Originally published March 1 2015
Media freaks out over Rand Paul's statement that the state doesn't own children when it comes to vaccines
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) If you color outside the line of acceptable thought in the mainstream medical community, you will be branded a kook, a huckster, a fraud or worse, a threat to society.
In the wake of comments by a couple of potential Republican presidential contenders that vaccination of children ought to be more dependent on parental choice, the mainstream medical community, aided by the mainstream media, has reacted with predictable outrage, immediately calling into question their rationale, if not their sanity.
In recent days, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, during a tour of an American flu manufacturer's Cambridge, England, facility, had the temerity to say that, though he and his wife had vaccinated their children, there should be "some measure of choice" over whether shots for measles and other infectious diseases ought to be mandated by government.
In addition, libertarian-leaning Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, himself an ophthalmologist, said pretty much the same thing, during interviews with various media including CNBC and The Laura Ingraham Show.
He said that he thinks most vaccines should be voluntary, citing "many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."
"The state doesn't own your children," he told CNBC. "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."
"I should have done that"
He went on to tell Laura Ingraham that he and his wife vaccinated their kids, but that he spread out the vaccination schedule. "I didn't like 'em getting 10 vaccines at once," he said, as quoted by Bloomberg Politics.
"Smart," Ingraham responded. "I should have done that."
But in follow-up pieces, the mainstream press has savaged both Christie and Paul, at times making comparisons to previous statements by political candidates regarding mandatory vaccinations and the very real, very known dangers some of them pose (as often documented here at Natural News).
Here's one example, from The Washington Post:
The vigorous outcry in response to the remarks underscored the sensitivity surrounding the vaccination debate, particularly given a widening multistate measles outbreak linked to a California theme park. Both Christie and Paul are leading GOP candidates who are likely to exercise significant influence over the direction of the 2016 primary race.
To "prove" the outcry, the Post published a few obligatory objections, from what can only be described as mainstream sources.
"When you see educated people or elected officials giving credence to things that have been completely debunked, an idea that's been shown to be responsible for multiple measles and pertussis outbreaks in recent years, it's very concerning," Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease physician at the Center for Health Security at the University of Pittsburgh, told the paper.
The Post even added a comment from President Obama.
"The science is, you know, pretty indisputable," Obama said. "We've looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not."
[Author's note: In 2008, Obama -- campaigning as the Democratic nominee -- left open the possibility that some vaccines caused autism: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. ... The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it."]
No-choice candidates prefer vaccination by gunpoint
The Post also quoted Seth Mnookin, author of the book The Panic Virus, in which he slams vaccine critics. He called comments by Christie and Paul "incredibly, incredibly irresponsible."
There may be no other person on Earth who has examined the dangers surrounding vaccines more than our own editor, Mike Adams, who had this to say about the issue:
Principles of liberty must be applied universally. Those who truly believe in liberty hold that belief to apply to all areas of society, including finance and jobs, consumer purchasing decisions and medical choice.
It's no surprise that presidential candidates who support liberty also support the philosophy of free choice in medicine. It's simultaneously no surprise to discover that the most tyrannical, control-freak candidates for president openly promote the idea of mandatory vaccines enforced at gunpoint by a medical police state.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml