The Anthroblogogist 

This article is underconstruction

The use of manipulative literary techniques is not limited to issues concerning vaccination, or the medical establishment. I am going to point out examples in a the American Academy of Pediatrics clinical report in hopes that this will awaken your perception to when this is taking place in other arenas as well. It is very important at this point in our social development on a global level to be aware of when others are trying to manipulate your thoughts for whatever reason.  

In general the medical establishment, unlike most of American social institutions has absolutely no regard for differing views, different sources of knowledge and alternative understandings and methods of caring for health. Typically everyone else who thinks outside of the allopathic box is verbally degraded and considered unfit, uneducated, etc all the to the detriment of westernized health and to the preservation of the ever profitable medical establishment. Here are the examples of how this ideology is promoted and solidified among medical professionals and the greater population.

* The title of the clinical report is Responding to Parental Refusals of Immunization of Children. The word refusal is listed in the dictionary has having a meaning of failing to perform a required action typically for objects, but the way parents are usually spoken of in relation to medical professionals I am sure this definition applies. Instead of the parent choosing not to vaccinate to pediatricians they are refusing, and this is a fundamental difference in understanding and outlook of those who do not vaccinate. The medical professionals in agreement with the wording in this article do not respect a parents right to make educated choices that are contrary to allopathic methods but simply clump them into a group of rebels who refuse to comply with, according to them, the only methods of maintaining proper health.

* The writer says that the goal of the article "is to assist pediatricians in understanding the reason parents may have for refusing to immunize their children. But upon reading the article none of the most common valid and logical reasons that parents have for choosing not to vaccinate. Essentially the absence of true reasons that parents choose not to vaccinate turns the entire article into a huge strawman fallacy. They have instead listed and addressed uncommon and easily disputable reasons and situations in which a parent would not vaccinate their children. Here are some of them.

- "The parent who refuses immunizations on behalf of his or her child living in a well immunized community assumption of immunization risk or burden by others while refusing to participate in the program". I suppose the belief that this is an actual reason parents choose not to vaccinate their children is why Amanda Peet publicly called parents who choose not to vaccinate, parasites. This is truly laughable, because as one of those vaccine free advocates, I am in touch with and aware of the thoughts of other vaccine free families. The notion that we choose not to vaccinate because other vaccinated people will protect us is completely contrary to what we are about. Most people who choose not to vaccinate do so because of:

- The toxic/immoral ingredients in vaccines (i.e. ammonia, mercury, aborted fetal cells, cells of animal body parts like horses and monkeys, etc) 

- Evidence that vaccines are NOT responsible for the decline in childhood illnesses (i.e. statistical data showing the decline taking place well before immunization were around and in full use, declines in other countries that adopted better hygiene practices while not yet adopting vaccination programs, etc)

- Evidence that vaccines are ineffective and can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent (i.e. outbreaks in 95% vaccinated populations, children catching the disease who have been fully immunized, the fact that a side effect of the Gardasil vaccine is HPV!)

- Evidence that vaccines are not safe and won't take sudden infant death syndrome as an answer to deaths after vaccination (i.e. all the parents out there with children who were other wise normal and became injured, impaired or died in extremely close proximity to receiving vaccines)  

- An over all different view of health and health management that is rooted in good nutrition, good hygiene and living conditions, and natural remedies in cases where intervention is chosen

- We (most of us) do not ride on the security of knowing that others are vaccinated (other wise we would not be such advocates as we are, trying to spread the word to everyone! We do not believe that vaccines are safe and effective for anyone, and thus have no faith in "herd immunity" from vaccinated populations preventing the risk of disease. Only good hygienic practices, breast feeding, good nutrition, and not exposing ones self or children unnecessarily to environments in which disease is likely to to spread will prevent the spread of diseases. 

- The article states that parents who do not immunize their children are not performing their civic responsibility. My answer to this is that I am not responsible for the health of everyone in my society. I am responsible for my health and that of my family. If my family and I are healthy, meaning if I am taking care of them successfully, I am also contributing to the health of my society. To suggest that immunization is the only way to contribute health to your society is ideological propaganda. My child is healthy and my family is healthy with out vaccines, we have not contracted or spread any diseases and thus we are not a risk to anyone. The thought of that is laughable. I cannot speak for other unvaccinated families but I do know that putting emphasis on vaccination as a civic duty above good nutrition, hygiene, breast feeding etc is more of a detriment than the people who choose not to shoot up medical poison. People who are vaccinated but don't wash their hands after they use the bathroom are a risk to social health and aren't doing their civic duty.

- "In a national survey of parents, 25% believed falsely that their child’s immune system could become weakened as a result of too many immunizations." It is unfounded for the medical establishment to suggest in anyway that receiving vaccines is safe when they have NOT performed specific tests on vaccines to give of us the data to say one way or another and they admittedly know this. This is out right lying. The FDA, drug and vaccines companies and medical professionals have not been conducting essential safety tests on vaccinations, and when they do any testing at all they are known in some to manipulate results to suggest a false safety. There is an absence of 100% indisputable evidence about vaccines safety because the research has not been done. Medical professionals dishonestly use this absence to suggest that they are safe, and have no connection with autism or other neurological diseases, death, genetoxicity, cancer etc. The term SIDS is used to avoid doing research on the cause of death and linking it to vaccinations on purpose (there is no such thing as a mysterious random death that no trained professional can find the cause of). No definitive data means that it is still a serious valid concern for parents. From the clinical report "Four percent of pediatricians had refused permission for an immunization for their own children younger than 11 years." Yet "A small number of pediatricians reported they always (4.8%) or sometimes (18.1%) tell parents that they will no longer serve and the child's physician if, after educational efforts the parents continue to refuse permission for an immunization." Thats strange huh?