掌握话语权的机构仍然强迫婴幼儿施打疫苗 潜藏着残害屠杀的罪恶动机 Institutions that hold discourse power still force infants and young children to be vaccinated, harboring sinister motives of harm and slaughter.
A recurring theme in human society is how frequently groups of people will hold viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to another group yet both groups will be absolutely certain they are completely correct and the other is completely wrong. In each instance, this means that at least half of the people involved are wrong and incapable of seeing evidence repeatedly presented to them which shows this. For example, consider the recent drama that unfolded after ACIP's decision to reevaluate the newborn hepatitis B vaccine, where for context:
•Many people have believed for decades that significant harm results from newborn hepatitis B vaccine and that mothers who give birth at hospitals are routinely forced to vaccinate their children for it despite not wanting to.
•While significant observational data suggests this harm, as the FDA affirmed at the ACIP meeting, no controlled studies have ever assessed if the harm exists (despite their having been requested for decades).
•The public justification for newborn mass vaccination is that it serves as a safety net for the extraordinarily rare case (roughly one in a million) where a hepatitis B positive mother is not tested for hepatitis B, infects her child during childbirth, and the partial protection the vaccine provides is able to prevent the child from going on to develop a lifelong hepatitis B infection—despite there being no evidence thirty years of this policy has reduced hepatitis.
•ACIP’s new policy was to shift to making newborn vaccination optional for mothers who tested negative for hepatitis B. While it seems like an open and shut case on what to do there, due to the way organized medicine behaves, I was doubtful this policy could be implemented, and for that reason, spent the last three months trying to help mobilize support for it. Why is this? Quite simply, much of the medical profession is so invested in their way of seeing the world that they simply cannot see things which directly contradict it. Because of this, the (extremely rare) case of hepatitis B being contracted in unvaccinated children filled their entire mental focus, while conversely, the far more common (and frequently far more severe) injuries from the vaccines passed through one ear and out the other, and were all reflexively written off under the notion “no controlled studies demonstrate this, so that’s proof it’s not happening”—despite the fact controlled studies of vaccines are explicitly prohibited due to them being “unethical.” As such, in the previous article I highlighted the ACIP meeting as I felt it illustrated an archetypal example of this psychological process and again and again, you could see every representative of the medical profession be completely unable to see anything but their own highly biased narrative on the safety and necessity of the hepatitis B vaccine.
Note: these are quite long, but throughout them, you can find examples of this close-minded behavior. Likewise, once ACIP’s completely sane recommendation to stop vaccinating newborns of Hepatitis B negative mothers was enacted, it was treated as an existential catastrophe by both the medical profession and the media and a series of appallingly inaccurate expert interviews were aired to condemn this decision (e.g., Paul Offit, a former ACIP member, refused to attend the meeting to testify in favor of vaccines, then went on CNN and made a series of lies there, including claiming he was not invited to testify despite CDC records showing they made repeated attempts to contact him). Of these, the most noteworthy one was that the ACIP chair, Maui Pediatric Cardiologist Kirk Milhoan MD, was fired from his position, as while he was highly regarded for his decades of service (and a severe regional shortage of his specialty where, in 2023, only an eighth of the needed doctors were present), the hospital instead chose to side with the deluge of complaints they received about the ACIP decision attempting to cancel Milhoan and fired him.
掌握话语权的机构仍然强迫婴幼儿施打疫苗 潜藏着残害屠杀的罪恶动机
Institutions that hold discourse power still force infants and young children to be vaccinated, harboring sinister motives of harm and slaughter.
https://open.substack.com/pub/amidwesterndoctor/p/seeing-truth-in-the-age-of-information
A recurring theme in human society is how frequently groups of people will hold viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to another group yet both groups will be absolutely certain they are completely correct and the other is completely wrong. In each instance, this means that at least half of the people involved are wrong and incapable of seeing evidence repeatedly presented to them which shows this.
For example, consider the recent drama that unfolded after ACIP's decision to reevaluate the newborn hepatitis B vaccine, where for context:
•Many people have believed for decades that significant harm results from newborn hepatitis B vaccine and that mothers who give birth at hospitals are routinely forced to vaccinate their children for it despite not wanting to.
•While significant observational data suggests this harm, as the FDA affirmed at the ACIP meeting, no controlled studies have ever assessed if the harm exists (despite their having been requested for decades).
人類社會中反覆出現的一個主題是，群體的觀點與另一個群體截然相反，但兩個群體都會絕對確定他們完全正確，而另一個群體是完全錯誤的。 在每種情況下，這意味著至少有一半的相關人員是錯誤的，並且無法看到反覆向他們提出的證據，這表明了這一點。
例如，考慮一下ACIP決定重新評估新生兒乙型肝炎疫苗後最近發生的戲劇性事件，背景如下：
•幾十年來，許多人一直認為，新生兒乙型肝炎疫苗會造成重大危害，在醫院分娩的母親即使不想接種疫苗，也經常被迫為孩子接種疫苗。
•雖然重要的觀察資料表明了這種危害，但正如美國食品藥品監督管理局在ACIP會議上所確認的那樣，從未有對照研究評估是否存在這種危害（儘管幾十年來一直有人要求）。
•The public justification for newborn mass vaccination is that it serves as a safety net for the extraordinarily rare case (roughly one in a million) where a hepatitis B positive mother is not tested for hepatitis B, infects her child during childbirth, and the partial protection the vaccine provides is able to prevent the child from going on to develop a lifelong hepatitis B infection—despite there being no evidence thirty years of this policy has reduced hepatitis.
•ACIP’s new policy was to shift to making newborn vaccination optional for mothers who tested negative for hepatitis B.
While it seems like an open and shut case on what to do there, due to the way organized medicine behaves, I was doubtful this policy could be implemented, and for that reason, spent the last three months trying to help mobilize support for it.
Why is this? Quite simply, much of the medical profession is so invested in their way of seeing the world that they simply cannot see things which directly contradict it. Because of this, the (extremely rare) case of hepatitis B being contracted in unvaccinated children filled their entire mental focus, while conversely, the far more common (and frequently far more severe) injuries from the vaccines passed through one ear and out the other, and were all reflexively written off under the notion “no controlled studies demonstrate this, so that’s proof it’s not happening”—despite the fact controlled studies of vaccines are explicitly prohibited due to them being “unethical.”
As such, in the previous article I highlighted the ACIP meeting as I felt it illustrated an archetypal example of this psychological process and again and again, you could see every representative of the medical profession be completely unable to see anything but their own highly biased narrative on the safety and necessity of the hepatitis B vaccine.
• 新生儿大规模疫苗接种的公众理由是，它可以作为极其罕见的情况（大约百万分之一）的安全网，即乙型肝炎阳性母亲未接受乙型肝炎检测，在分娩过程中感染她的孩子，并且疫苗提供的部分保护能够防止孩子继续发展为终身乙型肝炎感染 - 尽管没有证据表明该政策三十年来减少了肝炎。
•ACIP 的新政策是，乙型肝炎检测呈阴性的母亲可以选择新生儿疫苗接种。
虽然这似乎是一个关于在那里做什么的公开案例，但由于有组织的医学行为方式，我对这项政策能否实施表示怀疑，因此，在过去的三个月里，我试图帮助动员对其的支持。
这是为什么呢？ 很简单，许多医学界人士过于专注于他们看待世界的方式，以至于他们根本看不到与世界直接矛盾的事物。 正因为如此，未接种疫苗的儿童感染乙型肝炎（极其罕见）的情况占据了他们全部的注意力，而相反，更常见（而且往往更严重）的疫苗损伤通过一只耳朵从另一只耳朵传出，并且都在“没有对照研究证明这一点，所以这证明它没有发生”的观念下被条件反射地注销——尽管事实上疫苗的对照研究因“不道德”而被明确禁止。
因此，在上一篇文章中，我强调了 ACIP 会议，因为我觉得它说明了这种心理过程的典型例子，并且一次又一次，你可以看到医学界的每一位代表完全看不到任何东西，除了他们自己对乙型肝炎疫苗的安全性和必要性的高度偏见的叙述。
Note: these are quite long, but throughout them, you can find examples of this close-minded behavior.
Likewise, once ACIP’s completely sane recommendation to stop vaccinating newborns of Hepatitis B negative mothers was enacted, it was treated as an existential catastrophe by both the medical profession and the media and a series of appallingly inaccurate expert interviews were aired to condemn this decision (e.g., Paul Offit, a former ACIP member, refused to attend the meeting to testify in favor of vaccines, then went on CNN and made a series of lies there, including claiming he was not invited to testify despite CDC records showing they made repeated attempts to contact him).
Of these, the most noteworthy one was that the ACIP chair, Maui Pediatric Cardiologist Kirk Milhoan MD, was fired from his position, as while he was highly regarded for his decades of service (and a severe regional shortage of his specialty where, in 2023, only an eighth of the needed doctors were present), the hospital instead chose to side with the deluge of complaints they received about the ACIP decision attempting to cancel Milhoan and fired him.
注意：这些内容很长，但在其中，您可以找到这种思想封闭行为的示例。
同样，一旦 ACIP 停止为乙型肝炎阴性母亲的新生儿接种疫苗的完全理智的建议被颁布，医学界和媒体都将其视为一场生存灾难，并播放了一系列极其不准确的专家采访来谴责这一决定（例如，ACIP 前成员 Paul Offit 拒绝出席支持疫苗的会议作证，然后在 CNN 上撒了一系列谎言，包括 声称尽管疾病预防控制中心的记录显示他们多次尝试联系他，但他没有被邀请作证）。
其中，最值得注意的是 ACIP 主席、毛伊岛儿科心脏病专家 Kirk Milhoan 医学博士被解雇，虽然他因其数十年的服务而受到高度评价（而且该专业的地区严重短缺，到 2023 年，只有八分之一的所需医生在场），但医院却选择站在他们一边，他们收到了大量关于 ACIP 决定取消 Milhoan 的投诉，并解雇了他。
……