or cut short because of smoking.  Cigarette packing has contained warnings for some time now and put simply we are constantly made aware of the dangers for most of our life. People who choose to smoke –remember it is a choice and not something forced upon us- know at least the majority of dangers that come from smoking cigarettes and I don’t think that this huge push is going to stop those people from smoking. It’s a big waste of money revamping something that is already doing a good job as it is.

Looking more at the current time, we have new laws in place to prohibit smoking from inside buildings and establishments; while at first having a big uproar it is essentially a good thing, especially for those who wish to attend these places and do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. Unfortunately this isn’t where they wanted it to end. Several attempts were made to ban smoking from public areas that were outside in the open, from inside vehicles and even peoples own houses. While there was a law passed that prohibits those from smoking in a vehicle with a child (which in my opinion is a well done job) the rest were not passed and thankfully so, as it starts to creep over our independent rights.

I wonder however, if people realize the implications of what was trying to be done, if they see the darker motives behind this beautiful picture of a non-smoking society and if they truly grasp what could have happened if these laws were passed. Now, every person has a choice in their health, whether it be; what they consume, what bad habits they have and even pertaining to medical assistance. When laws like this try to pass, they do so under the guise of helping people become healthier, to protect others rights and to make our society a better, safer place to be a part of. What is seldom mentioned is that while it may be proclaimed to protect some people’s rights it also encroaches on the rights of others.

Yes smoking is harmful and can have many consequences to your health and wellbeing; but again that is your choice to make. It seems that this huge anti-smoking push is getting closer to forcefulness and is skimming the boundary between choice and mandatory. Not being able to smoke in your car, house or even at a public event would narrow the areas able to smoke to such a small amount that it would in effect force people to give it up. Sounds pretty good at first doesn’t it, but what about the rights of the smokers, are they considered so less of a human, such a danger to everyone that their rights would essentially be taken away? The other concern in this is; where does it end? If we let even the smallest of rights be stripped from us then it sets precedent, it makes it easier for other laws to be put in place and follow suit. A little bit too into the future for some but for those of us that have seen how one law passed can ease the way for another to be implemented, we can see how easy our rights can be taken away in the name of health.  Now what more could this new program do to further what has already been done? Absolutely nothing, but remind us of what we already know.

Aside from that is the money. How much money is being spent to further warn people of the dangers of smoking, how much on extra commercials, better pictures and articles is spent to plump up a program that is already doing the job it’s supposed to. We need to take an example from the heads of health care and the pharmaceutical companies that they are incorporated with.

Cost/benefit analysis.

Before any product appears on the market be it treatment, drugs, vaccines or other common medication products; companies and health care agencies first see if it is profitable.  A small but fitting example is the use of booster shots. A lot of individuals do not need to get booster shots as they are still carrying antibodies from a previous shot. This can be tested very easily and would save people being exposed to virus(es) and ingredients in said product that are not necessary. However it has been determined that this is not only far from profitable but it actually would cost too much to perform this test, especially if everyone knew about it. Instead more money would be made by simply not publishing that information on a grand scale (or even a small one) and just giving everyone booster shots.  So how would this possibly relate to the anti-smoking push? Well we would have to find out how much money is being spent and compare it to the drop in smoking rates that occur after it has been implemented. As anyone can see for themselves that drop (if there is any) is very small and in no way does it justify the amount being spent. We would then have to compare to the previous method that has been in place for a while now, to see if it has made an increased improvement on the number of people not taking up smoking and also those who have quit directly because of the methods used. I can assure you that it isn’t much difference.

So why are they doing it?

This could be the question of the decade, why does CDC and other health care organizations like Health Canada do the things they do; for the health of the people right? Well that’s what I used to think as well I mean, why else would we have an organization in charge of our health if not to help improve it? Perhaps in the beginning it started out that way and even still today, perhaps there are people who still believe that what they are pushing is indeed the ‘right thing to do, for the better of the people’, but lately this perfectly strewn veil is slowly being uncovered and the view behind it is not only shocking but just as repulsive as the new anti-smoking commercials being broadcasted by the CDC.

Giant health care organizations have stopped being about health for some time now, even before I was born has this ceased to be the case. You know that the world has gone to hell when health becomes all about profit. There is so much I could touch on here but it really does deserve its own article, so I’m just going to stick to the anti-smoking push.

Now while the motives may be entirely different from my own opinion on it, I do think that this could be a big part of it and nonetheless it should be talked about, instead of swept under the rug like every other ‘health care gone wrong’ case. In order to understand the present we must first look to the past and we don’t have to go very far to do so. When my grandmother was younger you were still able to smoke in hospitals. Today it would be a shocker. How could a health organization allow such a thing in their buildings, buildings dedicated to the health and wellness of the people? It’s not as absurd a notion as you may think.

You see, not that far into our past is a time when smoking was not only thought to have no harmful effects, but it was also believed to have numerous health benefits. It’s so ridiculous; I couldn’t even make it up. CDC had put out studies and statements that smoking did not cause cancer. Since the CDC had said so, it must be true right? Doctors advised many people to smoke including mothers who may have heavy babies; as smoking was known to lower birth rates. Ads and articles were published with headlines of doctor approved, doctors recommend and the like; just as many products are toted today. 9 out of 10 doctors agree that smoking is good for you. While this isn’t the worst atrocity made by the medical community it is a notable one, because it does set precedent.

It all starts with the studies and statements that CDC put out. If the leading health organization tells you that smoking does not cause cancer most people will outright believe it, no questions asked and when they also say that studies have been done to prove this, a huge majority of people believe it. In a perfect world why would we doubt the organization put in charge of keeping us healthy, especially with all the purported studies to back it up? Organizations like CDC are made so that we don’t have to do what they are supposed to do. They are there to figure out health and give us the results, what should be the truth.  For example, if we get sick with something we should be able to go to an offset of this organization (hospital, doctors office, health unit) and be given the information we need (diagnosis, prevention, treatment etc).  This type of organization is essentially supposed to be able to help us on a grand scale and yet; they seem to be doing a lot of harm.

So what happened; how did the organization we trusted with our health mess up so badly on this?  While there are probably numerous reasons for this the best explanation is what happens to many organizations and companies that become really big. We see it all the time with ‘fast food’ eateries. Small shops are great until they start to expand and the bigger they get; the more the quality suffers and profit becomes goal. Not only that but, the people running the place cannot look over every single thing; that is why as it grows so does the number of people involved. Nothing seems to be coordinated enough to bring about any positive. The owners of subway cannot possibly be fully aware of the actions of one subway shop in the middle of a small town, not even the number of places in one city; so how can we expect an organization so huge to be able to do more than what they can handle.

Let’s face it, the world runs on money; something we invented, can produce at will, yet never seem to have enough to go around. When something becomes profitable, the wolves show up at the door; to think otherwise is completely naïve. Just take lottery winners for instance, how many relatives and old friends suddenly make contact. It’s not some conspiracy theory where it’s all planned out to ultimately destroy the world like some comic book story; it’s just simple logic. So in the case of the smoking doesn’t cause cancer studies; those studies came straight from Tabaco companies. CDC being a grand organization at that time relies strictly on the information given to them without preforming their own unbiased studies. The organization being so big and having no one but the government and the people to keep them in check, it becomes this unregulated system that oversees a massive amount of people. It is no wonder that the smoking issue got out of hand and it seems that today CDC is trying really hard to either make up for their previous mistake or perhaps they don’t want people to remember.

In a murder case motive is a big factor, so what could possibly be CDC’s motive in trying to make people forget that they once promoted smoking as a health benefit and that doctors blindly followed suit? It’s pretty obvious actually; look at what they are seeing as a threat right now. It had struck me as odd that CDC was suddenly taking up this big campaign against smoking, smoking hasn’t been a hot button issue. So why now, when the biggest controversial topic at the moment is vaccines? How in the world could the two even be linked together?

No I am not implying in any way that smoking causes autism; that’s an absolutely ludicrous idea since the effects of smoking do not correspond to the symptoms and areas affected in autism. In order to see where it ties in, you have to head over to an area commonly misdeemed antivaxxers. There you will find that one of the points they make is that;

Previously CDC stated that cigarettes do not cause cancer and that they relied on studies done by the manufacturers of cigarettes.

CDC currently states that vaccines do not cause autism and rely on studies done by the manufacturers of vaccines.

CDC stands adamantly behind the notion that vaccines are safe, effective and benefit humanity; even going as far as attacking those who do not believe this to be true. So is it any wonder that suddenly they want to make sure that people know that they are anti-smoking; thus forgetting about their previous statements made and how that situation is identical to the one we are in now, concerning vaccines.

How many years before we find out differently, before we find out that again we were told a lie because we relied on an organization to take care of us. Every month we learn about “medications” going off the market because they do more harm than they help. We learn that the medications we take; contain side effects identical to what they are intended to fight; like diabetes medication or anti-depressants. How many oxy addicted people do we now have simply because they were given it by a doctor, someone that is supposed to be looking out for their health, who never told them of the addictive nature of the drug? We are starting to realize more and more that these products out there, that we are told will help us; are actually doing way more harm than good.

So while CDC wastes money to revamp a program that is already doing a great job, they ignore the accumulating thousands that tell of their child regressing after a vaccination; then again I don’t think the CDC understands that accumulation exists 😉