Disclaimer:
A certain word will be deliberately misspelled in this post. I am open minded and able to change my viewpoint if presented with new information that contradicts it. If you disagree, please do so with respect and civility. Here we go.
A couple of years ago, I called for the childhood vackseen schedule to be reduced and spread out over a longer period of time. My views have evolved towards a more fully Anti-Vax position. Surveys show that the movement has gained traction in recent years, especially among Republicans.
To me, it's all a matter of risk vs benefit analysis. For example, chicken pox poses virtually no long-term threat. Supposedly, I had a pretty bad case when I was about 3. My parents and I endured a rough week or 2 then it was all over and I gained lifelong immunity. Elementary school classmates talked about going to chicken pox parties over the summer to get it over with so they wouldn't have to miss any school or risk getting it at another inopportune time. That shows how little it was feared among the public. I see no need for a chicken pox vackseen even if it is safe and effective.
I learned just a few years ago that the word measly, meaning small and insignificant, was derived from the measles virus. How bad is it to get the measles? For most people, it's a 100-102 fever with a rash that lasts 3-5 days. More severe cases can occur, which tend to last 7-10 days with a 102-104 temperature. As with chicken pox, when it's over, 99.90-99.99 percent of people will fully recover with no long-term complications and gain lifelong immunity. RFK believes that experiencing the measles will leave you with a stronger immune system that is better able to fight cancer and other serious diseases as an adult. Again, if it were up to me, I'd take my chances with measles rather than get the vackseen. I know too little about Mumps to offer an opinion and I've heard that though Rubella is rare, it can be dangerous for pregnant women. There is a school of thought that many of the diseases were already nearly wiped out thanks to improved sanitation before the vax was developed.
This is a hypothetical example:
Let's suppose that a childhood disease similar to the measles exists. At worst, you will have to endure a painful 7-10 days but except for maybe 1 in 5,000-10,000 people, it poses no long-term issues. There is a vackseen available that will eliminate the threat of the 7-10 day illness but the risk of complications is 1 in 250. If you have a certain genetic mutation, the risk increases to 1 in 50. Unless my child has a compromised immune system, the vackseen is a far greater danger than the virus. Hard pass. Of course, the media will highlight the rare cases when measles is deadly and I don't intend to make light of that, but when vax injuries do occur, it's crickets or outright denial.
Now, suppose that there is a monster pandemic with a 5 percent mortality rate and 15 percent disability rate. In that case, gimme the shot even if the risk is the same as described above. See, I can be reasonable. However, in order to take the shot, the risk of the disease must be higher than the risk of complications from the vackseen. Sounds pretty logical to me.
There is no treatment that is guaranteed to be 100 percent risk free. I recall my 8th grade science teacher told my class a tragic story of a teenage boy who had a severe allergic reaction to Aspirin and died. Vackseen injuries do occur. That's indisputable. I contend that they are more common than we are led to believe. It's usually not a dramatic downturn but rather a slow fade over time that cannot be traced to a specific event.
My case:
I recall getting some sort of booster shot almost every time I went to the pediatrician. I'm betting that almost all of them were completely unnecessary. I got a free lollipop out of it but I do recall a couple of times when I felt pretty rotten after the shot. My 5th grade teacher asked me repeatedly "what's wrong with you lately?". Eventually, I did snap out of it. Perhaps I did better in high school because I wasn't getting the shots anymore. Who knows?
Has Autism increased or is it simply better understood and diagnosed more often. I stated that the truth is somewhere in between and stand by that assertion today. The rate hasn't really increased 100 fold but it is indeed much more common today. Teachers who are near retirement say that they didn't see these behavior problems 25 years ago.
When I was a child, I had numerous traits consistent with mild Autism and almost certainly would have been diagnosed if I was growing up today. As it was, I grew up with neuro imbalances at a time when it was poorly understood. You can probably imagine what that was like for me. My mother agreed that I "had a little bit of Autism as a child" but is convinced that I have fully outgrown it. I'm not so sure. I believe that I am better able to mask and perhaps it manifests differently as an adult. Is the extreme sensitivity to pills Autism related? Possibly. I do know for sure that toxic metals are a factor, which can be a root cause of Autism. A medical report did indeed confirm that I am a poor eliminator of toxic metals and that I have the MTHFR mutation, which is present in 91 percent of people with Autism.
Getting back to the vackseen debate, I am afraid that there may not be a solution that is in the best interest of all vulnerable people. With a live virus vackseen, even in its weakened state, the virus still has the potential to cause disease especially among the immune compromised. I heard about a measles outbreak in Texas that was likely caused by a live virus vackseen.
I found out from a Jillian Michaels podcast that the solution to that problem is to use a dead virus with an adjuvant. Since the immune system may not even respond to a dead virus, something else must be added to the shot, which are known as adjuvants, to "wake up" the immune system. These adjuvants are none other than Mercury, Aluminum and a host of other nasty ingredients. Most people are able to detox. However, there is a significant percentage of the population with impaired detox pathways that may be vulnerable to complications. Taking too many of these shots over a short period of time can be especially dangerous. Even if you reject the Autism link, everyone should be in agreement that injecting toxic metals into young children can damage their health. I personally believe that vackseens are a contributing factor but not the only reason for the increase in Autism. Pollution, pesticides and crap food are likely in play as well.
At the very least, MTHFR positive children's parents should be given the choice to opt out. Sadly, the problem is that according to many schools of thought, there must be a certain threshold of the population to get the vackseen or the disease could come back. Because the virus mutates, almost everyone has to get a vackseen. Therefore, if you are immunocompromised, I can understand your negative feelings towards Anti-Vaxers.
Unless there is a monster pandemic as described above, I would lean against just about any vackseen if I had the choice. I don't trust it unless it is thoroughly tested especially if it's a new technology such as mRNA. If Democrats had their way, the COVID shot would still be de-facto required. Without it, you can't board a plane, attend college or even any public gathering. They doubled down even after it became clear that it didn't prevent the virus or stop the spread. No, I will not forget!
As a conservative, I have my differences with RFK on certain issues, but I am thrilled to have him as HHS Secretary. I do believe that crap food is certainly contributing to the chronic disease epidemic. Had the use of pesticides and food ingredients banned in other countries increased in the last decade? Possible. I've heard stories of Americans who live in Europe for several months and lose 10-15 pounds without trying. I normally need to eat a full rack of ribs to be satisfied. In Mexico, I struggled to finish a half rack plus a small appetizer. Other tourists agreed with me that the food was more filling and I'd wager it's healthier too.
