The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) believes informed choice is crucial in weighing health-treatment options— especially vaccinations.
As Richard Gale and Gary Null have written: Vaccines are suspensions of infectious agents used to artificially induce immunity against specific diseases. The aim of vaccination is to mimic the process of naturally occurring infection through artificial means. Theoretically, vaccines produce a mild to moderate episode of infection in the body with only symptomatic, temporary, and slight side effects.
- advocates for the freedom of choice to be vaccinated or not.
- believes that no one— children, pregnant women, adults, the military, senior— should be forced to be vaccinated.
- believes that for individuals to make up their minds about vaccination, they need accurate and impartial information.
- believes that informed choice is the best way to protect the right to decide about vaccination.
The vaccine industry owns a billion-dollar market but has meager proof of its products efficacy or safety. Consumers are entitled to know exactly what is going into their bodies its benefits and risks and how safe and how effective that substance is.
There is mounting evidence that many vaccines are unsafe due to harmful ingredients, such as thimerosal (mercury) and aluminum. We at ANH-USA are worried that some inoculations may do more harm than good, and are very concerned about the apparent lack of urgency among federal regulators when vaccinations result in disability or death.
As America’s infant mortality rate and the number of autistic and chronically diseased children rise, those responsible for inoculation schedules (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations that are funded in part by vaccine manufacturers) fail to provide unbiased studies on the probable link between vaccines and illness in children. And yet, federal policy currently encourages and in many cases requires that all children receive up to 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months. We believe that parents have the right to refuse compulsory vaccinations and are entitled to make their own informed decisions about which inoculations, if any, they (and their children) receive.
Big Pharma drug companies get over $10 billion per annum from the vaccine industry. It is no surprise, therefore, that companies such as Merck and Eli Lilly are constantly developing new vaccines, fast-tracking them through safety checks, spending little or no time studying the long-term side effects and failing to investigate reports of injury caused by vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies treasure their bottom line above our health and the health of our children.
Why do the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the CDC and other governmental agencies charged with protecting consumers allow drug companies to produce and distribute products that are tested inadequately and are sometimes even deadly?
The answer: Big PHARMA pays off researchers and top officials at the CDC. According to Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.: â€œThey routinely allow scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines.â€ Dr. Sam Katz, a CDC committee chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was also part of the team that developed the measles vaccine. Dr. Neal Halsey, another CDC committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and also received honoraria from Abbot Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.
What’s worse is that the drug companies then lobby these same agencies to make their vaccine compulsory. For example, in 2007, lobbyists for Merck tried to get its Gardasil vaccine mandated for sixth-grade girls in every state, despite 15,000 adverse-event reports, 3,000 injuries, 48 deaths and speculation that its long-term effects could include infertility.
The presence of thimerosal in vaccines is also troubling. Although it has been removed from some vaccines, this deadly substance (which is 49.6 percent mercury by weight) still remains in others, including the flu shot. During the 1990s, after 11 more vaccines were added to the children’s immunization schedule, 70 million children were inoculated with vaccines containing thimerosal. At the same time, autism rates skyrocketed.
After a study in 1977 found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of mercury than those given to American children suffered brain damage, Russia, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries banned thimserosal in vaccines. Meanwhile, our government continues to claim it has proved there is no link between autism and thimerosal. But ethical and methodological flaws destroy the credibility of each of the few U.S. studies conducted. The studies were intended to discover no link between thimerosal and autism!
With the government controlled by Big Pharma, how can parents trust it to protect their children?
Common Pro-Vaccine Arguments
- Vaccines are safe
This is demonstrably false. The U.S. Vaccine Court— set up after Congress decided to shield vaccine makers from all liability for their products—has paid out$3.5 billion to 5,000 Americans for vaccine injuries. Also very few studies have been done comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated populations, which would be the real test of vaccine safety. What evidence there is suggeststhat unvaccinated children are generally healthier than vaccinated children. In fact the National Academy of Sciences, which advises the government on health matters, concludedin 2013 that “key elements of the [vaccine]schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies.”
- Vaccines are effective
Also false. For example, the latest flu vaccine (for the 2017-18 flu season) was only 17% effectiveagainst the strain that caused 80% of flu infections. Since 2003, the flu vaccine hasn’t been more than 60% effective, and is usually considerably lower. Yet this vaccine puts mercury and adjuvants such as aluminum directly into a child’s bloodstream, where the liver cannot provide any protection. Or the child even receives in utero. Other vaccines, such as the pertussis shot, have also been shownto be ineffective. Despite high vaccination rates for MMR, we still see outbreaks of mumps, suggsting that protection from vaccines are not strong or wane quickly.
- Vaccines confer herd immunity
One of the main arguments in favor of taking away parental rights to opt out of vaccination is the herd immunity hypothesis, which states that a very high percentage of a community must be vaccinated in order to protect everyone (the herd) from a disease. This is supposed to work because there are not enough vulnerable individuals to allow the disease to spread. Those few who are unable to receive vaccines on medical grounds are then supposed to be protected by the inability of the infectious agent to spread. This line of argument further states that a decision not to vaccinate is selfish because it threatens the health of those too vulnerable to be vaccinated against a disease.
The herd immunity hypothesis is often stated as established fact, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. For one thing it was developed out of observations of natural immunity, not vaccination. Statisticians observed that populations were protected when sufficient members contracted the wild form of a disease, and subsequently acquired lifelong immunity.With vaccines, however, the evidence plainly shows that unvaccinated children may catch infectious diseases from vaccinated children.
The vaccine herd immunity theory is further undermined by the fact that not only infection but even epidemics can occur in vaccinated populations. In 1989, the CDC reported measles outbreaks occurring in schools with vaccination levels above 98%. The same has been true for whooping cough, a vaccine which has been “improved” but still may not work. Much of the current shingle epidemic also seems related to the vaccination.
The herd immunity argument is also inconsistent. On the one hand, the theory goes, people who cannot receive vaccines for whatever reason are protected from the disease through a high level of vaccination within the rest of society. On the other hand, parents who don’t vaccinate their children put the health of the wider community at risk. How can a handful of people not getting vaccinated be protected from getting sick, while at the same time being so disease-ridden that they make others sick? This is not logical. Yet supposed health authorities on the subject, mindless media commentators, schools doing the government’s bidding, and parent-teacher associations waste no opportunity to bash parents over the head with this message.
If not all vaccines are safe or effective, and the herd immunity hypothesis isn’t supported by the facts, then there is no rationale to eliminate or restrict a parent’s right to opt their children out of vaccinations—yet we see multiple efforts, at the state and federal level, to do just that. At ANH-USA, we fight to maintain a parent’s right to choose what is best for their family.