EXPOSED: Top Official Rare ADMISSION: the REAL Reason for Vaccines!

In this RARE admission, a very high level and highly decorated official lets slip what is almost never admitted: the flu shots almost all of us are so strongly encouraged to work are, often, done to “grease the wheels” of production, and we’re encouraged to pay for the shots for THAT reason, even when these vaccines “probably won’t protect” against the most deadly strains. Read rare article admission from Cornell University article, then read the important “Context, Disclaimers and Big Picture” comments (right below this short Cornell article) by this BeforeItsNews contributor (yours truly) to put this into perspective. First, the key excerpts from the article, so it’s not lost:

The Cornell Daily Sun, page 6.
Monday August 28, 2006

Bird Flu Threatens College Students

AMES, Iowa (U-Wire) — An outbreak of avian flu in the United States could threaten college students more than other segments of the population, a disease control expert said.

Dr. Nancy Cox, chief of the influenza division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said influenza outbreaks can severely affect college students because infections because [of] higher concentrations of people [on campuses] such as dorms.

…She spoke at the Iowa Community Conference, an annual meeting of community leaders from throughout Iowa’s 4th Congressional District..[and] featured presentations designed to prepare Iowa communities to face new challenges.

Cox said seasonal influenza can also threaten college students and recommended routine vaccinations to prevent outbreaks. “There have been large outbreaks of seasonal flu on college campuses,” she said. “That’s one of the reasons we’re beginning to emphasize seasonal vaccinations among college students.”

Although seasonal vaccines probably won’t protect against severe strains of avian flue, she said higher demand for seasonal vaccines would create stable production and distribution chains of vaccine and anti-viral medications should an outbreak occur.

[...]Story by Fred Love (Iowa State U.)

*****

Context, Disclaimers and Big Picture: This is a very important admission. However, unfortunately the issue of vaccines has been polarized into two polarized camps of either “vaccines are wonderful, and anyone complaining or with concerns is either ignorant, or a kook” versus the other extreme of “everything about vaccines is bad, evil, etc”

While I wish I had the time to write a balanced article (maybe some day..) let me distill my analysis down to two key points:

#1: It’s not up to people to “prove” vaccines are “unsafe” it’s up to officials to prove or (since absolute proof is impossible) in practice, the burden of proof is on them to give a very highly convincing scientific level of assurance of both safety, and effectiveness and necessity (some safe and effective” things are not necessary namely when even safer/cheapers/almost as effective alternatives exist).

Remembering this keeps constructive critics of vaccines on stronger ground. Forgetting this means people risk hurting their cause (various critiques of the mass vaccination status quo) because they may give arguments that “they are unsafe!” that are not always strong or legitimate when they would be on iron solid footing by just pointing out lack of proof by authorities of lack of safety.

The same analogy works here as with genetically engineered food. It goes like this: Imagine a scientist with wild hair and lab-coat comes running up to you with some electrodes they want to put on your head and you say “hold on, I don’t think I want that done to me” Imagine the wild eyed scientist saying, “oh yeah? PROVE to me that it’s unsafe then!” we’d all laugh out loud (or cry or both) saying, it’s not up to ME to “prove it’s unsafe” it’s up to YOU (assuming I even decide I’m willing to converse with you which I may not be) but it’s up to YOU to convince me that it’s safe..I don’t have to proof anything to you, I can just say ‘you haven’t convinced me’ and it’s over, end of story!”

That’s what “burden of proof” means. See also “the precautionary principle”
 Other, shorter points:

2. Officials should stop demeaning and using dismissive language against those with concerns (even the ones who I may agree are not basing their critiques on sound science or logic; everyone deserves respect..and certainly not against the many intelligent people with concerns)

a. Officials needs to acknowledge and ADDRESS the lack of full ingredients (full disclosure of all ingredients, how they are made etc) in the vaccines including the “inert” ones

It’s our human right to KNOW and know EXACTLY what’s in it, and that trumps any company’s “but the details are our intellectual property secret!” bottom line considerations

b. Officials need to acknowledge and address all concerns about ingredients including allergies, sensitivities etc.

c. Officials should ADMIT more often and directly what the above officials said, Dr. Cox: part of not misleading the public about effectiveness means going well beyond what is often done (a percentage figure for expected effectiveness mixed in with much else in an article) they need to admit and then CONVINCE the public that it’s in OUR advantage to spend the money on vaccines to keep the “stable production and distribution chains” going that would make it easier to get a vaccines out quickly in case of an emergency such as a “deadly pandemic strain”

Only then will you have more credibility, and only if combined with other steps (parts 2a and 2b are just some examples, and each of them relates to not just acknowledging but to changing practices, too) rather than brow-beating the public will you gain trust and respect (and also, sorry to tell the pro-vaccine crowd, only after you “align” the vaccines, and their ingredients, and who you “recommend” take it, and align all of that to address all concerns) so that more people will listen to you  and (while doing their own research) would be more likely to believe you.

I have a science Ph.D. and am “pro science”…and even I find some of the talking down to the public (admittedly not usually by top official directly but by media and others) a put off..it’s insulting to the public, on this topic, no less troubling, in fact more troubling, than some “extremist” anti-vaccine statements one finds on some slick websites…

I can only imagine what anti-science anti-”science bureaucracy” reactions others may have in response to a non-responsive, less than fully honest and disclosing Vaccine Regime Status Quo Complex. This Complex including media talking heads must reform or risk increasing proportions of the public becoming more and more cynical, and (often rightly) mistrustful.