The article would claim:
Parents who don’t vaccinate their kids may have the most heartfelt reason in the world: fear for their own children’s safety. But the basis for that fear is simply unfounded, and their decisions are putting other kids directly at risk.* The bottom line is that the government’s interest in protecting children from getting the measles should trump parents’ interest in making medical decisions for their kids
* IF vaccines ARE effective, HOW can children who are not vaccinated put children who ARE vaccinated at risk???
Also, WHO exactly compose the "governments" that are alleged to have an interest in protecting children from the measels, given that governments like the US Inc and the corporation known as the Commonwealth of Australia, and most other governments around the world, ARE CORPORATIONS OWNED BY ANONYMOUS BANKSTERS? Moreover, WHY should the 'FEARS" of anonymous corporate owners of governments trump parents’ interest in making medical decisions for their kids"?In an attempt to lend credibility to the article's premise - particularly that fears of vaccinations are unfounded - it cites a fictional television show and repeated assurances from governments that there is no link between vaccines and otherwise unexplained conditions like autism.
Indeed, fictional television shows and statements peddled by verified liars among the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom who brought us decade spanning wars based on now verified lies, form the basis of Slate's notion that those who fail to receive vaccines produced and distributed by big-pharmaceutical corporations like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), should be penalized. GSK alone, has been convicted multiple times in courtrooms around the world of multibillion dollar bribery scandals and found guilty of and otherwise engaged in other immense improprieties.
|Image: GSK, one of several producers of the MMR vaccine, has been caught once again amid a massive, multibillion dollar bribery scandal, this time in China. Literally convicted criminals, why would any rational human being inject into their bodies anything produced by this corporation?|
Criminality, upon criminality.
GSK has been accused and convicted of doing likewise in both Europe and the United States, yet they are still in business - a business that includes producing the very vaccines Slate believes people should be penalized for refusing to take.
Why would any rational human being allow themselves to be injected by something produced by such a corporation - a corporation literally convicted of criminality, fraud, and bribery? If GSK can bribe hundreds if not thousands of doctors and healthcare workers around the world to endorse their products, how difficult would it be to bribe writers at Slate who literally write for money?
Big-Pharma, not Activists, are Responsible for the Growing Mistrust of Vaccines
The debate isn't ultimately about the science of vaccines, but rather a lack of trust of those charged with producing, monitoring the safety of, and distributing vaccines. The false narrative of science versus conspiracy theorists is peddled by the media, the government, and the corporations that hold influence over both because a narrative focusing on the wisdom of entrusting criminals and mass murderers with our health is an open and shut case.
Such a conclusion would result in the ditching of big-pharma's vaccines and seeking alternative solutions to immunization, vaccine production and distribution, and overall accountability for healthcare. This would in turn result in the decentralization of healthcare and pharmaceutical production, breaking up the unwarranted wealth and influence of big-pharma and those throughout the government and media that have enriched themselves protecting this monopoly. Clearly this is an outcome many in the media, government, and across the board rooms of big-pharmaceutical corporations across the Western World will fight fanatically to prevent.
For the anti-vaccine movement - it may be wiser to focus on these aspects of the debate rather than be drawn into the false paradigm the media is trying to superimpose upon the issue. It may even be wise to not use the term "anti-vaccine movement," and instead make it an anti-big-pharma movement.
Slate - were it anything other than pages for rent - would focus more on who is responsible for the vast mistrust the public has for big-pharmaceutical corporations and the governments they have verifiably bribed, lobbied, and in some cases, directly control - rather than focus on rational people who do not trust this vast concentration of wealth, influence, and control over human health.