I had no idea when I talked about that thing, the errors of the testimony of a state representative on bills addressing informed consent in vaccination, and her poor behavior following the hearing when I tried to ask her a simple question, would draw such a strong reaction from my readers. She was wrong and behaved badly, but it is SO common in our struggle just to get correct information into the hands of medical professionals and public health officials, that I honestly thought I would get maybe 10 FB comments from fellow activists rolling their eyes that it happened yet again.
I didn't even consider posting the story on my public facebook page (linked on the top right) or putting it on this blog.
But to my surprise, I got more than 200 responses (and counting) on FB and so I posted the whole exchange there in a "note," then after my last email from the subject of my discussion, I was so disgusted that I posted the whole thing here so everyone could see what it is really like to try to talk to a medical professional/public health official about vaccine injury and then be done with it.
But, apparently that is not the end of it, as someone (I assume that it is the subject of my previous post, but cannot say for certain) has flagged the link to my blog on the matter as "objectionable material." So it can no longer be shared on Facebook.
And the crazy thing is, while I suspect the subject of my previous post has flagged my previous post to shut down the conversation on the matter, I also suspect that the irony is completely lost on her that she has upped the ante by trying to shut down the discussion on the fact that she is trying to shut down a discussion!
Portions of my letters to her from yesterday's article (emphasis added):
...This unwillingness to have an open exchange with me, and your additional pressure on me not to talk about your poor behavior, is exactly why the vaccine rates are dropping in Maine. This happens time and time again. Elected officials, public health officials and medical professionals make untenable vaccine safety statements, members of the public attempt to engage them on the veracity of those statements, and the conversation is shut down, often by bullying those members of the public. This does not inspire confidence in the vaccine program, it alerts the public in a very loud way, that those repeating the mantra, "vaccines are safe" either have something to hide, or know they cannot win a true vaccine safety debate.
When you shut down the debate, you tell the public that you know you are wrong...
...I repeatedly ask the question of public health officials who have chosen the route you are taking the question... "what is your plan?" Refusal to engage vaccine safety advocates and parents of vaccine injured children is not working. Vaccine rates are dropping BECAUSE of the shut down of public debate.
So not only is my personal discussion with this subject shut down, not only does she want the discussion of the fact that she shut down her her personal discussion with me shut down, NOW she apparently also wants the discussion about the fact that all these shut downs are what is driving down vaccination rates SHUT DOWN!
(So with this discussion on attempts to shut down plain old free speech suffer an attempt by her or her agents or random people to be shut down too? Let's see how long this link is able to be shared on Facebook.)
I was sitting here considering all this, kinda stunned that this person and/or anyone acting on what they believe to be her interests keep upping the ante on this.. why keep escalating her bad behavior... why not just ignore it like 90% of public officials do when they are legitimately criticized... and then it hit me.
What she said to me in her first email to me was that she felt "attacked" by me.
Of course if someone says that, you have to stop and go over the whole thing in your mind and make sure you didn't do anything inappropriate, so I reviewed the whole thing, and nope... standard 'asking a question to a public official in a state office hallway' fare. And... I actually have a control group against which to measure the whole kuffeffel.
Because there were three other doctors who testified at the hearing whom I also stopped in the atrium after the hearing and asked them my question, "What can you tell me about vaccine encephalopathy." Holding out my little book to write notes down in just as I had with "The Subject"
They were very nice. All three gave me basic answers, one made her way out then the other two stayed talking to me, answered a few clarifying questions, stood as if they were happy to keep talking, but frankly I was so spooked by my previous encounter, I whipped their answers down in my book and thanked them and left. I should have actually stayed and talked to them.
And one of the doctors, a pediatrician who talked to me the longest and offered me the most input, was one of the people whose testimony I had corrected. She said, "Vaccines are safe," I told the committee that they were legally "Unavoidably Unsafe" and referenced Bruesewitz v. Wyeth and the 1986 vaccine injury law. So if correcting someone's testimony was grounds for getting yelled at after the hearing, then why was she the nicest and most open?
So this is where my epiphany begins...
I think that I got the reaction that I did from that public official, that made her feel "attacked" because I had actually asked her a VERY dangerous question.
"What can you tell me about vaccine encephalopathy?"
Think about it... that is a very frightening question to both people who know the issues in this debate and those who know nothing in this debate, if they are public officials.
If you know nothing about vaccine encephalopathy, you are about to have your ignorance exposed. Not good if you are pretending to know anything about vaccine safety.
If you know everything about vaccine encephalopathy, then you know that HHS says that it develops into autism, and you are not allowing that inconvenient truth to be the basis for a discussion on vaccine/autism causation, then you are about to have your cover blown.
All so much more true if you are a public health official who can be held accountable for your opinions.
But if your understanding of vaccine encephalopathy is somewhere in the middle, if you know the horrid version of it with seizures and coma and massive brain damage, but don't know that HHS defines it as simply as loss of eye contact, not answering when spoken to and not seeming to recognize people they should, then it is much more likely that you will get the reaction that I did from those three earnest doctors.
Because their answers all fit what I understand to be the general notion of the symptoms of vaccine encephalopathy/encephalitis in the medical community. Fevers, vomiting, seizures, coma and altered mental status. But what I was looking for is, have they been educated on the HHS definition, and do they know that a kid acting "spacey" with that autism hallmark, "loss of eye contact" may be suffering vaccine reaction/brain inflammation, or do they see "loss of eye contact" and in the absence of perceivable seizures, and those more pronounced symptoms instead call it "autism, genetic, no known cause or cure, vaccines don't cause it, send to ABA and Speech."
Because frankly, if I had brought my child in and said, "doc... Chandler is just really spaced out since his shots a few days ago.. he is barely interacting with us," I can't imagine the doc would say anything other than, "well kids get a little sick from their shots and that it totally normal. He will probably feel puny for a few days." When in fact what was likely happening was his immune system ramping up, inflammation ramping up in his brain, brain damage beginning to occur, and autistic regression commencing.
The bottom line is that if physicians do not know how MILD the symptoms of vaccine encephalopathy as stated by HHS actually are, and that reaction leads to brain damage that causes autism, then OF COURSE brain damage being caused by vaccines is being missed and called "autism, no cause no cure blah blah blah." Then what is needed is an education campaign for docs telling them how mild the presentation can look, and that it can progress into as common of disorder as ADS's (1% of the population, not 1 in a million)
In fact, I asked the docs about loss of eye contact as a symptom and Nice Lady said, "it would not just be loss of eye contact, there would have to be other symptoms". I asked, "What symptoms?" She said, "Fevers, nausea, vomiting, seizures."
Now I don't know if she meant any of those or all of those, probably any of those, but again, if there is no fever, or fever took place while baby is asleep, if there is no vommitting, if baby can't report nausea and if there are no seizures (or one took place during the 75% of the day baby is sleeping and momma's eyes are not on him), then does she know that the "other symptoms" can simply present as "acting spacey?"
The other doc who stayed, let's call him Quiet Man, did add, "altered mental status," which is pretty close! But again, was in addition to those dramatic symptoms or instead of. Should have stayed and asked. (Apparently I am a bigger coward than I think I am because I am realizing that I was afraid that people I have just described as "Nice Lady" and "Quiet Man" were going to yell at me).
So if I had taken the VICP Table with me and read the symptoms of vax encph to them, and showed them how mild they were, and asked them if they saw kids like this but thought it was "autism," what would their reaction be?
If they didn't know it could present so mildly, an earnest doc would have to at least review their "autism" cases, check their shot records, call the families back in and start asking them more questions about the progression of the disorder. They might even contact public health officials and ask for more guidance on differentiating "VE" from "Autism" and then public health is kinda screwed, since they have already admitted that can be the same thing.
Then we are confronted with the potential for the Semmelweiss Reflex OR being honest with this difficult truth and talking about it in the medical community, and then comes the pressure to shut up and if that is not obeyed they know that the Wakefield treatment is coming and on down the hill things go.
And if you are a public health official, forget it. If vaccine encephalopathy is autism then you have to change ALL the vaccine laws and the end result is that the earth willfall into the sun.
So I think that in this unpleasant experience we have tripped over a powerful truth...
The most dangerous question in public health is:
So no wonder THEY want this conversation shut down.
I think that this may need to become our mantra. I think that this needs to be asked of every doctor and every public health official in the vaccine debate. This is the question that begins the discussion that knocks down all the Pharma fallacies about vaccine/autism causation.
1. What can you tell me about vaccine encephalopathy?
2. Do you know how mildly it can present?
3. Do you know that it is the position of HHS that it causes autism?
That is the basic letter I sent for which I was shut down. I think that initiating this simple discussion will likely either make huge public health awareness breakthroughs, or get us shot.
Who knew advocating for our disabled children would be such dangerous work.
UPDATE at 11:52:
The post you just read... yeah... it has already been tagged as spam and blocked on facebook. It happened in under 34 minutes from the time it was posted.
So... I think that we can start the discussion on public officials attempting to shut down the free speech of critical bloggers.
I request that anyone who considers this article and the previous and who requested that this content be blocked from sharing on facebook, come forward and challenge me publicly for anything that I have said or written and explain their attempt at suppressing this conversation.