News & Articles
Browse all content by date.
There are two things that seem to primarily bother Gary Kohl’s — his claim that the term (anti-vaxxers) falsely labels parents who seek only to prevent over-vaccinations of their children, and the idea that doctors portray unsafe vaccines as being completely harmless; Both are not true!
Firstly, although the anti-vaccine crowd claims that the term (anti-over vaccinations), more accurately describes those who believe vaccines can cause serious illnesses, they are still raising a semantic argument to validate that opinion, since the fact is that parents who deny even one vaccination for their children, are still denying the medical necessity of certain vaccines in general! So, they can rightly be called vaccine deniers based only on their refusals to allow even one vaccine--not to mention some parents who after being influenced by warnings about the safety of vaccines, might deny all, or several other, vaccinations that their children are recommended to receive — before they join other children in public schools.
Secondly the following adverse reactions (as listed by the CDC) are known to happen in a (very small) number of children;
“After MARV vaccination, a child
• Sore arm from the injection
• Redness or rash at the injection site
• Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck
If these events happen, they usually begin within 2 weeks after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.”
• Seizure (jerking or staring) often associated with fever
The risk of these seizures is higher after MMRV than after separate MMR and chickenpox vaccines when given as the first dose of the series. Your doctor can advise you about the appropriate vaccines for your child.
• Temporary low platelet count, which can cause unusual bleeding or bruising
• Infection of the lungs (pneumonia) or the brain and spinal cord coverings (encephalitis, meningitis)
• Rash all over the body
If your child gets a rash after vaccination, it might be related to the varicella component of the vaccine. A child who has a rash after MMRV vaccination might be able to spread the varicella vaccine virus to an unprotected person. Even though this happens very rarely, children who develop a rash should stay away from people with weakened immune systems and unvaccinated infants until the rash goes away. Talk with your health care provider to learn more.”
“Severe events have very rarely been reported following MMR vaccination, and might also happen after MMRV. These include:
• Long-term seizures, coma, lowered
• Brain damage”
“Any medication can cause a severe allergic reaction. Such reactions to a vaccine are estimated at about 1 in a million doses and would happen a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. As with (ANY) medicine, there is a very remote chance of a vaccine causing a serious injury or death! But the safety of vaccines is always being monitored. For more information, visit: www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/.”
So, as you can see, all of these reactions are openly discussed and admitted to by the CDC. But more importantly, there are screening procedures that can indicate which children are at risk, and your doctor’s advice should always plays a vital role.
Also—HMMM? Why are vaccine makers and government agencies willing to admit that all these reactions are possible if they are primarily motivated by making money at any cost? — wouldn’t you think hiding these possibilities would allow them to make even more money?
I have no doubt that (anti over-vaccination advocates) — the term which Gary Kohls and others prefers to be called—are generally good people who probably feel that they are part of a worthy and noble cause. However, the world is full of well-meaning conspiracy theorists who falsely see spies, and shady Cabals lurking behind every bush — no matter what objective scientific knowledge tells them?
However, strangely enough, in his most recent article published in Reader’s (March 7th edition), Kohls spends much of his time comparing those who oppose his ideas, to the Nazis during WW2 who perpetrated a large number of unethical, sadistic and heartless atrocities—while effectively censoring the media—a strategy which ultimately helped Hitler control the minds of German citizens. So, about that historical reality, I can only completely agree! However, I fail to see the connection between knowledgeable Doctors seeking to alleviate human suffering, and Hitler’s genocidal ambitions, which resulted in the murder many Jewish babies after they had been abandoned or hidden by desperate mothers. However, Hitler did (not) demand that Germans or German Jews, must use vaccines—so Gary is using a very poor analogy about mainstream scientists supposedly acting like Nazis in their attempts to prevent false information about vaccines from convincing mothers not to have their children inoculated?
Kohls has called for members of Congress to publish “the truth” about vaccines. But even if Kohl’s versions of the “facts,” were correct, Congressman Adam Schiff truly did (NOT) “Demand” anything from Amazon.com. What Schiff and others wanted instead, was to confront Jeff Bezos and make sure he knew that, many of the books and films Amazon advertised were doing a piss poor job of spreading objective scientific knowledge. And Schiff’s reasons for doing so—presumably because he knows how misleading lies, (when circulated by extremely large companies)--can be! As Gary himself said
You may think that Schiff’s motives were neither noble or fair, but consider how strongly, and for how long, the Tobacco Industries own scientists insisted that cigarettes were not harmful to our health and contained no ingredients that caused cancer? Wouldn’t the fact that (genuine) scientific research was not used by large tobacco companies whose own employees unabashedly lied before Congress and denied that cigarettes were harmful, make you think differently about the knowledge supposedly dispensed by authentic scientists? I certainly hope so—since, the above case is an example of how pseudo-science was used to falsely claim that cigarette and tobacco products were not harmful at all?
It doesn’t even matter whether a specific contention of pseudo-science is confirmed or rejected. What mainstream scientists are trying to do is utilize the knowledge of (molecular Biologists, immunologists etc.), who all share a genuine respect for real science and for the truth!—not ideas born of speculations that are supported largely by dubious anecdotal evidence, and which unfortunately, are used to reject the conclusions of many well designed and informative peer reviewed studies.
And again—about Gary’s contention that Congressman Schiff “Demanded” Amazon.com. to delete its trove of anti-vaccine books and recorded testimonies? Here is what, Congressman Schiff actually said, and why he said it;
“Congressman Adam Schiff is putting pressure on Amazon to curb the spread of vaccine misinformation in its online stores. Misinformation around vaccines — like the debunked myth that they cause autism —which has led to some children in the United States not getting vaccinated, and is seen by experts as a ‘major contributor’ to recent measles outbreaks.”
“Schiff’s letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos followed two others letters Schiff sent to Google head Sundar Pichai and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. In regard to all three, Schiff criticized their platforms for serving up anti-vaccine propaganda to people who sought objective information about vaccines but were misled. He also criticized Amazon for accepting paid advertising beneficial to anti-vaccine media. “Every online platform, including Amazon, must act responsibly and ensure that they do not contribute to this growing public-health catastrophe!” Again, what Schiff wrote was:
“EVERY ONLINE PLATFORM, INCLUDING AMAZON, MUST ACT RESPONSIBLY AND ENSURE THAT THEY DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS GROWING PUBLIC HEALTH CATASTROPHE.”
Nowhere does Schiff (DEMAND) that Amazon must change its ways!
Schiff’s letter also referenced a recent report from CNN which revealed that, the vast majority of top search results for “vaccine” lead to articles in which Amazon provided false anti-vaccination misinformation. CNN also reported that Amazon accepts paid for advertisements which promote anti-vaccine media, such as ads for the free Kindle e-book Vaccines on Trial that fear-mongers use to create doubts about the safety of vaccines.”
Now, before anyone accuses Schiff of denying Bezos’s 1st amendment rights, remember that the first amendment does (NOT) grant us the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theatre when no fire is really there. And the very fact that Gary Kohls has been provided so many opportunities to express his disagreements, means (of course) that he is not being censored in a Nazi-like fashion. However, consider this scenario:
Let’s say your mother has been stricken with a particularly deadly form of cancer and each day you listen to her cries of pain and share her dashed hopes that some kind of effective medicine might come along to save her. Then, suddenly your mother reads an article or sees a televised info-mercial, which features the testimony of many happy people who are praising a drug that they say cured their cancers almost immediately. Your mother is also informed that, she needs only to fork over nearly all the money left in her bank account in order to obtain this miraculous new cure? And, what if then, your mother finds that this new drug simply does not work? But when she calls the company who sold it to her, there is no answer except an automated announcement saying, “this number is no longer in service?” Wouldn’t this be a scam which you would want to prevent other vulnerable people from being fooled by? Or better yet, one whose perpetrators could be arrested and tried for? Wouldn’t you also hope that her con-men could be found, and that none of their claims would be able to fool anyone else?
So, Is Congressman Schiff wrong for having the same desire—making sure that no more con-men are allowed to use junk science to perpetrate such a crooked scheme? The fact is, that by calling for the removal of pseudo-science from the shelves in Amazon’s warehouses, Congressman Schiff is merely trying to prevent false information from being circulated about devastating illnesses, and thus keep pseudo-science from potentially harming others.
There’s a long list of other false and deceptive claims made by (anti-vaxxers) which I have no room to comment about in this article. However here is a link to a great video found on PBS Frontline, which examines both sides of this issue and, (quite fairly) I might add! Additionally, it also examines several very large studies which have found (NO) connection between vaccines and autism--Including one Danish study which followed 500,000 children, half of whom were given vaccines which were suspected of causing autism, and half of which were given none. The verdict—in regard to cases of autism, both groups remained exactly the same!
Remember, this issue represents a two way street, along which many serious health concerns motivate each side (including parents who want to prevent vaccines form allegedly harming their children), and researchers who fear that parents who don’t vaccinate their children will destroy herd immunity and thus jeopardize many others. Perhaps viewing the above video will help you decide which course is best?
Kohls quoted Socrates as saying—in his Feb 28th article in Reader — titled: “INTERNET TROLLS ATTACK ANYONE EXPOSING THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF BIG VACCINES OVER-VACCINE AGENDA” — (“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates.)
This would explains why Kohls is so actively defaming and misquoting Dr. David Offit and Dr. David Gorski, by publishing things they did not say, accusing them of heinous crimes they did not commit, while all in all, Kohl’s repeatedly aims numerous ad hominem insults attacking both of their morals and professional integrity—So, you know what? After reading such insults, I’d say Kohls is definitely the one who issues the most heinous lies and dishonest ad-hominem attacks, in order to deceive!
One more thing—Did Socrates actually say what Gary claims he did? Where is the evidence that he did?