Nowadays it seems to be necessary to do studies to prove a political point. You can hardly call this research, but that’s what it is called. So according to the latest research the number of parents who don’t vaccinated their children is not on the rise, in spite of that number growing rapidly. Of course that’s such a weird contradiction that you can wonder what kind of researcher is willing to put their name under this, but there are obviously plenty of them. Some people happily make fools of themselves if it pays well enough. So let’s have a look at the study.
“the combined amount of registered and unregistered objections” What on earth is an unregistered objection? Do they look at Internet forums to see how many people object, but are not registered? But then the number would be a lot higher. It’s a mystery. So let’s continue. “disproportionate focus on those against vaccinating their children may neglect other factors influencing vaccination rates.” Ah, here we get some information. The objectors and the vaccination rates are not related. Loads of people think that vaccinations are important, safe and effective, but still don’t get their children vaccinated. I suppose there must be loads of parents who really like to be bullied by doctors, to get harassed at playgrounds and be called names on line. Why else would they choose this, if they do not object vaccinations?
“rates of vaccination objectors were geographically clustered” And wheels are round. This has been known for a long time and it’s a well-documented phenomenon. These clusters are in areas with many high education residents. And the higher the education the less likely people are to vaccinate their children. This is such a pain for politicians, as it contradicts the idea that people don’t vaccinate because they lack information. It’s the other way around. All kinds of people have tried to find explanations for this, but the only obvious one is that parents with higher education are more likely to do their own research and less likely to believe a doctor just because it’s a doctor. They are also more likely to understand that if a vaccinated child gets sick the vaccine didn’t work. And when a child gets very sick shortly after vaccinations that the cause is the vaccinations and that it’s not coincidence.
But scientists love to ignore everything that doesn’t suit them, so let’s continue. “The study said the clusters posed a risk of local disease outbreaks.” How did the study come to this conclusion? The interesting thing is that these clusters have been at “high risk” for a long time, but the outbreaks just don’t happen. Considering how contagious all these diseases are you would expect a large outbreak at least every two years. But they don’t happen. Outbreaks either happen all over the country, or they happen in areas with average vaccination rates. But not in these clusters. But again, ignore what’s inconvenient. Suggestive language will get you pretty far as well.
“about 5 per cent of those studied were only partially vaccinated and fell within the lowest socio-economic group” So you know the actual vaccination rates? Of course you do, for this is all very neatly registered. Then why don’t you use those numbers instead of “objection rates”? Then we would get proper information about what’s happening.
“access to health care, logistical difficulties and missed opportunities were likely accounting for this proportion of unvaccinated children” Likely according to who? Did you study this? Can I see the research data? Or is this just a large amount of politics and wishful thinking? If parents do not object vaccinations they likely agree that they are very important to protect their children from very dangerous diseases. So why wouldn’t they then take a little trip to a medical practice to get the children their shots? It’s not so hard if you think it’s important. Sorry, the logic is minimal and the facts are completely absent. “We think that the bulk of those children are more an issue of practicalities and logistics” This means: we desperately need to find an explanation for the exploding numbers of unvaccinated children.
“were likely also contributing to rates of unvaccinated kids.” Likely? What about some facts? How many of these kids? Where do they live? How old are they? What vaccinations did they not get? It cannot possibly be hard to find this information, so why do you only have guesses and assumptions?
This is just an embarrasing collection of absurdities. Dr. Beard knows the numbers are not remotely supporting his statements. Usually such researchers do a pretty good job in setting up smoke screens, but the statements are so absurd that nothing quite works to hide the simple facts. If only 1% of what Dr. Bears says would be true he would simply come with the numbers. But he doesn’t. Research without any hard numbers, that’s not research, that’s a political statement. And even for a political statement it’s very poor quality.
The real numbers would show that left and right parents stop vaccinating their children. And once people stop, they will never ever change their minds. And that’s the reason why government is putting such extreme pressure on parents. It’s not because of 1%, but because that percentage is closer to 20% and growing rapidly. I don’t know the real numbers, but that 20% is an educated guess. And that’s more than Dr. Beard offers.
One thing is a fact: the vaccine house of cards is collapsing and everyone with a bit of knowledge knows this. And it’s also a fact that vaccines are the backbone of the medical system and the pharmaceutical industry. Once the vaccines go the whole system is likely to collapse. And dear readers, that is the reason why governments and doctors are so desperately trying to push vaccines. It’s not about preventing diseases, it’s not about saving lives, it’s about saving a system that’s dying. That dying system can’t be saved, but if death can be postponed that is still nice for all those people making money in that system. If that means the most basic humans rights need to be ignored, then many people don’t consider that a problem. And if you need to make a complete fool of yourself by publishing embarrasing nonsense, then so be it.