Rationalization (lying to yourself)
Medical Control ploys     Hypnotism

"With most people unbelief in one thing is founded on blind belief in another."--Lichtenberg

[Allopaths have been "conditioned" to believe in vaccination (and pharma drugs).  After a medical education they could hardly be expected to disagree with the beliefs engraved on the foundation stone of Allopathy--1. vaccination is safe and effective, 2. Vaccination has saved millions of lives.  3. Vaccination eliminated smallpox.  Now could they?  (See) And they get plenty of horrible examples of what happens to those who do, eg Dr. Andy Wakefield.  They cannot not-believe in the tenets of Allopathy, have suppressed that conditioning (it is not accessible), so use rationalizations to hide that fact.  If you ever wondered how they could believe absurdities such as mercury is safe in your mouth, or injected into babies, and how Paul Offit can believe babies can take 100,000 vaccines, here is the answer.  The Allopathic beliefs are also kept in place by Peer pressure, Conformity, Groupthink.   A rationalization is how buffers or the ego defends itself.]

See: The Church of Allopathy   Hypnotism,  Terminology,  Rapport/Transference, Allopathic (vaccine) beliefs

Rationalizations
Pejorative Rationalizations
Non-Medical Rationalizations:
Quotes
Examples
  Ad Hominem (You're Mad)
   Appeal to the majority
   Authority
   Benefits Outweigh the Risks
   'Conspiracy theory'
   Just an Anecdote
      Quacks
   Too Old'
   You're lying/made it up'

"During a recent check-up at an allopathic doctor, my doctor asked, "What medications are you taking?" I replied "None". She actually said, 'That's ok.....I have a few patients like you who are not on any medications at all' Unreal."

Rationalizations:
Autism is due to genetics,  Autism increase is due to change in diagnosis,  Just an Anecdote', 'Need more studies', 'Not peer reviewed',  'Not clinically trialled', 'Not an MD', 'Spurious' cowpox, 'Too old,'  'Not a peer review journal', 'You're lying/made it up'  'Authority', Appeal to the majority, Appeal to incredulity, 'cause and effect relationship is not presumed/not causal', 'It's must be OK--a charity', 'just-a-coincidence', 'not evidence-based medicine', Straw man, Euphemisms, Benefits Outweigh the Risks, Government health organisations are 'independent', vaccine diseases are dangerous, Polio due to improved sanitation, overwhelming evidence, just a "coincidence"   "If it works",  "No known cure, no known cause" misinformation on the internet   Vaccination has saved millions of lives

Anti-Vitamin C

Appeal to emotion, Whale.to avoidance  Tin foil hat

Pejorative Rationalizations  (These are pharma tarbrushes also) [See: Pejorative.]
'Conspiracy theory', 'Quack/crank', 'Anti-vaccine', 'Pseudoscience' & 'anti-science'   Denialist   Paranoid

Non-Medical Rationalizations
Weapons of Mass Destruction

Quotes
"The lie you tell yourself, and/or other persons, to explain an amnestic posthypnotic obedience is called a rationalization. Rationalization (making up a fake reason) is a major defense mechanism. ....He has lied to himself, and perhaps also to others, and believed his lie." ---Secret, Don't Tell: The Encyclopedia of Hypnotism by Carla Emery p.221, 450.

"In the entire history of man, no one has ever been brainwashed and realized, or believed, that he had been brainwashed. Those who have been brainwashed will usually passionately defend their manipulators." ---- Dick Sutphen

The medical literature is abound with studies on the deleterious effects of mercury on numerous enzymes, mitochondrial energy production, synaptic function, dendritic retraction, neurotubule dissolution and excitotoxicity, yet, he sees only a "theoretical risk" associated with an ever increasing addition of thimerosal-containing vaccines THE TRUTH BEHIND THE VACCINE COVER-UP By Russell Blaylock, M.D.

"Because routine immunizations that bring parents back for repeated office calls are the bread and butter of their specialty, pediatricians continue to defend them to the death.  The question parents should be asking is: ‘Whose death?........For a pediatrician to attack what has become the "bread and butter" of pediatric practice is equivalent to a priest denying the infallibility of the pope.......What does a Catholic do when he decides that his priests are no good? Sometimes he directly challenges them, but very seldom. He just leaves the Church. And that’s my answer. Leave the Church of Modern Medicine. I see a lot of people doing that today. I see a lot of people going to chiropractors, for example, who wouldn’t have been caught dead in a chiropractor’s office a few years ago. Confessions of a Medical Heretic

"When your mind is focused on only one thing, without other distractions,  that one thing makes a strong imprint. The deeper you go, the more you have isolated a particular center of the brain from competing inputs. Hypnotic obedience results from sidelining the brain's conscious monitors and isolating the active network of neurons from competing networks. The hypnotic subject obeys the hypnotist's suggestion because a competing explanation or directive is not accessible.-----Secret, Don't Tell: The Encyclopedia of Hypnotism by Carla Emery p.207

Rationalization (making up a fake reason) is a major defense mechanism. When we do things for reasons of which we are not consciously aware, we rationalize. The obedient enactment of posthypnotic suggestion likewise gets excused by fake explanations provided by the unconscious to the conscious. A subject who does not remember being given a posthypnotic suggestion will always invent an imaginary reason for obeying.  His rationalization will be as plausible as possible. He will consciously believe it even though it is a lie he has told himself. Posthypnotic suggestions can be beneficial or harmful. If asked later why he did this particular thing, he will ..."rationalize his conduct by some kind of semi-reasonable explanation...To anyone acquainted with the real motive, namely, the post­hypnotic suggestion, these pseudo-motives are very interesting because they are so similar to the pseudo-motives often given by people to justify actions, the real reasons for which are unconscious to themselves or, if conscious, dishonorable." (Estabrooks, Scientific American, p. 216). If a hypnotic subject is not consciously aware of an implanted posthypnotic suggestion because of suggested amnesia, then he does not know the real reason he did the posthypnotic act. In that situation, he will make up some excuse for what he did, as plausible as possible. He will honestly believe the rationalization. He has lied to himself, and perhaps also to others, and believed his lie. After obeying an amnestic posthypnotic suggestion, people do not say, "I don't know why I did that" (which is their conscious mind's truth). They do not say, "The hypnotist made me do it" (which is their uncon­sciously known truth). In­stead, if you ask, "Why did you do that? " they will make up an excuse which is as believable as possible--and they will honestly believe whatever they said!   A prominent experimental hypnotist gave a young woman a posthypnotic suggestion to take off one shoe after she awakened from his hypnosis demonstration. She was to set it on the table before her. He then suggested amnesia and awakened her: ...she fidgeted for a few moments, then slipped off one of her shoes with the other foot, reached down, lifted it, and placed it on the table in front of her. Then she reached over and took the flowers from a vase on the table and placed them in her shoe. (LeCron, The Complete Guide to Hypnosis, p. 18) When the hypnotist asked why she had put flowers in her shoe, the subject rationalized: "I have a vase at home that looks something like a shoe. I wondered what kind of flower arrangement I could use with it." ---Secret, Don't Tell: The Encyclopedia of Hypnotism by Carla Emery p.221

The rationalization and denial ploy can be blatant or veiled. Blatant rationalization is easier to spot. For example, in a recently published pediatric legal paper, a Canadian neurologist candidly writes, "In this article [on vaccine-induced brain injury], I will...offer some suggestions for pediatricians to rationalize this emotional controversy." He also plainly states, "A vigorous effort is required to dispel the myth of DTP-induced brain damage." He makes his recommendation in spite of the horrendous amount of literature in the medical journals indicating a causal relationship between this vaccine and severe mental impairment. The veiled Rationalization and Denial ploy is harder to detect. At first it appears logical and sound. But it merely represents a more intricate attempt at suppressing and confounding the truth. For example, according to some researchers, the DPT vaccine does not cause seizures; instead, "fever from the DTP vaccine may trigger one of these seizures."(132) Or, according to an experienced vaccine policymaker, Ed Mortimer, M.D., "These kids already had underlying problems and DTP was the first fever-producing insult that occurred to the child."(133) Again, it wasn't the vaccine that caused the brain damage; it was the fever from the vaccine. Immunization Ploys-Are Parents Being Manipulated?by Neil Z. Miller

When the incidence of a disease is low, authorities claim high vaccination rates are responsible. When outbreaks occur, we are told not enough people received the shots. For example, prior to a recent measles outbreak in a Hobbs, New Mexico, school district, authorities boasted a 98 percent vaccination rate. Then, when 76 cases of the disease broke out, researchers claimed that "vaccine failure was associated with immunizations that could not be documented in the provider's records." Immunization Ploys-Are Parents Being Manipulated?by Neil Z. Miller

Although the Food and Drug Administration was legally bound to establish and oversee the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and even though every year about 12,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines are made to the FDA, authorities refuse to follow up on these cases because "the agency could not possibly investigate each report," and besides, "a cause and effect relationship is not presumed." Immunization Ploys-Are Parents Being Manipulated?by Neil Z. Miller

By November 10, 1999, the Vaccine Injury Compensation System had already paid out more than $1 billion to settle claims of vaccine-induced damage or death.  However, because vaccine manufacturers and the federal government are not required to admit responsibility, even when a claim is paid, they are able to assert that "the settlement of a claim does not necessarily establish liability." Immunization Ploys-Are Parents Being Manipulated?by Neil Z. Miller

Examples

"This whale to site is rubish. The author is so ashamed of it, he does not even put his name on the site. The site is clearly not by someone who has a clue about medicine or vaccination. Nor is he interested in the truth. For accurate information go to Immunization Action Coalition http://www.immunize.org/" ---Jeffrey Peter, M.D.

"One of my favorite guidelines on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. I have not lodged accusations against your motives and would appreciate it if you could return the favor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with user created content, not a mere collection of links. I hope you agree that pages like vaccine are better when contributors add well-referenced, NPOV prose instead of simply adding links. It would be a poor page if it were simply dominated by outside links with instructions to "go read, it's all there!" You are right about whale.to - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling." Wiki Medical editor 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

But John wants babies to die.  He's shown that again, and again.  So should we be surprised that we should be using sick kids for preliminary trials? I'm not.---Bryan

Mad  [This is Ad Hominem basic.]
"I mentioned to Marcia that these people are mad. I saw Dr Kalokerinos on stage once and he is the most insane person I have ever seen outside a mental hospital. He stood there in front of a crowd of several hundred people and said that the WHO and the Save The Children Fund were engaged in a policy of deliberate genocide which would "put Hitler and Stalin in the shade". And we are supposed to take this arsehole seriously?" --Peter Bowditch

Mark Probert  wrote:  John's been doing this for years.  In fact, it's all he does.  He  knows he's a liar.  He knows the information he posts is false.  He knows his website is nothing but a collection of fallacies, deceptions, and lies.  And above all, he knows he misleads people, quite possibly leading to harm.  Since he obviously doesn't care that his misinformation might cause harm, I believe he is a sociopath.

"Who knows what John really believes.  He's a notorious anti-vaccine propogandist who occupies slot #1 in my killfile and has for about 3-4 years now.  He and his whale.to site are well known on sci.med where his "theories" have been shot down time and time again. Unfortunately, he is completely devoid of ethics and the truth is of absolutely no importance to him.  No matter how many times his propoganda is proved false, he continues to preach it. His entire site is nothing but a collection of faleshoods, distortions, and rubbish.  It would best be described as a porn site."--Carey Gregory (Usenet)

Anonymous John thinks he knows more than an entire profession about everything the profession does. That kind of thing hasn't been possible for anybody in the hard sciences since the Enlightenment (for a good three centuries at least), and even in an applied science trade like medicine, it hasn't been possible at least since WWII. Worse still, John quotes from people who are even bigger megalomaniacs than he is. All seem to have that most basic problem of the subclass of the mentally ill who have personality disorders: they are liars without integrity.--SBH

the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling." Wiki Medical editor 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would actually have to argue that point. I think John is both unintelligent and insane, whereas for a good example of an intelligent kook, see Gastaldo.---Usenet PF

"You are right about whale.to - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling."

If you want to get psychological, cold John cope with success? If his POV in any of the Whale contents was accepted and became the mainstream orthodoxy, would he not be impelled to post polemics on the necessity of vaccination to protect children, circulate the secret protocols of the smart young zionists and call for Cetaceans to be used for animal testing and minds to be constrained from ... whatever. Failure as a defence mechanism. Midgley 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right about whale.to - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling." Wiki Medical editor 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohh look, yet another page filled with the typical ignorance and lies propigated by the anti-vaccine group.

A rather separate organisation with a general anti-vaccination view but with other more significant characteristics was the Nazi party. In addition, there is a considerable overlap with homeopathy and conspiracy theorists, and a subset of the material shades into the appearance of psychosis. --Wiki Editor

"Who knows what John really believes.  He's a notorious anti-vaccine propogandist who occupies slot #1 in my killfile and has for about 3-4 years now.  He and his whale.to site are well known on sci.med where his "theories" have been shot down time and time again. Unfortunately, he is completely devoid of ethics and the truth is of absolutely no importance to him.  No matter how many times his propoganda is proved false, he continues to preach it. His entire site is nothing but a collection of faleshoods, distortions, and rubbish.  It would best be described as a porn site."--Carey Gregory (Usenet)

This single user is the most tenacious anti-vaccine editor on Wikipedia, and has filled many articles with his choice anti-science on the subject of vaccination. Everything sounds nice and NPOV, but when the matter is investigated one encounters dangerous lunacy, notoriety and dishonesty. Viera Scheibner, for example, was touted (by another editor) as a scientist with scientific arguments against vaccination until it turned out she had not published more than one paper on a medical topic, was the recipient of the Australian Skeptics' "Bent Spoon Award" and was the subject of an article in Vaccine detailing her views and modus operandi. This has to stop.

Since you're new here, I feel compelled to inform you that your use of logic, rationale and facts are not suitable for the anti-vac wackos. You need to learn to use more disparaging comments, obfuscation, and lies - those seem to be the only things they understand.--Vaccine man USENET May 2006

"For your work against quacks, viz. anti-vaccinationists and others, I award you this picture of Sir William Osler and three colleagues!" [ref]

Is there anything that isn't a conspiracy or a hoax? How would you know that anti-vaccinationists aren't involved in a hoax as well? Especially when they could be engaging in mind control? Yes I agree with John that allopathic medicine has been granted a monopoly by the government over health care, at least in terms of medications and devices, reimbursement by insurance companies, etc., but at least this recognizes that allopathic medicine uses the most rigorous scientific methodology. Andrew73 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MMR_vaccine#medical_monopoly

Schoolboy, 13, dies as measles makes a comeback   An anti-vaccinationist win. Midgley 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 

My sense of humour is under some strain here. "as stated by medical doctors and scientists". You have been previously told that although that sentence is correct if two doctors and two scientists have said that once each, it is not a good reflection of the general view - where several orders of magnitude more doctors and scientists state the opposite and another bunch point to holes in what is interpreted as evidence. A newspaper or polemical leaflet may write in such tersm, but an encyclopaedia may not. This is an encyclopaedia. Midgley 11:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.". Michael Ralston 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 "I should say that the recommendations on measles mumps and rubella that the Government are following are supported by the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Association."--Tony Blair,  Dec 18 2001

"the list of organisations backing MMR is impressive - all the royal colleges, the Department of Health and the vast majority of doctors and nurses." [Media Feb 2006] 'Why I am terrified of trusting MMR'

"On April 6, 2000, nine national nonprofit organizations issued a joint statement http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2223.html (vaccine/shill2) on the importance of immunization to the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases"--AMA statement  

"His theories are not new and have been reviewed at least three times in the past year by expert groups including diabetologists, immunologists, vaccinologists, geneticists, epidemiologists and biostatisticians all of whom have agreed unanimously that Dr. Classen has totally misinterpreted data that he has extracted from studies in Finland and elsewhere, and has built a hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence. These reviews have been sponsored by the Johns Hopkins University Institute for Vaccine Safety, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health and the Vaccine Initiative of the Infectious Diseases Society of American and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society."--Dr Katz

"In the future, please don't waste the energy it takes to alert us to such nonsense. If any of our people are interested, they can hear these subjects discussed breathlessly at "Conspiracy Theory" weekend workshops that feature a lot of these same speakers. It's bad enough that we have to deal with denialists, like Duesberg. The last thing we need is another conspiracy faction pounding on our door."--Martin Delaney

Or in other words, it is all a conspiracy!  All of us scientists are out to get you - evolution, vaccines, relativity, heliocentricity - it's all a myth promoted by "the man" to protect the profits of corporations. After all, the people who work in universities, government organizations, NGO's, biotech companies, etc, couldn't possibly INDIVIDUALS, each with their own ideas and opinions.  No, they must all follow the thoughts transmitted to them from the master biotech overmind (patent pending).--Usenet May 2006

"In the future, please don't waste the energy it takes to alert us to such nonsense. If any of our people are interested, they can hear these subjects discussed breathlessly at "Conspiracy Theory" weekend workshops that feature a lot of these same speakers. It's bad enough that we have to deal with denialists, like Duesberg. The last thing we need is another conspiracy faction pounding on our door."--Martin Delaney

Viera Scheibner Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks.

Ohh look, yet another page filled with the typical ignorance and lies propigated by the anti-vaccine group.

"Unfortunately, he is completely devoid of ethics and the truth is of absolutely no importance to him.  No matter how many times his propoganda is proved false, he continues to preach it. His entire site is nothing but a collection of faleshoods, distortions, and rubbish.  It would best be described as a porn site."--Carey Gregory (Usenet)

Since you're new here, I feel compelled to inform you that your use of logic, rationale and facts are not suitable for the anti-vac wackos. You need to learn to use more disparaging comments, obfuscation, and lies - those seem to be the only things they understand.--Vaccine man USENET May 2006

Given your rather obvious lack or respect for the truth it wouldn't surprise me to find that you'll promptly edit this information to support whatever claim it is that you're making now.