Embrace the “Science” of “Herd Immunity,” or Reject it as Pseudo-Scientific, Human-Sacrificing Soft Eugenics?

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “But… Muh Herd Immunity!“…

Rayn: Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

But… but… muh herd immunity! :_(

*sniffle*

Stacie T.: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp

Stacie T.: I’ll take my chances. Death of children from these diseases had hit too close to home for me.

Rayn: Actually, there are three court cases mentioned in the article, and they were placed in order of occurrence and importance, for a reason, with the third one you choose to focus upon being the least relevant, the least substantiated, the least current, and the most controversial. It was likely reported only in the interest of noting the fact that Merck is being accused on many fronts. I was really only interested in sharing the latest “news” (the latest case, that is) but didn’t feel like navigating through the mainstream media monopoly’s efforts to trivialize it, as expected, since I’m using my phone to read and post, instead of my laptop, like I’ve done so often in past. Since I’m currently traveling, I’m not exactly in an ideal position to do the full-time-job’s worth of mental leg-work that so many others else avoid, like I usual do, and had hoped others would be able to do the filtering for themselves, occasionally. I stand corrected…

From the article, “The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck ‘fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].’

According to the whistleblowers’ court documents, Merck’s misconduct was far-ranging: It ‘failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing.’

These fraudulent activities, say the whistleblowers, were designed to produce test results that would meet the FDA’s requirement that the mumps vaccine was 95 per cent effective. To the whistleblowers’ delight, the judge dismissed Merck’s objections to the case proceeding, finding the whistleblowers had plausible grounds on all of the claims lodged against Merck.

If the whistleblowers win, it would represent more than a moral victory (they repeatedly tried to stop Merck while still in its employ). Under the False Claims Act, the whistleblowers would receive a share — likely 25 per cent to 30 per cent — of the amount the government recovers. Previous settlements involving extensive fraud by pharmaceutical companies under the False Claims Act have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and in some cases such as against GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, into the billions.

The second court case, Chatom Primary Care v. Merck & Co. relies on the same whistleblower evidence. This class action suit claims damages because Merck had fraudulently monopolized the mumps market. Doctors and medical practices in the suit would be able to obtain compensation for having been sold an overpriced monopolized product, and a defective one to boot, in that the mumps vaccine wasn’t effective (indeed, the suit alleged that Merck expected outbreaks to occur and, as predicted, they did — mumps epidemics occurred in 2006 in a highly vaccinated population and again in 2009-2010).

‘Plaintiffs have argued sufficient facts to sustain a claim for proximate causation, detailing the significant barriers that other companies would face to enter the mumps vaccine market,’ the court ruled.”

Stacie T.: There were other articles I found, but I am on my phone, as well. I posted one to show the ease at which you can find information to contradict the statements in this article. There is always a chance that a batch of medication produced will be faulty. There’s a chance that any product can have a faulty batch. I am not willing to write off all protection for my child based on speculation. There is so much propoganda against vaccines. I go with the research from a trusted toxicologist whom I know personally and her trusted partners. After seeing a close friend’s life ruined by her two year old’s death, I’d rather do what I can and hope for the best. Could it still happen? Yes. No immunity, including natural immunity, is 100%.

Rayn: The “science” behind vaccinations relies on a medically-induced human-sacrifice of the weakest and most vulnerable in society in order to grant “immunity” to its stronger members. It’s basically just legalized soft-EUGENICS – a pseudo-science America has such a fondness for, and pioneered, for over a century…

And, the MMR vaccine is no exception…

http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/measles/measles-vaccine-injury-death.aspx

I’d rather myself, and my loved ones, die of natural causes, like wild-borne pathogens, than purposefully human-sacrice “the weak” in order to desperately, pathetically “live” (with the blood of the innocents staining my hands, as payment for the “privilege”). Call me crazy…

Stacie T.: Any medication has the potential for adverse effects. My asthma pill has a small chance of asthma related death. It’s risk vs. benefit. If I don’t take it, I have a high risk of being hospitalized or death from climbing a flight of stairs. If I do take it, I have a miniscule risk of adverse effects. Everyone has to weigh their pros and cons. I belive the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to vaccines.

Rayn: By the way… I do hope you realize, after reading the article I posted carefully, that the first court case was not about a “faulty batch.” It was a twelve-point accusation, in court, of systemic fraud committed by Merck regarding their mumps vaccine, by two whistle-blowing former employees, who both first attempted to reveal the fraud when still employed under Merck. And, the residing judge in the case upheld *every single last point* of theirs as relevant, with “plausible grounds,” when Merck’s lawyers attempted to have their claims dismissed… I can’t wait to see what happens with the case, but it’s not the first time such fraud has been committed by a vaccine-producing company.

Keep in mind that these are corporations we’re talking about, here, motivated almost exclusively by profit, in the end. Rest assured that the vast majority of them are run by greedy garbage, who could care less about human life…

Stacie T.: I’m having trouble figuring out who I trust less. Corporations or the court system.

Rayn: Your asthma medication is not compulsory, by de facto law, like vaccinations are to America’s youth. And, you are an adult, as well, unlike the children being most-targeted by the soft-eugenics efforts involved. You personally weighed your options, and voluntarily chose one specific type of chemical to ingest as treatment for an *actual* illness you *currently* suffer from. This is much different from the situation regarding vaccinations, on many levels, so comparison between the two is quite a stretch.

In reality, no individual, nor government, has a right to force medical procedures upon others – no matter how good the intentions, nor how solid the “science.” And, I would say that this logic goes double, regarding preventative treatments, of all things! Truly, if the science of a treatment for an *actual* illness is sound, humanity can rest assured that the vast majority of individuals will voluntarily submit themselves to it, without any sort of coercion involved.

Also, as stated before, I personally do not believe in the human-sacrifice of innocents, regardless of any numbers, involved… I will never condone such a grisly mindset, ever in my life. I know all-to-well what the dangers of such thinking are, and how the lives, freedom and happiness of the most vulnerable are always the first to be sacrificed by “law,” when society begins to hold a faithful, religious belief in the “power” of such “math” and such “science.”

Stacie T.: I so strongly disagree with that statement. As a mother, I am personally responsible for the health and well being choices for my children until they are adults. A child is not capable of making medical decisions. That’s why they have parents.

Rayn:  You misunderstand my words. I didn’t say that children are capable of making such decisions. I’m saying that governments are not the parents of children, and should not be behaving like they are, somehow, in coercing medical procedures upon them, regardless of parental consent. And, in my statement of this truth, I also implied that governments are behaving as though they are the parents of us adult “citizens” – though they purport to allegedly “serve” us. How odd it all is…

Stacie T.: You said, “no individual, nor government”. I understood that to mean parents. To me, the government involvement is not a factor in my decision. I would vaccinate regardless of the law. My problem with vaccine legislation is that it’s a slippery slope. If they can mandate one medical treatment, it opens the door for them mandating any medical treatment just like one court ruling about a wedding cake for a gay marriage opened the door for a pediatrician to refuse treatment on a child because her mothers are gay.

Rayn: I understand your confusion. In reality, I readily recognize children to be the wards of their parents, who represent them, and speak on their behalf, until they are mature enough to make their own decisions.

Meanwhile, though your personal decision to vaccinate your children is yours to make as their parent, in the end, I do take issue with the currently-existing de facto laws that attempt to coerce parents into vaccination of their children, and I also take issue with the soft-eugenics that come with compulsory submission to the “science” of “herd immunity,” as dictated by government.

Alison K.: With small kids, I always feel like I am caught in this fight. The entire idea of compulsory vaccines is beyond frightening to me. And it is a notion that only seems viable because we are talking about children. If the conversation were compulsory vaccines for adults I think the idea would be dead in the water. There are many vaccines softly mandated for children now, that most adults in this country have never received, and I don’t see anyone voluntarily lining up to get them – but they are more than comfortable ‘forcing’ me to get them for my kids. My kid is considered a ‘public health risk’ because he is not vaccinated against one Hepatitis strand. Yet almost every adult over 30 in this country HAS NOT received that shot. There are two vaccines I have flat out refused for my sons – and if it means they are not allowed into a pitifully failing school system because of it – then I see that as a double win.