When facing a paradigm shift, it is necessary to directly identify the underlying meta-assumption needing modification. When the meta-assumption identified, and questioned, hundreds of details fall into place.
A. Vaccines are proven public health tools transforming the global health landscape (examples: smallpox, tetanus, polio, measles). Vaccination are assumed to be good.
B. Vaccine manufacturers are primarily motivated to serve the public health.
C. The CDC is a panel of independent and conscientious scientists deeply dedicated to the ideals of *Science* and the well-being of your child specifically. They meticulously evaluate the risk benefit of new vaccines before approval.
Proposed Meta-Assumption #1:
A. Vaccines have been valuable public health tools. However, riding on the coat-tails of these early successes, this tool continues to be inappropriately applied in settings of diminishing benefit and despite growing evidence of harms.
B. Vaccine manufacturers are corporations whose central motivation is that of a corporation: to make money. Designing “scientific studies” and offering “evidence” to show the desired outcome is a well established practice when science is used in the service of profit and power.
C. The CDC Vaccine Committee is controlled by the vaccine manufactureres whose deepest motivation is profit.
D. There is nobody in this system whose primary interest is the well-being of your child, specifically.
Possible Meta-Assumption #2
It is possible that a self described “elite” political group wishes to create the legal ability to vaccinate-by-force, in the name of “public safety.” (Would a bit higher brain aluminum level quiet the yellow vest protests?) As George Carlin advises on education: “They want you just smart enough to work in their factories, but not smart enough to think critically or question the system.”) I wonder if slightly poisoned masses would be easier to control?