In forums around the internet, and in face-to-face discussions on vaccines, well-meaning proponents of vaccination sometimes invoke an analogy to the safety provided by seatbelts.  The argument usually takes the form of “seatbelts cause injuries, too, but you still use them, and states have laws mandating their use because the benefit outweighs the risk.  Vaccines are the same”, they argue, “and just like everyone should wear seatbelts, everyone should be required to get vaccines”.

Flaw #1.  Unlike vaccine injury, there is no genetic risk to seat belt injury; unlike vaccines, the risk of seatbelt injure is random, and is therefore truly share among all people.  People injured by one vaccine likely have a higher probability of serious adverse health outcomes from additional vaccines.

But is there truly a genetic risk of vaccine injury?  Observational data suggests yes.  There appears to be a higher incidence of autoimmune disorders in parents, especially mothers, of children who are reported to suffer neurodevelopmental disorders or serious autoimmune reactions.  The question is whether the risk of such health outcomes has a higher specific risk within families.  My reviews of the literature show that the correct types of studies to answer these questions have not been conducted.

Flaw #2.  Unlike vaccines, seat belts routinely are subject to recall due to injury lawsuits, providing essential product quality feedback to seat belt and automobile manufacturers.  By contrast, vaccine manufacturers are immune to liability lawsuits.  Instead, families of individuals killed or injured by vaccines have to sue the US government – specifically the Department of Health of Human Services, via the Vaccine injury Compensation Program.  Liability for vaccine injury was removed for vaccine manufacturers and for medical doctors and nurses in 1986 with the National Vaccine Injury Act.  No vaccine injury damages visited upon vaccine manufacturers compel them to improve their products.  Instead, vaccine manufacturers and the HHS are incentivizeded to deny that vaccine injuries and death occur.

Vaccine mandates without the safety valve of philosophical, religious and medical exemptions pit the reality of the biology of vaccine injury risk, which is clustered in a potentially identifiable (albeit heterogeneous) subgroup of citizens, who should be afforded equal protection under the law.  Families forced to knowingly injure – or kill – their own child by acquiescing to vaccination will become increasingly agitated.  As I have published previously, vaccine risk denialism thereby fuels vaccine skepticism and grows the vaccine risk aware community – both by direct injuries that accrue every week, and by increased repugnance at the injustice of forced vaccination without choice.

The long-term effect of extreme and heavy-handed vaccine mandates without the time-tested safety value of exemptions is nothing short of revolution.  Those in power should consider undertaking meaningful reform, including revisiting codification of monopolies-by-contract for vaccines.  Currently, ingredients in vaccines do not have to be dose-tested for safety.

Science-based public health policies, not propaganda, may return confidence to the vaccination program.  Censorship, including overt programs by Facebook and Google, will only fuel awareness.  It’s amazing how large power factions and monied entities in society fail to learn that oppression of human beings has never proven sustainable.

So, honor your fellow citizen’s rights to informed consent, and respect their right to choose.  Don’t kick them out of your practice: work to change the way incentive quotas are calculated to exclude individuals with exemptions.  Read how no chemicals included in vaccines have to be dose-tested; indeed, only proteins are supposed to checked for safety.  Remarkable, I have never seen any published studies showing that proteins used in vaccines are safe to inject into humans.

It is illogical to retort that millions of people have been injected with no ill effect.  Nearly 54% of all children have a chronic illness.  Fetal demise has never been higher; our birthrate is at an “all-time low” – this after vaccination during pregnancy was adopted (TdaP and influenza) without consideration of the health of infants.   Autoimmune rates, neurodevelopmental disorder rates, rates of diseases of unknown origin are all higher than ever.

This after CDC expanded the vaccine schedule to include many aluminum-containing vaccines, without dose escalation studies or studies of the effects of using so many vaccines on infants and children.

Time will bear out the truths of the early warning system provided by mothers and fathers of the vaccine injured.  They will never cease their quest for rational approaches to immunity – even if that means accepting the risk of natural infection.  The fear that people will cease vaccinating has driven vaccine death and injury denialism.  it has twisted and warped vaccine safety science.  It had failed.

Looking to the future on the vaccine safety science issue, the question is: will governments choose reform, or revolution?

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA

 

 

 

 

Support jameslyonsweiler.com

This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue. Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?

$5.00

 

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Why the Seat Belt Analogy to Vaccines is Flawed

  1. Imagine a seat belt randomly strangling a child while the car is in PARK. That is the more accurate analogy.

    (PS… may i respectfully suggest that you hire a proof reader or editor? there are a number of misspellings,typos, and errors in this piece. :”acquiencing ” is not a word.)

    Liked by 1 person

      1. The word in your article has an “n” in it.

        I love your articles but can’t remember one that didn’t have a typo or several in it. Perhaps your volunteers or your web tech aren’t keeping up? If I can help, please let me know. Masters in Mass Comm, have written papers/thesis at that level and done a bit of proofreading for a living. I’m willing to go over any of your old articles that your volunteers have already picked over. Proofreading thoroughly takes many eyes.

        I agree with Greg’s suggestion of having them proofread before publication, btw.

        Like

      2. Publishing alerts them to review – they usually get it within a few hours. Bad timing this time. Just received and made the corrections. If you ever see any, feel free to send them – with enough eyes, all will be found.

        Like

    1. Dang, Phil you picked the one word he did get right. I too was turned off by Numerous mistakes. How about you have your peeps edit it BEFORE you publish.

      Like

  2. “Don’t kick them out of your practice: work to change the way incentive quotas are calculated to exclude individuals with exemptions.”

    That’s asking a lot of doctors who have come to rely on those incentives. In Michigan for example BC/BS offers an enticing incentive to Doctors to vaccinate:

    Incentives and disincentives

    An example of a pay-for-performance model is the Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield “Performance Recognition Program,” which uses “meaningful” payments to reward Blue Care Network health maintenance organization providers “who encourage their patients to get preventive screenings and procedures.” For vaccination, providers receive $400 for each eligible two-year-old who has received all 24-25 vaccines by that age (including flu shots)—but only if the provider manages to administer each and every shot to at least 63% of his or her patients. Pediatricians who achieve the 63% threshold therefore stand to make an additional $40,000 in bonus payments for every 100 fully vaccinated two-year-olds, creating a formidable incentive not to let any patients slip through the cracks, and a disincentive to continue serving families who decline one or more vaccines. In fact, a survey of pediatricians found that twice as many pediatricians (12%) reported “always” booting uncooperative families out of their practices in 2013 as in 2006, and the AAP has pronounced it “ethical and legal” to do so.

    As Upton Sinclair stated:
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    Like

  3. I donated as well. Thank you for taking time out of your life to apply your research and communication skills to the topic.

    I would like to offer “Flaw #3” to the seatbelt analogy.

    Available data clearly tells us that more children die or are injured in car crashes when they are not wearing seat belts as opposed to when they are. We do not have the data available to tell us whether children vaccinated with the CDC schedule are more, less or equally likely to suffer all cause disease/injury or death than those not vaccinated, per individual circumstances.

    If children were being injured and killed while wearing a seatbelt, or after just having used one., and such data was absent with regard to the impact of seat belts, we would demand that such data be collected and be collected well.

    We know vaccine injury and death is a fact, but despite knowledge of particular mechanisms of vaccine harm in susceptible individuals, when parents reasonably consider possibility that injuries or declines in health in their children were caused by vaccines, they are, without evidence, told it’s a “coincidence” Though parents and ethical scientists and physicians and political representatives have been demanding that such data be accurately gathered for decades, their demands have fallen on conveniently dealt ears.

    Like

  4. thanks for your logical arguments re seat belts and vaccines…best jackie

    On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 5:30 PM jameslyonsweiler.com wrote:

    > jameslyonsweiler posted: “In forums around the internet, and in > face-to-face discussions on vaccines, well-meaning proponents of > vaccination sometimes invoke an analogy to the safety provided by > seatbelts. The argument usually takes the form of “seatbelts cause > injuries, too, but” >

    Like

  5. Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Your final question gets to the heart of the matter. Governments rarely choose reform, and revolution always comes from outside government. Taken as a rhetorical question, government actions which result in revolution to “. . .alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. . .” could be said to be the path chosen by those in power out of fear, incompetence, stupidity, or all three. We are rapidly coming to a point in the U.S where any questioning of medical orthodoxy is considered an existential threat to the power and authority of those who wield it. Reform is certainly possible, but the consequences of exposing the deceit of the past thirty two years of the public health authorities in harming infants and children are such that it would bring our nation to a great crisis in confidence in our government. The reason they so fiercely defend the indefensible is not just greed, but represents an existential threat to their livelihoods and reputations. I’m not a prophet, but I can’t see this ending well. They have not yet taken away our right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This is what it will take to stop this madness. And for more honorable scientists, physicians, and political leaders to put their heads above the parapet. Were Trump to call them to account, or even question orthodoxy, he would be pilloried like never before. Yet he is the first president since JFK in whom I felt any confidence on this score.

    Like

    1. New Research Shows Most Human Pregnancies End in Miscarriage
      https://www.sciencealert.com/meta-analysis-finds-majority-of-human-pregnancies-end-in-miscarriage-biorxiv
      U.S. has highest first-day infant mortality out of industrialized world, group reports
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-has-highest-first-day-infant-mortality-out-of-industrialized-world-group-reports/
      Making Sense of Miscarriage Statistics
      What the Conflicting Research Really Means
      https://www.verywellfamily.com/making-sense-of-miscarriage-statistics-2371721
      Trends in Self-reported Spontaneous Abortions: 1970–2000
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3787708/

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s