Vaccines: Penalizing the Unvaccinated?

October 15, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LocalOrg) - Slate has enthusiastically supported vaccinations and in particular, establishment talking points and narratives regarding them, as well as a particular focus on dismembering mainstream anti-vaccine views. In a recent article titled, "Endangering the Herd," Slate argues that those refusing to receive vaccines should be penalized, and the act of refusing to be vaccinated be criminalized.

The article would claim:
 Parents who don’t vaccinate their kids may have the most heartfelt reason in the world: fear for their own children’s safety. But the basis for that fear is simply unfounded, and their decisions are putting other kids directly at risk. The bottom line is that the government’s interest in protecting children from getting the measles should trump parents’ interest in making medical decisions for their kids
In an attempt to lend credibility to the article's premise - particularly that fears of vaccinations are unfounded - it cites a fictional television show and repeated assurances from governments that there is no link between vaccines and otherwise unexplained conditions like autism.

Indeed, fictional television shows and statements peddled by verified liars among the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom who brought us decade spanning wars based on now verified lies, form the basis of Slate's notion that those who fail to receive vaccines produced and distributed by big-pharmaceutical corporations like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), should be penalized. GSK alone, has been convicted multiple times in courtrooms around the world of multibillion dollar bribery scandals and found guilty of and otherwise engaged in other immense improprieties.

Image: GSK, one of several producers of the MMR vaccine, has been caught
once again amid a massive, multibillion dollar bribery scandal, this time in
China. Literally convicted criminals, why would any rational human being
inject into their bodies anything produced by this corporation? 
In one instance, when Chinese authorities began investing a nationwide multibillion dollar bribery racket run by GSK top executives, GSK formed teams to disrupt, bribe, and otherwise confront law enforcement authorities in an attempt to obstruct their investigation.

Criminality, upon criminality.

GSK has been accused and convicted of doing likewise in both Europe and the United States, yet they are still in business - a business that includes producing the very vaccines Slate believes people should be penalized for refusing to take.

Why would any rational human being allow themselves to be injected by something produced by such a corporation - a corporation literally convicted of criminality, fraud, and bribery? If GSK can bribe hundreds if not thousands of doctors and healthcare workers around the world to endorse their products, how difficult would it be to bribe writers at Slate who literally write for money?

Big-Pharma, not Activists, are Responsible for the Growing Mistrust of Vaccines

The debate isn't ultimately about the science of vaccines, but rather a lack of trust of those charged with producing, monitoring the safety of, and distributing vaccines. The false narrative of science versus conspiracy theorists is peddled by the media, the government, and the corporations that hold influence over both because a narrative focusing on the wisdom of entrusting criminals and mass murderers with our health is an open and shut case.

Such a conclusion would result in the ditching of big-pharma's vaccines and seeking alternative solutions to immunization, vaccine production and distribution, and overall accountability for healthcare. This would in turn result in the decentralization of healthcare and pharmaceutical production, breaking up the unwarranted wealth and influence of big-pharma and those throughout the government and media that have enriched themselves protecting this monopoly. Clearly this is an outcome many in the media, government, and across the board rooms of big-pharmaceutical corporations across the Western World will fight fanatically to prevent.

For the anti-vaccine movement - it may be wiser to focus on these aspects of the debate rather than be drawn into the false paradigm the media is trying to superimpose upon the issue. It may even be wise to not use the term "anti-vaccine movement," and instead make it an anti-big-pharma movement.

Slate - were it anything other than pages for rent - would focus more on who is responsible for the vast mistrust the public has for big-pharmaceutical corporations and the governments they have verifiably bribed, lobbied, and in some cases, directly control - rather than focus on rational people who do not trust this vast concentration of wealth, influence, and control over human health.

Ebola and the Danger of Globalization

Whatever the cause - conspiracy or incompetence - the recent Ebola outbreak illustrates the dangers of centralized globalization, and opens the door to possible solutions. 


October 13, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Ebola Viral Disease (EVD) has surfaced in West Africa in an unprecedented outbreak infecting and killing thousands according to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The epicenter appears to be centered between Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia - the former being where the first case was reported, the latter being hit the hardest.  Other nations including Senegal, Nigeria, and Mali have had cases reported but were contained and the spread of the disease there appears to have stopped. Nations like Uganda who have grappled with Ebola and similar diseases have yet to be affected and are believed to have suitable measures in place to zero in and contain the virus.

Beyond countries in West Africa, Spain, the United States, Brazil, and now Germany have reported travel-associated cases of Ebola as well as infections of health workers who apparently breached protocols while handling infected patients.

Characteristics of Ebola and Current Countermeasures 

The Ebola virus itself has an incubation period of between 2-21 days. It is not believed to be infectious until symptoms begin to form, however, it can cause infections for up to seven weeks after a patient recovers. Because of its varying incubation period, those infected have between 2-21 days to travel before any form of "screening" currently being done at airports would detect a fever and therefore be able to identify, contain, and treat possible Ebola cases. This means that the infected could be traveling into foreign countries, well past ports of entry and screening points before their symptoms and ability to infect others begin to manifest themselves.

Upon contracting Ebola, patients may begin to exhibit a fever and complain of abdominal pain but otherwise exhibit few other symptoms. It is only until later stages of the infection that Ebola may cause rashes and bleeding - and some patients never develop these symptoms at all. A complete list of symptoms is available at the CDC's website.

The GMO Labeling Conundrum

September 28, 2014 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) It would seem that large agricultural corporations touting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) they claim possess enhanced benefits for farmers and consumers would be proud to differentiate their products on the shelves from organic and traditionally produced food. However that is not the case. Not only is big-ag attempting to hide the true nature of their products, but the many big-business food processors that incorporate GMO ingredients into their final products are likewise attempting to mislead consumers.

The obvious fear is that consumers will avoid GMO products in favor of those not labeled as modified. While other arguments have been made in attempts to justify not properly labeling food as genetically modified or not, the underlying theme appears to be the belief of big-ag that consumers' ignorance over the alleged safety of GMO products threatens their business and with it, innovations they claim are a benefit not only to their bottom lines, but to all of humanity.

Of course, beneath the layers of this "belief," is the reality that their products do not offer any overwhelming benefit to humanity, and in fact, in many ways, have become a scourge to humanity. Additionally, peripheral arguments, such as GMO being in no way different to organic products, thus there is no need to label them, are so divergent from logic and commonsense that a general suspicion and distrust has formed in the collective mind of the public in regards to big-ag and those pushing their products.

To counter the growing ire of the general public, big-ag has raised an army of professional propagandists peddling pro-GMO talking points in the form of books, websites, mainstream media reportage and even while posing as ordinary citizens simply expressing their "opinions" in comment sections and upon what are supposed to appear as independent personal blogs. They, to no one's surprise, repeat verbatim the talking points proposed by big-ag itself, and while anti-GMO activists eagerly wade into the fray with this army of propagandists, the only relevant question that should be asked seems to escape them all.