by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News

There is a new affliction that is threatening the world population. It is so new that it hasn’t even been officially declared to be a disease, but the World Health Organization and bioethicists are already waving the red flag of warning.

Do You Have “Vaccine Hesitancy?”

The World Health Organization (WHO) is very concerned about the problem of “vaccine hesitancy,” which they say is threatening the effectiveness of their worldwide vaccination program. In short, some parents are not automatically allowing their babies to be vaccinated even though such services are available. They are pausing, thinking, and in many cases walking away with their babies in their arms, and leaving the vaccine filled hypodermic syringes to be used for someone else. Adults also are not responding to calls for receiving vaccines even when they are free.

As always, WHO is on the quest for 100% compliance with all vaccine schedules, and is warning the world that vaccine hesitancy is causing unnecessary illness and death. They believe that 1.5 million children die each year from causes that could be prevented by vaccines. [1, 2]

The WHO press release dated August 18, 2015 stated:

Vaccines can only improve health and prevent deaths if they are used, and immunization programs must be able to achieve and sustain high vaccine uptake rates. Vaccine hesitancy is an increasingly important issue for country immunization programs. [3]

The WHO press release further states:

There is no “magic bullet,” or single intervention strategy that works for all instances of vaccine hesitancy. The magnitude and setting of the problem varies and must be diagnosed for each instance to develop tailored strategies to improve vaccine acceptance. [4] [Emphasis added.]

WHO is working to build an image in the minds of the public that vaccine hesitancy is a condition that requires diagnosis. It is much like a disease or mental illness, which they intend to treat through various mind control strategies.

Of course they don’t use words such as manipulation and mind control – they only use politically correct and friendly sounding words to describe their plans. WHO planning documents are always speaking about promoting the good of humanity, correcting the plight of the poor, resolving the unequal and harmful treatment of women and girls, and protecting the environment from human destruction. They are the big brother that will help us all live in a utopia of their design and creation.

WHO would never tell us that “we are going to badger you until you change your mind about accepting vaccinations.” Instead they say, “Effective communication is key to dispelling fears, addressing concerns and promoting acceptance of vaccination.” [5] The result is still the same; they are following a deliberate plan to eliminate opposition to vaccination.

WHO will do whatever it takes to gain cooperation with their vaccine program, because they don’t believe anyone should be allowed to interfere with their agenda. In the following quote from WHO, they refer to people being “affected” by vaccine hesitance. They speak of vaccine hesitance as if it was a disease that requires treatment. Please note the words that I have emphasized with italics.

The press release stated:

Vaccine hesitancy is not only an issue in high income countries, but is a complex, rapidly changing global problem that varies widely. Interviews with immunization managers from WHO regions revealed that while in some cases particular rural ethnic minorities and remote communities were affected; in other areas wealthy urban residents expressed concerns regarding vaccine safety. In some areas concerns are related to subgroups of religious or philosophical objectors. [6]

In other words, some people are “affected” by the disease of vaccine hesitancy. A symptom of the disease is “concern about vaccine safety.” A common marker of the disease is being a member of a group of concerned like-minded people who they call vaccine “objectors.” So, if you question vaccine safety and object to their use, then WHO is developing a treatment program just for you!

Bioethicists Targeting “Natural” Parenting and Breastfeeding

Two bioethicists from the University of Pennsylvania, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill are concerned about children who do not receive vaccinations. They don’t use the term “vaccine hesitance” in their recent article, but recommend eliminating the word “natural” from the vocabulary used by healthcare professionals as a strategy to make it easier for parents to vaccinate their children.

In their article, which will be published in the April issue of Pediatrics, they describe the powerful influence found in the word “natural” and identify the groups of people who are most likely to be influenced by this word. They state:

The idea of the “natural” evokes a sense of purity, goodness, and harmlessness. Meanwhile, synthetic substances, products, and technologies mass produced by industry (notably, vaccines) are seen as “unnatural” and often arouse suspicion and distrust. Part of this value system is the perception that what’s natural is safer, healthier and less risky. This embrace of the “natural” over the “unnatural” appears in a variety of contemporary scientific and medical issues beyond vaccination, including rejection of genetically modified foods, a preference for organic over conventionally grown foods, and rejection of assisted reproductive technologies, as well as concerns over environmental toxins and water fluoridation. Much of the interest in complementary and alternative medicines also hinges on “ideas of natural techniques as safer, gentler and benign.” In some cases, however, this view that “natural” is synonymous with “better” may work against specific public health goals. [7] [Emphasis added]

I understand the authors to say that parents who desire to feed their babies with natural mother’s milk, who eat natural food, and who use natural products may make unreasonable conclusions when they consider vaccinating their children. The concern is that their preoccupation with natural products may be causing them to believe that vaccines are unnatural, and therefore should be avoided. The authors are urging those who market health programs to stop using the word natural in the hope of encouraging greater vaccination rates.

In the summary of their article, they stated:

Whatever the ethics of appealing to the natural in breastfeeding promotion, it raises practical concerns. The “natural” option does not align consistently with public health goals. If doing what is “natural” is “best” in the case of breastfeeding, how can we expect mothers to ignore that powerful and deeply persuasive worldview when making choices about vaccination? If breastfeeding promotion frames the “factory-made” option as risky or unhealthy, what should parents conclude when choosing between factory-made vaccines and boosting immunity “naturally”? We should think twice before referencing the “natural” in breastfeeding promotion, even if it motivates women to breastfeed. [8]

I must wonder whether vaccine objectors are really so feeble-minded and easily persuaded that the removal of the word “natural” from marketing materials will suddenly cause them to lose their vaccine hesitancy? I doubt it!

Could “Vaccine Hesitance” become a Mental Illness?

I wonder how long it will be until the WHO steps up the intensity of its vaccine program and declares “vaccine hesitancy” to be a mental illness. There are already some people who believe that preoccupation with avoiding chemicalized and genetically modified food, and the strong desire to eat natural, unadulterated, and nutrient rich food are signs of a mental illness. They call this illness orthorexia nervosa. [9] (I am completely serious!)

Of course, eating disorders can be serious problems, and I do not want to minimize the suffering of those who are trapped in uncontrollable eating patterns. At the same time, a choice to eat unprocessed food that is not laced with toxic chemicals and GMO ingredients, by itself, does not constitute an eating disorder or a mental illness. In the same way, the choice to avoid vaccines should not be seen as a mental defect, which needs to be treated with propaganda programs from the WHO.

Maybe the WHO Needs a Better Name for “Vaccine Hesitance”

In my opinion, before vaccine hesitance can be taken seriously by world governments, it needs a better name. Maybe we should call it Immunorexia Nervosa. Perhaps Vaccigenic Familial Phobia or Hyperinjectable Pathogenic Hysteria would grab the attention of world leaders? How about Anti-Vaxxer Oppositional Insecurity Defiance Disorder? Of all these names, I really like Anti-Vaxxer Oppositional Insecurity Defiance Disorder – AVOIDD.

The term “vaccine hesitance” is just too simple of a name, it has no pizzazz. The WHO marketing campaigns won’t be able to induce much fear by using such a bland and innocuous name. Giving it a name that sounds like a serious disease would create fear and loathing in the minds of the population, and might motivate countries to donate millions of dollars toward the treating of this new mental illness.

Maybe the WHO could work out a deal with the American Psychiatric Association to put AVOIDD in the next version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, so that people who choose not to vaccinate can be officially labeled as having mental illness.

Maybe We Need a Drug to Treat AVOIDD

Maybe the WHO could contact one of the Big Pharma corporations and see if they could whip up a drug to treat the disease. A disease such as Anti-Vaxxer Oppositional Insecurity Defiance Disorder seems perfectly positioned to have a drug specifically designed to treat it. They could call it Vaxrepresagen.

The WHO could develop great sounding TV ads, “Are you afraid of giving your children vaccines? Maybe you have AVOIDD. Ask your doctor, maybe you need Vaxrepresagen.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could create a mandatory database containing the names of all parents who will not vaccinate their children. This list could be handed over to state level Department of Social Service workers, who could then be charged with requiring all parents on the list to either take Vaxrepresagen for their mental illness (AVOIDD) or give up their children.

Do You Already have AVOIDD?

How do you know if you might already qualify for having AVOIDD? I have put together a set of screening questions that could be used to diagnose AVOIDD. These are the kinds of questions that WHO immunization managers might be asking us in the future. How many of these questions describe you? If you find that most of them describe your reality and your life, then beware! – You might soon be targeted for intervention especially if you have children under your care.

1. Do you distrust the FDA, CDC, Big Pharma, and the allopathic medical associations and believe their vaccine development program is not operating in your best interest?

2. Do you wish that you could just live your life without thinking about the forced vaccination programs that are being planned for you and your children?

3. Does it seem beyond your ability to keep your mouth shut when friends and family members eagerly speak about the importance of everyone being vaccinated?

4. Do you find it hard to push down an angry reaction when you see pharmacies and retail store posting signs that say “Get your flu shot here” or hear about schools giving vaccines to children without parental approval?

5. Are you outraged when you hear of another child who has died or who is experiencing permanent damage after receiving a vaccine?

6. Do you feel unjustly attacked when people blame you for the spread of measles and other diseases, because you don’t believe in vaccination and don’t vaccinate your children?

7. Do you feel like you have control over your life if you are able to avoid vaccinations for yourself and your children?

8. Do you believe that natural is better, and you and your family will be safer and healthier if you don’t eat food that contains GMO ingredients and toxic chemicals, and don’t receive injections of vaccines that contain toxic substances like mercury, aluminum, and numerous other hazards?

9. Have you put yourself on an anti-vaccine pedestal and wonder how others can possibly consider taking vaccines given all the evidence of harm that they do?

10. Do family life, happiness, and creative activities get ignored because of your efforts to avoid vaccines for yourself and your family?

I have to admit that I didn’t do very well on this screening test. I had to answer yes to all the questions except the last two. I guess I am preoccupied with vaccine related concerns – I guess I have a bad case of AVOIDD.

Actually I think question 9 was kind of a trick question. I don’t want to think of myself as standing on a pedestal, but I can’t help speaking the truth about the harm that is done by vaccines.

I answered no to question 10, “Do family life, happiness, and creative activities get ignored because of your efforts to avoid vaccines?” I said “no,” because currently no one is trying to force me to take a vaccine. But I suppose that would change when white vans filled with public health workers and homeland security officers start going door to door to give vaccinations.

Conclusion: “Vaccine Madness” is Real

Until the grim day of mandatory vaccination for all people arrives, I will live with my disease. I wish I didn’t need to have AVOIDD, but that is beyond my control. I suppose this last statement confirms the fact that I really do have AVOIDD. Those of us who do have AVOIDD should celebrate, because we have not fallen for the lies, deceptions, and manipulation of Big Pharma and WHO.

AVOIDD may be a fictitious disease, but vaccine madness is real! Vaccine madness is driving the vaccination agenda of the World Health Organization and the unrelenting research programs of Big Pharma that plan to add hundreds of new vaccines to the vaccine program in coming years.

The perception of using one’s intellect to assess the potential harm of vaccines does not deserve to be labeled as a human defect requiring treatment by the WHO. Vaccine hesitancy is not a problem to be overcome or a disease to be cured, but a sign that the house of cards that Big Pharma has built is beginning to fall. People who care about their health and the health of their children should have vaccine hesitancy! This is a sign of a mind that is able to think freely and a mind that is not easily controlled.

I continue to pray that the vaccine madness that has gripped the World Health Organization, public health agencies, and Big Pharma will be healed. We also must keep reminding people that whether or not they know it, every vaccine produces harm. Until the public outcry against vaccines reaches a level where the global vaccine cartel starts backing down, I will just keep on praying, keep on living a natural and wholesome lifestyle, and keep on doing my best to live with AVOIDD.

Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com

References

[1] “WHO Wants to Market Vaccines Like Burgers and Soda,” Marco Cáceres, National Vaccine Information Center, March 9, 2016.

[2] “Vaccine hesitancy: A growing challenge for immunization programmes,” World Health Organization, August 18, 2015. Retrieved 3/19/2016.

[3] IBID.

[4] IBID.

[5] IBID.

[6] IBID.

[7] Jessica Martucci, Anne Barnhill; “Unintended Consequences of Invoking the “Natural” in Breastfeeding Promotion,” Pediatrics, April 2016.

[8] IBID.

[9] “Orthorexia Nervosa,” National Eating Disorders Association, Retrieved 3/17/2016.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.