Exactly Who Is “Anti-vaccine”?

If you want safe, non-neurotoxic vaccines for everyone, given in an independently tested and verified schedule and combination, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you want transparency, accountability, and ethical science when it comes to vaccines, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe those who profit from vaccines should not be in charge of vaccine policy or research, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe you should have the right to informed consent, and that not all vaccines are created or needed equally, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe we should study those who have reacted negatively to prevent problems for others in the future, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe you have the right not to inject yourself with something made using aborted fetal cell lines because it goes against your faith, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe the program has been derailed by special interests ever since they received federal liability protection, and that liability protection should be amended to apply only in times of emergency (if at all), you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe science can easily be bought and paid for, and that you have not only the right but also the responsibility to read it and question it, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you are a journalist investigating or reporting on CDC malfeasance regarding vaccine policy and research, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you are a politician doing the same, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you tell others to educate themselves about the risks and benefits of vaccines, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you tell others what happened to someone you know or love after they vaccinated, you are “anti-vaccine” (and a liar and dangerous).

If you believe corruption is possible in any entity, private or public, and that it needs to be exposed and weeded out wherever it is, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe 100 years is long enough to start studying the vaccinated versus never vaccinated to see if maybe, just maybe, we have created some unintended consequences,  such as swapping infectious disease for chronic disease . . . and hey, you’d really like to know that . . . you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe ALL children’s lives are valuable, not just those who appear to have tolerated the vaccine program well, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe the science you paid for as a taxpayer should be available to you and not shipped overseas or destroyed or withheld because the results are suspicious, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you think a wanted felon’s research being used for policy and legal decisions on something as important as the vaccines that you are giving to your children is a problem, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe a parent knows his or her child better than anyone, and that your first responsibility is to him or her and not society, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you would object to a public health official coming to your house today and saying you can’t leave your home for any reason until you get all of your adult boosters, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you believe a person shouldn’t be forced to have a medical procedure that could possibly hurt or kill them, or go against their conscience, in order to keep their job, you are “anti-vaccine.”

walgreensIf you think it’s insane that you can go to a grocery store and get a vaccine from a person who doesn’t know you or your health history, and who doesn’t tell you your rights, what to do if something goes wrong, or that you can’t sue them, the store, or the pharmaceutical company if they maim or kill you, you are “anti-vaccine.”

If you think it’s equally insane that if a Thimerosal-containing flu shot vial is dropped or spilled in that grocery store, the store has be evacuated and a Hazmat team has to come and clean it up because of the mercury in it, but that grandma should roll up her sleeve and inject it for 10% off her bill because it’s the “safe mercury,” you are “anti-vaccine.”

I could go on and on and on. If any of these descriptions applies to you, YOU ARE “ANTI-VACCINE.” I need you to really get that. This isn’t “autism parents” or “Gardasil moms.”  This is any consumer who questions the status quo — any American who says, “Hey, wait. Hold up. This is craziness. This is irrational. I’m concerned. I don’t trust this science or this system.

Let’s get an independent investigation going and an independent vaccine safety council established. Being responsible for high vaccine uptake and for assuring its safety are conflicting roles, especially when there is profit involved.

Let’s get the data sets and check their work. Let’s find that felon and throw out his work. Let’s put the pause button on and start looking at those who have gotten sick or hurt. It bothers me vaccination has turned into such a profitable business. Have you driven past a Walgreen’s lately? I’m worried our best interest isn’t at heart. This seems off.”

Nope. You are a dirty anti-vaxxer who hates humanity. No room for discussion. Nothing to see here. Move along. You are either with or against, and if you are against (by their definition)? Well, they want to END you.

rob schneider

The Extreme Vaccine Machine, full of online bullies and propagandists — vaxtremists, if you will — who will stop at nothing to shut down discourse, dissent, and debate, (because according to them, there simply is no discourse, debate or reason to dissent) just said so themselves this week.

This same group of people who give themselves permission to slander people, twist their positions to fit their agenda, go after the livelihoods of people who disagree with them, cyber stalk them, and take screenshots of their kids and make fun of them on Facebook pages made for the sole purpose of shaming them all in the name of “public health.”

THESE are the people who successfully got Rob Schneider removed as a spokesperson for an insurance company, just like they successfully got Chili’s to stop a fundraiser aimed at helping families keep track of their kids who wander from home.

And now, they want to end you. And me. And anyone who thinks they are fear-mongering jackasses, the very thing they accuse others of being. And how are they doing it?

By simply calling people anti-vaccine. That’s all they have to do. Never mind the facts. Never mind the nuances. Never mind that a person who advocates for safer car seats isn’t “anti-car seat” or safer cars, “anti-car.” Never mind thousands of parents had a front row seat to vaccine injury in their children and have no other agenda than making sure it doesn’t happen to another child.

Nope, they know better. And they know they don’t have to tell the truth. They know they can manipulate the public with that one little label. The label that has become equivalent to being called homophobic or racist or worse.

And it’s working. Why?

Because lots and lots of people don’t realize that they are considered “anti-vaccine” too.

So remember this today, please. If you have any doubts about the system . . . any concerns . . . any philosophical objections to your rights being taken away as a citizen or a parent . . . any uneasy feeling about a one-size-fits-all program . . . any questions about the honesty and integrity of government-run programs, their science or their scientists . . . any doubts about the motives of pharmaceutical companies and organized medicine . . . any doubts about the validity of the body of evidence they use to claim safety . . . they are talking about YOU.

YOU are “anti-vaccine.”

Cause they said so. And if you object? Speak out? Criticize them? Challenge them? They are coming for you.

They just made it their mission.

~ Julie Obradovic

Julie Obradovic is a guest blogger for Thinking Mom’s Revolution; a Contributing Editor to Age of Autism; a founding member of the Canary Party; and a member of the Executive Leadership of Health Choice.

Pin It
This entry was posted in Blogs by Thinking Moms' Revolution, Julie Obradovic and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to Exactly Who Is “Anti-vaccine”?

  1. Christina says:

    I’ve been called anti-vaccine just for opting out of the HPV vaccine for my youngest son, who has Down syndrome, cerebral palsy and autism, is non-verbal with limited mobility, and is highly unlikely to ever be sexually active, so why should he face the risk of side effects of a vaccine for a disease that is only transmitted sexually. My son is in a class for medically fragile students, some of which are severely immune compromised and/or can’t receive vaccines, so I’ve made sure he stays up to date on all of his other vaccinations to protect them as well as him, but giving the HPV vaccine with it’s 2% risk of serious side effects to a child who only has a .0001% chance of ever being exposed to HPV protects noone, and choosing not to give the vaccine to that child is common sense, not “reactionary”, “paranoid” or “anti-vaccine”.

  2. Brandi Phelps says:

    Vaccines have become a heated debate amongst many individuals. Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are being attacked from both ends. However, what most individuals fail to realize is that there is always another side to every story. People who refuse to vaccinate their children are not “conspiracy theorist,” they are educated parents who actually take the time to do their research. Their research is not based on myths as so many believe. Government documentation is where anti-vaccine individuals begin their research. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention list all the ingredients known to be in the vaccines that are administered to children/adults. Anti-vaccine individuals understand what the adverse reactions may be and in return, refuse to vaccinate our children or ourselves. The Vaccine Book, by Dr. Robert Sears, is a pediatrician who is pro-vaccine, but gives the pros and cons of each vaccine, lists the ingredients, and even discuss the known side-effects after vaccination is complete. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is where medical professionals report any adverse reactions after the vaccine was administered. The medical professional documents all side-effects the patient is going through onto the database. In return, this helps the CDC to determine the side-effects that are most common with each vaccine. In addition to the research, the National Injury Compensation Program is designed to help individuals report a claim of vaccine injury. Vaccines do cause harm and it has been proven in court. If the individual wins their case, they are awarded a large sum of money due to the inconvenience that the vaccine caused. With the use of today’s research and information, it has been proven that vaccines can cause severe adverse reactions in children as well as individuals.

  3. Ruth says:

    Donna, I would call it pro informed consent, pro medical choice. (I had another one in brain and now it eludes me)

  4. Aneta says:

    Thank you… it is so refreshing to finally read something that so closely mirrors my own thoughts and the information I have gathered on the topic of vaccines. I am horrified at the number of people who have never read a vaccine insert or read a single study on any topic related to vaccines but who vilify those that do. I am appalled to see ‘independent’ press publish one sided stories of children who ‘we’ are exposing to untold dangers, but never bother to print the stories of those children who have been irrevocably injured by vaccinations. I am proud to be pro informed choice and a thinking mom.

    Kudos to you and to every person that reads, seeks information and stands up to fight for our right to demand change.

  5. I am proud to be an Antivaxivist, which is an anti vaccine activist. This makes me a Vaccine Realist, which I have been prior to even knowing the contents, but merely by knowing the difference in children pre and post vaccination. I pronounce my stance on the STEPS OF CITY HALL and wish many more would join me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3junQORxuM&list=PLqQQFOVUZBLi-jobDXmXjWBmfE404AXSV

    I have a SOLUTION which will require many to participate in: http://billiontoddlermarchforsurvival.blogspot.com/2015/01/vaccine-free-2015-legislation-now-back.html

    To your health!, Sallie

  6. Military Wife says:

    I dislike when people refer to something they think is contagious or the amount of the contagious..we here don’t vax. My children lived in a house with a person with shingles, my 30 year old husband, and no one here got shingles. He is vaxxed to the max..military. My children were 9 months and 2 years old..we didn’t even know it was shingles until after the contagious time period was over. Goes to show how much some know about get your shots, keep away bla bla bla. He’s probably next in line for this ebola vaccine. I’ll keep you posted.

  7. Jenny Allan says:

    Adam says:-
    “And I’m afraid I cannot agree with Wakefield. Failure to declare a financial interest in his study is one thing, but invasive surgeries on children without declaring them to an ethics committee is just something I cannot abide.”

    Just to clarify -AGAIN! Andrew Wakefield was employed as a researcher at the Royal Free Hospital, NOT a clinician. Qualified clinicians, under the leadership of Professor Walker-Smith, carried out the colonoscopies and other diagnostic procedures on patients referred to them for their bowel problems. All patients, including the Lancet children, (and my own autistic grandson with bowel problems-not a Lancet case), were properly referred by their own GPs. Parental consent was required to take two ADDITIONAL biopsies, under Prof’W-S’s OWN ethical permit. I have a copy of my grandson’s properly submitted and signed consent form. Of course most parents were only too happy to help with research to help other children, but the form makes it clear their children would still be appropriately treated, regardless of whether or not they consented to the extra biopsies.

    Prof Walker-Smith and clinician colleague Prof Murch were dragged, alongside Dr Wakefield, before the General Medical Council and subjected to a 3 year inquisition hearing ordeal. This was called ‘a Court’; some of us parents called it a ‘Kangaroo Court’. All three men were found guilty, but Prof Murch was allowed to keep his medical license to practice. There were many conflicts of interest, involving the hearing panel members and the GMC expert witnesses. If Dr Wakefield’s failure to declare his involvement with an MMR litigation case involving over 1000 damaged children, was a ‘sin of omission’, then GMC expert Prof Rutter’s failure to declare his own fat fees, not to mention plane tickets and accommodation, for his ‘expert testimonies’ in US vaccine litigation cases was another ‘sin’, not to mention at least one GMC panel member having share holdings in an MMR vaccine manufacturer. A member of the public was threatened with ‘contempt of court’ proceedings for pointing this out. Too bad this was not a REAL court, just a ‘wee pretendy’ one, ( as Billy Connolly would call it), and had no REAL court powers. Some might say this nasty business actually ABUSED the GMC’s powers.

    Thank God for High Court Judge, Lord Justice Mitting who took just THREE DAYS to demolish the GMC’s reasonings and verdicts, during Prof Walker-Smith’s Appeal, February 2012, when his license to practice was restored. Judge Mitting called the GMC’s examining of the evidence, ( mostly submitted by sole complainant, journalist Brian Deer-NOT a parent), was ‘inadequate and superficial’ and in several instances , just plain WRONG!! Judge Mitting made it plain this scenario MUST NOT happen again, and thankfully the GMC has now been forced to abandon these nasty so called ‘courts’ in favour of independently managed tribunal type disciplinary hearings.

    There has been no GMC pardon or apology to Prof Murch, who faced identical charges to Prof Walker-Smith, nor an acknowledgement they were WRONG in the case of Dr Wakefield’s 75% identical charges. That leaves the kid’s party and failure to declare litigation involvement remaining, neither of these were illegal nor were they legitimate ‘striking off’ reasons.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Thanks, Jenny! You just saved me a lot of time addressing the Wakefield, et al, paper and the clinical treatment of bowel disease in those 12 children. Adam, she is correct. Wakefield was not responsible for the clinical care of those children. He merely reported what was found when his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital, some of the top gastrointestinal clinicians in the country, actually deigned to treat their symptoms of bowel disease. I would trust Dr. Walker-Smith’s judgment on whether or not a colonoscopy were in order over that of “journalist” Brian Deer any day.

  8. Kathy says:

    Add to the list: I am horrible to many because I don’t feel that it is my responsibility to risk my child’s life or health for the mythical herd immunity for those that can’t have vaccines.

  9. Adam says:


    I think you misunderstood one of my points. My comment about extremists was poorly worded at best. I don’t mean to imply that any of you here on this blog or any commenters are extremists in any sense. What I meant to say is that there are extremists on both sides giving either an angry name, so that particular argument is unnecessary.

    Now that’s out of the way, we can move on with the rest of the argument. I know you fight for those who have suffered side effects from vaccinations, and I will agree that the listed side effects of any vaccination are not readily advertised. Aside from the actually being sick from whatever you are immunizing, I wasn’t aware there could be a possible connection between vaccination and chronic disease affecting a small portion of the population. However I would have to agree with the argument that vaccinations still work. Humans are a diverse species, nothing so far will work for 100% of the population. But vaccines so far have been highly effective in eliminating the incredibly dangerous diseases that once limited our population. While it can still only be progress for most, it is still a step forward in protecting ourselves from the plethora of microbes that would do us harm.

    The problem would then boil down to “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Typically (I assume) pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and college grants are the only ones that fund research studies and would be hard pressed to fund research into something that’s working pretty well on its own. So if a study were to be published on research of the immunization schedule or into an association of chronic diseases associated with vaccination, it would either have to be outspokenly demanded by a vast majority of the American populace or privately funded. A fundraiser for an independent study researching either of these things or any other worries you’ve put forward that I’ve missed could be done; there’s a private-citizen funded superPAC going around to fight political greed, a much cheaper research study wouldn’t be too far out of reach.

    And I’m afraid I cannot agree with Wakefield. Failure to declare a financial interest in his study is one thing, but invasive surgeries on children without declaring them to an ethics committee is just something I cannot abide.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Thanks for your thoughtful response, Adam. I welcome talking with a person who is truly interested in exchanging ideas. Unfortunately, I have to get to bed at the moment, but I would love to come back and respond to some of your points.

    • Manda says:

      Adam, as others have already pointed out, Wakefield was a researcher, not a clinician, and had no contact whatsoever with the patients, let alone being the one to decide (or suggest) what procedures those kids should have!

      Wakefield’s study was tiny and couldn’t have proven much one way or the other (no study can, science is a continous process, remember?). The hysterical reaction to it was much more interesting…

      In the words of a college professor with no dog in the fight:

      “As far as Wakefield, you’re absolutely correct his small sample study proved nothing (because no study can), and is pretty weak evidence of anything. That said, it’s curious there was a multi-year witchhunt over it. I mean, there are doctors that have literally killed people for money that barely got a slap on the wrist.

      So, I find the Wakefield study weak and uninteresting. I find the response to the study very, very, interesting.”


    • Silvia says:

      I believe you are missinformed about the tests your government have done in children, prisioners, elders and sick people. A quick search on google will review it to you. Find out about Quaker, plutonion and so much more atudies done on america s without their knowledge.

  10. Jenny Allan says:

    Adam says :- “You should really google Andrew Wakefield, the progenitor of all this, and see how he actually conducted his study”.
    Just to clarify: The 1998 Lancet Wakefield et al paper was a clinical report on 12 children, treated by clinicians at the Royal Free Hospital, London for a ‘novel’ syndrome, involving autism like neurological symptoms and a specific bowel syndrome. Dr Wakefield, whose research contract prohibited any patient clinical contact, was only ONE of 13 multidisciplinary authors.
    All this was more than 16 years ago. Of more relevance today is the increased incidence of autism in the intervening years, and the recent official admission autistic persons DO suffer from an increased incidence of bowel disorders, one estimate put this at 90%.
    Andrew Wakefield continues to be used as a convenient scapegoat. His book ‘Callous Disregard’ tells his side of the story.

  11. liz p says:

    Excellent! My thoughts, exactly!!!

  12. izzybell says:

    A natural infection often provides more complete immunity than a series of vaccinations — but there’s a price to pay for natural immunity. For example, a natural chickenpox (varicella) infection could lead to pneumonia. A natural polio infection could cause permanent paralysis. A natural mumps infection could lead to deafness. A natural Hib infection could result in permanent brain damage. Vaccination can help prevent these diseases and their potentially serious complications.

    • Billy says:

      What you speak of is an extremely small percentile of those that get infected with these things. The risk of getting an injury from a vaccine is greater than the extremes that you mentioned.

    • A Concerned Mom says:

      Polio vaccine is also known to cause paralysis, especially with the live virus vaccine. Any person who is immune-compromised (such as those going through rounds of chemotherapy) are instructed to avoid anyone who has been given certain vaccines recently, especially any with live-virus.

      Any of the vaccines can cause the recipient to develop the disease it is meant to prevent. People have gotten measles from the measles vaccine, mumps from the mumps vaccine, and there was a study that showed pertussis virus in the throats of those recently vaccinated… even though they weren’t showing symptoms themselves, they could pass it on to others (such as a newborn sibling). Getting the diseases from the vaccine can have all the same potential hazards as getting the disease naturally, but with less immunity that doesn’t last as long. Not to mention the host of autoimmune diseases that can be caused by the vaccines, chronic illnesses, etc.

    • Michael says:

      And what does a stroke and seizure condition mean after two DPT vaccinations, izzybell? My child now has both life long conditions along with palsy after our wonderful cookie cutter doctors working in conjunction with Big Pharma are pushing this unsafe vaccines in our children’s arms. READ THE PACKAGE INSERTS!!! THE DA Pediatricians don’t. THE WARNINGS ARE THERE. So you as a parent must do the work. I intrusted these fools with my child’s life and they ruined his chance for a normal life. And vaccinations DO NOT GUARANTEE IMMUNITY from these childhood illnesses. IT IS STATED IN THE PACKAGE INSERT!

  13. Peter says:

    Every time you make an assertion, such as the hazmat team proclamation, you have to link to the source of it happening or another verifiable source. Since you didn’t, everything in this article is moot and can be discounted by everyone because what you’re asking others to do, you aren’t doing yourself.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Um, actually, no Peter. The fact that the statements are not linked to sources does not in any way mean that they are “moot.” It only means that they are not substantiated within this post. You can find the substantiation in plenty of places, should you attempt to do so. What she and the rest of us ask others to do is their own research. She has done hers. Have you done yours?

  14. Adam says:

    Firstly, an interesting article. The important thing in any debate is to be versed in both “sides” as it were. Well here’s mine and the side of those like me:

    Interestingly enough, how you describe adement “vaxxers” is pretty much how we see you. So that point of your argument is nill, if you consider now that both sides have people behaving in such a way. And another special note on medical and ethical transparency. You should really google Andrew Wakefield, the progenitor of all this, and see how he actually conducted his study. It’s wholly terrifying. Thank you, for reading and have a pleasant day.

    • ProfessorTMR says:


      Thanks for your response. Most of us here at Thinking Moms are very well versed in the “other” side of the argument, including that little gem that you linked. This is our answer to it: http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/anti-vaxxers-say-vaccinate-dont/

      We understand that you see us as extremists, but that doesn’t mean we are extremists. The vast majority of us started out questioning one aspect of the vaccine program, and when we did so we saw others asking the same reasonable questions being vilified by people who were vehemently — and dishonestly — denying the existence of vaccine injury. Suddenly, by asking one question we were “on the other side.” Seem reasonable? It’s not. My boyfriend watched the NOVA program recently and said, “There has to be a middle ground.” I said, “Of course, there’s a middle ground! There’s lots of middle ground! But they refuse to acknowledge it.” That’s because they are extremists. As far as they are concerned there is no compromise. Everyone must have all the vaccines that are ever approved by the CDC on their approved schedule or they are “anti-vaccine.” And, frankly, that is an utterly ridiculous and untenable position. Virtually no one needs to have chicken pox vaccines; very few children could possibly derive any benefit from hepatitis B vaccines before puberty; there is very little justification for wholesale vaccination of adolescents with Gardasil; flu shots have been shown to have no benefit for children under two; flu vaccines have not been tested in pregnant women — they are a Category C drug.

      Also, you should know that most of the people here know the whole story around Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his 1998 study very, very well. And not only are we not “terrified” by how he conducted his study, we’re rather rather glad he did it, as were the parents of the children in the study. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHrgYxqcU0w For the first time someone actually cared enough about the health of their children to try and help them. He was among the very first to investigate the bowel disease that besets a huge percentage of children with autism, particularly severe and/or regressive autism. You should meet Andy Wakefield someday. You might be surprised at how very un-terrifying it is.

    • A Concerned Mom says:

      I, personally, prefer the term “pro-choice”. I wouldn’t tell you that you should not vaccinate your children (though I might suggest you research it thoroughly from every angle). You’ve made your decision based on what you’ve come up with. I’ve made my decision based on what I’ve come up with (and the fact that my child developed an autoimmune disease from the MMR vaccine that landed him in hospital… but then I was against my children getting the shots based on family medical history and the info in the vaccine inserts, long before he had that reaction). All most of us are trying to do right now is to get people off our backs for making OUR decision. Though more thorough research into links re: family medical history would be nice, as would a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated health outcomes. (And please don’t say that such a study would be “unethical”… unethical is NOT doing the study when there are hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated kids who’s parents would be more than happy to allow them to participate in such a study for no other reason than that it NEEDS to be done.)

  15. Victoria says:

    I prefer the label “pro informed decision”. Great article. Thank you

  16. Andrew says:

    Let’s face it, if you dare to question any tenant or dogma from the pseudo scientific high priests you are called fallacious and illogical names as the rabid followers of the religion of scientism show. How opposite they are to very foundation they cling to of being reasonable, logical and scientific but just call people fallacious names instead.
    Vaccine “science” unlike engineering or other disciplines, relies upon the logical fallacies of affirming the consequent and Induction and has to ignore any other variant, evidence or possibility by necessity. For example can any Pro vaccine believer show with evidence that vaccines have saved more people than better nutrition, hygiene and living standards has ? Hint, we already have the graphs of the mass falling of deaths from these childhood diseases before the vaccines were introduced.
    These fools even call us “vaccine deniers” LOL how can anyone deny vaccines exist?
    Shows they resort to emotion and memes rather than the actual hard science which if investigated is nothing bit affirming of consequents and Induction which as a logical fallacies proves nothing.

  17. Jenny says:

    Amen. I posted a comment on a pro vaccine, supposedly pro science blog, questioning why none of the studies listed used a saline placebo for a control. I was called a nazi adherent by the blogger and told all future posts of mine would be deleted. It is insane.

  18. LC says:

    I had a shingles shot last year. Glad I did. My infant son had a horrible reaction to his first pertussis inoculation 30 years ago… I did not give him another one. Duh. I have a 6 year old cousin with measles, family doesn’t immunize which is ok but he gave it to an infant before it was old enough to immunize the infant died. I don’t care if I’m called anti vac or pro vac (sounds like a vacuum cleaner 🙂 or pro life or pro choice. Names mean nothing when your child is dead, sick or having an allergic reaction. Each person needs to make informed choices about their own health (thus the shingles vac), and the health of their child. If you choose not to vaccinate, please be aware and avoid infants and the vulnerable elderly. As an individual, make your choice and be nice.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Actually, if you choose TO vaccinate, you should be even more aware of infants and the elderly. Live virus vaccines shed. You can shed the virus for several weeks after receiving the vaccine, and many people don’t know that they should avoid immunocompromised people in those situations. People who have just received a live virus vaccine are MORE likely to spread an illness than someone who is unvaccinated, but not sick. (By the way, most adults have not had boosters for anything but tetanus and diphtheria, and so they would count as “unvaccinated.”) Medical people frequently do not know this. A friend was required to have her children vaccinated in order to visit her immuno-compromised husband in the hospital. They did not have a problem with kids recently vaccinated with the MMR or varicella. Oy!

    • Ashley says:

      I respectfully question the report in this comment. To the best of my knowledge there has not been a recorded case of death from measles in the United States in a very long time. I believe the last case was over 20 years ago.

  19. Andrew says:

    The National Catholic Bioethics Center’s conclusion is not a necessary inference from scripture but rather an arbitrary opinion based on false premises.
    Not that they have the right or authority to decide morality for Christians as whole let alone non Christians anyway.

  20. Connie Rodriguez says:

    Our immune system can be the best natural vaccine…work on keeping your immune system strong and there’s no need to vaccinate with anything. Get your liver detoxed so you can have a healthy immune system! if you think vaccines prevented polio, read the book, Dr. Mary’s Monkeys.. It will open your eyes to the biggest hoax still being pushed on us even more so today.

  21. eram says:

    Censorship and Blacklisting are two historical activities I was fortunate to learn about in public school. I wonder if our country’s sad history of blacklisting and our long-standing, cultural disdain of censorship is even being taught in public schools any more? I’m so sorry for Rob Schneider and for anyone being bullied for independent, unsanctioned thought. If this isn’t a clear attempt to censor and blacklist someone, I’m not sure what is.

  22. eram says:

    Well said. And can we please start framing this as a “pro-choice” debate (instead of anti-vax or pro-vax)? This issue really is more about informed choice than anything. Choice is something American’s have long valued, but we can’t allow “extremists” to frame this as an anti-vax or anti-science issue. Make no mistake–people are slowly but surely loosing their right to make the choice of what goes into our bodies and our kids’ bodies.

    • A Concerned Mom says:

      They will continue to call us “anti-vaxxers”. The “They” being the pro-vaxxers, anti-choice folks. This is done on purpose, because not only do they not want people to realize that it IS a choice, but they want to do away with the choice all together.

  23. Nathan says:

    Hi I live in a little town in Western Australia and this topic has been in our local media recently. It was obvious that the reporters producing the newspaper (Denmark Bulletin) were very biased FOR vaccination, which caused quite some upset with those who are concerned or at the least cautious. Parents who do not wish to vaccinate their children were called: refusers and deniers. It is so refreshing to find these words here! Thank you so much!!!

    • Jennifer Power says:

      Hi Nathan,

      You should check out the band The Refusers.com. Very cool music with a message.

      The tide is turning, the number of Refusers is growing exponentially and the real deniers are sh-t scared.

      Thank you TMR for another great article. I’ll be sharing!

  24. Pingback: Over-scheduled, plus photos of our Revolutionary War field trip - California to Korea | and back again...

  25. JENNIFER says:

    The only “anti-” I am is anti-anti. Thank you for crafting this well designed conclusion. Kudos and appreciation.

  26. Karen Accardi says:

    Beautifully written. Thank you for being such a sound, intelligent voice for all of us who are “anti-vaccine”.

  27. Barbara says:

    I think there are many valid points in this article, but I can’t help but remember the children who contracted polio in my Philadelphia neighborhood and the hundreds of thousands who died from Smallpox before my time.

    I remember the suffering and deaths of children from Whooping Cough.

    What about mass deaths in countries which have no vaccines?
    Are we perhaps too comfortable in debunking vaccines because we had them or are protected from these diseases because of the herding effect?

    We are a pendulum of extremes and I fear the all or nothing effects.
    My elderly mother died from flu this past March because she didn’t get the vaccine.
    I didn’t get the flu vaccine and got very sick, but I was healthy enough to recover.
    Three of my cousins suffered terribly from Shingles because they had Chicken Pox [as did I] when we were children. Maybe the Chicken Pox vaccine will spare the next generation from suffering Shingles.

    Lyme Disease is rampant in certain areas of the country.
    The disease, if not fatal, is debilitating for many years after the infection.
    There is a vaccine for animals, but not people.

    There are communities, namely the Amish, who refuse all vaccines and are contracting the diseases, including Polio, measles and pertusis.

    There is much to be done in the vaccine arena, all the way from big Pharma lying profiteers to lack of government transparency, but let’s not throw it all away.

    • ProfessorTMR says:


      Thank you for your response. There are at least a few points I would like to address, however.

      First off, taking vaccines in THIS country will have no effect on “mass deaths in countries which have no vaccines.”

      Secondly, I’m 53 and I don’t know of a single person who died of whooping cough, despite the fact that I have lived in five different states and have a LARGE circle of friends and acquaintances, including a heck of a lot of nurses. So, if you really “remember suffering and deaths of children with whooping cough,” you must be considerably older than I am. Possibly even older than my mother who died last year at 91, because she never mentioned anyone suffering or dying of whooping cough, either.

      The death rates of ALL infectious diseases were in sharp decline before the vaccines were developed. This link will show you real death rates of real diseases http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/, and you can see by the charts that the overall declines do not change much after the introduction of each particular vaccine. In fact, there are sometimes spikes right after a vaccine is introduced.

      You assume that your mother died “because she didn’t get the vaccine,” but in reality the vaccine has been shown to have very little effect on the death rates of senior citizens. It’s quite possible that your mother would have died whether or not she got the shot. As it is the flu shot only covers a small portion of the pathogens that create “flu-like illness.” So many “flus” could not possibly be stopped by the influenza strains that are contained in a flu vaccine.

      Varicella vaccines do not stop one from getting shingles. In fact, many YOUNG vaccinated people (including children) are getting shingles these days, when in the days prior to the vaccine it was an “old people’s disease.” I had hardly heard of it myself before the vaccine. The rate of shingles is rising, not because more people got the chicken pox when they were younger, but because fewer people get them now. The theory is that exposure to wild varicella viruses would keep the immune system “tuned up” so to speak, and only older people who did not have contact with small children would get shingles.

      Lyme disease IS rampant and it certainly can be debilitating, but as you said there is no vaccine for people, so your point is moot. If there WERE a vaccine, people would have to assess its efficacy and side effects and decide if they thought it was worth the risk, like any other vaccine.

      Only very conservative Amish communities refuse all vaccines, and they are, in general, very healthy populations. I have never heard of a single recent case of polio in an Amish community. There was one community where a group had traveled to the Phillippines, which happened to be in the middle of a measles outbreak, and many came down with measles. Doesn’t seem to have been a tragedy for anyone, however, as they all recovered.

      This post was about people who reasonably and intelligently question the safety and efficacy of particular vaccines in the vaccine program, as well as the science that purportedly supports their mandatory use. It doesn’t imply anything about “throwing it all away.”

      • Mark says:

        to the Dr.: Since you did not see anyone die from whooping cough that means no one did? Could it be that no one died because they were vaccinated?

      • Shimmer says:

        Barbara, I don’t profess to have all the answers in this debate. However, I do know that my preschooler had mutated chicken pox virus, which presents as shingles (confirmed by the local medical community). It was horrible, it went around the community–and I would have loved her to have had simple chicken pox. Nature still has her own rules. I don’t have the answers, but we need to have an honest, thorough debate about disease management in our communities. We need scientists to thoroughly engage and listen. Thank you.

      • Julie says:

        Barbara, I second what ProfessorTMR said. We have to understand that the flu shot may not have prevented anything. My grandmother in her 90’s finally STOPPED getting the flu shot as she kept getting sick every time she had it. When she stopped, she stopped getting sick.
        And no, nobody is saying that we have to get rid of all shots. What we ARE saying is that it is not one size fits all, that there may be need for us to step back and maybe taking a good look at things and do some independent science, especially looking at the amount, the ingredients, the timing, and lastly, the comparison of vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated health. We also have to understand that we may be switching from infectious disease to causing chronic debilitating disease with the vaccines.
        I had the chickenpox. It was verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry itchy but mostly just annoying. The Brady Bunch showed Marsha with the Measles. She was just upset, not dying. This is not to say that Measles can’t cause death, because occasionally it can. But in all of these countries where we are sending our thimerosal laden vaccines where there are many deaths, nobody has seemed to stop and think that maybe, just maybe, instead of vaccines, we need to work on clean water, good sanitation and plentiful food for all. Seriously, the idea of injecting malnourished and immunocompromised children with these viruses and metals/chemicals makes my skin crawl. We don’t know everything about the immune system, yet we are adding to the burden of these people without knowing the impact. These are the things we are talking about. Not getting rid of shots, but seriously looking at the whole picture and not just at whether or not diseases are truly being eradicated.

      • Cherie says:

        “Mark says: to the Dr.: Since you did not see anyone die from whooping cough that means no one did? Could it be that no one died because they were vaccinated?”
        Where did ProfessorTMR say that? She didn’t did she? Best not to put words in people’s mouths.

  28. Michelle says:

    This would be a great article to share. Could you please copy edit it so it’s free of typos? Then I will share it far and wide! We need our message to be clear and accurate–we need to convey that we’ve put care into our message. I couldn’t have said this better myself–but mistakes discredit the author as careless, or hurried, unfortunately. A second pair of eyes is always wise.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Fantastic, Michelle! We can always use another editor! Give us a list of the typos you see, and we’ll get right on it. We’ve had over 5,000 pairs of eyes so far. No mention of typos.

      • Kira says:

        I didn’t see any typos. All I saw was a trailing quotation mark at: This seems off.” I think the article is WONDERFUL, and will share it as much as I can. : )

      • ProfessorTMR says:

        That’s the close for the quotation mark in the paragraph up above it. But, thanks!

  29. A White says:

    This might be the best thing I’ve ever read regarding the labeling of someone as an “anti-vaxxer”. It amazes that people that I consider my friends have zero tolerance for the fact that my son had an extreme reaction to his 2 month shots, and in my opinion the discontinuation of all shots saved his life. I am this horrible person who is putting the young and elderly at risk because I’m an idiot who just believes whatever I read on the internet. In the meantime, I’ve read multiple studies and nearly every vaccine insert to educate myself. They’ve never bothered to do that at all, or even ask their doc an question. Who is the irresponsible one?

    • Jen Etic says:

      “I am this horrible person who is putting the young and elderly at risk because I’m an idiot who just believes whatever I read on the internet.”

      I hate how people see it that way.’

      “Oh, so you are just going to throw away Science?” Yep, thats clearly it. I could have all the legitimate scientific evidence out proving that some vaccines are harmful and it still would make no difference.

  30. Micki801 says:

    Amen!! And Laura Hayes is spot on as well!!

  31. Bruce Zarembka says:

    This article couldn’t say it any better!

  32. Well done…the most diabolic experiment ever performed on, now, generations…

  33. Lisa Crutcher says:

    Julie Obradovic Rocks!!!

  34. Shannon says:

    This is a wonderfully written piece, thank you. I suffered vaccine injury as a baby, and am thankfully 29 years vax free, and loving a healthy life. I am wearing my “anti-vaccine” status as a badge of honour, because it takes a lot of courage to stand against the tide. Again, thank you, thank you, thank you!!

  35. Karin Schuetze says:

    Thank you – this is so spot on and well written! I shared this and I hope my friends read and share this.

  36. Ginger Lee says:

    Love this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  37. Jan says:

    brillant and well said!

  38. Another parent. Another story says:

    I was fully vaccinated and believed vaccines 100% so I vaccinated my child

    My son had a stroke the day I vaccinated him. His pain and life since I would wish on no one.

    Today I am anti-vaccine because I watched the most precious person in my life suffer. I never want to have that to happen to anyone else.

  39. tannim says:

    So I’m anti-vax (and vax-damaged, so why is obvious) and they’re coming for me?

    I, for one, EMBRACE the label. Why? Because I *AM* against those poisons, because I *KNOW* how the immune system actually works, and because the shots do NOT “first, do no harm.”

    So to the clueless pro-vax parrot trolls, DON’T SING IT: BRING IT!

  40. vaxinjured mama says:

    Yes. Simply, yes.

  41. Megan says:

    Exactly!!!!!!! Thank you. My anger over the past 9 years since realizing that vaccines were behind my twins’ regression, I have been angry. The most recent developments (CDC Whistleblower) have only worsened my outrage. So many parents letting their babies be vaccinated, whether they are bullied into it or they trust them as “safe”, and so many of these babies being hurt as a result. Then the stress, financial drain, the child’s pain, [fill in 100 more effects], its all just so tragic.

  42. Helen says:

    There are no aborted fetal cells in vaccines. They are filtered out during the manufacturing process. There can be DNA contamination from those cells. But there are no actual cells in the vaccines.

    • ProfessorTMR says:

      Technically true! But that doesn’t really change it from the perspective of a person who objects, does it? Whether the cell is USED to make the vaccine or it actually ends up in your body should be the same from a moral perspective.

      • Helen says:

        The moral argument is cogent. I just think it is important to be technically accurate and not give any more fuel to the vaxtremists to paint vaccine concerns as ignorant.

      • ProfessorTMR says:

        We agree, Helen. We changed it. 🙂 Thanks for the concern!

      • The National Catholic Bioethics Center addressed this moral issue and concluded that “one is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion. The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine. This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them.”

      • ProfessorTMR says:

        Dr. Iannelli, most Catholics are aware of the “official” line on vaccines that have been made with these cell lines. However, that doesn’t mean that everyone, not even every Catholic, agrees with them. One’s religious convictions are one’s own and no one else’s.

      • momsforRob says:

        We may never do evil that good may come. (Romans 3: 8)

        Moral objections for non-Catholics are very different. We dont believe that a priest or bishop or any hierarchy of any religious establishment can dictate what is moral and what is not. Morality for grey areas not explicitly defined in the Bible, is very much a matter of the heart and conscience. Simply research the history behind Catholic indulgences and you will quickly see that there can be corruption in any religion. Moral complicity is what we are talking about here and knowingly accepting something made from aborted fetal material is morally complicit. Here is the definition.

        “We must strive to never commit evil ourselves, nor should we participate in or encourage evil by others. While it may be impossible at times to completely distance ourselves from the evil actions of others, we are responsible to determine whether our action is appropriately distanced or inappropriately complicit. This determination is based on the revealed Word of God. In the absence of clear Biblical teaching, this determination is based on conscience as informed by the Holy Spirit, using but recognizing the innately fallible nature of human reason and prudence.

        Moral complicity with evil is culpable association with or participation in wrongful acts. Evil is defined as anything immoral or wrong based on Biblical principles. Questions about moral complicity with evil can arise in regard to an individual’s relationship to or involvement with past, present or future evil.

        Moral complicity may occur with the use of information, technology or materials obtained through immoral means. This complicity may involve using, rewarding, perpetuating, justifying, or ignoring past or present evil. Moral complicity may involve enabling or facilitating future immoral actions of patients or professionals.”

      • A Concerned Mom says:

        @ momforRob… “We must strive to never commit evil ourselves, nor should we participate in or encourage evil by others. While it may be impossible at times to completely distance ourselves from the evil actions of others, we are responsible to determine whether our action is appropriately distanced or inappropriately complicit. This determination is based on the revealed Word of God. In the absence of clear Biblical teaching, this determination is based on conscience as informed by the Holy Spirit, using but recognizing the innately fallible nature of human reason and prudence.

        Moral complicity with evil is culpable association with or participation in wrongful acts. Evil is defined as anything immoral or wrong based on Biblical principles. Questions about moral complicity with evil can arise in regard to an individual’s relationship to or involvement with past, present or future evil.

        Moral complicity may occur with the use of information, technology or materials obtained through immoral means. This complicity may involve using, rewarding, perpetuating, justifying, or ignoring past or present evil. Moral complicity may involve enabling or facilitating future immoral actions of patients or professionals.”

        I’m not Christian, but I love this. I love this so much.

    • Shimmer says:

      Respectfully Helen, Dr. Theresa Deisher just did a study that showed more aborted fetal cells were sneaking into the batches than previously thought–and that there was a great deal of variation between batches. Just how good are those filters in a system where there is not much legal accountability?

      • Shimmer says:

        @Dr. Iannelli above, while the Vatican does say that, it also says there is a duty to create ethical vaccines free of aborted fetal cells. This is what Dr. Deisher is trying to do.

      • Helen says:

        Deisher’s study studied DNA uptake into host cells. It was not about fetal cells sneaking into vaccine batches; it was about DNA from fetal cells sneaking into cancer cells and baby foreskin cells. There are NO fetal cells in vaccines. Saying so just makes the vaccine choice movement look misinformed and ignorant; let’s not reinforce that image.

        Shimmer, if you have proof of fetal cells actually being in vaccines–entire cells, not just the DNA–please furnish it. Thanks.

    • Kathy Palmer says:

      The vaccines made with aborted fetal cells, contain residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein. (Read the package insert) Yes, they do contain cells in the vaccines. Also, the increase of Autism corresponded with the use of human DNA in the MMR and Chicken Pox vaccine. Read the report. articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/10/this-shocking-fact-is-never-disclosed-on-any-vaccine-informed-consent-form.aspx My granddaughter stopped talking and lost eye contact after her chicken pox vaccine at 18 months.

      • Helen says:

        “Yes, they do contain cells in the vaccines.”

        Please stop saying that. It is patently untrue.

        They use fetal cells in the production of vaccines. There are no fetal cells in the vaccines themselves. The Mercola article you linked to describes how they are USED in the production. It never says anywhere that the cells end up in the vaccines.

        There is DNA and protein contamination, yes. But there are no actual fetal cells.

    • A Concerned Mom says:

      That aborted fetus cells were used at all makes your argument a moot point. It’s like telling a vegan that spraying animal proteins on bananas doesn’t make them non-vegan because you peel them before you eat them.

      • Helen says:

        It was a technical correction, not an argument. Whatever argument we make, it is important our facts are accurate, lest we are dismissed as misinformed.

  43. Laura Hayes says:

    Great article, Julie. I would add one to your list:

    If you think, after copious research going back in time more than 200 years, that the entire theory behind vaccination is unfounded and dangerous, then you are anti-vaccine.

    I wear the anti-vaccine label proudly. I can’t imagine anyone being in favor of vaccines once they have truly dug into the plethora of factual information that is out there exposing a long, sordid history of harm, inefficacy, vilifying naysayers, and cover-ups. History continues to repeat itself: vaccines are not effective, vaccines harm, vaccines kill, and vaccines are HUGELY PROFITABLE, so corrupt people will continue their damnedest to profit from them, regardless of the consequences.

    Buyer, beware.

    Parents, do your homework. Parents, learn to say, “NO!”

    Parents, take back the responsibility of protecting, maintaining, and enhancing the health of your children…don’t delegate it to “experts” who have been educated at BigPharma School, who get their Continuing Education credits from BigPharma-paid doctors, who get their latest vaccine “information” from good-looking pharma reps with big spending accounts, and whose bread-and-butter is now vaccinating from fetus to grave and treating the resulting injuries with pharmaceuticals, which then lead to more medical problems needing more pharmaceuticals, and so on, and so on.

    Parents, don’t start down this path of lifelong, iatrogenic medical problems…just say no from the get-go, to vaccines, and to many other now “standard of care” procedures (e.g. multiple ultrasounds during pregnancy; whatever the heck is in that can of orange nastiness they have you drink while pregnant which is most likely a boatload of GMO-laden corn syrup, nasty food dyes, and “natural” flavorings; the Vitamin K shot at birth; antibiotic eye drops at birth; pitocin to deliver the placenta now trying to be established as standard of care (!); etc.).

    Vaccines are NOT good or needed medicine. They wreak havoc, each and every one, on each and every person, in some form, whether immediately noticed or not. Once in, you can’t get them back out. Be forewarned if you start down the vaccine path leading to neurological, immunological, nervous-sytem, and GI tract damage. It’s a long, hard road to hoe. Just ask around.

  44. Jennifer says:

    Thank you, thank you! This was awesome to read.

  45. Alison says:

    Such a powerful and conscientious voice. Well, I guess I’m anti-vaccine… and I’m okay with that.

  46. Pingback: Exactly Who Is “Anti-vaccine”? – The Thinking Moms’ Revolution | Polymumof8's Blog

  47. Cathie says:

    I am being forced to vaccinate myself with the MMR to keep my job. I have been told I have no choice, there are no waivers even though I have a child with a severe health issue and has a low WBC I still have to recieve the vaccine or loose my job.

    • Kristi says:

      Dear Cathie, I don’t say this lightly but I would look for another job. I was told I had to take and MMR at age 31 when I was starting law school. I was not informed I could get a waiver (I know this is not the same for you). But I believed them and got the shot. My immune system went nuts and I developed many autoimmune conditions that have made my life a LIVING NIGHTMARE for past 20 years. I was a DANCE TEACHER with OUTSTANDING health and the energy of a teenage before the shot and walking with a cane and barely able to function or hold my head up afterwards. I divide my life into “before shot and after shot”. I so hope you do not have the kind of reaction I did, but know it is possible and if I had to do it all again, I would give up whatever they required…attending school….a job…etc. than do it again.

    • Jennifer says:

      The Rubella component is grown in a cell line from an aborted fetus – perhaps a religious objection (and threat of a discrimination lawsuit) could be effective.

    • Carrie Elsass says:

      Alan Phillips has been successful in helping health care professionals avoid this requirement. Contact him if it’s not too late. My husband was able to show immunity via titers at the hospital at which he was employed.

  48. KarmaTmr says:

    As we search for a new insurer to replace our multiple policies with State Farm, when I cancel I’m going to print this blog and send it to their corporate office and our local agent so they are aware of the reason why I will not support their treatment of Rob Schneider. This is wonderful,thank you!

  49. Preach it! You spoke truth! TY<3

  50. Donna Powers says:

    Brilliant essay. Inspires me to create a manifesto/mission: instead of ‘their’ label anti-vaccine at the end of every statement you have written, I am going to search my heart and find another word…and this will become who I am…not who they say I am. What would other readers write instead of ‘you are anti-vaccine’?
    Thank you for today’s post Julie!

    • Shelly says:

      Donna, I would say that I am “pro-vaccine choice” rather than “anti-vaccine.” I believe everyone should do their research and make the decision they are most comfortable with. I do not think vaccines should be mandatory. I believe that is a personal medical decision and I don’t think the government or anyone else should be making that choice for me or my children!

      • Marti says:

        That would be great, Shelly, if the CDC and pharmaceutical companies would tell the truth, but because they lie and publish false studies, it’s impossible for the ordinary person to do the research and come up with an unbiased, reliable decision. That’s what we have to combat first.

  51. Cindy says:

    Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *