Creating Sustainable Incomes with E-Commerce – Part One


About the Creator of Creating Sustainable Income with E-Commerce

Lee Fairbanks is an award-winning journalist, playwright and author of three books. However his primary source of income comes not from his writing but from an international business which he established from his home in Canada in 1990.

As a business consultant from 1995-97, he presented speeches and workshops to thousands of people on three continents. His written training materials were translated into six languages, and helped people create incomes that continue to grow today.

In 2003 he created a second training system, promoting new technology in the health care field, which supported new income growth for people in Canada and Europe.

In 2016, Mr. Fairbanks has created a new program for the Internet Age. It is available here for free.

In this five-part course entitled Creating Sustainable Incomes with E-Commerce, Mr. Fairbanks will show you how to start and build your own business from your home or office. Here is Mr. Fairbanks.

Hello and welcome to our written course on Creating a Sustainable Income with E-Commerce. If you prefer, you can watch the course online. Part One can be found at

In the course we will cover five major topics:

Part 1. Economic overview and e-commerce introduction

Part 2. Choosing the right company to partner with

Part 3. How income is initially earned

Part 4. Getting started

Part 5. Pathway to Sustainable Income

I’ll be the first to admit that some of the information in Part One may be boring. Some may feel that you know all this already, and some may not really care about the macroeconomic picture. However I must encourage you to stay with us throughout this introduction.

I believe it is essential that you have at least a little understanding and appreciation of the political, social, demographic and economic forces that have combined to put us in our current predicament. And more importantly how these forces have also created a tremendous opportunity for those who are able to see the big picture.

In this first part I will try to provide that understanding. This will strengthen your commitment to an alternative financial future for yourself, as well as those that you introduce.


It’s not all Doom and Gloom

We begin with an economic overview. We’ll look at the Doom and Gloom first, then the Silver Lining.

I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that times are tough today. Good jobs are hard to find and even harder to keep. Our governments have committed us to massive trillion-dollar debts that are crippling our economy – and your take home pay.

Governments borrow in the out-dated belief that our economies will continue to grow at a pace that is higher than inflation, but mature economies are not growing at the rate they did when they were being built.

In the Post-World War Two era it was common to have annual growth rates as high as 5, 6 or 7%, but in the past two decades economic growth has ranged from stagnant to a high of only 1 or 2%. Given the rate of inflation and the expansion of our population, this translates into negative growth. There is less money to go around.

You simply can’t count on government fiscal policies to provide you with future income security.  You can count however, on higher taxes and fewer services.  Not to mention higher food costs, higher utility costs, the list goes on and on.

Government balance sheets are a mess, but most of us are not doing any better on a personal level. We are awash in public and private debt.


The dog-eat-dog business world is suffering from an epidemic of greed and corruption fuelled by questionable politics and powerful special interest groups.

Add it all up and you can see that there is little reason to have faith in the future of our current economic model. There are going to be more losers than winners in the coming years.

Here’s how Don Drummond, the Stauffer-Dunning Fellow at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University and a former chief economist at TD Bank explains it:

“The biggest point is this: the world is entering a period of sustained lower growth. Everybody seems to have missed that. You wonder how many times it takes for people to get with that program.”

There are Massive Opportunities

But it’s not all bad news.  There are massive opportunities for those who are open minded and ready to accept the new reality. Let’s leave today’s bleak reality behind, and move on to your opportunity for a better future.


Albert Einstein once said “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”.  And yet that’s what most of us try to do.

It all starts with you. To change your future, you must start to see things differently. You must be open minded, open to a new way of thinking, and a new way of working. “Same old, same old,” is not working anymore.

People are discovering that the old plan, that is to get a good education and get a good job with a big company or government office, just isn’t working today. And given the world’s economic deficits, and the transfer of manufacturing jobs to the Developing World, it’s not going to work any time soon.

Before we look at some more numbers, I should point out that this income plan includes a little excitement along the way, with the potential for personal recognition at glitzy international conventions, opportunity to travel and the satisfaction of helping others. People who are successful, say it is simply a lot of fun, once you get past the initial learning curve.

Let’s look at how E-Commerce fits into this new economic model.

Who is Winning and who is Losing?

Who is winning and who is losing in the traditional economy? There are three main segments to our economy: Manufacturing, Management and Distribution. While manufacturing and management jobs are declining in  G7 countries, distribution – which is simply the moving of products to consumers – continues to grow.


Every product purchased in your country must be handled by someone who lives in your country, whether it is in a storefront, or delivered by courier. And as our population expands, more and more products are bought. You are on the losing side of market forces if you are in manufacturing or management. You can be on the winning side if you are in Distribution. And the fastest growth in distribution is through E-commerce.

There are three different types of e-commerce. The first is simply companies moving their products online. Virtually every company today has an online presence so that you can buy their products and have them shipped to your home. Examples of this would be Amazon and iTunes.

The second type of e-commerce is often called the Shared Economy. In this business model you can participate as a full partner.  Names you might recognize include eBay, Uber, and airBnB.  These three companies require you to provide a product and they merely provide the marketing support.

The third type of e-commerce combines these two. They provide the products, and you provide the marketing support. These companies share the wealth with you. To create a sustainable income using e-commerce you must be participating with one of these companies.

There are now hundreds of companies offering this shared economic model. Among these hundreds there are a handful which have exceeded $1 billion in sales per year and have proven themselves over many years. It is these companies that offer sustainable income.

How can you participate?

So how can you participate in this form of E-commerce, right from your desk, laptop, tablet or phone?

Creating Sustainable Incomes is a simple program. Become a customer of our partner company and you become eligible to share in its growth. Introduce others and the company will reward you with a percentage of their orders when they become customers. And the company will send you money every time your customer re-orders. And it’s all done online.

What do you have to do?  If you choose to work with us you will simply introduce people to the concept, then send them the link to this course, and let us do the talking for you. Anyone who finishes the first three parts of this course will have all the information they need to make a decision as to whether they want to  participate.  They can simply purchase products for themselves, or they can join you and create their own sustainable income. Either way, you will be rewarded for expanding the company’s business, month after month, year after year.

For those who wish to create an income, Parts 4 and 5 of our course provide the training you need to get started.

You don’t have to be a salesperson. You don’t have to be a marketing specialist. You don’t have to be a public speaker. You don’t have to keep an inventory. You just have to introduce them to this course and let the information speak for you. Can it really be any more simple than that?

Now why would billion-dollar companies use this money-sharing method to find new customers? Again, it’s simple. Who better to introduce a new customer than an existing customer? Someone who is using the products themselves?

How loyal would a customer be, if they were being paid to continue to use the products? I’ll explain that concept in Part 3, but let me point out that these companies have been built on this money-sharing principle. That is how they became multi-billion-dollar global corporations. This is not a new plan for them, they have a long track record of making this work for both sides.

An Old Principle redone for Modern Times

Think about it. The principle behind this is nothing new really. We recommend products all the time. Books, movies, restaurants, websites, games, songs, cars, holidays, wine, food, you name it, we are always sharing our thoughts with others.


In fact, Neilsen Research says that 92% of consumers trust recommendations from friends above all other forms of advertising. So it’s both good business and good friendship to share your experiences with others.

The difference is that most of the companies you recommend don’t pay you for your referrals. They take your word-of-mouth advertising and they keep the profits you create for themselves and their shareholders.

The companies I’m talking about have simply connected an income flow to your natural tendency to tell others about things you enjoy. They share the profits. I believe it is a more ethical way to build a business.

And now you can make that recommendation to the online world, even to complete strangers, instead of just telling a few friends in person.

As you introduce more customers, your income grows. The company handles all product orders, payments and delivery and deposits your cheque to your bank account. Customers place their own orders online or by phone. This is E-commerce at its simplest. As a bonus, you will buy your products at member’s prices – often as much as 50% below retail.

How much can you earn?

How much can you earn? Well that depends on you. Most customers simply like the products and are happy to be buying at the lowest prices. They do not even participate in the referral system. Not everyone has what it takes to be successful.

On the other hand, a small number of people earn a lot of money by building large referral networks over time. Your results and your income will likely fall somewhere between these two extremes. It largely depends on you and how much time and effort you put into expanding your customer network.

We will show you verified average incomes in Part Three. You will be more than impressed by the incomes earned by successful people who apply themselves.

So this brings us to the end of Part One. If the idea of creating a Sustainable Income by partnering with a billion-dollar corporation in a rapidly growing industry interests you, ask the person who sent you to this website for the link to Part Two of our course.

In Part Two, I will explain the critical factors that determine a good company in this industry, and recommend a specific company for you, one that I have worked with for the past 25 years.

Whether you join us or not, I wish you the best of luck with your current and future endeavours.

You may email us anytime at


Why/How do we age? Apoptosis and Necrosis explained. How to slow the damage.

Our DNA is immortal and it creates our bodies, and yet our bodies are not immortal. We age, we create diseases in our body and we die, and usually well before our time.

In recent years mankind has invested billions of dollars in trying to understand this process in order to control it. It is one of the hallmarks in the research of our most debilitating diseases. A lot of that money has been spent identifying the genetic causes of aging and in particular how gene expression changes as we age.


If we can identify the genes responsible for aging and then identify foods that can reset genetic expression we can maintain the integrity of our DNA for much longer.

It has been suggested had only 3% of us die of old age (from no specific cause) while the rest will succumb to accidents, violence and war (10%) and disease (87%). Perhaps we can’t live forever, but science is showing us that we can definitely change the way we age, extend our healthy lifespan and avoid the common disease causes of death: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, liver and kidney disease, Alzheimer’s Parkinson’s and so on.

Leaving aside the obvious external insults we are exposed to: injury, environmental poisons, infection, smoking, poor food choices, lack of exercise and stress; let’s take a look at an internal process that happens to all of us, all of the time. Cell death.

At the heart of all disease processes is the question of cell death. Will the death and renewal of your cells lead to an early death, or a longer life?

Two kinds of cell death

There are two kinds of cell death. One is called programmed cell death and known as Apoptosis. This is also known as intrinsic cell death because it happens from within the body, or within the cell itself. The second is called Necrosis and is known as extrinsic cell death because it is from an external source – mostly those named above.

Apoptosis is a natural part of our existence. If our cells don’t die as they are being replaced by new cells we would all simply get bigger and bigger and bigger. One of the biomarkers of cancer is that this programmed cell death is turned off. Cancer cells don’t die as they should, they live on and multiply into tumours. If we can reactivate programmed cell death in cancer cells they would simply die off. Researchers are trying to find a way to do this.

Every day billions of our cells simply die off and are replaced with new ones. When we are young and healthy the dying cells are replaced with new ones that are equivalent or better than the ones they are replacing. As we age the dying cells are replaced by new ones that are less able to function fully. Eventually the host organ or system begins to fail and disease takes hold, leading to our demise.

One of the most fascinating parts of this process is that the old cell is taken apart and disposed of by the immune system, dissolved in place and assimilated back into the body. Equally interesting is the fact that apoptosis is a result of the communication between the cells and the immune system. Effectively, when it’s time has come, the old cell will notify the immune system it’s time to send its team in to take the cell apart and remove it. Using the process of apoptosis the immune system mobilizes its forces, envelops the aged cell and destroys it.

Necrosis is not so pretty

Necrosis on the other hand is what happens when an extrinsic factor causes cell death. This could be from an injury for instance, such as when you cut yourself with the knife. Or from a heart attack, when oxygen flow is cut off and cells die. These damaged cells are no longer useful to the body and need to be removed.

Necrosis is not programmed death and therefore the demise and removal of the cell is not orderly. It is an uncontrolled, emergency response that takes place with some urgency. The contents of the cell literally explode within the body and the immune system initiates its own response. The immune system overreacts to the danger, over producing its own components. This combination of excess immune system components and the exploding contents of the cell can create a cascade of the effects which we call inflammation. Inflammation is now considered one of the key causes of aging leading to death.

Under certain external stimuli, and often as a result of accumulated cellular damage, our system of programmed cell death can become confused and attack healthy cells. This leads to autoimmune diseases such as arthritis, lupus, psoriasis and multiple sclerosis in which the immune system will attack the healthy cells creating a fresh wave of inflammation.

In other circumstances as we age the ability of our cells to notify our immune system to come and remove damage cells is compromised.  This may result in an increased rate of apoptosis leading to AIDS, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, or a decreased rate of apoptosis leading to cancer.

So, enough bad news. What can we do about it?

Well it turns out there’s quite a lot we can do about it. The first step of course is to minimize our exposure to external risk factors. Stop smoking, eat whole foods, maintain movement and exercise into old age, choose safe cleaning products, filter air and water and reduce stress as much as possible.

And, we could eat less food. Let’s look at the research. One proven way to slow the rate of aging is through Caloric Restriction (CR).

A 20-year study of rhesus monkeys at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center proved that moderate CR – supplemented with optimal micro nutrients – delayed the onset of age-associated pathologies including diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and brain atrophy.

The authors of the study also reported that CR extended the lifespan of the monkeys, noting that 50% of the monkeys on the standard diet were still alive at the end of the study, as compared to 80% of the CR animals.

Of course few taxpayers would be happy to know that we spent billions to discover that eating less and taking supplements is the answer. So the research didn’t stop there.

From monkeys, to mice, to humans

Drs. Richard Weindruch and Tomas A. Prolla, professors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison used DNA microarrays or “gene chips” to measure the gene activity in these monkeys. They were able to identify which genes were affected by the caloric restricted diet. And how they were affected. Some genes were “up regulated,” while other genes were “down regulated.”

Weindruch and Prolla then reproduced the study using mice. With the shorter lifespan of a mouse the scientist were able to test various foods over several generations to see if there were any foods that could duplicate the CR response in mammals. And the good news is they found a number of foods that could.

In 2011, after working for several years in partnership with NuSkin Enterprises developing anti-aging skin care products, the two men and their company, LifeGen Technologies were acquired by NuSkin and given the finances and facilities to pursue their research in nutrition. The first nutritional products proven to reproduce the gene expression benefits of a CR diet were then released.

Today Nuskin offers four different gene expression nutritional products. Vitality targets the brain, the heart, and sexual function. R2 targets cellular purification and cellular energy production. TRA90 is a weight control program. Y-Span, the most recent release and the most comprehensive, provides antioxidant protection while promoting healthy brain, eyes, heart, skin, immune function, bones, joints, lipid metabolism, and physical performance.

Contact me if you would like more information about these products.

The animation below explores Fas signal transduction pathway that induces apoptosis. The animation was published in the journal Science (Molecular Animation of Cell Death Mediated by the Fas Pathway, Sci. STKE 2007 (380). video

The new science of resetting gene expression to affect aging

What is ageLOC? Why are anti aging experts so excited about this breakthrough and what does it mean for you?

We all want to live longer and thanks to advances in personal hygiene, water purification, better food choices and medical breakthroughs the average person alive today can expect to live to be at least 80 years old. Many will reach 100 or more.

dnaThe problem with simply living longer however is that our bodies deteriorate very rapidly as we age and most people in old age suffer from any number of ailments, some life-threatening and many just life-diminishing.

The research behind ageLOC products is based on decades of scientific investigation into the genetic causes of life-diminishing old age. Once the causes have been identified we look for nutrient strategies that can be proven – through actual measurement of genetic activity – to delay or even stop the onset of age related deterioration.

The goal of ageLOC is to allow you maintain your youth as long as possible, to age in a healthy way. We call this Youth Span, as opposed to lifespan.

ageLOC is based on gene expression. What do we mean by this term?

Everything that is in our body – our brain, our heart, our liver, our immune system and so on; everything that our body does, such as breathing, movement, thinking, tissue repair and so on; is created by accessing information from our DNA.

Our DNA is created at the moment of conception and contains within it instructions to both create and maintain our body for as long as we live. We pass this DNA and its instruction manual to our children. In this way, DNA is immortal.

Every cell in our body contains the same strand of DNA, duplicated from the original strand in the very first cell of our body. Every strand of DNA contains the same 20-25,000 genes. These genes, like the books of a library, comprise the instruction manual for our body.

Every cell in our body selects from that instruction manual the specific genes it needs for its specific purpose. A bone cell chooses the genes which contain the instructions it needs to reproduce itself as a bone cell. An immune system cell chooses the genes which contain the instructions it needs to create the macrophages and killer cells it needs to defeat viruses and bacteria within the body. Once selected, the genes create proteins that enact the instructions requested. This process is known as “gene expression”.

It’s not just one gene – it’s multiple sets of genes

In the case of aging, our scientists have discovered multiple sets of genes whose ability to express proteins changes as we age. We call these Youth Gene Clusters. As we age, these genes become less able to accurately express the instructions they contain, and our function begins to decline.

This decline leads to what we recognize as the aging process, including the weakening of our immune system, the loss of muscular strength or skin elasticity, the loss of bone density, the appearance of wrinkles and age spots.

ageLOC scientists use a process called heat mapping to measure the changes in gene expression from youth to old age. They then test various nutrients to see which ones can reverse these changes and cause the genes to express themselves as they did when the body was younger.

Once they have identified nutrients that can correct gene expression they are incorporated into our products. When you use these products on a regular basis you will be extending your youth span.

No other company has this science or this technology. Begin to slow the aging of your body today. Contact me for advice on which products to order.

ageLOC video, Q & A

Shooing the Vaccine Scare Crows: The Philosophy and Science of Why I Don’t Vaccinate

When I wrote my recent blog about the controversy surrounding the Measles vaccine, I thought that would be enough, but recent events call for further response.

In mid-February a distraught and emotional mother in Markham, Ontario posted a rant about her infant son’s “possible exposure and death” from measles. Her post went viral, shared more than 290,000 times and picked up by media around the world.

Quick recap: She took her 15-day old baby to the her doctor’s office for a “routine weigh in” and was informed two weeks later that someone with measles had been in the waiting room an hour or so earlier. Therefore her son “may” have been exposed and she should quarantine him and herself for 7 days to await the end of the virus incubation period. To see if he had been infected. And therefore, according to her, might die.

She immediately looked for someone to blame, and that was the content of her post.

Now, she did not blame the obvious person – herself. Being 100% responsible for her child’s well being, why would she take a 15-day old child, in the middle of the coldest week of the year, into a room which is constantly filled with sick people. Colds, flus, viruses, bacteria, – germs abound in any doctor’s waiting room, as they do in our hospitals. She just claimed to be following her doctor’s instructions, so not her fault.

She didn’t blame her doctor, or the health system that would put an infant at risk, simply to be weighed. Can Canadian parents not weigh their own children at home and phone in the results? Taxpayers paid the bill for this visit, at a range of $40-$54

There were almost 386,000 births in Canada last year. At the minimum of $40 per visit, taxpayers would be paying $15.4 million per year if they all went just once to a doctor’s office to be weighed. Surely this money could be better spent somewhere else in our system.

Anyway, I digress. No, she didn’t blame herself, her doctor or the health system. She blamed everyone who had not accepted a measles vaccine. Here are her words: “If you have chosen to not vaccinate yourself or your child, I blame you. I blame you.”

She then went on to rail about homeopathy, positive thoughts, Laws of Attraction, dancing by candlelight on a full moon, eating shovels full of dirt, avoiding antibiotics and eating organic foods as useless strategies practiced by “anti-vaxxers”, while promoting herself as a “concerned world citizen who cares about ourselves, our fellow man and our most vulnerable.”

Naturally the online support from the Vaccine Scare Crows kicked in and the world was filled with anger and insults against anyone who doesn’t agree with vaccines. How could we risk the death of a stranger’s child when science is so clear?

Anyway, as could be expected, the baby didn’t get measles, the whole thing was a pointless fabrication, no rational dialogue ensued, and we all went on with our lives. The follow-up story on the baby’s “all-clear” by the media triggered a storm of derision from anti-vaxxers, wondering why the world spent so much energy on the rants of one woman and what “might have been”.

In particular the media was soundly scolded for its ongoing one-sided coverage.

So…let’s take a deep breath, move back from the edge of the precipice and have a rational dialogue. There are two sides to this debate as I see it: philosophy and science. Let’s look at philosophy first, then we’ll examine the straw man of science.

Educated anti-vaxxers as a whole believe in a holistic approach to health, taking advice from professionals in the holistic disciplines, such as chiropractors, naturopaths, acupuncturists, herbalists and so on.

Educated pro-vaxxers on the other hand trust their health to medical science, seeking doctors for advice. Almost totally this involves the use of drugs, in this case, vaccines. Naturally these philosophies can overlap.

First off, it’s not just measles. In Ontario, our health care system recommends a total of 40 vaccines for girls, 39 for boys before the end of Grade 8. I have listed them at the end of this article for reference.

Now medical science claims that the vaccines are effective and safe. What they mean is that within the medical community’s range of acceptable risk they are safe and effective. For anyone who looks, you will find government health sites which outline the actual occurrence of vaccine-related illness, and the effectiveness range of each vaccine. No vaccine is 100% safe and 100% effective. Governments pay out compensation to people made sick by vaccines. All claims have to validated by a doctor.

In the UK for instance, there were 1,000 successful vaccine injury claims between 1996 and 2004, where victims proved 80% or more disability.

So the first question is, as a parent, do you want to expose your child to the risk of immediate illness from the vaccine in return for the possible benefit of long-term immunity from a different disease. Simple question, simple choice.

Anti-vaxxers choose no to do that. Incidentally, the current demand by pro-vaxxers that governments force everyone to vaccinate goes against the evolution of democratic personal choice. The freedom to choose in the case of abortions and now assisted-suicide shows clearly that western society supports more freedom of choice in matters of personal health, not less.

But here’s where the science starts to fall apart. Today’s medical science always evaluates individual symptoms – one disease at a time, one vaccine at a time, one risk at a time. Today’s medical science has no way of measuring the long term risk of vaccines, especially when you are injecting up to 40 doses of disease and chemicals aimed directly at a person’s immature immune system.

The current vaccination program is less than 20 years old, new ones are being added constantly.

While pro-vaxxers claim that “every credible expert” supports vaccinations – a dubious claim at best, a ridiculous claim at worst – there is not a single “credible expert” on the planet that can tell you what the accumulative effect of 40 vaccines might be once that person reaches 30, 40 50 or 60 years of age. Current programs have not been around long enough to know.

In addition, it is obvious to anyone who studies the history of medicine in our country, and in fact the history of science throughout history, that is is founded on correcting previous errors and proving formerly “known truths” to be in fact untrue.

As Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, Ph.D says in his excellent book Sapiens: “Modern science is based on the Latin Injunction ‘ignoramus’ – (we do not know). It assumes that we don’t know everything. Even more critically, it accepts that the things we think we know could be proven wrong as we gain more knowledge. No concept, idea or theory is sacred and beyond challenge” Page 250.

It’s for this reason that all scientific claims are known as “theories”, not “facts”. Think of the Theory of Relativity as an example. Or the Theory of Immunization.

Whether we are talking about the Earth being flat or round, Einstein proving Newton wrong, the discovery that hydrogenated fat in margarine actually caused more heart disease than butter, the removal of mercury from tooth fillings or thimerosal from children’s vaccines, the one thing we can be sure of is that 10 years from now “medical science” will be changing it’s position on something that today is accepted as truth.

So, returning to philosophy, anti-vaxxers prefer to seek alternative strategies. These are typically the same ones that all Canadians were practising before vaccines – better personal hygiene, safer food handling, tougher environmental controls, personal responsibility and so on.

That may make us troglodytes, or it may make us visionaries. Or nothing but human. Either way, it’s everyone’s choice. Either way there are risks, and there is no “proven science” on either side, only “theories.”

Here is the list of recommend childhood vaccines in Ontario, Feb, 2015

2 months

Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib)
Pneumococcal conjugate (Pneu-C-13)
Rotavirus (Rot-1)

4 months

Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib)
Pneumococcal conjugate (Pneu-C-13)
Rotavirus (Rot-1)

6 months

Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib)

12 months

Pneumococcal conjugate (Pneu-C-13)
Meningococcal conjugate (Men-C-C)
Mumps and
Rubella (MMR)

15 Months
Varicella (chickenpox) (Var)

18 months

Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib)

4 to 6 years

Pertussis and
Polio (Tdap-IPV)
Rubella and
Varicella (MMRV)

Grade 7

Meningococcal conjugate (Men-C-ACYW)
Hepatitis B (HB)

Grade 8 (girls)

Human Papillomavirus (HPV)

14 to 16 years

Pertussis (Tdap)

I am not a moron. I just choose not to be vaccinated for the following reasons

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAY MAKE YOU ANGRY, SAD OR CONFUSED. I think you will find the US and Canadian government stats at the end STARTLING.

I was called a moron and unfriended on FaceBook this week. The reasons seemed a little convoluted to me, but apparently millions of other people who don’t know me understand them. And they think I’m a moron too.

It seems that a child got the measles in California, and it was my fault because 17 years ago when my son was born I didn’t allow him to have the measles vaccine.

The reason it’s my fault is that we are all part of the same “herd” apparently, so even though my son is at school in England, and I am here at home in Hamilton, the boy in California got the measles because my son and I don’t have the proper “prescribed” immunity and therefore are massive germ carriers infecting all in our path – or rather all in our “herd” which apparently includes everyone in the world.

Strangely, I was not commenting on the child in California or my herd when I was unfriended, but rather on a post from Dr. Amy Tuteur (Harvard educated no less) who patiently explained to the world that I didn’t get my son vaccinated because of three reasons:

1. I was flouting my “privilege of having access to vaccines” and “communicating the unbelievable wealth, ease and selfishness of modern American life”;
2. I consider “defiance of authority to be a source of pride, whether that defiance is objectively beneficial or not”:
3. I “need to feel empowered” and it’s a “source of self esteem” because I have chosen to “self-educate” and like all self-educated people I disregard “experts” in favour of “quacks and charlatans”.

I commented that these were not my reasons and that I found this argument to be “crap”. I said I had simply chosen not to take the risk of vaccines and instead to focus on more natural ways to boost immunity such as healthy food choices, exercise and so on. Either way it seemed to me that this was my choice to make.

I was promptly told that I was clueless – with a swear word thrown in for good measure, and unfriended before I could continue the conversation. Others then posted that it wasn’t about me, but again, I needed to get vaccinated so that children in California would not get the measles.

The good doctor from Harvard, who is a gynaecologist but apparently is also an expert in psychology, sociology and law, has also pointed out on her website that my freedom to decide what to put into my body is more correctly described as “the freedom to sicken small children and let babies die” and is the same as “the freedom to burn down your neighbour’s house when it obstructs your view.”

I have tried to put those three “freedoms” together and to be honest I just can’t connect them somehow. But then again, I guess that’s why I’m a moron and she’s a doctor, so she obviously isn’t. A moron that is.

Because doctors are never wrong. As long as they continue to work for The Empire that is. If they go to The Dark Side, they lose all credibility and become “quacks and charlatans”. For instance the medical authorities at the International Medical Council on Vaccinations (IMCV): This group, all with medical degrees, are opposed to vaccines and have reams of validation to prove vaccines are not good, whereas natural immunity attained from having childhood diseases is good.

On their website they claim, amongst many other things that “vaccination is an unacceptable risk to every member of society, regardless of age.” They find the unvaccinated to be “robust, healthy and drug-free” compared to the vaccinated group. They find “published studies in support of vaccines wanting in both substance and science.“

Science of course is very interesting when it comes to statistics. Apparently 1 or 2 people in 1,000 people who get measles die from it, accordion to the Public Health Agency of the Canadian Government This would be an “historical perspective” however, since there have been no reported deaths from measles in Canada or the US in the last 10 years, at least according to my internet search.

Just for comparison sake, here are the leading causes of death in the United States (2013) according to the Center for Disease Control, and their corresponding numbers of fatalities: Heart disease: 611,105, Cancer: 584,881, Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205, Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557, Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978, Alzheimer’s disease: 84,767, Diabetes: 75,578, Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979, Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112.

And yet many people believe measles should apparently be everyone’s major health concern.

According to our Canadian Government website, approximately 5% of immunized children experience malaise and fever, and Parotitis, rash, lymphadenopathy, and joint symptoms after MMR immunization. It goes on to list that low-grade fever occurs in 10% or more of MMR vaccinees. Rash, including measles-like, rubella-like and varicella-like rash, as well as swelling at the injection site and moderate fever (greater than 39°C) occur in 1% to 10% of vaccinees.

And there’s more: Acute transient arthritis or arthralgia may occur 1 to 3 weeks after immunization with rubella-containing vaccine. In post-pubertal females, arthralgia develops in 25% and arthritis in 10% after immunization with rubella-containing vaccine.

And then there are the “less common but serious side effects” including febrile seizures, encephalitis and immune thrombocytopenic rurpura (ITP), which as a moron of course I don’t understand, but certainly sounds like something I don’t want to expose my son to.

If we take a conservative figure of say 1% of people vaccinated suffering negative health effects, and assume 50% of Canadians have been vaccinated, we find that vaccines have injured 175,000 Canadians. Meanwhile, the biggest outbreak of measles in North America in 20 years was in Quebec in 2011 when only 725 cases were reported. Most provinces report measles cases in single digits per year.

The US Dept of Health and Human Services reported this month that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out $3,090,780,181.43 ( yes Billions) in compensation to vaccination “victims” since it started in 1988. Claims have been increasing recently with more than $1 Billion paid in the last 4 years, including more than $89,000,000 in 2015 so far. The Program is funded by a tax on every vaccine given.

And there’s so much more! Some groups claim the number of deaths in the US from the vaccine outnumber the number of deaths from the disease. It’s widely claimed – with corresponding charts – that measles outbreak was reduced to almost zero in western countries BEFORE the vaccine was introduced, due to improved hygiene and better food and health care. See the “Untold Story of Measles” in the Financial Post:

So for me, I choose the risk of getting the disease, rather than the risk of getting sick from the “prevention”.

So it’s all a little confusing for us morons. I leave it to you to make your own decision, do your own research. I’ve done mine.


What everyone gets wrong about anti-vaccine parents, Dr. Amy Tuteur, MD.

What everyone gets wrong about anti-vaccine parents

International Medical Council on Vaccination

Canadian Immunization Guide, Public Health Agency of Canada

Causes of deaths in the US

National Vaccine Injury Compensation program

The Untold Story Of Measles: Lawrence Solomon: Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon: The untold story of measles