Mercola and Fisher are a nightmare team: fearmongering run rampant. And the scary thing is that over 27,000 folks have viewed the latest post already. Fisher's attached herself to Mercola's large (on the internet) audience. I wonder if it's to see the money roll in? By contrast, my little blog here and this post will be read by maybe 10% of that number. One has to hope that the bigger bloggers who can compete with Mercola's numbers will reach more folks. Will it matter, though? People who are convinced by the vacuous rhetoric that Mercola, Fisher and company engage in won't pay any attention to evidence-based bloggers.
Mercola and Fisher have a new post and video out so chockfull of crap that it begs to be taken line by line.
What's with inflated numbers? The whole bully thing? It's a recommended schedule, says so right on the CDC's site. See what's wrong here in the first sentence? 14 diseases are protected against in 10 vaccines with a total of 29 injections between birth and 6 years, not including the flu shot. When you include the flu shot, it brings it to 34. I don't know where he's getting his numbers, but it's not based in reality. There's something really, really frakked up about that. If a "doctor" can't even count, can't even get facts right, why would you listen to him past this point?
- TIRED of being bullied by your pediatrician into giving your child ALL 69 doses of 16 vaccines that public health doctors insist your child must take?"
Prove that there's a "huge explosion"; I've seen no evidence that there is. Oh, there are a lot more children living and surviving; certainly we have kids with health problems, but it's not the majority, and there's no evidence, nor plausible action by which vaccines could be responsible for these disabilities. More preemies survive, and they are known to be more likely to have chronic health issues.
- "WORRIED about the huge explosion of chronically ill and disabled children in America today and suspect it has something to do with them being overvaccinated?"
Frak, what's that got to do with anything? And there are medical, philosophical, and religious exemptions, so it's complete crap, and one's worries over something may not be grounded in reality.
- "UPSET that your child will get thrown out of school unless you prove he or she has received dozens of doses of vaccines - even though you have serious doubts that all those vaccines are necessary and safe?"
If you're in patient care, you have an obligation to do no harm. In order to get into nursing school, you had to have been vaccinated. It's a little late, isn't it, to suddenly have a problem with that? I'm sure medical exemptions still exist. Don't like having to do certain things? Find another career. Exemptions exist, so if there is a legitimate reason, it won't be a problem.
- "ANGRY about being harassed at work and threatened with losing your job if you don't role up your sleeve and get an annual flu shot?"
Ah, fearmongering: "tired," "worried," "upset," "angry," "afraid." What does vaccination have to do with health insurance, and who besides Mercola is making this argument? Really?
- "AFRAID that you and your family will be forced to get many of the 145 new vaccines being developed or be denied the right to get health insurance or medical care?"
Hey folks, are you paranoid? Afraid that contained within vaccines are nanobots who will secretly be taking over your brain and signalling the government your hidden thoughts? Well, never fear, we have a group for you! Join us, over at Nonanobotsinourbrains for the low price of 39.95 a year membership and we'll send you our special tinfoil hats that will keep any current nanobots residing in your brain from being able to signal the government and your doctor that you smoke more than you admit, drink more than you admit and exercise and frak way less than your three times a week bullshit answer. Your lies will be safe with us; we just need all your personal information, though. Ah, and to get out those pesky nanobots, you'll need to purchase our line of special herbs and vitamins and chelating products. We also have a special line of pots and pans to make sure that no nanobots are able to hitch a ride back into your brain on the metal products you buy at Walmart!
Never fear, ah well, fear all the time, but, know that with Mighty Mercola and Feisty Fisher here by your sides, we'll keep your fear stoked and your tinfoil hats at a rakish tilt!
It really is that bad, all the way through. We don't have mandatory, forced vaccination in this country, and if you stand up to "fight" in the way Mercola and Fisher are advocating for, you're going to be on the frontline of a side of ill-informed, paranoid, delusional people. It really is that stark. And I really do mean that if you read this article by Mercola and buy into it when he gets no facts right, then ummm, what do you call someone who follows behind Mercola? Sound, reasonable, rational? No. It's not hard to look at the information at the CDC linked above and add up for yourself and realize he got it wrong in the first line. That ought to make you question everything else.
I have no problem with people making informed decisions about vaccination based on actual fact-based information. Medical decisions should be made by patients and their health providers (it's a shame some health provider are quacks, and I'm relieved that Mercola no longer sees patients--he's too busy fleecing the general public now with 3000 dollar tanning beds to get vitamin D). Decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of inflammatory, incendiary, overhyped, fearmongering, paranoid rhetoric. I mean, it's Frankenstein's mob, isn't it? Wow. Way to jump the shark, circle back around and jump it again.
Looking through the comments left at Mercola's fearfest is adequate evidence that he's appealing to the lowest common denominator:
"Vaccines have NO place in this world and are only meant to set up your children for future patients within the medical system. How else are they going to make their obseen money."
"Why do rude uneducated sick-care believers bother coming on intelligent websites like this trying to bash facts with dated misinformation that's mainly financially motivated? "Try Googling "Sheeple" or zombie and you'll probably see their names listed. Go back to sleep naysayers & watch us outlive you."
"There is NO valid evidence at all that any vaccine EVER worked to prevent disease. Your position would be much stronger were it, based on the solid science e.g. illuminated, for example, by Dr Sherri Tenpenny, to tell it like it really is. Zero concessions to these mass murderers of our children."
"If the true facts surrounding the death and destruction that has followed in the wake of vaccinations, and the lies constructed to cover them up, were ever to be revealed to the people of the world, there would be no containing their rage."
Going to places like Mercola's site for medical advice is dangerous and foolhardy. There are no facts in his article, just a lot of fallacies. Make your decisions based on factual information and rational discourse. Recognize where you may not have the knowledge base or scientific grounding to understand the information you find and find someone you trust who is trained in the field to explain the relative risks and help you reach an informed decision. Don't be like Mike Adams, who showed his ass yesterday with this quote: "It's a scientific fact: Seasonal flu vaccines don't work on at least 99% of the population (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...). You have to vaccinate 100 people, in other words, just to avoid flu symptoms in ONE person -- and that's if you believe the drug company's own clinical trial data! (Which is almost certainly biased in favor of the vaccines.)."
If you don't see what's wrong with that one statement, then perhaps you need to look into taking some statistics and science courses, and I mean that sincerely. When we read on our own and don't get expert feedback to make sure we've drawn the right conclusion and understood the information, we have no way to assess our accuracy. We end up assuming we are right when we are not, and the less experienced we are, the more likely we are to inflate our competency rate (see Dunning-Kruger effect). That is why some things are better learned with an instructor who is an expert in the field. It doesn't ensure it, though, because not all instructors are going to be competent, either, and I don't know what you do about that, other than to be skeptical of your own skill set so that there's a chance to see if you might be wrong. Once you have decided you're right, you're gonna be hard pressed to see you're wrong and less likely to self-correct. You have to hate being wrong more than you need to be right.
*As far as Fisher's non-profit, you can look through the tax returns here to see how much "good" they do.