‘Experts’ think anti-vaccine activists are crazy idiots, but they are not
There is one thing that vaccine pushers don’tt seem to be able to deal with today: facts.
Many anti-vaccine activists are labeled crazy or even as idiots because they believe that vaccines cause disease, but what ‘experts’ never cite are a number of studies that do show a relation between vaccines ( or their ingredients ) and the appearance of neurological disorders.
A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry concluded that children who had been vaccinated were 80 percent more likely to be diagnosed with anorexia and 25 percent more likely to be diagnosed with OCD than their non-vaccinated counterparts.
Also, vaccinated children were found to be more likely to show anxiety disorders and compared to the controls.
When ingested, mercury can cause brain damage. Mercury can also affect the kidneys and immune system. At the very least, it is safe to say that doctors and scientists do not have a definite answer on whether mercury in vaccines can cause adverse effects. Experts have differing opinions.
One would think that the slightest suspicion of a relationship between vaccines and adverse effects on children or adults should warrant a careful look at what doctors and experts believe is happening. However, most studies paid for by pharmaceutical companies or people associated with or financed by them, conveniently continue to deny any responsibility.
A question that must be raised is, why, if there is no relation between vaccines or vaccine ingredients and adverse effects, do governments need to have a special fund to pay millions of dollars to families whose children have been damaged by vaccines?
Another question that needs to be asked is, why do pharmaceutical companies have immunity from damages caused by vaccines?
If vaccines were totally safe, why would a country need to give immunity to pharmaceutical companies or create a special fund to pay families for damages caused by vaccines?
The public gets no answers from governments or pharmaceutical companies about these or other questions related to vaccine safety. Instead, they have ‘experts’ analyse what activists say against vaccines so they can create excuses to justify damages caused by vaccines.
A video from a group of scientists at the University of Pittsburgh that recommended the human papillomavirus vaccine went unnoticed for a few weeks.
After a month it went viral and hundreds of comments began to sprout like mushrooms, mostly against immunizations.
Its authors took advantage of what initially was a disappointment to study what moves people who oppose massively vaccinating the population, especially children.
The result is a study they just published in the journal Vaccine, where they analyze the Facebook profiles of 197 of the 800 commentators who left more than 10,000 opinions “strongly against vaccines” that accumulated in the social network by 2017.
They come from eight countries, so without rigorous radiography of this movement in the world, it does give an idea of what their points are, they claim.
Researchers have found four major concerns among anti-vaccines:
The first one includes it under the concept of distrust: some people do not believe in the honesty of the scientific community and express their fear about the obligatory nature of immunizations.
This is already happening in some countries in one way or another, given the proliferation of diseases that arise after vaccines are mandated. For those ‘experts’ however, people act based on ‘unfounded fears’.
The clearest case is that of measles, a disease that is sprouting strongly in half the world after the vaccines, ‘experts’ claim, managed to turn it into residual.
The second group is that of the defenders of alternative remedies, who express their rejection of the chemical substances in vaccines.
Those that are marketed have passed numerous safety tests and are recommended in the calendars because it is estimated that the financial benefits outweigh the possible side effects, which can always be there, but are usually mild, they say.
This group of people promotes remedies such as homeopathy or orthomolecular medicine, which have never killed anyone. That is something that vaccine pushers cannot say about their adored drugs.
Precisely, the third group that researchers classify is that of those that ‘oversize the adverse effects’: they believe that they are much more serious than the real ones or they cling to those that happen in a case every million vaccinated giving a false sensation of danger.
Finally, the fourth is that of the ‘conspiranoics’, as independently thinking people are called, who suggest that governments and institutions are hiding information from the population. Among them, it is common to defend hoaxes like the polio virus does not exist, the study claims.
It is important to explain that no one who is sufficiently literate about vaccines and their side effects has ever claimed polio does not exist, yet this argument is built as something everyone who opposes vaccines believes. Much like vaccine science, so-called experts think of people as a herd.
With these results on the table, ‘researchers’ intend to design “tailored messages from each of these groups that fit their beliefs,” according to Brian Primack, lead author of the study.
“If we discard anyone who has a contrary opinion, we are giving up the opportunity to understand them and reach a common point. We want to understand the parents who reject the vaccine to give doctors the opportunity to communicate in an optimal and respectful way with them about the importance of immunization,” he emphasizes.
“The study warns against a general approach to public health messages that encourage vaccination. For example, telling someone in the mistrust subgroup that vaccines do not cause autism can be counterproductive because perhaps it was not even their concern,” adds Beth Hoffman, another of the researchers.
“One of the big problems with those who have this type of beliefs is that for more data against showing them it is difficult to change their opinion. Even more counterproductive, according to several studies, is to show that rational arguments do not usually work in these cases and emotional ones are much more effective”.
This causes eternal disputes in social networks between supporters and detractors who, generally, are condemned not to reach an agreement. For men of science, the key then is censorship of those who dissent.
“One solution is to cut it off: companies like Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, Instagram and Pinterest have already begun to restrict or block groups that reject childhood vaccines.”
As these ‘experts’ see the world, anyone who thinks independently and who wants to decide what to do about their health and wellness is a crazy idiot, and nothing else.