Sept 2017

Mom Opts out of Vaccination – Faces Jail and Mommy-Shaming. (see it here – click)

 

UPDATE October 12 – This Mom was sent to jail for 5 days. While in she was in jail they took the child and they  vaccinated.

 

The Original Story:  Today, with my Jo in my morning hands, I watched another fascinating insight unfold in the healthcare debates.

Michigan apparently allows people to ‘opt of’ out public vaccination schedules if parents sign up for two-week courses to learn about the benefits of vaccination. Michigan doesn’t get too deep into it. They say, ‘Vaccinations have been around for so long, they’re a part of the fabric of our society’. If that isn’t an endorsement for a medical procedure, what is?

I’m reminded about circumcision, tonsillectomy, hysterectomy, weekly prenatal ultrasounds, and mercury fillings. There are several popular surgeries and procedures with alternative strategies that are so woven into that fabric we don’t second guess doing them. We do what we’ve been told, since we were kids. Imagine the chaos of our society fabric if we allowed gum-chewing. Sometimes rules are there to teach people that society isn’t always rational, especially in schools, and don’t talk back.

That deep fabric of trust is why the pharmaceutical companies lobbied successfully to establish the only medical legislation that provides their companies with immunity nation-wide from prosecution for any vaccination liability cases.  If we trust them, why did we make a special ‘Don’t Go To Jail Card’ law for them to play when the shet hits the fan? That issue didn’t come up in this piece.

 

What did come up was some blatant mommy-shaming. Out of the blue a ‘correspondent’ makes the unsupported assertion that this mother isn’t postponing her child’s vaccination schedule due to health concerns. She jumps to the gutter in a clever pivot and speculates this is a simple case of a nasty bad bad mommy using her kids in a separation dispute.

Watch this girl-on-girl nasty talk to believe it!  Who needs to talk about technology when you can pivot the IQ of a piece down to the basement with one sentence. Genius. Our reporter doesn’t waste breath on health debates, she speculates that this mom doesn’t have ‘health concerns’ at all.

Mom wasn’t asked about that. She probably didn’t even know the accusation came up until she watched the piece that morning with me. How is unsubstantiated mommy-bashing like that allowed on a national broadcast? Hmmm. Let’s look at possible benefactors to help frame this issue.

At every other commercial break some clues ae offered. Between the product use warnings about ‘may cause depression, suicide, heart failure or lymphoma’ is the commerce that obviously drives policy. Hand feeds mouth, or in this case, mouth feeds hand.

 See the Broadcast Here

Of course, this poor mother doesn’t have a chance to respond to those deep insults, and she remains quite alone, purposefully shamed by the national broadcast community that is so closely tied to the economic welfare of their principle prime time sponsors. I won’t be looking here for any balanced discussions about these pharma topics. It is simply unreasonable to believe that could possibly happen, given the economic reality.

 

And let that be a lesson to any other mothers thinking about ‘opting out’.

 

So what about the vaccination issue? For me, I appreciate the good vaccination has brought us. In the last century products preventing some serious public health issues contributing to mortality and injury have made dramatic changes to our everyday expectations for health.  However, the onslaught of new vaccinations,  boosters and seasonal shots doesn’t seem to end.  But, back to that ‘fabric’ and our acquiescence to this trend of resent dacades.

How does commerce know when to stop? Of course, it can never know when to stop – there will always be another buck to be made. Corporations are built to accomplish one thing – that would be the earnings. How can we expect profit-driven global enterprises to evaluate the 3-way balance between risk, benefit and cost as a matter of public policy?

 

Martin Shkreli got into hot water for failing to pretend. To the consternation of all his peers in for-profit pharma this guy knew he had a legal monopoly over sick people with nowhere else to turn. He broke free of normal PC posturing and patience, and like a bucking Maverick in a barn stuffed with gold coins, he squeezed the sick people. But isn’t that why they hired the poor guy?

The public cows have been carefully bled  by clever farmers with trunk-line IVs stuck into places the cows can’t see or feel for many many years. The needles have been there so long the cows don’t even feel them any more.

And then, after decades of careful profit-taking, this young kid hacks a hole into a jugular with a machete. Not only is the poor cow freaking out and biting back, so are all the farmers who’ve been doing this to thousands of cows with very little trouble for almost 100 years. What if all the cows start freaking out?

 

Now the poor farmers have to step in front of the cameras and go on and on about how much blood is too much blood, ‘we promise we won’t use machetes’, and fuss about how well they look after their cows …

I restate the revelation that this is the only industry powerful enough to make the legislative assembly enact a law that takes them off the hook for any vaccination related deaths, injuries or other liabilities. That says a whole lot about the underpinnings of the ‘herd medicine’ mentality to me.

I haven’t talked about the good/bad discussion about the actual products. This definitely isn’t a black or white issue to me. It is a 3-way analysis everyone should be entertaining. Risk (short and long term), benefits, and public costs. No more room here today.