Throughout this book we have repeatedly emphasized the wide gap between the medical establishment’s portrayal of vaccines and the grim reality. This chasm is perhaps no better exemplified than by the steadfast and hypocritical refusal of prominent vaccine proponents to engage in public debate with vaccine critics.
Top vaccine promoters such as Drs. Paul Offit and Peter Hotez, who frequently appear on media outlets singing the praises of vaccination, consistently decline invitations from leading vaccine-choice advocates to debate the safety of the vaccine schedule or other important related topics.
This surprising timidity displayed by premier US vaccinologists, who are otherwise as vocal as can be, seems to be magically shared by establishment vaccine experts all over the world.
In fact, it has become a worldwide epidemic: Vaccine champions, purportedly committed to educating the public on the benefits and importance of vaccination, repeatedly refuse golden opportunities to decisively defeat their main opponents!
What would King Solomon have said if two disputants came before him, one willing to debate the merits of his case while the other refused to, claiming that his side was the only one that should be heard because his opponent has been “known to be wrong”?
Is there any doubt that the wise and practical king–being free from pharma lobbyists and the medical establishment’s political influence–would rule in favor of the party more willing to defend his stance against the one who wished to evade debate?
You may be wondering at this point about the usefulness of clarifying scientific truths in a public debate. You may imagine it like a political debate between two nominees, with its two-minutes-per-topic format, gimmicks, and quips. That is 20th century debate.
A 21st century debate, conducted on an internet-based platform such as Facebook, would be the perfect setting to allow a comprehensive, thorough, and productive debate. The two sides could lay down their arguments meticulously, providing references and supporting material as required. The debate could go on for days, or even weeks, elucidating relevant topics as the need arose. The audience could follow at their leisure, weigh the arguments made by both sides, check the references, and make up their own minds. If one side played unfairly–evading questions, refusing to back up their arguments, etc.–this would be noted by the viewers and reflected in their success.
Such a debate would be the perfect mechanism for settling many of the controversies surrounding vaccination.
And that is exactly why the medical establishment’s spokespersons will NEVER engage in such a debate, wherein substance would speak louder than sound bites.
Just imagine a debate where the vaccine “experts” are publicly asked the inconvenient questions this book has presented. They would have no choice but to evade direct replies as they have no adequate answers. Within days, this debate could be viewed by millions all over the globe, spelling a PR mega-disaster for the vaccine establishment.
Vaccine proponents are well aware of this scenario.
That’s why they flee, like snakes from a bush fire, whenever invited to formal debate.
To cope with the ever-increasing flow of invitations, vaccinologists have created a brand new field of thought, which might be termed vaccine-debate refusology: the study of potential excuses for refusing a formal debate with a vaccine critic.
In recent years, vaccine proponents spent much of their time honing their refusological techniques, while providing much-needed emotional support for fellow refusologists. State-of-the-art refusology has come up with two excuses of quantum-theory-level sophistication:
The first is something along the lines of We are busy scientists/ physicians and we don’t have time to waste on vaccine debates, which is ludicrous considering the enormous amount of time these people spend promoting vaccines when there’s no capable critic within a country mile.
The second rocket-science excuse is We don’t want to give anti-vaxxers the stage to spread their misinformation, which, if you think about it, is a not-so-subtle admission that they know if they show up they inevitably will lose the debate.
Think about it: The medical establishment’s people claim that vaccines are scientifically proven–beyond any doubt!–to be safe and effective.
If they are so confident, why don’t they welcome public debate where they can prove it–once and for all–to all those “hesitant” parents?
Why do they go on spending all those millions of taxpayer dollars on studies that aim to better understand parental attitudes regarding vaccination, when they have numerous opportunities to “get in the ring” with their leaders and beat the hell out of the critics for all the world to see?
If it weren’t for the countless lives ruined–and those being destroyed right now even as you read this paragraph–the hypocrisy displayed by vaccination’s champions would be comical.
Real Science and Vaccine “Science”
There aren’t many things in science that are certain, but there’s at least one thing that is:
There is no science without open and free discussion. If there is no debate, it is not real science–it is counterfeit science. Call it “government science”, “corporate science”, “fake science” or just plain “science” (with quotation marks)–whatever you wish. But real science it’s not.
Beyond the undemocratic nature of thwarting free debate on vaccines and denying freedom of expression to the very citizens (and their children) whose bodies the medical establishment seeks to control, the no-debate policy blatantly contradicts the scientific ethos itself.
Science does not preclude discussion–it encourages it. Science never rejects a point of view just because it opposes the current accepted dogma–true science objectively judges it on its merit. In science, who is making an argument is irrelevant–only the argument itself matters. Science is ever evolving, and free scientific discussion guarantees its progress.
True scientists are not afraid of discussion–they are eager for it. A one-sided scientific discussion is a feature of dark historical periods and totalitarian regimes, not free democratic societies.
Science belongs to the people. It belongs to humanity, not to corrupt government agencies and pharmaceutical giants who collude to rewrite the principles of science in order to continue the decades-long cover-up of their crimes against humanity.
The magnitude of these crimes is enormous–these entities are in way too deep to ever be able to admit any wrongdoing.
And so it is for us.”
— Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth by Anonymous
https://a.co/7yclc78
Published by Children’s Health Defence
1200 references
Available from Kindle for $10.49
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: brianpeckford
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://peckford42.wordpress.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.