By Norma Erickson
Over the last two decades, the CDC has recommended changes to the childhood immunization schedule which have increased the cost of vaccinating every child in the United States by more than 24 times.
According to Dr. Anne Schuchat, former Director of the CDC’s National Immunization Program, in 1990, the cost of complete immunization of a single child from birth through the age of 18 was $70.00. In 2012, complete immunization of a child from birth through the age of 18 has risen to $1712.00. This cost is computed, not on the price individual medical consumers would have to pay; but the reduced amount taxpayers pay through the National Immunization Program. Check page #16 of Dr. Schuchat’s presentation to the US National Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting on June 6, 2012 for verification.
In 1990, the recommended immunization schedule for children consisted of:
- 5 doses of DPT
- 3 doses of OPV
- 4 injections of HiB
- 2 shots of MMR
- 1 shot of dT
- A total of 15 vaccinations from birth to age 18
The 2012 CDC recommended childhood immunization consists of the following:
The CDC, in their own words, is committed to:
” … programs that reduce the health and economic consequences of the leading causes of death and disability, thereby ensuring a long, productive, healthy life for all people.”
One has to wonder, are all of the diseases for which the CDC now recommends universal vaccination “leading causes of death and disability?” If not, what is the purpose of the substantially expanded vaccine recommendation schedule? Does this increased vaccination schedule ensure a long, productive, healthy life for all people?
The FDA is not infallible. During the same period of time the vaccination schedule went from 15 recommended doses to 53, 45 drugs approved as safe and effective by the FDA were withdrawn from the market due to the discovery of substantial health risks after market release.
Keep in mind these were medications – not vaccines. Since the establishment of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 1988, vaccine producers have enjoyed what amounts to virtual immunity from prosecution for injuries resulting from the use of their product. Any claim for injury or death arising from the use of vaccines must now go through this special program prior to making an attempt to bring the manufacturers in front of a traditional judge.
Does this special immunity make the FDA any more cautious when approving vaccines, than when they approve medications? Take a long hard look at the fast-track approval of Gardasil or the scientific evidence supporting HPV vaccine development – then decide for yourself.
What does this have to do with frogs?
In the mid 1800’s, Friedrich Goltz conducted a bizarre set of experiments involving live frogs. Goltz observed:
“…that a frog, when placed in water the temperature of which is slowly raised towards boiling, manifests uneasiness as soon as the temperature reaches 25° C., and becomes more and more agitated as the heat increases, vainly struggling to get out, and finally at 42° C., dies in a state of rigid tetanus. The evidence of feeling being thus manifested when the frog has its brain, what is the case with a brainless frog? It is absolutely the reverse. Quietly the animal sits through all successions of temperature, never once manifesting uneasiness or pain, never once attempting to escape the impending death.”
The removal of the frogs’ brain or incapacitation by spinal injury was conveniently left out of subsequent renditions until the story virtually became a legend. Thus was born the cautionary tale of the frog in boiling water syndrome.
Many subsequent experiments were conducted on unimpaired frogs. Some claimed that if the heat were increased gradually enough, even unimpaired amphibians would remain in the water until their demise. Either way the story goes, it is an appropriate metaphor for the way FDA and CDC officials treat American medical consumers.
Whether these government health officials believe medical consumers are brainless or spineless enough to accept everything put forth by health ‘authorities’ without question; or whether FDA/CDC officials believe they are ‘turning up the heat’ gradually enough that no one will notice makes no difference.
By continuing to promote a ‘one-size-fits-all’ vaccination schedule, knowing full well that vaccines can and do cause substantial harm (even death) to some, the FDA and CDC have demonstrated their willingness to ‘throw American children into the frog pot’ and see what happens.
The only thing which remains to be seen is – what will it take to stop the experiment?
How long will society accept FDA and CDC health officials exhibiting such callous disregard for those who suffer severe adverse reactions to vaccines?
How long will society pay the salaries of those health officials who continue to violate the public trust?