I received this from a listener. She noted the following on the website “PreventDisease.com” (quite the ironically named website):
They Just Don’t Learn: CDC Votes To Poison Children Again With Two Doses of Vaccines
Parents of children over 6 months and under 9 years beware. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is once again choosing to adopt policies which poison your children with what is now two doses of seasonal flu vaccine this fall.
So she emailed the guy the following:
Editors of PreventDisease.com,
It is this kind of fear mongering and sensationalism that lead me to unsubscribe. You should be ashamed to publish this. The use of “votes to poison” and “poison your children” is paranoid and unethical. As an educated, thoughtful person, mother and teacher, I feel your newsletter is insulting.
Are we talking about the truth or semantics here? Could you please explain to me what the “big difference” is between deliberately vaccinating children and poisoning children? Anybody who votes to inject any child with known neurotoxins, immunotoxins and sterile chemicals is, in my opinion a criminal and poisoning that child. I’m not using lies to get people to read the article…it is an unequivocal fact that vaccines are poison. If you are debating that with me, please provide your evidence that suggests the opposite.
I deal every day with people like Dave who simply deny science or medicine. Many of them are very much of the “Nothing can convince me” mindset: Dave has, quite obviously, been given all the information about vaccines time and time again; he simply denies it all and believes that his own notions are better founded. He’s probably not malicious and probably does not want children to die from preventable disease. He’s most likely just scientifically illiterate (like most people) and places more emphasis on anecdotal information that supports his ideology than on information that clashes with it.
My sense is that it’s probably futile for my friend to “provide the evidence” that he pretends to be interested in seeing. How, then, do we reach such people, people who are out actively advocating against public health? I put the question to you.