by Jagannath Chatterjee
How would you act if you have decided to buy a car? You would probably visit the car showrooms, talk to the salesmen, collect literature on the cars, visit other showrooms, search the internet, talk to people who have purchased cars, exchange ideas with your friends, talk to the mechanics, and find out more from people who have faced problems with a particular brand. You would also be concerned about the performance and the safety features and wonder if they are up to the advertisements and sales pitch. Pretty much normal, is it not?
Car manufacturers take it on their stride. They know that this is a typical consumer behaviour pattern. The consumers are choosy, picky, and try to have the best value for money. They have distinct individual needs and choices that have to be met in order to stay afloat and be profitable. The manufacturers respond by manufacturing quality cars that are better than the competitors’ and take great care to ensure that both performance and safety aspects are above reproach.
But what if the car manufacturers had an association and a huge political lobby that ensured there was no competition? What if all the car salesmen were taught by the same institution? What if the manufacturers decided what the salesmen read and understood? What if all the salesmen were given licenses that could be revoked if they did not speak the same language? What if they had laws that protected them from lawsuits?
You know what would happen, don’t you? You would then be dealing with a cartel. A cartel that would take the decisions and force them upon you. You would end up with products you do not want. Products that would neither perform nor be safe, for these would not be ensured in such a situation, simply because they would not matter.
The entire pharmaceutical market is such a cartel—and more so the vaccination industry.
The movement against vaccinations, both by victims as well as by discerning doctors, is based upon the consumer behaviour pattern. People are now comparing products, reading the package inserts, logging on to the internet and discussion boards, social media; they are talking to people whose children have suffered adverse reactions, or they have themselves, and they are reading books that gives a glimpse beyond the hype.
The WHO & UNICEF are not happy with this.
In two recently released documents, these two institutions, which we have been indoctrinated into believing have our best interests at heart, have reacted rather strongly. They may have been compelled to do so by their biggest funders, philanthropists and philanthropic institutions that have perfected the art of corporate philanthropy. The money that freely flows to them is used for agendas that are rarely public. You can read up on Bill Gates and George Soros if you have not done so already.
To keep the medical fraternity in check, and to provide ample scope to those who toe the line for favors earned, the WHO has devised a document named, “Causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization (AEFI)” . It is the revised WHO classification prompted by the way recent products like the oral polio vaccine (OPV), Pentavalent vaccine, the Rotavirus vaccine, and the HPV vaccines have behaved in the market.
As pointed out by doctors in India, in response to the deaths from the Pentavalent vaccine, many countries suspended its use. The WHO did not like this attitude, which went against its policy of imposition. They responded by reclassifying the way the doctors are to report adverse effects. Doctors once had more choices, but the WHO reduced them to two: due to the vaccine and not due to the vaccine. After the Andrew Wakefield witch hunt, few doctors have the courage to associate any adverse event directly to any vaccine. So the vaccine became safe, since adverse effects were recorded as not due to the vaccine.
Unfortunately, some black sheep did not like the way the issue was handled. They continued to point out that the vaccine was killing children and also that there was no other cause other than the vaccine, as the children were perfectly healthy before it. They suggested that the vaccine was causing an allergic reaction and also that SIDS was not a legitimate explanation, because SIDS is a classification made if there is no exciting factor in sight. In the case of the Pentavalent vaccine, there was indeed an exciting factor—the vaccine.
Instead of testing the vaccine on laboratory animals to check if there was any allergic reaction, the WHO studied the contents and simply reiterated that the vaccine was safe. It also sought approval from vaccine industry-funded associations, which declared that they have been using the vaccine without any side effects and that the deaths were indeed SIDS. It did not matter for them that the death rate from the Pentavalent vaccube was more than the infant mortality rate of the state in which the maximum number of deaths occurred.
The WHO then realized that it had to act sternly to save its crumbling empire. It thus came out with its revised classification, which rogue doctors promptly pointed out would result in no vaccine ever being associated with any adverse event.
Dr. Paul G. King went through the document thoroughly and came out with a classification that has shocked the entire establishment—not because it is implausible but because it is the right way to classify an adverse event!
Dr King’s classification contains the following choices;
- Caused by
- Probably caused by
- Possibly caused by
- Unclassifiable at present because of lack of critical information
- Possibly not caused by
- Probably not caused by
- Proven not caused by
The last choice could only be made after a proper autopsy of the case was made and all possibilities were ruled out by an impartial investigating team.
Writes Dr King:
In general, the designation of an infant’s death following shortly after an inoculation session as “SIDS” is inappropriate absent a complete detailed autopsy that rules out any brain, brain stem or cardiovascular inflammation as well as any and all out-of-control immune-system aberrations. Thus, in many cases, the “SIDS” label is misused to hide “death by vaccination” especially when high fever, wailing, seizures, convulsions, body rigidity and/or body flaccidity are observed just after vaccination.
It remains to be seen how the WHO responds to these suggestions. As has been observed in the past, this august institution frames its own rules and ignores sane voices.
UNICEF, reacting to the public outcry against vaccine reactions and the absolute disregard for all calls for a transparent and just system of evaluation, came out with its own document titled, “Tracking Anti-Vaccination Sentiment in Eastern European Social Media Networks“.
The document reveals the obvious. Today, parents are looking for alternative sources of information and are suspicious about the official handouts or assurances that vaccines are safe and effective. In other words, parents are now acting as consumers and not as sheep, as they did in the past. There has been an awakening and it is not going to go away.
Embedded in this document is a subtle threat. While doing its research on internet-based personalities and groups, the researchers could actually pinpoint the locations and the computers from which the messages emanated. However, bound by ethics, the organization declares that it has not captured the information. The message is clear: We can get you when we want to.
It finishes by saying that it is all about conspiracy theories, Western plots, and conflict of interest. It also acknowledges that there are “influencers” who have a considerable hold on those seeking information. In its chapters it quotes exact sentences that the activists will identify as their own. These quotes are of people expressing concerns about adverse effects, development disabilities, chemicals, toxins, contaminants and religious and ethical values.
It recommends that powerful search engines should continue to be used to track the influencers, groups, and sentiments. They should also be optimized such that official views turn up in the top, while users search for information. It advises that, “Members of the individual sphere should be approached with an emotional appeal.” It divides the public into three sections, core, intense and alert, and concedes that the first two categories have already made up their minds. It is the “alert” category that are yet undecided and should be targeted by staff trained by communication experts.
It is very interesting to note that UNICEF wishes to take advantage of its brand value. What it wants is to “Empower through delivering key information and helping to ask the right questions. Leverage strong UNICEF brand proposition.”
The public should now be aware about what they are dealing with. Technology, money power, institutional power, the power of indoctrination, the power to segregate information and block unwanted sound bytes, the power to intimidate and threaten, the power to lie in an official imposing tone: All will be the tools through which the vaccination dogma is promoted.