I'm a huge fan of yours and of your ongoing work to get this country back to its libertarian roots. I was at the polls in Byron Township first thing to help try to vote you back into a congressional seat last year. I celebrated with you when you won the primaries over Ellis, and was glad you put him in his place. His tactics against you were disgusting, and I'm glad most of us saw through it. I'm proud to be able to call you my Congressman.
I know in the past, a big sponsor of yours was Ron Paul. I admire Mr. Paul greatly, and might love Senator Rand Paul even more.
I identify as a libertarian myself, although I'm not too politically involved; mostly just enough to know what's going on in my area and nationally.
However, I'm not writing to you today to gush about how much I admire your stance for freedom and liberty, or how much I appreciate you doing everything in your power to minimize the overbearing power of the federal government. I'm not writing to tell you that my dream team in the White House would be Senator Paul and yourself as a libertarian one-two punch that this country hasn't seen since the early founding years.
I'm writing you today about a serious issue our country is facing in one specific area: Vaccination and the attempt to mandate them for everyone.
Since I know and sincerely believe that your stance is for freedom to choose, I'm assuming your position is supportive of vaccine choice and not mandating them. However, I've never heard you address the situation, and I wanted to be sure you are aware of the situation we're facing.
As are millions of other Americans, including more and more doctors and nurses, I am an avid opponent of vaccination being mandatory; for good reason. It has nothing to do with Jenny McCarthy or Andrew Wakefield, as the media often paints the motives of vaccine opponents.
I've been thoroughly studying vaccines and the diseases they are intended to prevent for well over a year now, and have become quite obsessed with the topic. I've researched in depth for quite literally thousands of hours(just ask my poor wife), and have come to the firm belief that they are more dangerous and less effective than we are told by the CDC, the WHO, and the majority of the medical field(which are just following WHO protocol anyway).
Here are five points that I think everyone should consider when researching vaccines:
1. Vaccines can be very dangerous.
Although we constantly hear that side effects of vaccines are rare, and severe complications are "one in a million", it has become exceedingly clear to me that this just isn't true, and is certainly not backed by available empirical science and clinical data. After reading every vaccine package insert available, browsing through VAERS(Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System - CDC), crunching the numbers of "Vaccine Court" compensations(almost 3 billion since 1989), and seeing vaccines injuries first hand myself, it's become painfully obvious that these injuries are not as rare as we're told. A big problem we have is that the majority of the scientific community seems to refuse to acknowledge that even though "correlation doesn't equal causation", it defies common sense to dismiss the overwhelming correlation between the modern day epidemics of a plethora of physical and neurological disorders, including ADHD, autism, severe allergies, childhood cancer, chronic ear infection, increased intestinal issues, mystery respiratory illnesses, and the list goes on.
Since there are no long term studies on the CDC recommended vaccine schedule itself(which has grown from around 10 shots before 5 years old in 1985 to 39 shots by five years old in 2015), and there are no US studies of the health of vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children(although foreign studies show that unvaccinated children are consistently MUCH healthier), it should not be a dismissible topic, nor should there be any mandating of vaccines.
If a parent feels that vaccination is right for their family, then by all means, that is their right to choose to have their children vaccinated. I just hope that their doctors are relaying all the contraindications, warnings, and side effects that each vaccine package insert indicates they are to disclose with all patients. I hope our pediatrician was the anomaly and not the norm, because she never once indicated that any risk was involved with vaccines.
On the flip side, if a parent feels, after considerable research(backed by some of the smartest doctors and scientists in the world), that vaccination is more risky than actually contracting or having severe complications from the diseases they're intended to prevent, then that should be as equal an American right as the first parent.
If something works so well, it should "sell" itself. If something works so well, it should not have to be mandated. Keep in mind that the growing number of people who are speaking out against vaccines and raising awareness of the dangers, are parents who were at one time just doing what they were told. They vaccinated their children, and their child suffered a life altering vaccine injury or died, and they are now becoming vocal about it, as I imagine you would be if you were in their position.
2. The pharmaceutical companies are exempt from any liability since 1986. We cannot sue the pharmaceutical company when a vaccine causes a baby to go into seizures, or dies within hours of receiving a vaccination. We don't have a great shot in "Vaccine Court" unless we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the vaccines caused it. This country's SIDS and "unknown cause of death" diagnoses lead the civilized world in number per capita. Many of these babies are dying within days of a vaccine bundle administration, yet most doctors do not even accept vaccines are a possibility in determining cause. With limited safety studies, the majority sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, it is unethical to continue such a rigorous childhood schedule, and it is almost downright psychotic to mandate it. There are millions of parents just like me that are clinging to the hope that politicians like you will be rational and consider this topic objectively. We know that asking you to research as much as we have is asking a lot, because we realize you're very busy with.. well, making this country a better place, but we have to ask that you do some research on behalf of our children and our future generations. I can give you 100 reasons not to fully trust information from the CDC or the WHO, and will be happy to share it if you show interest in what I'm saying.
3. The diseases that we're vaccinating against aren't as dangerous or lethal as we're being told. For example, measles is a typically benign illness that used to be a rite of passage for millions of people all over the world. We've discovered that vitamin A, C, and D intake is crucial in battling the Measles, as well as many other diseases, so we know that if we supply ourselves with enough natural vitamins, these illnesses will be much less severe than they could be in a malnourished victim. Why aren't we spreading this information instead of the scare stats that come from third world countries? The disease morbidity and mortality rates were dwindling before any of the vaccines were introduced to the populations, as indicated by the historical graph I've included with this letter. While I do believe that the small pox inoculation can be attributed with greatly reducing small pox in the 1800's, polio was not eliminated by the polio vaccine, according to historical data and studying the information closely. In fact, the CDC changed the very definition of polio to make it seem like the vaccine was to credit. However, the polio numbers had already gone way down by the time Jonas Salk's live vaccine was introduced, and the numbers went back up after it went on the market, due to the live virus in the vaccine actually wreaking more havoc on the system than naturally boosting immunity.
Most of the other illnesses we now vaccinate against, including Influenza, Chicken Pox, Whooping Cough, and Rotavirus, are not typically dangerous. Pneumonia and Meningitis can be more serious, but those are both quite rare in young children, and even then they're not death sentences. In fact, contracting and naturally defeating any of the diseases mentioned has actually been scientifically proven to be beneficial to us. When we get sick, it's our bodies doing what they were designed to do; fighting bacteria and other harmful organisms that have been around since the beginning of time. Typically when we get sick and fight the illness off, it does not return. For example, contracting measles is actually beneficial in healthy people, because it offers lifelong immunity and a myriad of other post-experience benefits. The measles and polio viruses are now being studied as cures to cancer. I'm sure you are well aware that our cancer rates have skyrocketed in the last 50 years or so to an unbelievable rate worldwide today. Could vaccines actually be contributing to this?
We need much more (objective) research in this area, as well as all aspects of the vaccine arena. Until that research is conducted, parents should have every right to refuse a risky medical treatment that they don't feel is necessary or right.
4. I know you're a pro-life advocate, as am I. I've been writing about that topic since I was in high school, and have always felt strongly about it. Did you know that about 75% of the vaccines in today's childhood schedule use aborted fetal cell lines? They are called WI-38 and MRC-5 in the ingredients lists; also known as human diploid cells. Since I'm an ardent pro-lifer, I have a big problem with a science that has no problem with using abortion to its benefit. The name WI-38, for example, means "Wistar Institute - 38", the "38" meaning that it was the 38th fetus used in the development of the cell line. It was developed in 1962 from the lung tissue of a female fetus that was voluntarily aborted at 3 months of age. Most pro-lifers who advocate vaccines try to justify it by saying that the fetal cells have all been removed from generations of cells developed over the last 50 years. I say that I still have a problem with a science that not only supports, but encourages abortion to continue experimenting with fetuses for other medical advancements. Not only are human fetuses disregarded in today's scientific culture as in-human, but millions of animals are sacrificed every year in the name of "health sciences". I'm no member of PETA, but I do love animals, and I cringe when I think of the entire process, so willingly sacrificing life...for what? Immortality? Do we really believe we're smarter than God? Do we really think we can outwit nature? No, friend, we are not and cannot. I know you can understand this mentality, and so do millions of others like me. If vaccines are mandated, we would be forced to abandon our strongly rooted religious beliefs, in the name of the "greater good". Which brings me to my last point:
5. Herd Immunity, as we know it, is a farce. The term was originally coined in 1933 by a doctor named Andrew Hedrich. He observed that when 68% of a population was immune from the Measles, outbreaks would cease. This meant that those who acquired the Measles naturally and defeated the virus, would protect the other 32% with their natural immunity. It appears from all historical records that his findings were fairly accurate. It was then theorized that if a vaccine, like the small pox vaccine, could be introduced, that the public could be protected from the Measles as long as the majority were vaccinated. This theory made several assumptions, such as: The vaccine immunity would last a lifetime, everyone would have a good antibody response to the vaccine, and there would be no negative side effects from the vaccine. All three of these assumptions have been long since proven to hold no water. In 1963, the first Measles vaccine, a killed virus shot, was introduced to the U.S. By this time, measles mortality rates had plummeted by 98% from 1915(which was the peak of recorded measles epidemics in the US), and the morbidity rates had fallen from an estimated 4-5 million cases a year to under 700,000 in 1963. By the time that it was discovered that the killed virus vaccine wasn't really that effective, and a new live virus vaccine was introduced in 1968(the year my favorite car came out), measles deaths were almost unheard of, and a country's population of 200 million was only experiencing a morbidity rate of 1 in 333 people, and a mortality rate of 0.0002%. Before the vaccine ever came out, we had discovered that vitamin A was the best defense against the Measles, and had drastically reduced severe complications of the disease. By the time that the majority of the population had been vaccinated against the measles in the late 70's, complications from the measles were very rare. But, there was still a problem. It was since discovered, and listed in many peer reviewed studies, that many people do not gain the necessary antibodies from the vaccine. Not only that, but only about 50% of the population reacted "well", meaning that they sustained some sort of artificial immunity for around 8-10 years before it died off. Immunity via vaccine is a limited term. Therefor, they are not synonyms, as commonly stated. At this very moment, an estimated 50% of the US population is walking around without "immunity" to the measles. I actually believe the percentage is higher than that. Yet, we are not seeing crazy outbreaks like we were 80 years ago. This should tell us that herd immunity via a vaccine is non-existent, despite a 95% average vaccination rate in children. Remember, many of these children are not immune from the measles, because their bodies didn't react with the vaccines in a desirable way, and we don't yet know why or how to tell who will respond. It's hit or miss, and it's unfair to blame the latest "Disneyland outbreak" on unvaccinated children, because A)there's no proof of that, and B) it could just as easily have started with someone who was vaccinated. Please don't take my word on the herd immunity farce for it; there are knowledgeable doctors that break it down much more effectively than I do. Dr. Russell Blaylock, a highly renowned neurologist, and Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, a highly respected immunologist, both have excellent and detailed writings on this. They are just the tip of the iceberg.
If there's one area of the vaccine debate that I encourage people to look into, it's herd immunity, since the entire debate is rooted in the misconception that unvaccinated children are simply "piggy-backing" on the artificial "immunity" of the vaccinated people, and not helping to protect those who can't have vaccines because they would react badly to them. It's actually quite a silly concept when you research it in depth.
Congressman Amash, I thank you for taking the time to read this. As I previously stated, I respect what you stand for, and you're one of the few politicians that I actually trust. Michigan has the nation's 3rd highest vaccine waiver rate, and it's because this state is full of conservative, logical people, blessed with common sense, who can connect the dots and see the bigger picture. Mandating vaccines, should a bill like that ever be written for Michigan, would undermine what many of us stand for, and would put our children at risk of sustaining a life altering injury, or even death. If you'd like to learn more about vaccines and their dangers, you can access my website, www.dinnerforthought.com for much more information. I'm also the creator of a successful international Facebook group called The Vaccine Gamble, where there is an unbelievable amount of information on vaccines, the diseases they're supposed to prevent, and a myriad of other aspects of the vaccine arena. I would welcome you with open arms if you ever wanted to take to a social media group to learn more about a hot political topic. We have members in the group that are doctors, nurses, scientists, researchers, writers, and media personalities. We also have hundreds of parents of vaccine injured children, who have shared their heartbreaking and sometimes tragic stories in an attempt to raise awareness of the potential dangers.
I'm very curious in hearing what your stance is on vaccines; specifically, making them mandatory. As a local business owner and father of three young children, I have a vested interest in keeping my "investments" safe. I look forward to your response, at your leisure. Thanks again for your time and consideration.