http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience

, i admit it - i bought the magazine probably half just for the cute baby on the cover - but i do love Wired, and love hearing what's new...

The vaccine article, though - was such a disappointment - just a hatchet job, with no understanding of "the other side". Truth is, there are people like Jenny McCarthy, but there is an increasing number of people like me.

People who think that cannibalism is disgusting and who think the truth should be given, so that there can be "informed consent" about these vaccines. Most are cultivated on aborted fetal tissue. These babies aren't tissue donors, they aren't adults who have signed waivers. They are babies who are killed, and then their body parts sold. This is common in modern medicine, but it's morally abhorrent. How can we have faith in a medical culture that lies or is unaware of things that a simple look at the product insert and then their physician's desk reference can prove?

And then there is the issue of informed consent not just of the ingredients, but also the results. The WHO has a "Special Programme" about birth control vaccine research - and there have been numerous documented cases where vaccines were "tainted" with hcg, resulting in targeted female populations being sterilized against their will or knowledge with a purported "rubella vaccine"...

Lancet, 11 June 1988, p. 1296.

Challenges in Reproductive Health Research, Biennial Report 1992-1993, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1994, p. 186.

G.P. Talwar, et al, "Prospects of an anti-hCG vaccine inducing antibodies of high affinity...(etc)," Reproductive Technology 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990, Amsterdam, New York, p. 231

Name calling doesn't help us come to a consensus when there is such a wide gulf between the two sides - one of which believes it is morally okay to lie to its consumers, and sterilize them against their will.

canada