vaccine protest
Vaccines are taking a big hit on the refusal side from more and more people doing their due diligence and becoming more fully engaged in knowing what supposedly 'safe' vaccines really are about: Fraud and deceit on the part of the U.S. CDC and FDA, plus vested-interest 'tobacco science' from Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers publishing falsified research and data, who 'export' their brand of pseudoscience. Nothing confirms that more than the documentary movie VAXXED[3] currently making the rounds in local movie theaters and on the Internet.

In view of the all the developing negative vaccine research and adverse health issues, the World Health Organization (WHO) apparently is trying to come to vaccines' rescue by publishing the 44 page 2016 document, "How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public."

What I found most amazing and ironically 'curious', if not pathetic, is the information on page 34 in Chapter 6 "How to Protect Yourself," referring to the healthcare professional who is encouraged to go out and spread the vaccine 'gospel'. Paradoxically, the WHO makes the following statement:
Remember ...

You have the right to say 'No'. Your personal safety comes first. Consider the context and time of the discussion, and weigh up whether it is safe for you to take part.

Your mind stores thousands of pieces of information which it uses to warn you that something is wrong. Trust your instincts when you feel uncom­fortable, get away from whatever situation you are in. You will only know if you were wrong if you ignore your instincts - is it worth the risk?
Apparently, WHO believe doctors have the right of personal safety first, but what are the rights of innocent infants, toddlers, teens and adults from being forced to be vaccinated immediately after birth and into adulthood with Big Pharma's "poison needles"?

"Trust your instincts when you feel uncomfortable, get away from whatever situation you are in," is excellent advice to parents when being badgered about vaccines, I offer. However, the WHO thinks that only applies to medical proselytizers and not those who are bullied into taking vaccines or else suffer untold consequences like your families are discharged from their medical practices! Or, how about having Child Protective Services showing up at a refuser's front door?

The WHO apparently has concerns about security threats to healthcare professionals from vaccine refusers. I wonder why, especially when children have been damaged for life and parents are getting extremely fed up with how they are treated by the medical and legal professions, healthcare regulatory bodies especially in the USA, e.g., CDC, FDA, state and local health agencies and even school districts.

On page 6 of that report, we see the Goal stated as:
Make the public audience more resilient against anti-vaccine statements and stories; support the vaccine hesitants in their vaccine acceptance decision.
Readers need to read page 9: how the WHO defines various members of the anti-vaccine movement.

However, the WHO does not say anything about all the fines and ethical problems leveled against the pharmaceutical industry because of its inherent bad business practices that have evolved into class action lawsuits and billion-dollar fines [4] from the U.S. CDC/FDA! What is it that the WHO doesn't seem to be getting about the problems with the pharmaceutical industry for which it apparently is one of its key promoters?

Personally, I just love this remark on page 15:
Remember, you are presenting the scientific consensus.
And that sad statement is KEY, since the REAL science is totally different than consensus science!

Consensus science is that which researchers agree to lie about or withhold data about or even discard data into a trash can about, e.g., MMR vaccine-Autism connection and CDC whistleblower William Thompson, PhD, admission or perform incorrect vaccine trials, e.g., placing aluminum adjuvant into control subjects' vaccines, when those vaccines should be adjuvant-free! That's consensus science!

Scientific consensus ignores scientific studies, especially when it comes to vaccine ingredients, or so it really seems. My book Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don't Know About Vaccines discusses most of the toxic ingredients in vaccines from what scientific studies have found those ingredients are capable of doing as published in peer review literature. It's not what I have made up; it's what published scientific journal articles say about neurotoxins, aluminum in as many as four formulations, ethylmercury (Thimerosal) that's still found in trace amounts in many vaccines given to infants (YES, that's a real FACT), formaldehyde/Formalin, dangerous polysorbate 80 that's been shown to cause infertility in animal studies plus other problems, sodium borate plus a "shopping list" of ingredients such as foreign DNA from animals like monkeys-mouse brain-cattle-insects, including human diploid cells (a line of aborted fetal cells). Let me not forget to mention mycoplasmas and genetically modified organisms. How can all that 'scientific' crap be injected into a less than 25 pound infant and no health damages occur, especially to their not-fully-developed immune system?

Something is terribly wrong with consensus science when it has to bully others into taking harmful products! The WHO apparently recognizes that and is trying to do 'damage control' for the next pandemic that probably is in the wings. Here's a hint: Zika. [1] Or, the refugee crisis in the EU.

On page 22 we read the admonition to,
Emphasize high safety instead of low risk.
How ridiculous a mantra, when each vaccine package insert [2] recites contraindications and adverse events, including Guillain-Barré syndrome. But then, it's consensus science not to tell patients that information as their right under fully informed consent.

On page 23, proselytizers are cautioned about telling the truth. However, the WHO does not tell them how to keep their noses from growing two feet long or what's called the Pinocchio syndrome.

On page 24, WHO reiterates the sorry mantra about consensus science:
11. Underline scientific consensus

Research in the area of climate change shows that the belief in a scientific fact increases when consensus is highlighted [60][30]. However, identifying a scientific consensus requires a thorough understanding of the specific area of interest and a layperson will not gain that knowledge all by himself [61]. Therefore, highlighting the scientific consensus in public is a power­ful tool to transfer essential scientific knowledge and increase belief in a scientific fact, especially when presented in a simple and short message [62][63].

Underline scientific consensus with regard to vaccine safety and efficacy.
Boy, has WHO really placed itself precariously out on the credibility limb it's sawing off when it includes climate change as scientific fact. With weather geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management, "chemtrails," HAARPs around the globe and the information about "smart clouds" I discussed that's in the U.S. Air Force report about owning the weather by 2025 in my article "What's Up With the Newest Presidential Executive Order?", WHO ought to be embarrassed beyond embarrassment, plus be regarded as the Illuminati's toady it apparently is.

Comment: The chemtrails conspiracy has been debunked: Atmospheric scientists drop shocking bombshell: Chemtrails aren't real!

WHO wants proselytizers to "Emphasize social benefits of vaccines." Does that mean that 'herd immunity' is not discussed for what it really is—treating humans like cattle? What are the social benefits of vaccines when lives and families are damaged? When there is total denial by doctors and others with almost no recourse at law in the USA because the U.S. Congress disenfranchised healthcare consumers' rights by giving vaccine manufacturers a "get out of jail free" card from any legal and financial liability for product damage from vaccines? But things are different in the European Union where lawsuits are being filed against vaccine manufacturers, and thus one of the probable reasons for WHO's "How to respond..." report.

How about the "Algorithm of how to respond" on page 29! Studying that algorithm should give everyone some clever hints on how to respond to the proselytizers, I think.

The WHO's bibliography of References ought to be studied as a strategy 'play book' to use in beating them at their own game regarding vaccine consensus science, I offer.

There are 51 member states in the European Union. The recent manufactured refugee crisis in the EU probably is of much concern to WHO, since many refugees obviously will need to be convinced to take those poison needles.