Controversially

The Chief Sanitary Inspectorate cannot answer vaccination skeptics' questions

The Chief Sanitary Inspectorate cannot answer vaccination skeptics' questions



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

On June 8 this year, the second Meeting of the Parliamentary Team for the Safety of the Protective Vaccination Program was held. The first took place in April this year. On one side were representatives of the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate, the Ministry of Health and the National Institute of Hygiene, on the other side those who were skeptical about the current vaccination calendar and concerned about the continuous expansion of the list of mandatory vaccinations - doctors and representatives of the Stop NOP Association, and between them - representatives of parliament.

The meeting lasted over an hour. During this time many vaccination issues were raised.

I watched the entire meeting and felt visibly moved. I was amazed at the distribution of "substantive forces" on both sides. It would seem that the often ridiculed skeptics of vaccinations should be "killed by data," "silenced by the strength of arguments," and it turned out to be the opposite. Institutions to protect our children's health and health have taken their mouths. They clearly couldn't answer many key questions. When the questions were asked, the ladies at the meeting looked at each other and looked for a person willing to answer ...

The website was skeptical about the current vaccination calendar, however, it was substantive, very accurate, asking important questions. When representatives of GIS, MZ and PZH decided to give arguments, words were spoken that are difficult to take seriously (for example, the argument for vaccinations on the first day indicating the risk of contracting jaundice in the tattoo studio - it should be added that we are talking about newborns, and these are unlikely to be tattooed). GIS representatives a lot they were silent or evaded saying that "the question should be put to other persons absent from the meeting".

What effectively closed the mouths of GIS, MZ and PZH employees? Namely uncomfortable issues:

  • why the vaccination calendar in Poland is burdened so much and why further, controversial vaccinations are planned, from which other countries are withdrawing (HPV, after which, for example, in Japan, girls had many serious neurological disorders),
  • why in 1995 the first BCG vaccination was postponed (for the first day and the hepatitis B vaccine was added - Poland is in a small group of countries where children are vaccinated in the first day of life),
  • why all children are vaccinated against TB and hepatitis B at all, and not just children at risk as in Western countries.

Opponents of the current vaccination calendar pointed out that:

  • The BCG vaccine is very reactogenic, causes many side effects, but it cannot be clearly stated, because this vaccine is given in the first day of the child's life, when it is not yet known whether the child is healthy,
  • newborns are not examined thoroughly in the first day of life to determine whether they are fully healthy. It is not possible to say whether they have immunodeficiency or diseases that are revealed later, therefore vaccination at the stage type is very risky,
  • why there is no vaccination compensation system in Poland, as in other countries,
  • why it's so difficult to report NOP,
  • GIS is not interested in the rapidly growing number of hospitalized infants and young children, although after paying attention to this aspect, it promises to look at the topic,
  • GIS is also to investigate the problem of the growing incidence of allergies and autoimmune diseases that may be associated with an overloaded vaccination calendar

Most the strange moment of the meeting was the moment when representatives of GIS, MZ and PZH stated that the recommended vaccines are not recommended at all (!). Yes, you read it right. In other words, it the parent decides to provide it at their own risk.

When I heard that, I thought I was overheard. After all, "trumpets" at every step to vaccinate children with additional vaccines. And now we find out that organizations that are supposed to take care of our health wash their hands of these appeals, claiming something that is even difficult to comment that a recommendation is not a recommendation, and the vaccine is a commercial product that can be bought for a child and given or not. Contrary to common sense, which makes us say that if someone recommends it, he thinks that something is good ... No. It's not the same for GIS.

That is why I am convinced that every parent who wants to consciously make decisions about medical procedures, such as vaccines, should watch the videos below. Look cool, listen to the discussion and open your eyes. He must be aware that HE decides.

Second meeting

First meeting