Give on Giving Tuesday...to Give Pro-Vax Voices a Boost!

Our friends at Voices for Vaccines work tirelessly to make sure the anti-vaccine movement does not succeed in presenting itself as the default "parent voice" heard in any immunization conversation. VFV instead garners the power of the more than ninety percent of parents who choose to protect their children, and the community, by vaccinating. Because of the grassroots nature of the organization, and the fact that VFV does not accept any pharmaceutical funding, it relies entirely on individual donations from members and others supportive of the mission.

Tomorrow, December 2, VFV is asking for our help to turn up the volume on pro-vaccine voices by gathering 1,000 donors who are willing to give to VFV as part of their Giving Tuesday drive.

Moms Who Vax is happy to support Voices for Vaccines and to take these simple steps to help spread the word to 1,000 potential donors for tomorrow!


1. Join the Facebook event and invite friends.

2. Visit VFV on Giving Tuesday and donate any amount, great or small.

3. Share this video widely with friends, family, and colleagues:

Big Alterna and the Ties That Bind

By Karen Ernst

Editor's Note: Voices for Vaccines does not and never has accepted any government or pharmaceutical funding. The organization is supported 100% by individual member donations.

Recently, an anti-vaccine blog put together 11 Facts about Voices for Vaccines claiming to show that we are a “front group” for Big Pharma/the CDC. The blogger drew up charts showing the connection between various people (the charts were wrong) and included a map to show how close our fiscal agent was to the CDC (2.6 miles!). Yet, I work in my little (messy) rambler 1,120 miles away from this supposed vortex of evil, busily not being directed or controlled by the Task Force for Global Health, the CDC, Emory, or Big Pharma (or the reptillian overlords).

All the conspiracy theories and convoluted logic about supposed and unproven influence by the CDC and pharmaceutical companies on a parent-led vaccine advocacy group makes it that much more interesting that the National Vaccine Information Center is indelibly tied to the hugely influential Big Alterna figurehead Joseph Mercola. Unlike any fiscal connection alleged between Voices for Vaccines and the CDC or Pfizer or any pharmaceutical company, the fiscal ties between NVIC and Mercola are factual, and I want to explore them with you here.

If you are a person who lives a normal life and only thinks about immunization when you bring your child in for his well-child check, the National Vaccine Information Center might sound like a good thing. It might sound positive to have information about vaccines in one convenient “center” for the whole nation.  The problem is that NVIC is definitely anti-vaccine. They have even gone as far as promoting a conspiracy theory about high school kids who created a film about immunization in an after school program. (Shockingly, like football and yearbook, this program was advised by adults, thus prompting the conspiracy theory.)

In addition to the billboards NVIC buys across the United States asking motorists to “Know the Risks and the Failures” of immunization, NVIC also spends a great deal of time and energy opposing a great deal of vaccine-related legislation. They are even opposing proposed legislation that would provide information about vaccines and record students’ vaccination status.

For an organization that claims it is not anti-vaccine but is rather “pro-informed consent,” opposing information seems odd.

Except that they are anti-vaccine and pro-misinformed consent.

I had assumed for a long time that this was the entire story, until the day (two days actually) the NVIC website went down and in its place:

It turns out, the NVIC website is provided as an in-kind donation from Mercola.com.

If the VFV website went down, I do not know what would appear there, but to be clear, VFV pays for its website from its own funds which comes from individual donors. The Task Force for Global Health is listed as the owner of our domain name because, as our fiscal agent (we are not yet our own 501(c)3 so do not have ready access to our bank account), they actually issued the check using the funds we raised for Voices for Vaccines.

So, which websites does Mercola provide funding for? (A hat tip to the Skeptical Raptor for this next part.)

Click here for a larger image

Most interesting in this list of domains owned by Mercola.com is the number of them selling something. Bath products! Tanning beds! Water filters! Why would someone selling such an odd mish mash of home products care about helping an anti-vaccine organization promote their misinformation?

Perhaps because there is money to be made off of parents who eschew immunizations out of fear of what they see as “unnatural.” Make no mistake, parents seeking natural health alternatives make big bucks for Big Alterna. And Joseph Mercola, the doctor behind Mercola.com, is near the top of those cashing in.

Let’s review: the National Vaccine Information Center claims not to be anti-vaccine, but in favor of informed choice about vaccine, but as an organization they have made documented efforts to make it more difficult for parents to receive information about vaccines. They do not want schools to know who among their students is vaccinated (even in the case of outbreaks), and they do not want high school students to pursue documentary filmmaking about topics that interest them.

I believe Theresa Wrangham or even Barbara Loe Fisher, the women heading NVIC, believe the misinformation they promote, but if they believe they are not anti-vaccine, they are seriously delusional. And if they believe that Joseph Mercola is providing them with a website because he has a heart of gold, they should know that he probably bought that gold.

For a couple years now, I have sat on my slightly-too-tall IKEA chairs at my old computer fielding accusations about my connections to Big Pharma and the CDC, who apparently want to force parents to immunize their children because there’s money in it, and because the’re evil. (Note: you cannot buy tanning beds or supplements from VFV, the CDC, Emory University, or the Task Force for Global Health.) This strange theory is promoted enthusiastically by NVIC.

And I’m not even sure what that is. Hypocrisy? Willing ignorance? Arrogance? I’m genuinely curious about what drives NVIC’s willingness to schlep out the Pharma Shill gambit while simultaneously being a Big Alterna Shill.

But the public should not be fooled. This isn’t a story of the little guy who is desperately seeking alternative health options in a world of cruel public health bullies trying to take away the little guy’s freedoms. This is a story about a well-oiled, well-funded machine. A machine that wants to keep you scared--that demands that you look at their information but no one else’s. A machine that would harass children and their teachers in order to obscure the truth about immunization and to sell you a tanning bed.

Informed Consent and Vaccines

By Dorit Reiss

The process of informed consent is more regulated for vaccines than for most medical treatments or drugs. Still, anti-vaccine activists often use “informed consent” as part of their general attack on vaccines. Parents, they say, are not given appropriate information about vaccines and their risks, so they cannot make an informed decision about them. That claim is incorrect.

When I teach my students about informed consent and vaccines, I use the Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) - the basis of informed consent in this area – as a model, because it is a reasonably good form. To understand why, you need to first understand what informed consent means, and how it works in the context of vaccines.

The Basics of Informed Consent

Informed consent has two parts: the patient has to consent, or agree, to a treatment, and the consent has to be made after the patient has been given sufficient relevant information. Our system values patient autonomy very, very highly. With a few narrow exceptions (court order, emergency, lack of capacity to consent), a doctor may not provide treatment to a non-consenting patient. Even if the lack of treatment will kill that patient. An adult in sound mind has the right to choose death over treatment. A doctor providing treatment without consent may be liable for a battery (see Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (1914).) However well-intentioned the doctor, she may not give treatment without consent.

For a child, the consent of the child’s legal guardian  - usually the parent – substitutes for the child’s consent. There are some exceptions to that – doctors may treat children in an emergency when no parent is around; a state may mandate treatment over a parent’s opposition, through legislation or court order, in some circumstances; and most states allow adolescents to consent to certain treatment without parental permission.

Informed consent cases are different. In those cases, the patient actually consented to the procedure. The claim, however, is that that consent was flawed, because the patient did not have complete information. It is a claim that the doctor was negligent in providing the information necessary for the patient to fully understand the situation and make an informed decision (Natanson v. Kline, 350 P.2d 1093 (1960)). To evaluate informed consent, courts use one of two approaches. Some courts compare the information provided to the patient to the information a doctor in good standing would provide—what is customary in the profession to give. This is referred to as the professional standard, or the physician standard. It requires expert testimony on the standard in the profession.

Other courts ask the jury to compare the information given to the patient to what a reasonable patient in the plaintiff’s shoes would consider important. This is referred to as the patient standard or the material risk standard.

If a patient underwent a treatment without informed consent, a doctor may be liable for harms arising from that treatment – even if the treatment was performed properly, even if there was no medical malpractice.

Informed Consent and Vaccines

What would a person need to know to give informed consent to a vaccine under this rubric (or what would a parent need to know to give informed consent to vaccinate a child, which is the more common situation)? A parent would need to know “the nature of the treatment” – that the child is getting a vaccine, whether it’s injected or oral; the “risks and benefits” of the treatment – the benefits of the vaccine, in other words, the risks from the disease we vaccinate against; the risks of the vaccine – potential side effects; and alternatives, which do not really exist for vaccines.

In 1986 Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The act did a number of things, but the important part for our purposes is that it required the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to

“develop and disseminate vaccine information materials for distribution by health care providers to the legal representatives of any child or to any other individual receiving a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. Such materials shall be published in the Federal Register and may be revised.” (§300aa-26).

The materials developed require – for their initial preparation and any revision – a 60-day notice and comment process with the public, and consultation with “the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, appropriate health care providers and parent organizations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration.”(id – see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-26).

Today, any health care provider administering a vaccine is legally required to provide these materials to the individual – or a guardian, in the case of a child – before giving the vaccine.

These materials – referred to as the Vaccine Information Sheets – can also be found on the CDC’s website. 

Examining one selected at random – the DTaP Vaccine Information Sheet - the VIS opens with “Why get Vaccinated” - including a description of the diseases, who should or should not get the vaccine, and the potential risks from the vaccine. It also provides instructions of what to do if, after the vaccine is administered, a reaction develops,which include calling your doctor or going to an emergency room, reporting the reaction to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, and information about the compensation mechanism.

In short, a parent reading through the Vaccine Information Sheet should get a good sense of why the vaccine is given, what are its benefits and risks, and additional information, such as what to do if there’s a problem. This seems to cover the requirements of informed consent. The hope is that the recipient of the VIS will read it before the vaccination. Of course, all doctors can do is provide the information. It is the responsibility of the patient or her legal guardian to read it.

Anti-vaccine Claims and Responses

Anti vaccine activists like to claim that no informed consent is given before vaccinating. As explained above, these claims are incorrect. These individuals base their claims on three arguments, none of which is valid.

First, they suggest parents should be given the vaccine insert as part of the consent process. Second, they claim parents are not told that vaccines can cause a range of  side effects (side effects that have not been scientifically documented and, in the case of some, have been disproven) such as SIDS or autism. Finally, they criticize the fact that parents are often not informed of the ingredients before being the vaccine is administered.

I will take these objections one at a time.

Not giving the insert:

The insert – of a vaccine or a drug – is not a good document to base informed consent on. The insert is a legal document, heavily regulated by the FDA. It has substantial useful information, but can also mislead the patient (see: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccine-package-inserts-debunking-myths/ for a detailed discussion of inserts). In relation to informed consent, at least two problems make inserts inappropriate: they do not explain the benefits of the procedure; and they must legally list any problem that occurred after the product was put on the market, whether or not causally related to the vaccine. The combination of not mentioning the benefits and mentioning unrelated bad outcomes can make the vaccine look much worse than the reality – substantial benefits and low risk – and misinform parents.

Not mentioning “side effects” like autism and SIDS

However much anti-vaccine activists would like to believe otherwise, extensive scientific studies have examined whether vaccines cause autism or SIDS– and no connection was found. That is why these risks are not mentioned on the Vaccine Information Sheet. Mentioning risks that are not supported by evidence is not promoting informed consent: it’s undermining it.

Not Providing Parents with a List of Ingredients

A list of ingredients is not part of informed consent requirements for any drug. If a patient has a known allergy to an ingredient, or a potential allergy, they should, of course, be notified of the presence of that ingredient. But otherwise, a list of ingredients alone – in the abstract – does not promote the patient’s understanding of the risks or benefits of a procedure, and does not advance the patient’s ability to decide if the procedure’s benefits outweigh the risks. It is therefore not a proper part of the informed consent discussion.

The informed consent process for vaccines is carefully regulated and thought through. A serious effort is made to provide patients with the information they need in a short, accessible format. As long as the healthcare provider performs the legal duty of providing the Vaccine Information Sheet before vaccinating, the patient – or parent – has before them the information necessary to make an informed decision.

Certain parents, because of language problems or other problems, may need more help, and should receive it; but that is true of any informed consent process.  It does not mean the process itself is in any way flawed.    

Author's Note: I'm grateful to Nathan Boonstra, Ashley Shelby, and Alice Warning Wasney for their corrections to previous drafts.

Dorit Reiss is a professor of law at the University of California. She has published writings on administrative law, and recently wrote "Compensating the Victims of Failure to Vaccine: What are the Options" Dorit is a member of Voices for Vaccines' Parent Advisory Board.

Mandatory Flu Vaccination: In My House It's the Law

Today marks the last day of National Influenza Vaccination Week, and in keeping with my standard M.O., I've waited until the very last minute to talk about the influenza vaccine. (Luckily, this didn't extend to the vaccine--my kids were vaccinated in August and I got mine in early November).

Over at Shot of Prevention, Voices for Vaccines Parent Advisory Board member and leader of Nurses Who Vax, Melody Butler reminded readers what, exactly, is at stake when it comes to children and the flu. Last year, 169 children died from flu. "To put that number in perspective," Melody wrote, "that's more than six kindergarten classes." 

Opponents of vaccination would quickly point out that those deaths likely represent children who had an underlying condition or were immune-deficient, that most healthy children can fight the flu. The brutality--and the astounding ignorance--of such a statement is likely self-evident, but let's unpack it anyway.

First, those children with underlying conditions or who were immunocompromised are the very reason we should vaccinate our healthy children. By cocooning these kids who are battling illnesses, like cancer, we can reduce the chances that they will contract the flu, which, for them, can be extremely serious. 

Second, opponents of vaccination are caught in a double-bind--they aim to convince as many people as possible not to vaccinate their children, yet the health of their own unvaccinated children is utterly dependent on high vaccination rates. 

But what about the canard that the flu vaccine doesn't work? Is it perfect? Of course not. The nature of the flu itself makes a universal vaccine an exceptionally complex proposition (though it may be on the way). But if you could reduce your child's chances of suffering--and believe me, dealing with influenza comes with a great deal of suffering, whether you're a child or an adult--by any percentage point, even one, wouldn't you do so? Apparently, in some circles, the answer is no. And I find that hard to wrap my mind around. 

So here's my yearly plea: whether flu vaccine reduces your child's chance of getting the flu by 60% or 6%, it's worth the trip to the pediatrician's office, the local big box minute clinic, the local pharmacy, etc. 

And a last note: in my house, vaccinations are mandatory--and my kids are getting old enough now to understand why. Yes, they don't want to get sick, but what fills me with pride is that they care even more about keeping their friends and family healthy as well. They understand how vaccines function in this regard. They are not old enough to fully understand why parents might not vaccinate their children (frankly, I'm not either), but they have been told that these unvaccinated children are in need of protection as well, that these peers of theirs are, in a sense, immunocompromised themselves. Choosing vaccination because you care about your own health, as well as the health of the community, is a lesson in compassion and community all children should learn. 

National Do Anything Except Watch the View Day: Tdap Edition

Over the summer, ABC Network made the cynical decision to hire anti-vax mouthpiece Jenny McCarthy to replace Joy Behar on its long-running daytime talk show, The View. While momentarily surprised that venerable journalist Barbara Walters would take a seat next to someone as scientifically illiterate as McCarthy, who plays fast and loose with facts, I quickly remembered that the business of television is not the business of ethical journalism. In the former, controversy and outrage are believed to result in an uptick in the Nielsen ratings. The decisionmakers at ABC--and I have reason to believe Barbara Walters was not one of them--clearly believe that the universal condemnation that followed the announcement that McCarthy had been tapped will lead to curiosity-seekers tuning in to see if McCarthy embarrasses herself again on the topic of vaccines.

But this tactic is a risky one. It's failed before, and I wager that it will fail again. We saw this happen just last month with Kris Kardashian's cringeworthy talk show, Kris. It was recently canceled after a six-week run, despite the network bosses betting on the big reveal of Kim Kardashian's baby and an appearance by Kanye West to draw viewers. It didn't happen. The difference between hiring Kris Kardashian and ABC putting Jenny McCarthy at the table on The View is considerable. Kris's show will be, and perhaps has already been, forgotten. ABC, on the other hand, has seen its reputation damaged--badly. At a time when the network is clamoring for more viewers, its gamble on McCarthy has lead so far only to widespread criticism, not just from parents (12,000 of whom signed a petition protesting the hire--which resulted in absolutely zero response from ABC), but also from media critics. No one praised this as a brilliant move to draw viewers.

This leads me to Voices for Vaccines' fantastic National Do Anything Except Watch the View Day on September 9th, the first day McCarthy will appear. (Disclosure: I am one of the VFV administrators, but I did not come up with this wonderful idea--Karen Ernst did). The idea behind it is to send a message to ABC--but, more important, the real world beyond the halls of the network--that we are not interested in McCarthy, her views on vaccines (or on Botox, which she's injected into her face, or on Syria, for that matter), and that we know desperation when we see it. To make this thing stick, Voices for Vaccines is encouraging people across the country to snap a picture of what they are doing INSTEAD of watching The View tomorrow. Working? At a playdate? Grabbing coffee? Watching paint dry? Getting a vaccine? Once you've snapped that photo, Tweet it to @voices4vaccines with the hashtag #notwatchingtheview. Consider adding @abcnetwork to your Tweet. If you like Facebook better, post your photo to the Voices for Vaccines' Facebook page. Need more information? Check out Voices for Vaccines' press release on National Do Anything Except Watch the View Day.

As for me, and my family, we have big plans for September 9th that do not include watching The View. School. Work. And the Tdap vaccine booster for my husband, because he wants to protect our newborn niece and our asthmatic daughter, for whom pertussis would be devastating.

Shillin' Ain't Easy (or Profitable)

By Karen Ernst

World's Worst Couch

I usually find the “Pharma Shill” gambit funny.  It makes me chuckle because I am usually accused of being a so-called pharma shill while sitting on my couch.

Let me introduce you to my couch.  It is nearly twelve years old and has served us well.  It used to have two reclining parts, but those parts stopped working a few years ago.  Because it has been used as a trampoline, some of the springs are broken and there’s a deep indent where one would sit.  I fill in the indent with a Patrick Star pillow, pictured at right.  I won’t give you all the gory details about my couch, but suffice it to say, three boys and one dog have lived with this couch, and they have sometimes been ill.

As you can see, my accomodations and interior design are both very glamorous and clearly part of the "Pharma Shill" lifestyle. 

It is seated in this couch that I have read accusations from anti-vaccine activists and parents that I am being paid by pharmaceutical companies to write comments on Facebook.  I’ve also read that the first-person pro-vax parent stories that appear on both the Moms Who Vax blog and Voices for Vaccine’s Parents Who Vax blog are written on the sly by Ashley Shelby and myself, both of whom have, apparently, “deep ties to pharma lobbyists in Minnesota.”  This would be news, of course, to the very real people who have contributed to our blog over the years. And it's news to Ashley and me, who have yet to even meet a pharma lobbyist in Minnesota.

For the record, neither Ashley nor I have ever received a penny from pharmaceutical companies. Not through Voices for Vaccines (which does not accept contributions from pharmaceutical companies or from the government), not through Moms Who Vax (which, unlike NVIC, accepts no advertising and which has an annual yearly budget of $0), and not for commenting on Facebook. The latter accusation strikes me as particularly bizarre. After all, vaccines account for less than 2% of pharmaceutical companies’ profits. Why would they waste any of that money paying people to write comments on social media, especially when more than 90% of us vaccinate our children already?  It defies logic. But then again, logic has never been the anti-vaxxer's strong suit.

And so they persist, even in the face of the facts.  For the past few weeks, the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice has grown obsessed with Voices for Vaccines, reposting nearly every link we post on their own Facebook page.  Their Facebook page has also been home to suppositions about our fundraising--false assumptions, which I corrected back in May.  I replied and was able to get them to issue a semi-apology and (later, not pictured) a partial retraction.

However, they were so attached to tantalizing idea of Voices for Vaccines employing me as a "Pharma Shill" that they promote the idea, even after apologizing for having made a false statement.

It was all just annoying and eyeroll-inducing, even funny at times, until Ashley and I decided to take on Jenny McCarthy. Apparently, former playmates are sacred cows in anti-vax land.  As of this writing, our Facebook post has 1,980 comments, many of which from anti-vaxxers who are sure that the petition to keep Jenny McCarthy off TV’s The View is some sort of Big Pharma plot.  

And again, people were certain that we were Big Pharma Shills.  Ginger Taylor, whose writings include disparaging Seth Mnookin for being a long-recovered heroin addict, dubbed us “Voices of Vaccines,” I’m assuming because she thinks we are in the thrall of pharmaceutical companies (though her little syntactical sleight of hand is actually hilarious: I'd love to hear the sound of a vaccine's voice).  Then, my favorite mansplainer, Robert Schecter, also made an appearance to ask on as many threads as possible: "Who funds voices for vaccines?"

When I told him Voices for Vaccines is funded by individual small donations, he persisted, not believing my answers and making up his own.

Marsha McClelland sent out an Action Alert asking for more anti-vaccine comments on the thread.  She herself came to the thread many times to tell us her case was closed and to declare victory, but before doing so, she let us know how Pharma hires people to “pose as having sick children due to non vaccination.”  

(The “there are usually underlying reasons” portion of her comment is particularly troubling because I don’t believe that any child deserves to die from a VPD, whether or not that child has an underlying condition.)  She also tagged Erwin Alber.

Erwin Alber is an interesting case.  He as a New Zealander who runs the “Vaccination Information Network” where he promotes the idea that vaccines cause homosexuality and where he falls prey to his own confirmation bias and purposely fabricated graphs.  One of his favorite ploys is comparing vaccination to Nazi experimentation.  Reasonable Hank has dubbed him “The World’s Worst Person” for visiting a whooping cough memorial page to “educate” grieving parents about the horrors of vaccination. There’s no way to overstate how deeply disturbing Erwin Alber's tactics are.

And so I was dismayed when Erwin took Ginger’s bait and appeared on the Voices for Vaccines page, telling us all that we were Nazis, pharma shills, delusional, and insane.  Fortunately for me, he stole one of VFV’s photos, so I was able to ban him with clear conscience.

At that point, the strangest anti-vax infestation ensued.  It began on Erwin’s page, where several people “knew” all about the Big Pharma money connection to VFV.

They came to the VFV thread, per Erwin’s instructions, and they didn’t realize that they shouldn’t also spread their crazy there.  

Anti-vaccinationists are quite convinced that people only advocate for immunizations because they are being paid by Big Pharma (which apparently is too stingy to buy me a new couch.)

The irony, of course, is that people to profit directly from others being afraid of immunizations, and so have a substantial interest in keeping that fear alive. Homeopaths, such as the “Meat Sweats” homeopath Ashley and I heard at the Minnesota Immunization Rule hearing, sell “cures” to “vaccine injuries” that are too vague to even be given a diagnosis.  In other words, they make money selling plain water to people who are frightened by the internet into believing that an illness was caused by vaccines.  Dr. Mercola lives in a multi-million dollar mansion, a showy display of the wealth he’s accumulated by selling completely unregulated supplements, tanning beds, juicers (even though he tells people not to drink fruit juice), and countless other items to people afraid of immunizations.  Dr. Sherri Tenpenny makes money from selling t-shirts and access to articles she did not write to people who are scared by the falsehoods about vaccines she promotes on her DVDs, which she also sells. 

Worst of all are people like Andrew Wakefield and Keri Rivera who sell unproven and sometimes dangerous “cures” for autism to parents who are frightened into believing that vaccines “damaged” their children and made them autistic.  Lastly, Jenny McCarthy.  Let’s face it:  Jenny McCarthy’s career was in the tank before she began protests to “Green Our Vaccines.”

People who profit from fear of immunization (not necessarily those listed above) come together through organizations like the Natural Health Freedom Coalition and the Council for Responsible Nutrition who hire lawyers and lobbyists to ensure that the laws regulating their products and practices are as lax as possible and to fight against any attempt in states to tighten vaccine exemption laws (or in the case of Minnesota, simply modernizing its rule).

The casual anti-vaccine parent has been convinced by these forces that they are collectively the Davids fighting the Goliath of Big Pharma, and that anyone who wants to dispute anti-vaccine misinformation or make their communities safe from preventable disease outbreaks is paid by Goliath.  But that’s not really true at all--none of it is.  Sure, Big Pharma is Big.  However, Big Alterna is big business, too, and they are well-organized.  They take advantage of people’s fears, their inability or unwillingness to properly perform a risk analysis, and their fears of having their freedom limited.  Anti-vaccine parents like to believe they are enlightened and informed because they’ve done their “research,” but really, they’ve just bought into the lies of a well-oiled machine.

Fortunately, for pro-vaccine parents, we don’t need Big Pharma to organize us.  We can organize ourselves and follow the science independent of Big Pharma. But we do need pharmaceutical companies to make our vaccines.  They are not evil for making a profit (albeit small) from the work they do, and the work they do is important.  Without them, millions of children would die each year.  Big Alterna can’t touch that.