<h2>_"Ambulances and paramedics are all really busy right now; it's **flu shot** season."_</h2>
That statement stuck in my head for many years after I heard it explained by an ambulance driver that I was acquainted with. He said that a lot of elderly people think that they have to get a flu shot in the fall, but that during that time of the year, the number of fatalities that emergency services respond to involving the elderly increased, and many of the calls had one thing in common: **the elderly patients had recently received a flu shot from their doctors.** While the anecdote proved nothing in reality, his mention and assessment of the coincidences was noted by me that day, and his term _'flu shot season'_ stayed with me.

<center><h2>Are Vaccines Dangerous?</h2></center>
The most innocent search online for an answer to the question about vaccine safety will invariably lead to page after page of arguments between some of the most vicious inhabitants of the internet, and passions run high as both sides of the debate concerning the safety of vaccinations show their common interest in establishing the truth of the matter, while never being able to agree on what that truth is. Without the internet though, accurate or unbiased information seems to be hard to find on the topic. Or is it?

I don't remember a thing about it-- I must have pushed the memory away, but there is a scar on my arm that I'm told was caused by the _polio_ shot that I'd received long ago. Are vaccines dangerous? I want to ask, what kind of needle would leave a scar like that, still visible over fifty years later? 
<center>http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/beehelicopter/photo%2078.jpg</center>
The people who gave me that scar did it with the best of intentions, and I don't blame them for putting me through such trauma as a baby with no authority in the matter at the time. 
<center><h1>Back to the Internet</h1></center>
Looking at the arguments on the internet concerning vaccinations, it becomes apparent that the discussion is often being guided towards things like autism, and other neurological concerns around the scheduling of the shots on children, with one side of the argument presenting facts and examples of the countless injuries from vaccines, while the other side of the issue presents only the prescribed 'peer reviewed' versions of the industry's product, as if they were actually employed by the gargantuan pharmaceutical corporations which would benefit from having control over the subject of vaccines. it's always the same marketing pitch, as if they all use the same script to sell the product. 

The so-called science that was being touted by the proponents of vaccinations; was their information written by paid scientists-- paid to write something positive about the product? If I were a pharmaceutical giant, that's how I would do it. _'You want to get paid? Write something that we like.'_ That seems to be the standard in any marketing strategy, very simple to understand, especially useful with products which are completely unnecessary for survival. History will show that somehow humanity has survived for a long time without jamming toxic needles into themselves, and it shows some other interesting things as well.
<center><h1>Do They Work At All?</h1></center>
As the online argument is guided and managed along the lines of safety, one thing that is often discouraged in the discussions is the matter of _efficiency: **do vaccines even work?**_  Here's where the art of changing the subject becomes employed by those who are trying to sell this stuff, the evidence showing that vaccines do what they're supposed to do is missing, while the evidence that they _don't_ work is almost common knowledge, with yearly flu shots, for example, claiming and showing less benefit than anyone had hoped, year after year. They don't work, and we know it. But what about all of the other shots? Have you ever known anyone with diphtheria? Can we thank modern science for the lack of such diseases? Not so fast.

The diphtheria vaccination was introduced in the 1920's, but by that time the number of fatalities from diphtheria had plunged down to practically nothing, along with many other diseases. By the time vaccines came along, the statistics show that the problem was already gone. The measles vaccine was introduced in 1968, but by then it too had virtually disappeared from the graphs. Here's a page from a site called Dissolving Illusions which shows the graphs and the history of the diseases compared to the history of the shots. Very telling, graphic images: http://www.dissolvingillusions.com/graphs/
<center><h2>Where Did The Diseases Go?</h2></center>
It's not uncommon to hear the story of how 20th century pharmaceutical medicine eradicated many of the diseases which were common in previous centuries, and even though the statistics show otherwise, modern medicine often takes credit for the general lack of diseases like diphtheria or rubella in western societies. The graphs showing the decline of all of the famous diseases should put forth a new question then: what caused their decline before the vaccinations were even introduced?

Some daring theories suggest that things like hygiene and sanitation became a concern at some point, and science would also dare suggest that just by introducing things like indoor plumbing and a general sense of cleanliness would have led to a healthier environment for  humans, and that the disease had no breeding grounds anymore. Such dis-ease was obviously replaced with other things which take away our ease as humans, but the needles get no credit for the virtual disappearance of the diseases that they are meant to control.
<center><h2>Should We All Get Our Shots Then, Or Not?</h2></center>
I believe that the idea of scheduled vaccinations will become obsolete, as more people question the need for the shots, and now with the internet handy, it's possible to look at data and statistics which show the true history of what vaccinations really are: a business. I don't know what's in the needle, hardly anyone really does know-- and the product allegedly has warning labels telling of the risks, so it becomes a matter of choice-- or should be, until it is understood, if a person want's to give their baby a scar like mine or much worse-- according to the label, _much_ worse than my scar. I won't do that to myself or anyone else, I will do no harm. 

This article intends only to show the history of the diseases, and their dramatic decline _before_ vaccinations were invented, I found it interesting that this is often overlooked, and it seems important. My parents didn't think that they were harming me when they hired the doc to hook up that puncturing device and let me have the polio shot, all of my friends had the scar, and it's just the way it was. It doesn't have to stay in our cultural logic though, we know better and we know more every day as humans. I won't be getting any more shots.

-------------
_thanks as always for reading along, the above link is presented here for the graphs that are shown on that website for reference, I have no affiliation with the site, but I like their graphs._
<center><h1>@therealpaul</h1></center>