February 27, 2015
Dear Readers of the Nation,
I won’t introduce myself personally in order to encourage you to toss out any way in which you might be influenced by names, or status, or connections, so you can focus instead on the information that is in this letter and the links provided and trust your own judgement of all of it. You are being asked to think past what the Nation tells you, past what the media tells you, past what you were “taught” in school. Rely on your own logic, on your own discernment, on your instinctual desire to protect yourself and your family, and on your knowledge of corporate power and how it operates.
The Nation article itself does not say say this to its readers though it would fit them very well and respect their intelligence and abilities:
“There is a debate raging in the US right now over every aspect of vaccines, challenging the whole paradigm of vaccine use and bringing in much new information. We strongly encourage you to research on your own, become as educated as you can, draw from as many and as wide sources as you can, and of course, as progressives, keep thinking politically and asking “Cui bono?
This article is not meant to be an “argument” with The Nation piece but to use it as a counterpoint to flesh out some of the science, history, and financial interests surrounding vaccines, so the reader can begin to become familiar and start to engage the issue from a much broader knowledge base.
While I no longer think political labels make sense and have cut us off from valuing and listening to each other, I once considered myself a progressive and was a subscriber to the Nation.
“…. the “left” versus “right” split is fraudulent and used to control the debate and condition citizens to think along certain lines. Left-wing magazines like the “The Nation” and “The New Republic” and right-wing magazines like “The National Review were “artificially set up.” The former were financed by Whitney money while the latter by Buckley. Both are “The Order.” [“See list of Skull and Bones members. (Far too many to post here)]
“Dr. Sutton states: “Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left. This is a Hegelian trap to divide and control.”
Who is the Nation?
“The professional Progressive Movement that we see reflected in the pages of The Nation magazine, in the online marketing and campaigning of MoveOn and in the speeches of Van Jones, is primarily a political public relations creation of America’s richest corporate elite, the so-called 1%, who happen to bleed Blue because they have some degree of social and environmental consciousness, and don’t bleed Red. But they are just as committed as the right to the overall corporate status quo, the maintenance of the American Empire, and the monopoly of the rich over the political process that serves their economic interests.”
Was The Nation article written independently or was it directed or even given to the Nation to post as theirs?
This is an extremely relevant question given the whistle blowing admission of German journalist Udo Ulfkotte that the CIA has been extensively controlling journalists (including himself).
Because the CIA is also tied to the CDC which is in charge of the vaccine schedule and makes most public announcements about vaccines, and this article is on vaccines, it becomes important to to consider, not just with this Nation article, but with any media article and especially those extolling vaccines.
In looking into the measles outbreak connected to Disneyland which has become a trigger for numerous bills across the country to remove vaccine exemptions and mass media encouragement of mandated vaccination for the entire country, it turns out there is also a connection between Disney and the CIA. In addition, the CIA has been involved in vaccine teams in Pakistan and with Save the Children which are associated with killing children with vaccines.
So, to ask whether this Nation article full of such praise of vaccines may be related to CIA is a reasonable beginning for thinking as dispassionately and broadly as possible about the article, which itself is a panagyric to vaccines as well as an extensive attack on a doctor who questioned one of them.
The Nation article itself
Annie Sparrow on February 19, 2015
[The Nation paragraphs will be marked by “TN” to differentiate it from inserted other passages.]
Mennonite girls gather at the health and safety clinic in Ohio (AP/Tom E. Puskar)
Photographs suggest things. They do not prove things. At first glance, what does it suggest to you?
Beginning with the photograph
The article purports to show Mennonite girls. The Amish and Mennonites are closely related in their customs. For those who have been following issues of vaccines for any length of time, the Amish are significant nationally because for the most part they do not allow their children to be vaccinated, and quite distinct from the rest of the US population, they also have an extraordinarily low level of autism. This has been an uncomfortable fact for those promoting vaccines as well as the fact that Amish children are also healthier than American children most of whom are vaccinated. Those healthy Amish children have become testimony to an undeniable fact – that vaccines are not actually needed for health – and the absence of autistic children among non-vaccinated Amish children keeps a fire burning under questions about vaccines’ connection to autism.
Given that the Amish are people who typically don’t vaccinate, and they are physically indistinguishable from Mennonites who still use horses and buggies, it’s interesting that the author of the article chose this picture of these children outside a health clinic, next to a sign for an MMR vaccine clinic. Are the children there for vaccines? Or are the children just waiting on someone inside the clinic who could be there for any of the myriad reasons people go to health clinics?
The photo certainly suggests that the children are there for the vaccines, but in being under the title about an anti- vax movement, the photo somehow does double duty and also suggests to anyone just glancing at the photo, that this is what anti-vax people look like – rural, religious, in a word, less educated.
The Nation readers will have to think for themselves how they reacted to the photograph and what it said to them, as well about what biases they come in with about families who don’t vaccinate their children or who protest against mandates.
Looking at the title of the article: “What the Anti-Vax Movement Doesn’t Tell You About Measles”
The title could instill prejudice – that is, pre-judgement – in the Nation readers against people they don’t know, before they even begin to read the article. And prejudice is just that, a judgment of a group of people we don’t actually know personally. Perhaps it also instills a bit of paranoia since “these people” are said to be hiding something from “you,” but then again, perhaps paranoia or fear may be a common element of all prejudice. Did the title have any pre-judging impact on you, The Nation reader?
The author, in using the term “anti-vax movement,” has applied a highly inaccurate label. It doesn’t fit people who have many different issues concerning vaccines, many of whom are vaccinate their children out of their own belief that vaccines have value. Others would like their children vaccinated but simply want to decide how many and which and when. Others are seeking vaccine safety, and want independent testing of vaccines outside the influence of the vaccine manufacturers. Others think that vaccines should be green – nothing but the antigen and sterile water. Others thinkvaccines in general, even green ones, overwhelm the immune system of developing children and weaken it and shouldn’t be taken at all. Others see a profit motive in seeding children with various viruses, heavy metals, mycoplasma (lecture on mycoplasma by one of the leading cell biologists in the world), etc. Still others see a depopulation agenda at play since the Rockefellers who helped financed genocide of millions during WWII with IG Farben, are deeply involved. Others are impressed by studies such as the one below showing vaccinated children have 2 to 5 times more diseases than unvaccinated children and just want their children to be that healthy. http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new-study-vaccinated-children-have-2-to-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/
So, “anti-vax” is collective misnomer for a very group of people who are thinking about vaccines from very many and different angles. What all of those people have in common, though, is a common rejection of any and all vaccine mandates. They would more accurately be called “anti-Vaccine Mandates.” As the government and corporations have suddenly begun a coordinated push for vaccine mandates, they appear to have stimulated increasing number of Americans to resent that control.
When a USA Today columnist called for the arrest and imprisonment of parents who don’t vaccinate their children and offered an accompanying poll, 92% of readers voted against mandated vaccines. Doctors are coming out against vaccine mandates as well.
When NY mandated H1N1 vaccines for health care workers and teachers, the mandate brought together the Public Employees Federation, and New York State United Teachers in a lawsuit against the state, groups that are not necessarily opposed to vaccines in general. But the government’s current attempt to remove rights around health choices will be bringing many groups together. If there is a movement growing now against vaccine mandates, as there appears to be, the government, the corporations seeking it and the media promoting it, have given birth to it.
Parents, though, are simply concerned to prevent harm to their children, which vaccines do cause, and in many forms, only three pictured here:
Photos are from Natural News.
A reaction to the BCG vaccine:
Neurologic damage by the DPT vaccine:
Severe skin reaction following vaccination:
Unlike government or vaccine corporations or the media, the parents and now many others who do not vaccine (or any other health) mandates, have no financial stake in this issue, other than fear of being destroyed financially were someone in their family damaged. They are concerned for their own and their children’s health.
The people who are concerned about vaccines (from whatever angle), are in fact, the grassroots. These are the very people that progressives typically care about – people speaking out at great risk to say their children have been or may be harmed by international corporations, people who are saying they are vulnerable and made helpless by the capture of US agencies such as the FDA and CDC by the vaccine corporations.
For many different reasons, people are essentially fighting the power of the multinational corporations on behalf of their families, around life and death issues. If that’s not grassroots, it’s hard to think who would better qualify.
Structurally, the “anti-mandate” movement has all the characteristics of many other movements joined the beleaguered little guy – the underdog – facing a bullying government or dangerous corporations. Progressives would immediately align with people in India who suffered and died because of Bhopal yet do not yet see the directparallel to Americans refusing to have themselves or parents refusing to let their children be intentionally exposed to potentially deadly toxins, for corporate profit.
Progressives can “meet” a few of the people the Nation mislabels as the anti-vax movement
Does the Nation’s title set these grassroots people up as “other” to you, or even as a threat? Are they people to be dismissed as wrong even before you begin reading?
The photo that accompanies the article may make you as readers believe you have a sense of the people involved. But do you?
In an effort to do things a bit differently, a video of a public hearing in Massachusetts has been included here so The Nation readers who want to get a real sense of some of the people involved, can do so for themselves. The Nation readers who live in Massachusetts would be “meeting” their neighbors.
This is an attempt to help bring you readers together with others, around what is in fact a major national and international controversy involving a corporate technology, with bills showing up across the country to force that technology, dangerous or not, on everyone. Up until now, government agencies and media have guided public thinking – including demonizing concerned parents and creating divisiveness even in families – while those controlling pharma have decided public policy behind the scenes. But the technology has come under such huge question now, that it requires a great public discussion and an open source investigation by as many people as possible.
So, The Nation readers can begin with meeting some people in Massachusetts at a public hearing who have concerns about vaccination as well as about information on vaccine injuries being suppressed.
This is a long introduction to the analysis of The Nation article but it is necessary in order to deal with the extreme bias set up around this issue which makes it hard for Americans to hear each other at a time when they most need to – when any are in pain. Progressives care about other people and justice but the issue of vaccines has been so swamped by prejudice, divisiveness and fear that it is hard to see what is going on.
To the extent any analysis here helps to dispel prejudice, divisiveness and fear, it will be good. To the extent that people are then freed to engage with their full intelligence and abilities in this crucial national discussion over rights, health, and power, that brings us closer to being a just country run by people, not corporations.
The Nation article itself will be next in this series