The Vaccine Culture War is heating up. In America, professors and doctors in academia and government are profiling parents by class and race to shame and discredit those challenging vaccine orthodoxy. “When it comes to vaccines, rich parents get away with child neglect,” the headline in the Washington Post proclaimed on May 10, 2017. The OpEd was written by a Pace University law professor promoting criminal prosecution of mothers whose children are not vaccinated. She suggested that all mothers who don’t vaccinate their children are criminals and should be punished - “regardless of socioeconomic status” – because vaccination is a “collective obligation.” In 2013, the flames of prejudice were fanned by an online publication profiling parents in a San Francisco community and labeling them “vaccine deniers.” The parents were described as “wealthy, educated, liberal leaning” and often working in “technology, law and other white collar professions that demand critical thinking skills,” who put their children at risk by feeding them non-GMO organic food, taking them to holistic doctors, and paying $20,000 a year to send them to private schools where self-reliance, independence and critical thinking are taught. Professors at major universities suggested the government should impose a tax on unvaccinated people, suspend free speech about vaccination, and deny elected representatives public office and strip doctors of their medical licenses if they talk bad about vaccines. A USA Today OpEd stated flatly: “Parents who do not vaccinate their children should go to jail.”
After a 3-Year investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood, the Center for Medical Progress released its videotaped exposé filmed on July 25, 2014. The video shows two actors posing as employees of a human biologics company discussing with Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, using partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts. Selling and buying fetal body parts is against federal law, a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000. Planned Parenthood denies that they are selling fetal body parts, and claims that the money discussed is related to transportation costs.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the development of a contraceptive microchip that can be remotely controlled to release hormones that can act as abortifacients into a woman's body for up to 16 years. Both the chip's potential to take a life and the potential privacy concerns have drawn criticism. The chip, which measures 20 x 20 x 7 millimeters, can be implanted under the skin of a woman's buttocks, upper arm, or abdomen in 30 minutes. The device contains a 16-year reservoir of the drug levonorgestrel, releasing 30 micrograms a day – but the dosage can be altered by remote control, as well. The announcement comes as the Gates Foundation is spearheading an international, multi-billion-dollar push for expanding birth control in the developing world, bringing charges from pro-life and political [groups] that they are engaged in global population control. Dr. Robert Farra of MIT said the subcutaneous computer chip must be given “secure encryption” so that “someone across the room cannot re-program your implant.” To date, that security has not been developed.
The "science" of eugenics in America's past history resulted in racism, forced sterilization, forced vaccination, and tyrannical government policies all in the name of developing a "superior" race of people. In Germany, the "science" of eugenics was used by the Nazi Party to "eliminate" over 11 million men, women, and children. The term "eugenics" has fallen out of favor and is no longer a politically correct word to use, because of its negative stigmatization. But has the philosophy behind "eugenics" simply been replaced with the "new science" of genetics, and the mapping of the human genome? Is there reason to suspect hidden motivations of certain groups who want us to be convinced that our genes, and only our genes, control every aspect of our health and well-being? Can we trust everything we hear about the benefits of genetic research? Is there a dark side to genetics? Is America heading down the same path that eugenics led us in the past, and that led Nazi Germany up to World War II?
The word Eugenics means "good genes." Eugenicists believe that principles of Darwin’s theory regarding “the survival of the fittest” can be used to support the elimination of weak and undesirable people from society. When Adolf Hitler applied Darwin’s theory of evolution and the principles of eugenics to the goals of the German state, the result was the murder of eleven million men, women and children. These lives were sacrificed in the name of eugenics. Eugenicists were seeking to improve the conditions of life for humanity by creating a “superior” race of people. The eugenics movement had a very dark side, which led to social control, loss of reproductive freedom, and the loss of life. Should we be concerned that modern genetic science might have a dark side as well? Will the fruit of genetic research be misused by ill-intentioned people to gain control over others as happened with eugenics in the past? Has modern genetics completely severed itself from its roots? Or, might it become the tool that will be used to try to control the lives of certain groups of people in America today, such as those who refuse vaccines?
"Even if you and your children have willingly received every government recommended vaccine today, if non-medical exemptions are removed from U.S. vaccine laws, you will have no choice if you decide you don’t want to use every new liability-free vaccine that government recommends tomorrow. This Vaccine Culture War is about a lot more than vaccination. Because if the State can tag, track down and force you against your will to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which other freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow." - Barbara Loe Fisher Doctors who say vaccines are safe for everyone and do not cause injury and death are either uninformed, in denial or lying. Since the first vaccine for smallpox, doctors have known and it has been well documented that brain inflammation, permanent brain damage and death have always been among most serious complications of vaccination. Just like any other pharmaceutical product, vaccines carry a risk of injury or death. These risks can be greater for some people with genetic, biological and environmental risk factors that doctors do not understand or cannot predict.
Constitutional attorney Jonathan Emord has written an excellent commentary about current legislative efforts to remove vaccine exemptions, and increase forced vaccinations against people's wills. Emord writes: "The current rush to revoke laws allowing conscientious dissent from compulsory vaccination, including encumbering or revoking grounds based on religious or medical grounds, are a return to a very ugly era of elitism, one of gross intrusion into rights of personal autonomy and liberty that left us only a few decades ago." Emord reminds us that it was not that long ago when "eugenics" was a popular "scientific fact" accepted by the majority in our society, and used to pass state laws forcing sterilization of people considered "genetically unfit" for society.
One of the important and counterintuitive insights that C.S. Lewis offered was his observation that far from encouraging skepticism, the mention of "science" can call forth a perilous gullibility, not least from educated, intelligent people who should know better. Healthy skepticism is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Knowledge is advanced and new discoveries are made by challenging scientific results and testing alternative hypotheses. Lewis recognized, though, that science can also promote an uncritical acceptance of views that are said to be backed by science or wrapped in science-y language. In Lewis's time, most scientists supported eugenics, or the belief that the gene pool of humans should be improved, and they argued that their views were supported by science. These views led to policies such as forced sterilization of those deemed to be of less worth, such as criminals and the handicapped. These policies were not only popular in authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, but in democracies such as the United States and England. Anyone who opposed what the vast majority of scientists were saying must be "anti-science," it was argued. So what has changed since then? Are we supposed to believe that just a century ago, elite opinion in science and in the culture at large was so terribly fallible and vulnerable to being misled by prejudice -- yet today, it cannot err?
Eugenics is a scientific program first broached by Charles Darwin in the Descent of Man, named and pioneered by his cousin Francis Galton, and promulgated by Darwinists now for a century and a half. It is a clear corollary derived from the theory of natural selection. If man arose by a violent struggle for existence, man's kindness to the weak undermined natural selection and endangered the biological health of our race. The "scientific" solution to the crisis was the culling of the unfit, mostly through involuntary sterilization.
by Vera Sharav
Alliance for Human Research Protection
Sixty-eight years after the verdict concluding the Nuremberg Doctors Trial–a verdict that includes the Nuremberg Code–the German Medical Association (Bundesarztekammer) has finally acknowledged the culpability of Germany’s medical community during the Nazi regime.
On May 23, 2012, the German Medical Association issued a Declaration and apology at Nuremberg, at […]