When it comes to making the best decisions about our health, seeking information from a variety of credible sources helps the individual determine the best personal course to follow. I think most people would agree with this concept.
In application, however, we tend to follow a traditional health care approach provided by our traditional physicians without ever QUESTIONING THE MOTIVE behind their recommendations. Even if we assume good intentions (ex. stabilizing health problems) treatment and diagnostic testing has a financial component that can influence decision making.
It would be fair to conclude therefore, that physicians’ MOTIVES associated with their responsibilities as health care providers can be based on quality ethical judgement (GOOD MOTIVE,) or unethical, unnecessary financially incentivized treatments and procedures (BAD MOTIVE.) The purpose of sharing this REALITY is to open one’s eyes to the REAL WORLD exposing the importance in considering MOTIVE as it relates to RECOMMENDATIONS by physicians when making personal health care decisions.
Based on these facts, can we agree that health care policies can have good or bad MOTIVES?
Now, let’s look at some points that were recently discussed in an editorial found in the Boston Herald, entitled, EDITORIAL: Preying on parents’ fear
“Yes, the anti-vaxxers appear to be plying their trade with Somali community in Minnesota—and the result, sadly, is a dangerous outbreak of measles.”
“These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a HANGING OFFENSE.” (capitalized, underlined and blackened for emphasis)
First, I’m not quite clear why measles and autism has to be the focus of EVERY vaccine discussion. I have written many articles about vaccine controversy WITHOUT ever including the condition AUTISM! Secondly, I must confess I’m not intelligent enough to understand the
doctors, scientists, researchers, and activists have in voicing their CONCERNS about the efficacy and safety of vaccines. How do any of these groups of people underhandedly BENEFIT from asking questions and pursuing the TRUTH about LONG TERM SAFETY AND EFFICACY STUDIES? Even the Cochrane Collaboration (an independent world renowned organization of scientists, researchers and doctors without any financial or political ties to any industry) recently filed a complaint against the European Medicine’s Agency (the EMA) about scientific misconduct regarding the HPV vaccine for adolescent girls and boys. (REFERENCE: Nordic Cochrane Research Center Files Complaint About Scientific Misconduct, Secrecy in HPV Vaccine Probe)
What is the “BAD” MOTIVE for the pediatrician who chooses (with the parent) to change the vaccine schedule? What is the underhanded MOTIVE for the pediatrician who expresses concern about certain vaccines altogether? There is no FINANCIAL gain, yet there is serious risk of disciplinary action by the board of medicine. What “deceitful” MOTIVE do these pediatricians and general practitioners have (other than their patient’s best interests) with their licenses to practice medicine on the line?
I do wonder how many years of medical study this editorial writer underwent to qualify him an EXPERT possessing the right to impose DEATH by HANGING for those questioning the validity of the measles vaccine? Have we become so intolerant of personal health care choices, that critical thinking resulting in opposing ideas to mainstream medicine should carry the “death sentence?” Where has the right and responsibility for independent thinking gone? Without challenging current ideology, how are we to discover NEW TRUTHS?
Yes, 41 children experienced measles. NO, none of them died. Do you think it might have made sense for this editorial author to research the MAYO CLINIC’S own words from their own peer reviewed publication stating the following about the typical dangers of measles before suggesting we hang those opposing the measles vaccine?
“This relatively mild illness may last two or three days.”
Can I find an underhanded MOTIVE for the journalist who wrote this article based on FEAR. Certainly, articles like these attract more readers regardless of truth or accuracy. Journalists often quote, “if it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t read!”
I’m still in search of the “underhanded” MOTIVE doctors, scientists, researchers and advocates gain from THE ABSENCE OF POSITIVE MEDIA EXPOSURE, THE ABSENCE OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS and THE ABSENCE OF PUBLIC RECOGNITION for their efforts to express CONCERNS about the safety of vaccine ingredients, the efficacy of the current vaccine schedule and the LONG TERM SAFETY STUDIES that remain UNDISCLOSED!
When insults and ignorance substitute for QUALITY referenced studies; when professionals with FINANCIAL INCENTIVES fuel the fire of public insult against those with opposing positions, one must ALWAYS ask A FINAL QUESTION before passing judgement:
WHICH DOCTOR HAS GREATER MOTIVE TO PLACE PERSONAL AND INDUSTRY INTERESTS ABOVE PATIENT INTERESTS?
If a BAD MOTIVE can’t be discovered for those doctors, scientists, researchers and advocates opposing the majority opinion regarding vaccines, how do we justify ridiculing their position? If they happen to be right, BIG PHARMA and BIG MEDICINE would be forced to take an enormous financial hit as well as impact their credibility for honesty and integrity. Maybe before being so dismissive, we need to decide: