Today, I shared some information from my website, VaxTruth, in response to a question posted in a group by a mother of a two month-old infant. The mother had already decided that she was questioning vaccines and had pretty much made up her mind that vaccines were not right for her child. She was looking for resources to help her as she is scheduled to take her infant in for the 2 month well-baby check. I left a few comments, and linked articles I have written on VaxTruth. I was called out by one of the members of the group, who stated that she wished someone would post articles that were from unbiased sources. I responded, stating that the only bias I have is to add some truth to the discussion about vaccines. She responded that my website was by definition, biased. That bothered me. So much so that I spent a great deal of time thinking about the issue of bias over this afternoon. You know how something hits you and you just cant leave it alone? That was me. Here is my response... I want to thank you for your comment about bias. It bothered me, but I have learned over time that when something strikes such a nerve, that means I need to examine it further. I admit to being biased; however, as you no doubt understand, there are different levels of bias, and some forms of bias are more problematic than others. My bias comes from witnessing my daughters injuries, and also from my experience in private practice, working with children and reviewing their records, and their clinical labs. I have also witnessed amazing recoveries when the sequelae of vaccine-injuries are identified and treated. I have been thinking about this a lot this afternoon, and I think the best way to put it is that if my child had been hit by a train, it would not make me anti-train; it would make me want to educate others about the dangers of children playing on the train tracks. Another way of looking at it (this is not my own statement and I dont recall who said it...) is, If my child had a severe allergic reaction to penicillin, I would want to be sure he/she did not receive penicillin again, and I would want to educate others about the possibility that people can have a severe reaction to penicillin. That would not make me anti-penicillin. The problem with the vaccine program is that it is applied to 100% of the infant and child population as if they are all the same, and there is NO ATTEMPT to figure out which children are more vulnerable to vaccine-injury. The #CDCwhistleblower issue is exactly about that - the children who are being thrown in front of the train, in order to protect the program. They found a group of children who were at greatly increased risk of injury and they covered it up. In 2003. The researchers presented their findings to the IOM (who makes decisions about vaccine safety), and in their 2004 report, the IOM stated, Dont look for susceptible groups. Scientific research is not supposed to shut down inquiry; it is supposed to spur inquiry. The decisions made in 2003-2004 by the CDC and the IOM have resulted in untold injuries and deaths to children, and the people responsible need to be held accountable. I want to also say that if it had not been for the way things happened, I would most likely have been at the CDC, working as a researcher. That was my goal. I earned my masters (of science) in psychology (took a dual track in clinical and experimental) and graduated at the top of my class. I received the National Psychological Foundations Graduate Research Scholarship Award in 1996, for my masters thesis research. I was told not to expect to win, since it was very rare for masters students to receive the award because most recipients are Ph.D. candidates and the awards are for doctoral dissertations. I won. I was a research assistant throughout my masters program, and participated in the design and implementation of original research studies, and am published as an author on research in peer-reviewed journals. I applied and was accepted to George Washington University as a Ph.D. student, with full funding and a teaching assistantship. Then my daughter had a serious vaccine-injury after her kindergarten shots. I also had a grand-daughter born to a drug-addicted mother, and I went to court to get custody of her because she was in a dangerous, abusive living environment. Due to those two factors, I had to pull out of the Ph.D. program because I couldnt take care of two children with serious medical and behavioral needs and be a full-time Ph.D. student AND carry a teaching load all at the same time. So I chose the kids. That did not affect my ability to research or write. Thats why I do what I do. I have these skills for a reason, and the things that happened to my daughter happened for a reason. I admit that makes me biased, but my bias comes from experience - not from financial influence. To me, that makes all the difference.
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:21:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015