Bill Gates to target anti-vaccine advocates with smear campaign

[John F Kennedy III]

Bill Gates to target anti-vaccine advocates with smear campaign


Jon Rappoport
Aug 31, 2012

Here is the direct quote from Bill Gates’ grant-award machine:

An anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system

Seth Kalichman of the http://www.uconn.edu/ in the USA will establish an Internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analysing, and counteracting communication campaigns containing misinformation regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts.

http://www.technet21.org

This means the attack is on. Gates intends to do a surveillance operation across the Internet and locate anti-vaccine advocates. His minions will then undertake a counter-insurgency campaign to neutralize them.

How does such an operation work? I’ll tell you how it works: “This writer has no medical credentials.” “This writer is spreading dangerous information that will harm children.” “This filmmaker tells lies about the most important medical technology the world has ever seen.” “The evidence for vaccination is overwhelming, and this writer is operating out of the Dark Ages.”

And that’s just the nice stuff.


“This writer was once an MD, but it’s been said he gave up his practice after several patients made complaints to the medical board. Now he spends all his time attacking vaccines. He’s a criminal menace.”

“Don’t read anything by this writer. He’s obviously mentally ill. He wants you to stop vaccinating your children, so they can catch life-threatening diseases.”

And it will go downhill and get nastier from there.

This is Nixon’s dirty-tricks war all over again. But instead of having a few million dollars in a slush fund, Gates has billions at his disposal.

He’s going to use surrogates to do his work for him, so it will be difficult, in many cases, to know where the attacks are coming from. That’s how cowards operate. They slink around behind the scenes and let other people do the heavy lifting.

The last thing they want is an honest and open debate about the issue itself. That would expose them. The truth would expose them.

Gates is obviously out to create an atmosphere and set a tone for legislation that would make vaccination mandatory everywhere, with no exemptions allowed. That’s what he’s shooting for. That’s his wet dream, the one that goes hand in glove with depopulation, his mountaintop desire.

The press, as always, will be on his side. They were on his side by giving short shrift to the explosive story out of India, where 47,000 cases of paralysis were caused by his polio vaccine.

He intends to create his very own Surveillance State, in which the targets are all Internet reporters and groups that have dug up the real facts about vaccines. The facts the medical cartel wants to hide in their vaults: vaccine deaths, paralysis, maiming, brain damage, autism, immune dysfunction…

He wants to create a chilling effect, for those who are thinking about covering the vaccine issue honestly.

Well, here’s a newsflash. Those facts are already out there, on thousands and thousands of sites. The horse left the barn years ago.

He’s late to the party, but he’s going to throw a lot of money at the problem. Essentially, he’s opting for suppression of accurate journalism. Like so many before him, once he wrangled his fortune in the free market (?), he turned around and realized he didn’t want a semblance of freedom anymore. He only wanted control.

Those of us who have been writing and speaking about vaccines for years would love to go up against Gates’ medical doctors in an open debate. Nothing would please us more. But Bill doesn’t want that. People like him are terrified of openness. So be it.

He can take the low road. He’ll only induce more opposition. That’s the way his style of attack works. People who were asleep will wake up, once they realize he’s just another puffy Marmaduke who, when he doesn’t like the game, decides to take his bat and ball and go home.

And he will go home.

His money against our freedom is a game in which many of us like the odds.

Go ahead, Bill. Deal your first greasy card from the bottom of the deck. We’ve got eyeballs on you, too.

original article here:
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/dirty-tricks-alert-bill-gates-will-smear-and-slime-anti-vaccine-advocates/

[Acala]

They are preparing a vaccine to prevent anyone from being infected with anti-vaccine ideas.

[John F Kennedy III]

They are preparing a vaccine to prevent anyone from being infected with anti-vaccine ideas.

That would not surprise me.

[RonRules]

Good.

[Indy Vidual]

+1984
You can get the real truth about vaccines from your Doctor, after he returns home from his amazing vacation paid for by the drug companies. ;)

[LibForestPaul]

There is a huge attack going on against home schooling, anti-vaccination, not guns yet...
What is behind the forced vaccination? My guess is sterilization program, since supposedly vaccines are not a big money maker.

[Dr.3D]

Hummmm... has this started already? I seem to note something going on in these forums along those lines.

[NoOneButPaul]

People should be allowed to debate this issue and NO ONE should be FORCED to do anything they don't want to.

I don't get regular vaccinations (Don't think i've had one since I was 10) because I'm not sure it's safe, I'm very seldom sick- especially in the winter. I do however see that there are great benefits to getting vaccinated for certain things and in the places where vaccination rates have plummeted diseases thought to be have been eradicated have re-appeared.

If someone wants to get vaccinated then i'm all for that, but if I choose not to get vaccinated then I should get the same respect for my decision.

It's all about FORCE, the issue here is we shouldn't be FORCED to do anything like that.

[LibForestPaul]

People should be allowed to debate this issue and NO ONE should be FORCED to do anything they don't want to.

I don't get regular vaccinations (Don't think i've had one since I was 10) because I'm not sure it's safe, I'm very seldom sick- especially in the winter. I do however see that there are great benefits to getting vaccinated for certain things and in the places where vaccination rates have plummeted diseases thought to be have been eradicated have re-appeared.

If someone wants to get vaccinated then i'm all for that, but if I choose not to get vaccinated then I should get the same respect for my decision.

It's all about FORCE, the issue here is we shouldn't be FORCED to do anything like that.

As those who believe they should use force against, I paraphrase

If you want to live in a society than you must take the necessary precautions not to be a threat to others. When a large number of individuals in a herd refuse to protect themselves from disease, they put all others in the herd at risk

I kid you not...Expect lots of more studies turning the violence and forced used against you with mandatory vaccinations as you being a threat and danger to society at large for your refusal to be vaccinated and live amongst civilized men.

[PaulConventionWV]

Good.

You're one of his minions, aren't you? You're the FDA-loving statist among us.

[Dr.3D]

If the vaccination works, why would those who are not vaccinated put those who are at risk?

[PaulConventionWV]

As those who believe they should use force against, I paraphrase


I kid you not...Expect lots of more studies turning the violence and forced used against you with mandatory vaccinations as you being a threat and danger to society at large for your refusal to be vaccinated and live amongst civilized men.

I like their wording... "herd"

The worst part is people like RonRules can't even see this as what it is: propaganda. They ignore that and continue to push western medicine despite its failures and they don't even see that the very government they claim to be against is working alongside them as an ally on this very issue. That should be enough to convince any liberty-minded individual that there is something seriously wrong with American medicine, but not them. FDA? Greatest thing that ever happened to America. Keeping getting your shots like a good little member of the herd. Fall in line and question nothing. It never fails to amaze me how people see unquestioning allegiance and blind faith in other people's power and scientific validity as a virtue. It makes them proud. They are proud of their group think as if it was a virtue.

[PaulConventionWV]

If the vaccination works, why would those who are not vaccinated put those who are at risk?

Good question. Keep asking questions because not everyone is willing to.

[RonRules]

Hummmm... has this started already?

YES! See this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?383974-Anti-Vaxer-Dr.-Whitaker-gets-pummeled-into-common-sense-by-Science-Reason-amp-Steven-Novella&p=4619847&posted=1#post4619847

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

If you want to live in a society than you must take the necessary precautions not to be a threat to others.


Sigh. If I didn't like women, I might rather enjoy not living in a "society."

[Dr.3D]

YES! See this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?383974-Anti-Vaxer-Dr.-Whitaker-gets-pummeled-into-common-sense-by-Science-Reason-amp-Steven-Novella&p=4619847&posted=1#post4619847
Are you here to help them do that?

[LibForestPaul]

If the vaccination works, why would those who are not vaccinated put those who are at risk?
Only paraphrasing.
Because once a certain threshold of unvaccinated people arise, a tipping point may occur where the disease can get hold and mutate, put those who vaccination did not take (yes vaccinations are not 100%) at risk, put those who are comprised at risk.

If I find the reports, I'll post. They are peer-reviewed.

[John F Kennedy III]

If the vaccination works, why would those who are not vaccinated put those who are at risk?

How would it put them at risk? If the vaccine works, they won't get infected.

[Dr.3D]

Only paraphrasing.
Because once a certain threshold of unvaccinated people arise, a tipping point may occur where the disease can get hold and mutate, put those who vaccination did not take (yes vaccinations are not 100%) at risk, put those who are comprised at risk.

If I find the reports, I'll post. They are peer-reviewed.
Happens anyway, just look at the new flu vaccines every year.

[heavenlyboy34]

I like their wording... "herd"

The worst part is people like RonRules can't even see this as what it is: propaganda. They ignore that and continue to push western medicine despite its failures and they don't even see that the very government they claim to be against is working alongside them as an ally on this very issue. That should be enough to convince any liberty-minded individual that there is something seriously wrong with American medicine, but not them. FDA? Greatest thing that ever happened to America. Keeping getting your shots like a good little member of the herd. Fall in line and question nothing. It never fails to amaze me how people see unquestioning allegiance and blind faith in other people's power and scientific validity as a virtue. It makes them proud. They are proud of their group think as if it was a virtue.
Yet you argued almost the contrary in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386807-Decline-in-circumcision-rate-could-cost-billions&p=4615909#post4615909). Are 2 people using your account, or is it cognitive dissonance?

[RonRules]

Are you here to help them do that?

The gullibility in Alt Med threads is astounding.

[RonRules]

How would it put them at risk? If the vaccine works, they won't get infected.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mutation

[heavenlyboy34]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mutation
So what? Just make a new vaccine to deal with the mutation. /devil's advocate

[donnay]

Are you here to help them do that?

Yes indeed. I can definitely see people like RR who "think" they know what is better for us.

One of the reason why I loathe these billionaires, who call themselves philanthropists, who think they know what is better for us too.


Here is a great quote from Michael Badnarik:

"You bring the syringe, I'll bring my .45, and we'll see who makes a bigger hole."

[Dr.3D]

So what? Just make a new vaccine to deal with the mutation. /devil's advocate
Seems that's what they have been doing with the influenza vaccine for decades. A new one every year.

It's impossible to vaccinate everyone on the planet and thus the disease isn't going to be eradicated. Easy travel all over the world, spreads what wasn't eradicated by vaccination anyway.

[donnay]

The gullibility in Alt Med threads is astounding.

The ignorance of people like yourself, who do not even realize that science, real science, is not behind these studies that Big Pharma claim to do. You do not even realize how many eugenicists are behind these plans. Because they hate all of us.

[donnay]

Seems that's what they have been doing with the influenza vaccine for decades. A new one every year.

It's impossible to vaccinate everyone on the planet and thus the disease isn't going to be eradicated. Easy travel all over the world, spreads what wasn't eradicated by vaccination anyway.

Most diseases were almost completely eradicated from this country before vaccines were even introduced. A lot has to do with better sanitation and hygiene.

[Dr.3D]

Most diseases were almost completely eradicated from this country before vaccines were even introduced. A lot has to do with better sanitation and hygiene.
Just playing along with the theme vaccinations work to end diseases.

[angelatc]

If the vaccination works, why would those who are not vaccinated put those who are at risk?

Several reasons. Children don't get all their vaccines until they're 10 -12. Children with abnormal immune systems often don't get vaccines, and depend entirely on herd immunity.

Because the vaccines aren't 100% effective, not all children will develop antibodies. One reason that herd immunity is so important is that it protects those who are are unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or those who unable to develop the antibody. It also allows the disease easier access to the general population, where, depending the percentage of unvaccinated children in the herd, the herd immunity can basically collapse entirely.

Once running rampant even in a population that has 70% immunity, it also has a much better chance of learning to adapt into a newer, deadlier strain.

[angelatc]

How would it put them at risk? If the vaccine works, they won't get infected.

Again, the vaccines aren't 100% effective. Humans are all different, and not everybody develops the immunity. (If the success rate is 90%, that's still an amazing accomplishment as far as science is concerned.) But parents who believe their kids are 100% safe because they were vaccinated are just a gullible as those who don't believe that vaccines work at all, I'll grant you that.

[angelatc]

+1984
You can get the real truth about vaccines from your Doctor, after he returns home from his amazing vacation paid for by the drug companies. ;)

If he went overseas, you can be sure that he got his vaccines before he left.

[pcosmar]

Several reasons.
and depend entirely on herd immunity.

herd immunity is so important
children in the herd,
the herd immunity can basically collapse entirely.


assumes we are a herd of animals and the benevolent farmers are keeping us.

I find the concept incredibly insulting.

More elitist crap.

[misean]

In all fairness, parents who don't vaccinate their kids deserve ridicule.

People definitely should not have to be forced to be vaccinated or have their kids vaccinated. I think even remember seeing Gates actually is for forced sterilization in Africa, which is totally immoral. But if you think vaccines cause autism, for example, you probably aren't smart enough to raise smart kids.

[angelatc]

assumes we are a herd of animals and the benevolent farmers are keeping us.

I find the concept incredibly insulting.

More elitist crap.

Like it or not, we are merely mammals.

[donnay]

In all fairness, parents who don't vaccinate their kids deserve ridicule.

People definitely should not have to be forced to be vaccinated or have their kids vaccinated. I think even remember seeing Gates actually is for forced sterilization in Africa, which is totally immoral. But if you think vaccines cause autism, for example, you probably aren't smart enough to raise smart kids.

I hope if you have kids your educate before you vaccinate. Most people are clueless of the ingredients in one vaccine, (http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html) much less in four or five that your child gets in one visit. Why do you suppose they put formaldehyde in vaccines? Isn't that supposed to be injected into your body after you're dead?

[angelatc]

I hope if you have kids your educate before you vaccinate. Most people are clueless of the ingredients in one vaccine, (http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html) much less in four or five that your child gets in one visit. Why do you suppose they put formaldehyde in vaccines? Isn't that supposed to be injected into your body after you're dead?

Formaldehyde is a preservative.

Inject too much water in your body, and you'll die.

[Working Poor]

The gullibility in Alt Med threads is astounding.

so is the gulibility of people who believe everything on the FDA web site.

[donnay]

Formaldehyde is a preservative.

Inject too much water in your body, and you'll die.

Formaldehyde is a poison, plain and simple--that's why it is injected in a dead corpse to preserve the body. It can't hurt you any longer. Formaldehyde is a carcinogen.



Source:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=216&tid=39
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-formaldehyde-poisoning.htm
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/62/1/Toxic-formaldehyde.html

[misean]

Formaldehyde is a poison, plain and simple--that's why it is injected in a dead corpse to preserve the body. It can't hurt you any longer. Formaldehyde is a carcinogen.




Serious question. Would you advocate against vaccinations? Also, do you think polio is a a myth?

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul called the polio vaccine a great thing. Said vaccines can add "many blessings". He saw people who suffered with polio when he was growing up. He is for choice in vaccines but is not against them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f74xvtRijMc

The formaldehyde listed in vaccines is there because it is used to clean equipment to produce vaccines and there may still be a trace remaining. A trace is not an amount which will harm you. Did you know that formaldehyde is found in every one of your cells right now? That your body actually produces it? It is also very quickly broken down by the body- it is made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.


http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=218&tid=39


Sources Formaldehyde is a gaseous pollutant produced by both human activity and natural sources.

Combustion processes account directly or indirectly for most of the formaldehyde entering the environment.
Large amounts are produced in the United States during manufacturing processes and as components of many end-use products.
Small amounts are produced naturally by plants, animals, and humans.
Formaldehyde can mostly be found in the air



Water and soil Formaldehyde is occasionally detected in rain water and fogwater.

Formaldehyde has not been detected in soils, likely due to its high removal rate when released to soils.

Food Low levels of formaldehyde occur naturally in a variety of foods, such as fruits. Food may contain small amounts of formaldehyde from its use as a fumigant, fertilizer, or preservative.



Enter your body
inhalation
When you breathe air containing formaldehyde, most of the formaldehyde is quickly broken down in the cells lining your respiratory tract and breathed out. Only at high levels does formaldehyde enter your blood.

ingestion
Formaldehyde in food or water may also rapidly enter your body through the digestive tract.

dermal contact
A very small amount may enter through your skin when you come into contact with liquids containing formaldehyde.

Leave your body Once in your body, formaldehyde is rapidly broken down into other chemicals.

Most of these other chemicals quickly leave your body in the urine.

Formaldehyde can also be converted to carbon dioxide and breathed out of the body.



If you are afraid of traces of things in vaccines, do not eat one bite of food or drink one drop of water or breathe one liter of oxygen- they all have traces of things which may harm you as well. You will be putting tons of traces of then in your body. The key is the amount.

[RickyJ]

Well of course he is for vaccines to prevent viruses, without anti-virus products for Windows you be a fool running it. :D

The guy probably has Alzheimers and thought people were actually advocating running Windows without anti-virus software. Very few are that crazy!

Real viruses don't have easy solutions. Most of the viruses that they have vaccines for are not as bad as the vaccine!

[RickyJ]

If the vaccination works, why would those who are not vaccinated put those who are at risk?

There you go using logic. You know the vaccine crowd does not like to deal with such simple logic, it is way over there head!

The only way they can reply to such logic is to call you names.

[John F Kennedy III]

The ignorance of people like yourself, who do not even realize that science, real science, is not behind these studies that Big Pharma claim to do. You do not even realize how many eugenicists are behind these plans. Because they hate all of us.

+rep for truth

[donnay]

Serious question. Would you advocate against vaccinations? Also, do you think polio is a a myth?

I advocate for people to educate before they vaccinate. The medical community loves to put us in a one-size-fits-all kind of approach. And treat us like animals--that's probably why the lack of humanity is so prevalent in many of these peoples thinking.

No, I do not think polio was/is a myth. I do know that polio started to decline before a vaccine was introduced.

http://www.vaclib.org/chapter/polio.gif

"From 1923 to 1953,before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the United States and England had already declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Source International Mortality Statistics (1981) by Michael Alderson."

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio.htm
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccines-didnt-save-us-intellectual-dishonesty-at-its-most-naked/


Cases of polio increased in the U.S. after mass inoculations

http://vaxtruth.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Figure-2-Polio_thumb.jpg
When national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1950s, the number of reported cases of polio following mass inoculations with the killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations, and may have more than doubled in the U.S. as a whole. Source: U.S. Government statistics.

More information:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/polio.html
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020132sinclair/vaccinaion.htm
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/page_13.htm
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index3.htm
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article36.html

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

"The anti-vaccine camp is just trying to profit off vaccines." "wait what?" "Err I mean..."

[PaulConventionWV]

Yet you argued almost the contrary in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386807-Decline-in-circumcision-rate-could-cost-billions&p=4615909#post4615909). Are 2 people using your account, or is it cognitive dissonance?

No, I didn't. Show me how I argued that social acceptance made something good in that thread.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yet you argued almost the contrary in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?386807-Decline-in-circumcision-rate-could-cost-billions&p=4615909#post4615909). Are 2 people using your account, or is it cognitive dissonance?

Besides, you're just avoiding the question with that post. Maybe you should actually tell me how many people your medicine has killed compared to alt med. You won't do that, though, will you? Are 2 people using your account, or is it cognitive dissonance?

As an anarchist, does it not bother you that the state is your biggest ally in the unfair "fight" for the dominance of Western medicine? Does it not bother you that the FDA has basically eliminated all competition? What does that tell you?

[PaulConventionWV]

Like it or not, we are merely mammals.

Ok, but other mammals don't need vaccines to survive. If the disease gets you, it gets you and it probably means you weren't taking good enough care of your immune system. See how we have let natural selection be degraded by coddling people and saving them from all the evils of the world? Even if vaccines did work, is it really something we want to be doing? Is it worth it to save a bunch of other people's lives just because of your altruistic spirit if you can just as easily find out how to protect yourself. Don't think for a second that vaccines are our only defense against disease.

[PaulConventionWV]

Formaldehyde is a preservative.

Inject too much water in your body, and you'll die.

Oh please. Nobody buys that argument anymore. They used the "too much of anything can kill you" argument for cigarettes back in the day. Formaldehyde is a noxious chemical to us. You can't simply use the "too much of anything..." argument and expect us to just forget about it. Formaldehyde does not belong in our bodies. Hell, if the amount of a noxious chemical is small enough, it won't kill you and you may not even notice it, but that doens't mean it isn't harming you. It certainly is.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron Paul called the polio vaccine a great thing. Said vaccines can add "many blessings". He saw people who suffered with polio when he was growing up. He is for choice in vaccines but is not against them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f74xvtRijMc

The formaldehyde listed in vaccines is there because it is used to clean equipment to produce vaccines and there may still be a trace remaining. A trace is not an amount which will harm you. Did you know that formaldehyde is found in every one of your cells right now? That your body actually produces it? It is also very quickly broken down by the body- it is made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.


http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=218&tid=39






If you are afraid of traces of things in vaccines, do not eat one bite of food or drink one drop of water or breathe one liter of oxygen- they all have traces of things which may harm you as well. You will be putting tons of traces of then in your body. The key is the amount.

The point is not that he's afraid of the poison. The point is, what is a poison doing in your medicine? natural therapies don't need loads of preservatives to function. That's because nature has already figured this out. The mass production of these "medicines" that cause us to need all these poisonous additives is purely a product of the state. They don't trust people to take care of themselves.

I say live and let die.

[donnay]

Formaldehyde in Vaccines
http://vactruth.com/2011/06/14/formaldehyde-in-vaccines/

It’s official, or as official as it can be: The New York Times reports that formaldehyde is listed as a carcinogen by government scientists, and that “…it is found in worrisome quantities in plywood, particle board, mortuaries and hair salons.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43362696/ns/health-the_new_york_times

However, both the U.S. government and The New York Times forgot to include that formaldehyde also is present in vaccines. Who says that? None other than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in their official listing of

Vaccines and Immunizations /Ingredients of Vaccines Fact Sheet Source http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-1.pdf and http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

So why are the carcinogens formaldehyde and its chemical kin, Formalin, found in the following vaccines: Anthrax, DTaP (all brands), DTaP-HepB-IPV, DTap-Hib, DT (all brands) Td (all brands), Hepatitis A, Hepatitis A-Hepatitis B, Hib, Hib-Hepatitis B, Japanese encephalitis, Polio-virus inactivated, and Tdap?

Isn’t it about time that healthcare consumers, and parents in particular, form a grassroots groundswell movement to rid vaccines of carcinogens and neurotoxins like aluminum and mercury, plus other toxic ingredients?

The best and most efficient way to do that is to bombard members of Congress. Keep in mind that each constituent has ready access to both senators from his or her state plus the member of the House of Representatives from your district that you can contact via http://www.contactingthecongress.org/.

One of the quickest ways to inform you and your congressperson about what’s what in vaccines is to access the monograph I co-edited with nurse Laraine C. Abbey-Katzev, Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation available online at http://vactruth.com/vaccines-vaccinations-the-need-for-congressional-investigation/.

As The NY Times journalist Gardiner Harris reported in his article, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services delayed the report’s release for months to cope with industry complaints. Furthermore, the Natural Resources Defense Council senior scientist Jennifer Sass stated, “Industry held this report up for four years.”


Congressional Action Needed

That fact alone should support the need for two congressional actions:

The investigation of the neurotoxins and other poisonous ingredients per se in vaccines, and
The overhaul and revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 15 USC (C. 53) 2601-2692 that Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D- NJ) (Capitol Hill office phone number 202-224-3224) http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=332785 is championing by introducing the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011” *S.847) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-847

Here are the co-sponsoring Senators of S.847 Barbara Boxer [D-CA], Richard Durbin [D-IL]. Al Franken [D-MN],Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY], Amy Klobuchar [D-MN], Bernard Sanders [I-VT], Charles Schumer [D-NY], and Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI].

You may have noticed that there are NO Republican senators co-sponsoring this most important piece of proposed legislation. Here’s your chance to become involved in changing the way business is done as usual. Contact both senators from your state in Congress and request that they co-sponsor S.847. It’s about time the chemical industry gets brought in line for exposing us to all kinds of toxins in cosmetics, pesticides, food, water, building products, automobiles, and every aspect of life and living.

I discuss chemicals and toxins in great detail in my book, Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick, available on Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Our-Chemical-Lives-Hijacking-DNA/dp/1439255369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1308023001&sr=8-1

Formaldehyde gained its industrial status and needs to be reined in, especially with regard to vaccines. It and Formalin should not be injected into infants, toddlers, teens, adults, senior citizens, and members of the armed services, e.g., Anthrax vaccine.

The importance of this issue I think can be summed up in this statement by Cal Dooley, president and chief executive of the American Chemistry Council, “We are extremely concerned that politics may have hijacked the scientific process.”

Well, here’s a question for Mr. Dooley, “Can’t you monitor your industry to produce non-carcinogens and safe products? What good will all the chemicals do humans, plants, animals, and the planet IF we become so toxic, life cannot be lived?”

I pose that same question to Big Pharma and vaccine makers?

[donnay]

I advocate for people to educate before they vaccinate. The medical community loves to put us in a one-size-fits-all kind of approach. And treat us like animals--that's probably why the lack of humanity is so prevalent in many of these peoples thinking.

No, I do not think polio was/is a myth. I do know that polio started to decline before a vaccine was introduced.

http://www.vaclib.org/chapter/polio.gif

"From 1923 to 1953,before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the United States and England had already declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Source International Mortality Statistics (1981) by Michael Alderson."

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio.htm
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccines-didnt-save-us-intellectual-dishonesty-at-its-most-naked/


Cases of polio increased in the U.S. after mass inoculations

http://vaxtruth.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Figure-2-Polio_thumb.jpg
When national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1950s, the number of reported cases of polio following mass inoculations with the killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations, and may have more than doubled in the U.S. as a whole. Source: U.S. Government statistics.

More information:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/polio.html
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020132sinclair/vaccinaion.htm
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/page_13.htm
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index3.htm
http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/article36.html



” The Oral Polio Vaccine Is a Major Cause of Polio:
Strebel, Peter M., et al. “Epidemiology of poliomyletis in U.S. one decade after the last reported case of indigenous wild virus associated disease,” Clinical Infectious Diseases (CDC, February 1992), pp. 568-79.
Gorman, Christine. “When the vaccine causes the polio.” Time (October 30, 1995), p. 83. [Article]
Shaw, Donna. “Unintended casualties in war on polio.” Philadelphia Inquirer (June 6, 1993), p. A1. [Article]
The Polio Death Rate Was Declining Before the Vaccine Was Introduced:
Alderson, Michael. International Mortality Statistics (“Washington, DC: Facts on File, 1981), pp. 177-78.”

“Numerous Studies Show That Vaccine Injections Cause Paralytic Polio:
Houchaus. “Ueber Poliomyelitis acuta.” Munch Med Wochenschr 1909; 56:2353-55.
Lambert, S.M. “A yaws campaign and an epidemic of poliomyelitis in Western Samoa.” J Trop Med Hyg 1936; 39:41-46.
McCloskey, B.P. “The relation of prophylactic inoculations to the onset of poliomyletis.” Lancet (April 18, 1950), pp. 659-63.
Geffen, D.H. “The incidence of paralysis occurring in London children within four weeks after immunization.” Med Officer 1950; 83:137-40.
Martin, J.K. “Local paralysis in children after injections.” Arch Dis Child 1950; 25:1-14.
Hill, A.B., et al. “Inoculation and poliomyelitis. A statistical investigation in England and Wales in 1949.” British Medical Journal 1950; ii:1-6.
Medical Research Council Committee on Inoculation Procedures and Neurological Lesions. “Poliomyelitis and prophylactic inoculation.” Lancet 1956; ii:1223-31.
Sutter, Roland W., et al. “Attributable risk of DTP (Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis Vaccine) injection in provoking paralytic poliomyelitis during a large outbreak in Oman.” Journal of Infectious Diseases 1992; 165:444-9.
Strebel, Peter M., et al. “Intramuscular injections within 30 days of immunization with oral poliovirus vaccine — a risk factor for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis.” New England J of Med (February 23, 1995), pp. 500+.
Editorial. “Provocation paralysis.” Lancet 1992; 340:1005.
Wyatt, H.V. “Provocation poliomyelitis: neglected clinical observations from 1914-1950.” Bulletin of Historical Medicine 1981; 55:543-57.
Townsend-Coles, W.F and Findlay, G.M. “Poliomyelitis in relation to intramuscular injections of quinine and other drugs.” Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1953; 47:77-81.
Guyer, B., et al. “Injections and paralytic poliomyelitis in tropical Africa.” Bull WHO 1980; 58:285-91.
Bodian, D. “Viremia in experimental poliomyelitis. II. Viremia and the mechanism of the ‘provoking’ effect of injections of trauma.” Amer J Hyg 1954; 60:358-70.
Wyatt, H.V. “Incubation of poliomyelitis as calculated from time of entry into the central nervous system via the peripheral nerve pathways.” Rev Infect Dis 1990; 12:547-56.
Wyatt H.V., et al. “Unnecessary injections and paralytic poliomyelitis in India.” Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1992; 86:546-49.”
“A recent study conducted by the CDC found that children who were vaccinated (but not fully) tend to come from homes run by poor, unmarried, badly educated mothers who trust their doctors, whereas children who were never vaccinated tend to come from homes where they are well-provided for, with married parents who possess a college degree and do not permit doctors to influence their vaccination decisions.
[Fox, Maggie. "Reasons Differ for Unvaccination and Undervaccination of Children." Reuters. July 6, 2004.]”

[donnay]

Formaldehyde in Vaccines: Toxic Substance Poses Threat
WARNING: Toxic Chemical Unsafe for Human Consumption at Any Level

Daniel Dunkin (http://voices.yahoo.com/formaldehyde-vaccines-toxic-substance-poses-threat-1676841.html)

Formaldehyde in vaccines is present for the purpose of stabilizing the vaccine. In the industrial world, formaldehyde is a highly toxic gas used in the manufacture of plastics, plywood adhesives, resins, dyes, sugar, rubber and textiles. In most manufacturing processes and vaccine uses, it is used in a liquid form stabilized in methanol. Depending on the individuals tolerance or sensitization levels, new cars, homes, and carpets are an allergan to many people, especially to those who are sensitive to Formaldehyde.

Effects of Formaldehyde on the human body vary depending on how it is absorbed into the body, but some typical effects of Formadehyde are:

It weakens the immune system, causes neurological system damage, genetic damage, metabolic acidosis, circulatory shock, respiratory insufficiency and acute renal failure, as well as being a sensitizer which means it can make you sensitive to many other things, it is corrosive if ingested, and it is a suspected carcinogen. In fact our Son's onchologist implied that formaldehyde in vaccines may have been the trigger for his leukemia.

Formadehyde may be listed on an ingredient list under many different names including formaldehyde, fomalin, formic aldehyde, methanol, methyl aldehyde, methylene oxide, oxomethane, and paraform, although formaldehyde in vaccines is typically listed as formaldehyde or formalin. Formadehyde has been given a rating of 0.1 PPM for a safe level, but after the FEMA trailer incident in New Orleans, they have re-evaluated this mindset and found that due to individual sensitivities, even this is not a safe level and many suffered ill effects as a result. The latest verdict is, there is no safe level of formaldehyde for the human body, yet a very significant amount is used in vaccines. This ppm measurement is in a gasseous state, (like air), when put into liquid form it is typically 30-50% formaldehyde, which means a very concentrated level.

Considering that babies typically have weak lungs and no immune system, it really does not sound like a prudent action to inject a young baby with a HIB, DPT or DTaP vaccine that is stabilized in formaldehyde. A baby that may be genetically sensitive to begin with does not have the body or the immune system developed to handle such an assault, and as a result common sense should tell us a baby just might suffer any number of serious reactions or conditions.

Formadehyde has been indicated by some in connection with chemically induced asthma and Chronic exposure leads to many adverse side effects, including ADD and ADHD.

The Government Agency for Toxic Substances says children are more susceptible to formaldehyde than adults. Babies immune systems continue to develop well after birth, so a babies body is not ready to fight of such an assault on the system. It is also estimated that between 10% and 20% of the population are sensitive to Formadehyde, so when you have formaldehyde in a vaccine and inject it into your newborn baby, you have no idea if your child is sensitive or not. It is not much different from playing Russian Roulette, however you may not see the effects for 6 years or more, or you may see the effects immediately, and they may be lifelong.

Vaccines that use formaldehyde include but are not limited to:

(Vaccine - form of formadehyde)
DTaP - Formaldehyde
HIB - Formalin
BioThrax - Formaldehyde
DPT - Formaldehyde
FluShield - Formaldehyde
Havrix Hepatitus A - formalin
IPOL Polio vaccine - formaldehyde
JE-VAX (Japanese Ancephalitis) - Formaldehyde
Tripedia DTP - formaldehyde
typhoid - Aspartame (aspartame converts to formaldehyde in the body and clings to protiens).

Formaldehyde in vaccines creates a toxic soup.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to give medical advice. It is a call to educate yourself so that in making a decision where your child is concerned, you should take an active role in learning all you can from medical experts on both sides of the fence, then make an educated decision.

Sources:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg111.html

http://www.novaccine.com/vaccine-ingredients/results.asp?sc=7

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html

[donnay]

*Double post*

[Zippyjuan]

Just to mention again, formaldehyde is present in trace amounts from cleaning equipment for producing and administering vaccines- they cannot say every molecule is gone so it gets listed as trace amounts possible. That is parts per billlion in the vaccine. Formaldehyde is produced naturally in the body and is already in all of your cells. When you do injest it, the body quickly breaks it down into other components (it is made from carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen) which are eliminated through the urine. If you had about a million shots at once, then you might want to worrry about formaldahyde in vaccines. It is also in plants and animals which also produce it so if you are afraid of formaldehyde in vaccines, don't eat anything. You will be getting far more than you did from your shots.

It is toxic, but only at very high levels of exposure.

http://certifiablygreenblog.com/?p=679

You may remember from a few posts ago a comment that we made about “formaldehyde-free” products. What we said is that, well, there’s no such thing.

And, technically, there isn’t.

As a matter of fact, your own body is producing formaldehyde right now. So are most other living organisms, including plants and animals. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring byproduct of normal metabolic processes. It’s also found naturally in the air all around us.

Still, the term “formaldehyde-free” seems to be used all the time, indiscriminately, to describe products in the marketplace without a sound, consistent definition.

[belian78]

In all fairness, parents who don't vaccinate their kids deserve ridicule.

People definitely should not have to be forced to be vaccinated or have their kids vaccinated. I think even remember seeing Gates actually is for forced sterilization in Africa, which is totally immoral. But if you think vaccines cause autism, for example, you probably aren't smart enough to raise smart kids.

I had to log in just to comment on this little gem. You need to be aware that blanket statements like this do two things. First, it's a very insulting statement directed towards individuals that you have never met, will never meet, and just might have an intelligence level the same as yours or higher. Just because myself or millions of others don't think as you do, does not make you automatically right. Which brings me to the second thing blanket statements like yours do, they make you look like an idiot.

I have a 13yr old daughter and a 14 year old son, both of which are in the top percentile of their schools, are consistently complimented on their behavior and maturity. As far as I'm concerned, their mother and I have done quite a good job raising them thank you very much.

[donnay]

Just to mention again, formaldehyde is present in trace amounts from cleaning equipment for producing and administering vaccines- they cannot say every molecule is gone so it gets listed as trace amounts possible. That is parts per billlion in the vaccine. Formaldehyde is produced naturally in the body and is already in all of your cells. When you do injest it, the body quickly breaks it down into other components (it is made from carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen) which are eliminated through the urine. If you had about a million shots at once, then you might want to worrry about formaldahyde in vaccines. It is also in plants and animals which also produce it so if you are afraid of formaldehyde in vaccines, don't eat anything. You will be getting far more than you did from your shots.

It is toxic, but only at very high levels of exposure.

http://certifiablygreenblog.com/?p=679


And just to mention again, formaldehyde in any amount is poisonous. What you seemly forget is children get upwards to 36 vaccines before they are school-age.

[Eagles' Wings]

A young mother recently gave her children "required-by-law" vaccines for entering Kindergarten. The nurse said, "Be sure to keep her away from anyone who you know is pregnant, as this vaccine is LIVE". Scary stuff for ladies who are pregnant. Makes one wonder if this could be one of the many reasons that miscarriage continues to rise.

[Kotin]

Ron Paul called the polio vaccine a great thing. Said vaccines can add "many blessings". He saw people who suffered with polio when he was growing up. He is for choice in vaccines but is not against them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f74xvtRijMc

The formaldehyde listed in vaccines is there because it is used to clean equipment to produce vaccines and there may still be a trace remaining. A trace is not an amount which will harm you. Did you know that formaldehyde is found in every one of your cells right now? That your body actually produces it? It is also very quickly broken down by the body- it is made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.


http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=218&tid=39






If you are afraid of traces of things in vaccines, do not eat one bite of food or drink one drop of water or breathe one liter of oxygen- they all have traces of things which may harm you as well. You will be putting tons of traces of then in your body. The key is the amount.

more bs from you.

HEY... guess what??
injecting something is so much more potentially harmful than ingesting simply due to the fact that the digestive processes that protect and filter are not there..

ITS INJECTED RIGHT INTO THE BLOOD STREAM!

you think trace amounts of aluminum and mercury and MSG and squalene are going to do the same thing being injected as being ingested?? that is complete nonsense.

"theres only the same amount of mercury in a tuna sandwich.. you eat tuna right??"

^this kind of argument is totally insane.

[Zippyjuan]

You caught me. I work for Bill Gates. We killed seventy million people by putting formaldehyde into vaccines last year alone.
How much formadehyde is in a vaccine? What does that amount do to the body? Perhaps since what I posted is BS you can provide us with corrected information. Thank you for looking for it.

[Kotin]

You caught me. I work for Bill Gates. We killed seventy million people by putting formaldehyde into vaccines last year alone.

might as well.

[Zippyjuan]

Maybe you can share the number of formaldehyde deaths in the country. There must be lots since as Donnay points out, it is "poisonous at any level".

[Kotin]

Maybe you can share the number of formaldehyde deaths in the country. There must be lots since as Donnay points out, it is poisonous "at any level".

refute my point on the previous page. or stfu

[donnay]

A young mother recently gave her children "required-by-law" vaccines for entering Kindergarten. The nurse said, "Be sure to keep her away from anyone who you know is pregnant, as this vaccine is LIVE". Scary stuff for ladies who are pregnant. Makes one wonder if this could be one of the many reasons that miscarriage continues to rise.


Because the one who gets vaccinated becomes the host of the disease--hence spreading it. It's a vicious circle, and insanity, IMHO.

[Zippyjuan]

refute my point on the previous page. or stfu
Which claim was that- that it is injected into the bloodstream? It is. Well- not quite true- it is injected into a muscle actually- not directly into the bloodstream.


more bs from you.

HEY... guess what??
injecting something is so much more potentially harmful than ingesting simply due to the fact that the digestive processes that protect and filter are not there..

ITS INJECTED RIGHT INTO THE BLOOD STREAM!

you think trace amounts of aluminum and mercury and MSG and squalene are going to do the same thing being injected as being ingested?? that is complete nonsense.

"theres only the same amount of mercury in a tuna sandwich.. you eat tuna right??"

^this kind of argument is totally insane.

And you have not refuted my statements. Perhaps you are looking into it?

[Kotin]

Which claim was that- that it is injected into the bloodstream? It is. Well- not quite true- it is injected into a muscle actually- not directly into the bloodstream.



And you have not refuted my statements.

wow way to ignore what I wrote.

[Zippyjuan]

wow way to ignore what I wrote.

I just copied what you wrote. Can you point out what it is you want me to refute? Thank you for the clarification.

[Kotin]

I just copied what you wrote. Can you point out what it is you want me to refute? Thank you for the clarification.

the difference between ingesting a substance Vs. injecting it with a needle.. it is no comparison.. and you seeem to think this is the same thing and has the same effect.

[Eagles' Wings]

Because the one who gets vaccinated becomes the host of the disease--hence spreading it. It's a vicious circle, and insanity, IMHO.I actually contracted an illness due to a close acquaintance with recently vaccinated persons. Took me months to get rid of it.

[Eagles' Wings]

Because the one who gets vaccinated becomes the host of the disease--hence spreading it. It's a vicious circle, and insanity, IMHO.This aspect of vax is not known by most people.

[Zippyjuan]

It is true that compounds may react differently in the body if they are injested or inhaled vs injected. But in the case of formaldehyde, both are broken down by the body in addition to there already being formaldehyde in the bloodstream and cells. Adding a couple parts per billion to what is already there is not increasing levels by anything nearing important amounts.

The key point (as I have tried to point out) is the quantity. Your body is producing formaldehyde already. It is in your body at this moment. Formaldehyde is present at parts per billion level in the vaccine- that is the same as

A part per billion is equal to:
•one penny in $10,000,000
•one pinch of salt in 10 tons of potato chips
•one second in 32 years

http://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/what-is-a-part-per-million/

The billion units would be the entire volume of the vaccine. Our 32 years or ten million dollars. The formaldehyde is the one second in that 32 years or the one penny. That vaccine is in turn diluted by the blood in the body. The amount in one vaccine is considerably lower than the amount your body is producing daily. If the vaccine formaldehyde is a health threat, your own cells are already killing you faster. You are adding a pinch of salt you your already salted ten tons of potato chips (to use another of the comparison examples).

Squaline- mentioned earlier, is also produced by and present in the body. You can buy that as a nutritional supplement.

[Kotin]

It is true that compounds may react differently in the body if they are injested or inhaled vs injected. But in the case of formaldehyde, both are broken down by the body in addition to there already being formaldehyde in the bloodstream and cells. Adding a couple parts per billion to what is already there is not increasing levels by anything nearing important amounts.

The key point (as I have tried to point out) is the quantity. Your body is producing formaldehyde already. It is in your body at this moment. Formaldehyde is present at parts per billion level in the vaccine- that is the same as

http://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/what-is-a-part-per-million/

The billion units would be the entire volume of the vaccine. Our 32 years or ten million dollars. The formaldehyde is the one second in that 32 years or the one penny. That vaccine is in turn diluted by the blood in the body. The amount in one vaccine is considerably lower than the amount your body is producing daily. If the vaccine formaldehyde is a health threat, your own cells are already killing you faster. You are adding a pinch of salt you your already salted ten tons of potato chips (to use another of the comparison examples).

Squaline- mentioned earlier, is also produced by and present in the body. You can buy that as a nutritional supplement.

yes but injecting squalene as an adjuvant can cause autoimmune reactions.. eating it is fine.. injecting is NOT

I also mentioned aluminum, mercury, MSG, and different virus'

injecting these is not near the same as ingesting them

[Eagles' Wings]

yes but injecting squalene as an adjuvant can cause autoimmune reactions.. eating it is fine.. injecting is NOT

I also mentioned aluminum, mercury, MSG, and different virus'

injecting these is not near the same as ingesting themYes, I've read this several places.

[donnay]

This aspect of vax is not known by most people.

Yes indeed. That's why it infuriates me when these same people go around saying vaccinated children pose a threat to those vaccinated. They logic in that is so skewed.

[Zippyjuan]

Studies have shown that these too are are incredibly small amounts and do not accumulte to problem levels. The half life of the mercury in vaccines (which is a different type of mercury from the one in seafood) even in babies is about seven days. Others have suggested 30- 45 days. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm Methyl mercury was removed from vaccines intended for children years ago anyways.

[donnay]

Studies have shown that these too are are incredibly small amounts and do not accumulte to problem levels. The half life of the mercury in vaccines (which is a different type of mercury in seafood) even in babies is about seven days. Others have suggested 30- 45 days. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm Methyl mercury was removed from vaccines intended for children years ago anyways.

Government paid studies. We know they ALWAYS tell the truth, right?

[James Madison]

Yes indeed. That's why it infuriates me when these same people go around saying vaccinated children pose a threat to those vaccinated. They logic in that is so skewed.

Again, you show a complete lack of understanding in all things scientific.

Attenuated viruses are severely mutated from their wild-type states and, at most, can induce minor infections. Compare with unvaccinated children who may be infected by wild-type strains and may spread the infection to others.

Bacterial vaccines are often acellular, meaning they contain a modified toxin (a toxoid) or antigenic subunitis, which are not infective to others.

So, yes, vaccines must contain a pathogen in order to function. The pathogen, however, has minimal infective capabilities. Far less than strains encountered in nature.

[pcosmar]

Government paid studies. We know they ALWAYS tell the truth, right?

That was my thought.. "studies have shown" then "/epa/gov/"

Source has no credibility. Proven to be lacking credibility. Several times.

[Zippyjuan]

We know all studies lie, right? Prove them wrong. Wait- that would require a study. They are afterall the ones which said that there was mercury and aluminum and formaldehyde and MSG and what not in the vaccines in the first place. Maybe they were lying and there isn't any of that in vaccines? Yes, they always lie.

[misean]

Look at pictures of kids with polio. People still get polio in the third world today. How many American kids do you see with polio? Kids die of measles around the world.

Even if vaccines have mercury and formaldehyde and lets say that they even can cause autism, what is better: a very small percentage having negative effects or millions dying at 2 years old or walking like Forrest Gump their whole life? The risk/reward is heavily skewed toward getting vaccinated.

[Eagles' Wings]

Again, you show a complete lack of understanding in all things scientific.

Attenuated viruses are severely mutated from their wild-type states and, at most, can induce minor infections. Compare with unvaccinated children who may be infected by wild-type strains and may spread the infection to others.

Bacterial vaccines are often acellular, meaning they contain a modified toxin (a toxoid) or antigenic subunitis, which are not infective to others.

So, yes, vaccines must contain a pathogen in order to function. The pathogen, however, has minimal infective capabilities. Far less than strains encountered in nature.

James - how would you explain the illness - the exact illness - I got after being exposed to it through a vacinatee (not sure if that's a word)?

[Zippyjuan]

University of Rochester study:
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=1848

New research from the University of Rochester suggests that infants’ bodies expel the thimerosal mercury much faster than once thought – thereby leaving little chance for a progressive building up of the toxic metal. This debunks the myth, believed by some parents and some pediatricians, that the gauntlet of thimerosal-containing shots many infants received in the 1990s – when the average number of vaccines kids received increased sharply – had put them at risk for developmental disorders.

“Thimerosal has been used for decades, but the surge in vaccinations caused fear that possible accumulations of ethyl mercury, the kind in thimerosal, might exceed safe levels – at least, when based on the stringent risk guidelines applied to its better-understood chemical cousin, methyl mercury, which is associated with eating fish,” said Michael Pichichero, M.D., professor of Microbiology/Immunology, Pediatrics and Medicine at the University of Rochester and the study’s main author.

But scientists are learning that the two mercury species actually behave quite differently. In fact, the body rids the kind found in thimerosal more that 10 times faster than it removes the kind one might encounter in a Friday night fish fry.

In the Rochester study, 216 infants from R. Gutierrez Children’s Hospital (in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where thimerosal is still routinely used in vaccines) were divided into three age groups to have their blood-mercury levels tested both before and after shots were administered at either their newborn, 2- or 6-month checkup. Researchers learned that, in all three age groups, the half-life of ethyl mercury in the blood – or, the time it takes for the body to dispose of half the mercury, and then another half, and so on – was measured to be 3.7 days.[/B] That’s a far cry from the blood half-life of methyl mercury, which is 44 days.

“Until recently, that longer half-life was assumed to be the rule for both types of mercury. Now [B]it’s obvious that ethyl mercury’s short half-life prevents toxic build-up from occurring. It’s just gone too fast,” Pichichero said.

To illustrate, researchers cite that infants in the 6-month-old group – who, in their lifetimes, had encountered more total ethyl mercury that any other group studied – still had the same pre-vaccination blood-mercury levels before their checkups as most 2-month-olds had before theirs. This suggests that, before each round of shots, the mercury has plenty of time to be cleared.

[donnay]

Again, you show a complete lack of understanding in all things scientific.

Attenuated viruses are severely mutated from their wild-type states and, at most, can induce minor infections. Compare with unvaccinated children who may be infected by wild-type strains and may spread the infection to others.

Bacterial vaccines are often acellular, meaning they contain a modified toxin (a toxoid) or antigenic subunitis, which are not infective to others.

So, yes, vaccines must contain a pathogen in order to function. The pathogen, however, has minimal infective capabilities. Far less than strains encountered in nature.

Uh huh...I well aware of the scientific approach and all the hypotheses. Explain away then why the Whooping cough vaccine is spreading whooping cough outbreaks?

Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated
http://www.naturalnews.com/035466_whooping_cough_vaccines_outbreaks.html

Whooping Cough Epidemic Caused by Virulent New Pertussis Strain—And It's the Result of Vaccine
http://www.gaia-health.com/articles451/000485-pertussis-more-virulent.shtml

Study: Whooping cough outbreak linked to vaccinated children
http://digitaljournal.com/article/323187

OUTBREAKS PROOF THAT WHOOPING CAUGH VACCINES DON'T WORK
http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri128.htm

[donnay]

Look at pictures of kids with polio. People still get polio in the third world today. How many American kids do you see with polio? Kids die of measles around the world.

Even if vaccines have mercury and formaldehyde and lets say that they even can cause autism, what is better: a very small percentage having negative effects or millions dying at 2 years old or walking like Forrest Gump their whole life? The risk/reward is heavily skewed toward getting vaccinated.


Third world have a problems with sanitation, hygiene and potable water. Let some philanthropists go in and give money to help there, and I will bet there will be a decline just like what happened in our country last century.

[heavenlyboy34]

People should be allowed to debate this issue and NO ONE should be FORCED to do anything they don't want to.

I don't get regular vaccinations (Don't think i've had one since I was 10) because I'm not sure it's safe, I'm very seldom sick- especially in the winter. I do however see that there are great benefits to getting vaccinated for certain things and in the places where vaccination rates have plummeted diseases thought to be have been eradicated have re-appeared.

If someone wants to get vaccinated then i'm all for that, but if I choose not to get vaccinated then I should get the same respect for my decision.

It's all about FORCE, the issue here is we shouldn't be FORCED to do anything like that.
You should head to the circumcision threads. A shockingly high amount of people around here are willing to force their sons to be mutilated. :(

[jmdrake]

In all fairness, parents who don't vaccinate their kids deserve ridicule.

People definitely should not have to be forced to be vaccinated or have their kids vaccinated. I think even remember seeing Gates actually is for forced sterilization in Africa, which is totally immoral. But if you think vaccines cause autism, for example, you probably aren't smart enough to raise smart kids.

If you think that it's impossible for vaccines to cause autism then you aren't smart enough to be allowed to be on the internet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?
Posted: 02/25/08 12:42 PM ET
React
Amazing
Inspiring
Funny
Scary
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird
Follow
Autism , Autism Vaccines , Vaccine , Vaccine Court , Kennedy Krieger , Autism Spectrum Disorder , Autism Thimerosal , Concession , Hhs , Mitochondria , Oxydative Phosphorylation , Thimerosal , Healthy Living News

share this story
585
0
30
Get Healthy Living Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government's concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called "oxidative phosphorylation." If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

The authors -- who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court -- noted that "children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time."

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in "classic" cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease -- and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:


"DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination."

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism, but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism, isn't that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury "manifested" as autism in only one case, isn't that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely "mimics" autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as "autism," are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined "look-alike" syndrome that merely presents as "features" of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let's say the government does determine that these kids don't have actual "autism" (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn't the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see "autism" cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like "Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?"

And if this child was technically "misdiagnosed" with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren't Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child's Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn't that have manifested as "ASD features" anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a "single nucleotide change" in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested "features" of autism.

While it's true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What's more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of "disorder" at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn't they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of "autistic features?"

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the "sporadic" form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? "Medicines or other toxins," says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal's introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn't HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl's vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for "aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?" Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn't these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn't children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It's too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is "absolutely no link" between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government's Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it's simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way -- and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are "aggravated" and "manifested." Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say "his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death."

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

NOTE: Full text of the government's statement is posted here.

David Kirby is the author of "Evidence of Harm - Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy" (St. Martins Press 2005.

[jmdrake]

You should head to the circumcision threads. A shockingly high amount of people around here are willing to force their sons to be mutilated. :(

Why? He would obviously disagree with your position. He's saying that he shouldn't be forced to vaccinate but he's okay with parents who do vaccinate. Those parents are forcing their children to take vaccines. To take your position on circumcision and apply it here, parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate children without their consent. Possible health benefits be damned.

[Zippyjuan]

The ruling did not say the vaccines caused it but "resulted in"- that she had a rare pre-existing genetic problem which the vaccine triggered. Getting exposed to any virus (including the common cold) could have triggered it in somebody with a similar condition.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism "test cases" have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.


Time Magazine summed up the relevance of the Poling case in 2008: ...(T)here's no denying that the court's decision to award damages to the Poling family puts a chink -- a question mark -- in what had been an unqualified defense of vaccine safety with regard to autism. If Hannah Poling had an underlying condition that made her vulnerable to being harmed by vaccines, it stands to reason that other children might also have such vulnerabilities."



Her condition was rare. As are other rare serious side effects from vaccines. They do unfortulately occur but again are very rare. There are other bigger risks in life.

[misean]

If you think that it's impossible for vaccines to cause autism then you aren't smart enough to be allowed to be on the internet.



I didn't say or even come close to imply that it is impossible.

[jmdrake]

Verbal gymnastics to avoid telling the truth. The only way that family won in court is that they legally showed that the vaccine was the proximate cause of the injury. Any first year law student can tell you that. And sure, not everybody child is as sensitive to vaccines as others.


The ruling did not say the vaccines caused it but "resulted in"- that she had a rare pre-existing genetic problem which the vaccine triggered. Getting exposed to any virus (including the common cold) could have triggered it in somebody with a similar condition.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html

Her condition was rare.

[Zippyjuan]

An analogy would be a peanut allergy. For a person with that problem, eating a peanut will cause a sever reaction. The peanut did not cause the condition which led to the reaction. The girl had a condition where exposure to a virus would cause her very negative reaction. The vaccine was the peanut- it triggered it but was not the cause of the condition which led to the reaction. If she had gotten the flu or measles or mumps instead of a vaccine, she could have ended up in the same position.

[PaulConventionWV]

You should head to the circumcision threads. A shockingly high amount of people around here are willing to force their sons to be mutilated. :(

There you go using political buzzwords to further your argument. You still haven't answered those questions I posed to you, though. In fact, you haven't answered any of my recent questions. I guess buzzwords are all you know how to use when it comes to circumcision.

You've used:

mutilation
amputation

and another one used "intact" to describe uncircumcised males.

Is this the only kind of argument you people know how to use?

[jmdrake]

An analogy would be a peanut allergy. For a person with that problem, eating a peanut will cause a sever reaction. The peanut did not cause the condition which led to the reaction. The girl had a condition where exposure to a virus would cause her very negative reaction. The vaccine was the peanut- it triggered it but was not the cause of the condition which led to the reaction. If she had gotten the flu or measles or mumps instead of a vaccine, she could have ended up in the same position.

Zippy, nothing in the article suggests that she would have contracted autism from measles or mumps. Nothing at all. Do you have a link to that claim, or did you just make it up out of thin air? You certainly didn't get it from the trial documents. From the story I linked:

Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed.

Hmmmmmm....I wonder what the government doesn't want to you read from the trial documents?

[jmdrake]

I didn't say or even come close to imply that it is impossible.

Yeah you did.

But if you think vaccines cause autism, for example, you probably aren't smart enough to raise smart kids.

For some kids vaccines cause autism. Nobody is arguing that every kid that gets vaccinated will become autistic, just that there is a risk. Some people say there is no risk whatsoever. Others discount this risk. Fine. But those who do not are not "stupid".

[Anti Federalist]

So what? Just make a new vaccine to deal with the mutation. /devil's advocate

That's no good, because, you see, the vaccines are not nearly as effective as the state health Nazis would have you believe.

You can not, in any way, call yourself any sort of "liberty person" if you advocate the forced drugging of people against their will.

[Anti Federalist]

An analogy would be a peanut allergy. For a person with that problem, eating a peanut will cause a sever reaction. The peanut did not cause the condition which led to the reaction. The girl had a condition where exposure to a virus would cause her very negative reaction. The vaccine was the peanut- it triggered it but was not the cause of the condition which led to the reaction. If she had gotten the flu or measles or mumps instead of a vaccine, she could have ended up in the same position.

Not for nothing, but what, pray tell, is causing "peanut allergies"?

35 years ago, when I was growing up, people were not dropping dead from being exposed to a peanut.

[Anti Federalist]

Stoopid dupe post

[John F Kennedy III]

That's no good, because, you see, the vaccines are not nearly as effective as the state health Nazis would have you believe.

You can not, in any way, call yourself any sort of "liberty person" if you advocate the forced drugging of people against their will.

This ^

[Dr.3D]

Not for nothing, but what, pray tell, is causing "peanut allergies"?

35 years ago, when I was growing up, people were not dropping dead from being exposed to a peanut.
This might explain why.
http://www.ourfullhouse.com/49-health/732-peanut-allergies-and-vaccines.html

[BlackTerrel]

Bill Gates started a company - made $100 billion and decided this was far too much money for one person to ever need. At that point he either said:

1. I'm going to spend half my fortune researching various diseases, getting medicine to people who need it and buying computers for inner city kids and third world countries.

2. I'm going to spend half my money poisoning and killing people for fun.

I'd guess #1 is more likely. But I guess that isn't as fun to speculate on.

[Indy Vidual]

You should head to the circumcision threads. A shockingly high amount of people around here are willing to force their sons to be mutilated. :(

Less germs, easier cleaning, better looking != mutilated

[PaulConventionWV]

Bill Gates started a company - made $100 billion and decided this was far too much money for one person to ever need. At that point he either said:

1. I'm going to spend half my fortune researching various diseases, getting medicine to people who need it and buying computers for inner city kids and third world countries.

2. I'm going to spend half my money poisoning and killing people for fun.

I'd guess #1 is more likely. But I guess that isn't as fun to speculate on.

He's doing #2 (no pun intended) but not just for fun. He has an agenda. He has connections. If you have an agenda and you have money, the sky is the limit. I don't see any reason why #1 would be any more likely.

[PaulConventionWV]

Less germs, easier cleaning, better looking != mutilated

Agreed.

Usually people associate the term "mutilated" with being beaten and blodied beyond recognition or some other horrible form of disfiguration or disembodiment. HB is obviously using that word to try to make circumcision look like something it's not. He may be an anarchist in name, but he's a statist at heart, through and through. State medicine and, hell, he's even got his own brand of propaganda.

[Anti Federalist]

Bill Gates started a company - made $100 billion and decided this was far too much money for one person to ever need. At that point he either said:

1. I'm going to spend half my fortune researching various diseases, getting medicine to people who need it and buying computers for inner city kids and third world countries.

2. I'm going to spend half my money poisoning and killing people for fun.

I'd guess #1 is more likely. But I guess that isn't as fun to speculate on.

Why would number one be more likely?

If history is any judge, when men acquire unlimited wealth and the power that can go along with it, number two is just as, if not more, likely.

[BlackTerrel]

Why would number one be more likely?

If history is any judge, when men acquire unlimited wealth and the power that can go along with it, number two is just as, if not more, likely.

Why? Why would Bill Gates benefit by killing people?

By the way he's doing a shitty job. There are more people on earth than ever and despite lack of exercise and shitty eating habits we generally live longer than ever as well.

[BlackTerrel]

He's doing #2 (no pun intended) but not just for fun. He has an agenda. He has connections. If you have an agenda and you have money, the sky is the limit. I don't see any reason why #1 would be any more likely.

I would. Most people want to be good. And even most bad people think they are doing good.

I don't see why someone who already has everything would just decide to spend their own money and resources just to hurt people.

I do understand why someone who has everything would spend money to help people - whether it's Lance Armstrong or Bill Gates.

[BlackTerrel]

The foundation has donated a grand total of US$287 million to various HIV/AIDS researchers. The money was split between sixteen different research teams across the world, on the condition that they share their findings with one another...

Between November 2007 and October 2010, the Gates foundation will offer US$19.9 million to the International Rice Research Institute. The aid is intended to support the increasing demand the world has placed on rice. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation claims “To keep up with worldwide demand, the production of rice will have to increase by about 70 percent in the next two decades.”[32] Yielding higher grade crops will ensure local farmers get the best return out of their crop annually and be able to offer greater quantities...

In 1997, the foundation introduced a U.S. Libraries initiative with a goal of "ensuring that if you can get to a public library, you can reach the Internet." The foundation has given grants, installed computers and software, and provided training and technical support in partnership with public libraries nationwide.

Most recently, the foundation gave a US$12.2 million grant to the Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET) to assist libraries in Louisiana and Mississippi on the Gulf Coast, many of which were damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Sounds horrible.

[Anti Federalist]

Why? Why would Bill Gates benefit by killing people?

By the way he's doing a shitty job. There are more people on earth than ever and despite lack of exercise and shitty eating habits we generally live longer than ever as well.

Why?

Might as well ask why the Caesars threw people to the lions.

Many justifications exist, but in the end the "why" is no more complicated than this:

Because they could.

[misean]

Yeah you did.

But if you think vaccines cause autism, for example, you probably aren't smart enough to raise smart kids.

For some kids vaccines cause autism. Nobody is arguing that every kid that gets vaccinated will become autistic, just that there is a risk. Some people say there is no risk whatsoever. Others discount this risk. Fine. But those who do not are not "stupid".

No I didn't.

I don't accept the premise that vaccines cause autism for any kids. They may, but it is not proven. The medical consensus is that it isn't the case. If you are the parent weighing the risk/reward, I don't know how you could logically justify not vaccinating your kids. There is no study linking autism to vaccines. Making decisions based on gut feel or what Jenny McCarthy thinks is not good.

The decision not to vaccinate reminds me of someone who decides to drive and not fly because they are scared of terrorism or a plane crash was in the news. They decide to do something that is 50 times more dangerous because it feels safer. Or it reminds me of Steve Jobs rejecting actual medical treatment for herbal treatment, because he was skeptical of Western medicine. I bet if you could if you ask via Ouji board what he would choose now, maybe he would go for the proven treatment.

[heavenlyboy34]

Agreed.

Usually people associate the term "mutilated" with being beaten and blodied beyond recognition or some other horrible form of disfiguration or disembodiment. HB is obviously using that word to try to make circumcision look like something it's not. He may be an anarchist in name, but he's a statist at heart, through and through. State medicine and, hell, he's even got his own brand of propaganda.
LOL!! Well, it's because circumcision does result in disfiguration or disembodiment. (it just happens to be aesthetically pleasing to some people. The vast majority of people in the Western world don't agree) I'm using the word correctly. Per the dictionary: mu·ti·late   [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPAverb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts

What does anarchism have to do with it? Even if I were, anarchists oppose aggression and would use private law rather than State law. Unlike you Statists, I advocate private law. (see, I can misrepresent your political position too! ;) ) You may subjectively believe it not to be mutilation because of your cultural bias, but in objective reality, it is. What's this nonsense about "State medicine"? Do you even know what that means? Keep on smacking that strawman if it makes you feel good, though. :rolleyes:

You can call it propaganda if you want, but you'd be redefining the word to fit your bogus argument (your own "brand" of propaganda, which you use every time we debate ;) ). The proper word is rhetoric.

[BlackTerrel]

Why?

Might as well ask why the Caesars threw people to the lions.

Many justifications exist, but in the end the "why" is no more complicated than this:

Because they could.

I guess if you want to say that. I think Caesar benefited from throwing people to the lions. I don't see how Bill Gates benefits from causing autism or why making internet accessible in libraries makes someone evil.

[donnay]

Not for nothing, but what, pray tell, is causing "peanut allergies"?

35 years ago, when I was growing up, people were not dropping dead from being exposed to a peanut.

Peanut allergies are caused by using peanut oil as an adjuvant in vaccines. Emulsified peanut oil adjuvant.



The Non-Disclosed and Hyper-Allergenic Vaccine Adjuvant
Jul 15th, 2010 | By Catherine J. Frompovich | Category: Catherine Frompovich


Catherine J. Frompovich
vactruth.com
07/15/2010

What do peanuts and vaccines have in common? Well, you’re probably thinking that some people have allergic reactions to both, and you are correct. Peanuts cause the most common severe food allergy reactions. Vaccines, on the other hand, that are grown on chicken eggs (MMR and influenza vaccines in particular) cause allergic reactions for which pharmaceutical and vaccine makers willingly provide cautionary notices on vaccine package inserts. It’s important to note that technically there can be two responses: a reaction, e.g., immediate allergic response (anaphylaxis), and a side effect, e.g., fever, rash, or localized swelling later on.

As an aside, vaccine makers would like to get away from growing vaccines on eggs for several reasons. In the April 11, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) the article “Safety and Immunogenicity of a Baculovirus-Expressed Hemagglutinin Influenza Vaccine” by John J. Treanor, MD, et al, stated:

In this study, we evaluated an experimental influenza vaccine consisting of recombinant HA expressed in insect cells by a recombinant baculovirus (rHA0). This alternative avoids dependence on eggs and is very efficient because of the high levels of protein expression under the control of the baculovirus polyhedrin promoter. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/14/1577

In essence, researchers produced vaccines grown on insect cells. If that vaccine production technology will be used or substituted for fertile egg mediums in the future, what cautionary information will appear on vaccine package inserts about bugs?

Allergic reactions to vaccines used to be of prime concern to pharmaceutical and vaccine makers. That changed after the passage of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2006 [PREP Act 42USC 247(d)-6d)] that, basically, exonerates vaccine makers of any damages from vaccines and/or vaccinations. A special vaccine court has been established from which harmed individuals must seek permission to bring legal charges. Common tort law no longer applies to vaccine/vaccination injury/damage.

What peanuts have in common with vaccines is something that very few healthcare consumers and medical doctors may be aware of: Peanut oil is a hidden and non-stated ingredient in the manufacture of children’s vaccines. This was brought to light in a 2010 court case wherein parents were accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome; had their child taken from them and placed in foster care for almost eight months; and Harold E. Buttram, MD, presented corroborating medical information to the court regarding the anaphylactic reaction the six-month old baby boy experienced resulting in tremendous swelling and pressure of the brain.

In Doctor Buttram’s paper presented for publication, “Subdural Hemorrhages Occurring in an Infant Immediately Following Vaccination,” he methodically charts the infant’s anamnestic allergic response to vaccines at four months of age. An anamnestic allergic response is a secondary immune response resulting from exposure to a previously encountered antigen. Such responses should preclude further administration of all vaccines.

Immediately following routine 6-month vaccines Pentacel [DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccine], Prevnar7 [Pneumococcal 7-valent Conjugate Vaccine], and Rotateq [Rotavirus Vaccine], the infant suffered an explosive rupturing of a facial hemangioma [abnormal buildup of blood vessels] and traumatic brain injury confirmed by a brain MRI [Magnetic Resonance Imaging].

Let’s consider the components that make up the Pentacel vaccine: Aluminum phosphate, bovine serum albumin, formaldehyde, glutaraldhyde, MRC-5, DNA and cellular protein, neomycin, polymyxin b sulfate, polysorbate 80, 2-phenoxyethanol. [1]

The two other vaccines administered simultaneously to the infant had equally remarkable ingredients. In the hopes of keeping this article as brief as possible, I’ve elected not to include their makeup.

Two days after the above-administered vaccines, a brain MRI showed extensive bilateral subdural hematomas [collection of blood outside blood vessels in both sides of the brain], something often thought to be due to trauma associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Buttram noted that the scheduled and administered 4-month vaccines contained aluminum and unlabeled peanut oil. Furthermore, the infant’s mother observed noticeable enlargement and puffiness of the right strawberry-shaped facial hemangioma. Additionally, during 52 days of hospitalization, the infant was vaccinated further with the Hepatitis B vaccine. Medical records indicate tremendous head enlargement in a 30-day period, which could indicate hydrocephalus and/or brain hemorrhage.

Since Doctor Buttram was the expert witness for the defense (the child’s parents, who had the child taken away from them by civil authorities contending Shaken Baby Syndrome), he investigated and prepared a time line and inventory of the various vaccines administered along with the infant’s reactions and attending medical personnel witness statements as to the explosive rupturing of the facial hemangioma immediately after the injection while the infant was screaming dramatically.

Buttram found that yeast protein—a potent allergen—and peanut oil were used as adjuvants but not listed on the vaccine inserts. It was Doctor Buttram’s contention that both these adjuvants caused the hemangioma’s explosive reaction.

As part of his researched testimony, Doctor Buttram chronicled the use of peanut oil in vaccines, which proves rather interesting. After penicillin was invented (1945) researchers found that the kidneys excreted it within 3 hours thereby rendering it ineffective. In order to prolong penicillin’s action it was mixed with 4 to 4.8 percent beeswax and peanut oil. As a result, penicillin was slowly released as the body metabolized the oil. To further extend penicillin’s effects, penicillin with aluminum monostearate was added to make a solution suspended in peanut oil that kept blood levels of penicillin up to 24 to 26 hours. In 1964 Merck produced the adjuvant 65-4 that contained up to 65 percent peanut oil plus Arlasel A, aluminum stearate, and other ingredients with 13-fold higher levels of antibodies than previous vaccines. During the 1970s and 1980s peanut oil became a common practice and ingredient in vaccines. Coincidentally, peanut allergies began rising exponentially in children as more vaccines were administered. Heather Fraser in her 2010 book, The History of the Peanut Allergy Epidemic, documents this.

Concomitantly, hospital records indicate anaphylaxis reactions to vaccines. In the USA there were rising incidences of food anaphylaxis in children under five years of age. Hospital records in the USA further indicate that Emergency Room records indicated an increase of anaphylaxis from 671 per 100,000 during 1992-94 to 876 per 100,000 in 1995. More than 90 percent of all food allergy fatalities were documented as due to ingestion of peanuts and tree nuts, a 1991 study revealed. Nevertheless, in 2009 the prevalence of peanut allergy in children under 18 years of age amounted to more than 2 percent in both the United States and Britain. Additionally, in the U.S. during 2009, about 4.5 million people were allergic to peanuts, or about 1.5 percent of the population.

Interestingly, Romy Fischer, et al, in the American Journal of Pathology [2005; 167:1621-1630] say,

“We compared the oral and nasal routes of peanut sensitization for the development of a mouse model of allergy. Mice were sensitized by administration of peanut proteins in the presence of cholera toxin as adjuvant. Antibody and cytokine responses were characterized, as well as airway reactivity to nasal challenge with peanut or unrelated antigens. Oral sensitization promoted higher levels of IgE, but lower IgG responses, than nasal sensitization. Both orally and nasally sensitized mice experienced airway hyperreactivity on nasal peanut challenge.” http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/167/6/1621

Continued... (http://vactruth.com/2010/07/15/non-disclosed-hyper-allergenic-vaccine-adjuvant/)


More Sources:
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/adjuvants.htm
http://www.foodsmatter.com/allergy_intolerance/peanut_treenut/articles/history_peanut_allergy_epidemic.html
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/peanut_oil.htm
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/adjuvants.html
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/peanut_allergy.html

[donnay]

I guess if you want to say that. I think Caesar benefited from throwing people to the lions. I don't see how Bill Gates benefits from causing autism or why making internet accessible in libraries makes someone evil.

You need to do some research on Bill Gates. He cloaks his so-called good deeds as a way to carry forth a eugenics agenda.


Bill Gates, Monsanto, and eugenics: How one of the world's wealthiest men is actively promoting a corporate takeover of global agriculture
http://www.naturalnews.com/035105_Bill_Gates_Monsanto_eugenics.html

[Dr.3D]

Peanut allergies are caused by using peanut oil as an adjuvant in vaccines. Emulsified peanut oil adjuvant.

~snip
Now I'm starting to feel invisible.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?388358-Bill-Gates-to-target-anti-vaccine-advocates-with-smear-campaign&p=4625898&viewfull=1#post4625898

Edit: They are also using fish oils, and some shellfish protein is getting into the mix and causing shellfish allergies.

[donnay]

Now I'm starting to feel invisible.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?388358-Bill-Gates-to-target-anti-vaccine-advocates-with-smear-campaign&p=4625898&viewfull=1#post4625898

Edit: They are also using fish oils, and some shellfish protein is getting into the mix and causing shellfish allergies.

Sorry Dr. I didn't see your post. I agree with what your posted. Lot's of people are getting fish/shellfish allergies too. +rep

[BlackTerrel]

Not for nothing, but what, pray tell, is causing "peanut allergies"?

35 years ago, when I was growing up, people were not dropping dead from being exposed to a peanut.

Except they aren't. This is from wiki:

Prevalence among adults and children is similar—around 1%—but at least one study shows it to be on the rise in children in the United States.[16] The number of young children affected doubled between 1997 and 2002.[17] 25% of children with a peanut allergy outgrow it.[18] In the USA, about 10 people per year die from peanut allergies.[19]

10 people per year... out of 315 million.... this is Bill Gates plan to take us out.

As far as what is causing it - diet, medication, lack of exercise, lack of sleep, kids being born to older parents - there is a lot of shit we don't know. It's not always as convenient as "a group of shady guys in smoke filled rooms are planning it".

[James Madison]

As far as what is causing it - diet, medication, lack of exercise, lack of sleep, kids being born to older parents - there is a lot of shit we don't know. It's not always as convenient as "a group of shady guys in smoke filled rooms are planning it".

But it's much more fun to be afraid of a shadowy group than accept more realistic solutions. Sounds like the neo-cons we routinely mock on these boards. "There's a great conspiracy to bring Sharia Law to the United States. That's why they want to attack us. Nothing to do with bombing their countries or killing their family."

[donnay]

But it's much more fun to be afraid of a shadowy group than accept more realistic solutions. Sounds like the neo-cons we routinely mock on these boards. "There's a great conspiracy to bring Sharia Law to the United States. That's why they want to attack us. Nothing to do with bombing their countries or killing their family."

Or it could be sheer naivete on your parts not to research it a little more. Bill Gates is the next generation of a long history of eugenicists who have absolutely no regard for humanity. They want depopulation. But before they kill you, they will bankrupt you first.

Bill Gates also has close ties to Monsanto. You know the company that gave us agent orange and genetically modified seeds.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6WQtRI7A064


"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [number of 9 billion] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent. "

[BlackTerrel]

Or it could be sheer naivete on your parts not to research it a little more. Bill Gates is the next generation of a long history of eugenicists who have absolutely no regard for humanity. They want depopulation. But before they kill you, they will bankrupt you first....

...."The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [number of 9 billion] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent. "

By this math Bill Gates expects the world population to go from 6.8 billion to 7.65 - 8.1 billion. Is that depopulation?

And for the record it is not much of a leap that if you spread birth control and condoms in many third world nations that cannot afford any more people all of us would be better off. Especially - the people who actually live in those countries.

I grew up in an area where most of us were unwanted kids who grew up to teenage parents (or more likely parent - without the s). It is the single biggest cause of crime and poverty in this country and I would applaud any efforts for better sex education and spread of birth control. Unwanted teen pregnancies don't benefit anyone.

[donnay]

By this math Bill Gates expects the world population to go from 6.8 billion to 7.65 - 8.1 billion. Is that depopulation?


You better go back an listen to what he says: "Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [number of 9 billion] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."


And for the record it is not much of a leap that if you spread birth control and condoms in many third world nations that cannot afford any more people all of us would be better off. Especially - the people who actually live in those countries.

Why does it bother you how thrid-world countries procreate? Is that any of OUR business? Governments throughout history are the ones who oppress and starve their people. Remember that.


I grew up in an area where most of us were unwanted kids who grew up to teenage parents (or more likely parent - without the s). It is the single biggest cause of crime and poverty in this country and I would applaud any efforts for better sex education and spread of birth control. Unwanted teen pregnancies don't benefit anyone.

Again if you dig a little deeper you will see who help implement those ideas. Just like Women's Lib was a ploy to get the women out to work, so they can tax the second income. It had nothing to do with equality and rights. They (TPTB) were hell-bent to make sure the family unit was broken. A strong family unit is what helped build this country to the greatness it was.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJCTFZf03A

Government schools indoctrinate children (in many cases some are now adults) who think this earth is over populated and it needs to stop. There are places in this world that have not even been traveled, much less, inhabited. So to say this world is over populated is quite naive and follows the indoctrination that TPTB would like people to believe.

[James Madison]

Government schools indoctrinate children (in many cases some are now adults) who think this earth is over populated and it needs to stop. There are places in this world that have not even been traveled, much less, inhabited. So to say this world is over populated is quite naive and follows the indoctrination that TPTB would like people to believe.

Has it ever occured to you there might be a reason those places aren't inhabited? Though land isn't a major problem, there's plenty of land. The problem is providing food to a starving world.

[jmdrake]

No I didn't.

I don't accept the premise that vaccines cause autism for any kids. They may, but it is not proven. The medical consensus is that it isn't the case. If you are the parent weighing the risk/reward, I don't know how you could logically justify not vaccinating your kids. There is no study linking autism to vaccines. Making decisions based on gut feel or what Jenny McCarthy thinks is not good.

The decision not to vaccinate reminds me of someone who decides to drive and not fly because they are scared of terrorism or a plane crash was in the news. They decide to do something that is 50 times more dangerous because it feels safer. Or it reminds me of Steve Jobs rejecting actual medical treatment for herbal treatment, because he was skeptical of Western medicine. I bet if you could if you ask via Ouji board what he would choose now, maybe he would go for the proven treatment.

That last two sentences shows how little you know about medicine. The 5 year survival rate for pancreatic cancer using "proven treatment" is just 4%. Steve jobs lived 9 years with pancreatic cancer. So he did better with alternative medicine than what he was promised under "actual medical treatment".

http://www.pancreatic.org/site/c.htJYJ8MPIwE/b.891917/k.5123/Prognosis_of_Pancreatic_Cancer.htm

If you think 5 years > 9 years....well I'm not sure what else to say.

[heavenlyboy34]

Has it ever occured to you there might be a reason those places aren't inhabited? Though land isn't a major problem, there's plenty of land. The problem is providing food to a starving world.
Yes, but there are a lot of places once thought to be uninhabitable and now are habitable. There was a time when the Sonoran desert was too hot and dry for humans. Now there are numerous cities around-many of them playgrounds for rich yuppies. /end ramble

[pcosmar]

Wait a second,,
If the anti-Vax folks are just a few ignorant nutters,,
Why go to all this effort and expense to combat them?
:confused:

Unless there is something,,,

[donnay]

Has it ever occured to you there might be a reason those places aren't inhabited? Though land isn't a major problem, there's plenty of land. The problem is providing food to a starving world.

Again, throughout history governments are the ones who oppress and starve people. You would be surprised at the survival rate of indigenous people learning to live off the land. I have faith in mankind to do what is necessary to survive.

[Weston White]

Well if it works anything like Windows, we should not have too much to worry about.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well if it works anything like Windows, we should not have too much to worry about. LOL!!! :D

[Weston White]

Has it ever occured to you there might be a reason those places aren't inhabited? Though land isn't a major problem, there's plenty of land. The problem is providing food to a starving world.

And companies like Monsanto want only to capitalize on such issues by pimping their self-destructing seeds of international destruction across all of Earth’s lands. The truth is there is no valid reason why other nations cannot feed themselves without foreign aid; ergo, such dependencies have been long established as a designed form of tyrannical control over various populations and cultures. After all is such not exactly what the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and most all Asian and European aristocracies had applied during their reigning (that is to institute poverty, while literally starving out, and then culling their own subjects)?

[Anti Federalist]

Well if it works anything like Windows, we should not have too much to worry about.

ROFL :D

[Anti Federalist]

Has it ever occured to you there might be a reason those places aren't inhabited? Though land isn't a major problem, there's plenty of land. The problem is providing food to a starving world.

Bah.

You could fit every human being on planet earth into a two family home on a 100x75 building lot within the state of Texas.

Food production and starvation is primarily an economic and political problem rather than an environmental one.

Example, Zimbabwe.

Install an authoritarian regime, crash the currency, run off all the farmers and steal their land and boom, you go from a net food exporter to an importer of basic foodstuffs.

This was writ large during the bad old days of the USSR, while we publicly railed against a "missile gap" and spent trillions making defense contractors rich and prosecuted proxy wars that killed millions to "stop communist expansion", we quietly propped up the regime by, among other things, sending the Kremlin million of tons of wheat and other grains that the "worker's paradise" could not produce.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Wait a second,,
If the anti-Vax folks are just a few ignorant nutters,,
Why go to all this effort and expense to combat them?
:confused:

Unless there is something,,,

They'd rather be up in arms about skepticism regarding vaccines because they could possibly lead to a death rather than focus their anger on the greatest mass murderer in the history of mankind, the state. This is because they are confused and can be convinced of tyranny as long as its packaged as science

[donnay]

“If you control the oil you control the country; if you control the food, you control the population.”
~Henry Kissinger

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. "
~John Holdren Obama's Science Czar A Book he co-authored with two others titled: Eco-Science (1977).

More excerpts from John Holdren's

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/IMG_0899.JPG

Eco-Science:
Page 786-7

Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. "

___________________
Page 838

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. "

________________________________
Page 838

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

_____________________________
Page 942-3

Toward a Planetary Regime
...
"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. "

_______________________________
Page 837 full-length extended quote:

"To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."
_
________________________________________
Page 786 full-length extended quote:

"Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "All lives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for every married couple." If society were convinced of the need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarily been assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soon disappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people, and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved "marriage" for the childless is one possibility. Indeed, many DC societies now seem to be evolving in this direction as women's liberation gains momentum. It is possible that fully developed societies may produce such arrangements naturally, and their association with lower fertility is becoming increasingly clear. In LDCs a childless or single lifestyle might be encouraged deliberately as the status of women approaches parity with that of men.

Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even he possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Somewhat more repressive measures for discouraging large families have also been proposed, such as assigning public housing without regard for family size and removing dependency allowances from student grants or military pay. Some of these have been implemented in crowded Singapore, whose population program has been counted as one of the most successful. "

___________________________
Page 787-8 full-length extended quote:

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Physiologist Melvin Ketchel, of the Tufts University School of Medicine, suggested that a sterilant could be developed that had a very specific action—for example, preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum. He proposed that it be used to reduce fertility levels by adjustable amounts, anywhere from five to 75 percent, rather than to sterilize the whole population completely. In this way, fertility could be adjusted from time to time to meet a society's changing needs, and there would be no need to provide an antidote. Contraceptives would still be needed for couples who were highly motivated to have small families. Subfertile and functionally sterile couples who strongly desired children would be medically assisted, as they are now, or encouraged to adopt. Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries."

___________________________
Page 838 full-length extended quote:

"Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/


You can also read this book online: http://www.questia.com/library/98156526/ecoscience-population-resources-environment

Now if some of you naysayers do not believe that our hijacked government have eugenicists embedded within our system, that this government has full control of, it's probably because you haven't been paying close attention.


Here is a transcript of Norman Dodd interview that G. Edward Griffin conducted in 1982: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

You can watch the interview here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZqZGEBkX1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZqZGEBkX1s

[ZenBowman]

Good, about time someone returned the smear campaign. Is there a place I can donate some additional money to this cause?

[PaulConventionWV]

Wait a second,,
If the anti-Vax folks are just a few ignorant nutters,,
Why go to all this effort and expense to combat them?
:confused:

Unless there is something,,,

Good point. It's just like the Ron Paul people. At one time we were seen as a few teenagers in our moms' basements.

[ZenBowman]

Look at pictures of kids with polio. People still get polio in the third world today. How many American kids do you see with polio? Kids die of measles around the world.

Even if vaccines have mercury and formaldehyde and lets say that they even can cause autism, what is better: a very small percentage having negative effects or millions dying at 2 years old or walking like Forrest Gump their whole life? The risk/reward is heavily skewed toward getting vaccinated.

And the whole thing is that people are not and should not be forced to take vaccines. However, in a free society, we could incentivize vaccinations. Private schools could refuse to admit children who were unvaccinated. Employers could require vaccinations before employing people. HOAs could refuse to allow unvaccinated people to enter particular areas. All that is fine in a free society.

Of course, anti-vaxxers could also choose to not be vaccinated and segregate themselves from the vaccinated, that is also fine. Natural selection would of course be a bit harsher to anti-vaxxers, and that is the choice they make.

A smear campaign against anti-vaxxers is a perfectly legitimate endeavor in a free society.

[donnay]

And the whole thing is that people are not and should not be forced to take vaccines. However, in a free society, we could incentivize vaccinations. Private schools could refuse to admit children who were unvaccinated. Employers could require vaccinations before employing people. HOAs could refuse to allow unvaccinated people to enter particular areas. All that is fine in a free society.

Of course, anti-vaxxers could also choose to not be vaccinated and segregate themselves from the vaccinated, that is also fine. Natural selection would of course be a bit harsher to anti-vaxxers, and that is the choice they make.

A smear campaign against anti-vaxxers is a perfectly legitimate endeavor in a free society.

Of course a smear campaign that is built on bogus information and lies. It's not a free society when those bogus reports and lies manipulate and scare the people to consent to get vaccinated. It is not a free society when you are force to drink fluoridated water--sodium fluoride is a toxic waste. It's not a free society when some within it genetically engineer the food. It's not a free society when people think we have a democracy where 51% of the people vote is superior to the 49%.

So if you think we have a free society, you, have not been paying close attention.

[ZenBowman]

Of course a smear campaign that is built on bogus information and lies. It's not a free society when those bogus reports and lies manipulate and scare the people to consent to get vaccinated. It is not a free society when you are force to drink fluoridated water--sodium fluoride is a toxic waste. It's not a free society when some within it genetically engineer the food. It's not a free society when people think we have a democracy where 51% of the people vote is superior to the 49%.

So if you think we have a free society, you, have not been paying close attention.

I didn't say we have a free society.

[AlexAmore]

And the whole thing is that people are not and should not be forced to take vaccines. However, in a free society, we could incentivize vaccinations. Private schools could refuse to admit children who were unvaccinated. Employers could require vaccinations before employing people. HOAs could refuse to allow unvaccinated people to enter particular areas. All that is fine in a free society.

Of course, anti-vaxxers could also choose to not be vaccinated and segregate themselves from the vaccinated, that is also fine. Natural selection would of course be a bit harsher to anti-vaxxers, and that is the choice they make.

A smear campaign against anti-vaxxers is a perfectly legitimate endeavor in a free society.

So weird how many libertarians are incredibly gung-ho about the medical and pharmaceutical industry which has been so in bed with government for many decades. Are we really going to give the FDA the benefit of the doubt here? Are they the one government bureaucracy we're going to give a pass and turn a blind eye? You'll find plenty of cover ups, I assure you.

Look I'm all for a private healthcare industry, but we don't have that and we haven't had that for a long time. It's government health by any of our standards.

[donnay]

I didn't say we have a free society.


You implied: "However, in a free society, we could incentivize vaccinations. Private schools could refuse to admit children who were unvaccinated. Employers could require vaccinations before employing people. HOAs could refuse to allow unvaccinated people to enter particular areas. All that is fine in a free society."

And I am simply pointing out that a free society--Principles of a free society does not apply government coercion and brainwashing allowed to carry out laws. This thinking to "incentivize vaccines" has been brought to you by state indoctrination using bogus science. That makes your thinking no different than what this hijacked government placed in your mind.

Does being free mean one is free to harm others?

[ZenBowman]

So weird how many libertarians are incredibly gung-ho about the medical and pharmaceutical industry which has been so in bed with government for many decades. Are we really going to give the FDA the benefit of the doubt here? Are they the one government bureaucracy we're going to give a pass and turn a blind eye? You'll find plenty of cover ups, I assure you.


Why should we give the FDA a pass?

I'm not using the FDA to determine my stance on vaccines any more than I use them to decide whether or not I should have raw milk.

Get rid of the FDA and vaccination is still backed by years of solid science.

[PaulConventionWV]

And the whole thing is that people are not and should not be forced to take vaccines. However, in a free society, we could incentivize vaccinations. Private schools could refuse to admit children who were unvaccinated. Employers could require vaccinations before employing people. HOAs could refuse to allow unvaccinated people to enter particular areas. All that is fine in a free society.

Of course, anti-vaxxers could also choose to not be vaccinated and segregate themselves from the vaccinated, that is also fine. Natural selection would of course be a bit harsher to anti-vaxxers, and that is the choice they make.

A smear campaign against anti-vaxxers is a perfectly legitimate endeavor in a free society.

In a free society, the "science" of vaccinations wouldn't be as unquestionable as it is now because the government wouldn't have its hand in science, and especially medical science. It also wouldn't be eliminating competition, so I doubt a free market environment would be at all favorable to vaccines. You might have a few places that did what you suggest, but I think most private schools would simply drop the hysteria over vaccines because there would be a wider range of acceptable medical practices. While all that stuff is fine, I think you would be surprised how quickly vaccines would disappear in a free market. They are ineffective and supported only by government propaganda and government-funded research. This should bother you, but apparently it doesn't.

I think natural selection would favor the anti-vaxxers. While smear campaigns are a perfectly LEGAL endeavor in a free society, it is not something a rationally minded person would do. Smear campaigns are based on brainwashing and propaganda tactics that seek to attack the credibility of something without actually letting it rise or fall on its own merits.

The whole point of liberty is to let people find the truth on their own. If vaccines were truly better than alternative medicine, then you wouldn't need smear campaigns. What you're doing is trying to justify ways you can hide the truth. If vaccines are really better, then why do you want to hide the truth? Why do not want to let people make their own decisions? The use of deception is an anti-liberty practice, and that is exactly what you are advocating. This is what I mean when I say people like you who support state medicine are statists at heart. You don't really support liberty. You want this stuff by any means possible, even if it means lying, cheating, misleading the public, whatever it takes to fulfill your own agenda. I trust people to find their own medicine, why don't you?

[PaulConventionWV]

Why should we give the FDA a pass?

I'm not using the FDA to determine my stance on vaccines any more than I use them to decide whether or not I should have raw milk.

Get rid of the FDA and vaccination is still backed by years of solid science.

You are sorely mistaken. The only thing holding up vaccines is government-funded science. That means, yes, the FDA keeps vaccines relevant because it suppresses competition. If there was more competition, don't you think more people would choose other types of medicine? Don't you think more scientists would be allowed to publish their papers on the benefits of alternative types of medicine?

If vaccines are so dominant in this society while being helped by government, it is completely logical and rational to believe that vaccines would be much less dominant if the government did not control the medical industry.

[ZenBowman]

In a free society, the "science" of vaccinations wouldn't be as unquestionable as it is now because the government wouldn't have its hand in science, and especially medical science. It also wouldn't be eliminating competition, so I doubt a free market environment would be at all favorable to vaccines. You might have a few places that did what you suggest, but I think most private schools would simply drop the hysteria over vaccines because there would be a wider range of acceptable medical practices. While all that stuff is fine, I think you would be surprised how quickly vaccines would disappear in a free market. They are ineffective and supported only by government propaganda and government-funded research. This should bother you, but apparently it doesn't.


LOL.



I think natural selection would favor the anti-vaxxers. While smear campaigns are a perfectly LEGAL endeavor in a free society, it is not something a rationally minded person would do. Smear campaigns are based on brainwashing and propaganda tactics that seek to attack the credibility of something without actually letting it rise or fall on its own merits.

It's a smear campaign against smear campaigns.



The whole point of liberty is to let people find the truth on their own. If vaccines were truly better than alternative medicine, then you wouldn't need smear campaigns. What you're doing is trying to justify ways you can hide the truth. If vaccines are really better, then why do you want to hide the truth? Why do not want to let people make their own decisions? The use of deception is an anti-liberty practice, and that is exactly what you are advocating. This is what I mean when I say people like you who support state medicine are statists at heart. You don't really support liberty. You want this stuff by any means possible, even if it means lying, cheating, misleading the public, whatever it takes to fulfill your own agenda. I trust people to find their own medicine, why don't you?

Agreed, deception is an anti-liberty practice, maybe anti-vaxxers should focus on the science and avoid using deception. Thanks for agreeing.

[Anti Federalist]

So weird how many libertarians are incredibly gung-ho about the medical and pharmaceutical industry which has been so in bed with government for many decades. Are we really going to give the FDA the benefit of the doubt here? Are they the one government bureaucracy we're going to give a pass and turn a blind eye? You'll find plenty of cover ups, I assure you.

Look I'm all for a private healthcare industry, but we don't have that and we haven't had that for a long time. It's government health by any of our standards.

Well, plenty of them are perfectly happy with the very worst sorts of tyranny as well, just so long as you put "private" in front of it.

Then, any manner of oppression and tyranny becomes A-OK.

[PaulConventionWV]

LOL.

Since when is LOL a valid response to any argument? Vaccines are not funded by real science. Maybe if you weren't so brainwashed you wouldn't give these knee-jerk reactions to challenges to the efficacy of vaccines.


It's a smear campaign against smear campaigns.

What is? I'm using reason and logic. You're using knee-jerk reactions and government-funded research as your only evidence and you expect me to just fall in line without even questioning it. That's why you're a statist, buddy.


Agreed, deception is an anti-liberty practice, maybe anti-vaxxers should focus on the science and avoid using deception. Thanks for agreeing.

You just said you would be fine with using deception in the form of a smear campaign. That's what a smear campaign is all about, deception. The anti-vaxxers are focussing on science much more than you are. Just take one of donnay's posts:


“If you control the oil you control the country; if you control the food, you control the population.”
~Henry Kissinger

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. "
~John Holdren Obama's Science Czar A Book he co-authored with two others titled: Eco-Science (1977).

More excerpts from John Holdren's



Eco-Science:
Page 786-7

Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. "

___________________
Page 838

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. "

________________________________
Page 838

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

_____________________________
Page 942-3

Toward a Planetary Regime
...
"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market...................

and compare it with one of your posts:


LOL.

Which one do you think is grounded more in logic, research, and real science?

[Anti Federalist]

Since when is LOL a valid response to any argument? Vaccines are not funded by real science. Maybe if you weren't so brainwashed you wouldn't give these knee-jerk reactions to challenges to the efficacy of vaccines.

It's been my experience that many of the most vocal pro vaccine people are also followers of the Amazing Randi (I'll leave individual readers to gauge the validity of a scientific or political position based on the musings of a magician) who, I have also found, to be some of the most rigid and doctrinaire of thinkers.

Thus, a LOL.

[ZenBowman]

Which one do you think is grounded more in logic, research, and real science?

So someone thought of introducing sterility through vaccines? Okay.

Now if someone thought of introducing sterility through poisoning the water supply, would you stop drinking water? No, you'd just remove the contaminants and continue to drink water.

Science involves study and careful research. Citing what someone said in a book isn't science.

If you want to go through actual vaccine science, go ahead, there is plenty of science about the actual adverse effects of vaccines. None of them are as dramatic or scary as anti-vaxxers would have us believe:

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

I have no problem with you choosing not to vaccinate. Feel free to not take a malaria shot and walk the forests of Africa if that is your desire.

I'm more than happy to call out unscientific nonsense that the establishment concocts such as the USDA food pyramid (I eat semi-strict paleo) - but I'm not fond of being contrarian just for the sake of it.

I recommend the following:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dGmQntYp6HI/TGiQycrtm0I/AAAAAAAAAXk/2SAuuvHAZQw/s1600/220px-Demon-Haunted_World.jpg

Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time--when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness

- Carl Sagan

[misean]

It's been my experience that many of the most vocal pro vaccine people are also followers of the Amazing Randi (I'll leave individual readers to gauge the validity of a scientific or political position based on the musings of a magician) who, I have also found, to be some of the most rigid and doctrinaire of thinkers.

Thus, a LOL.

It's interesting that you say that. Most of my opinions on this issue come from things I have heard him say. I'm definitely a James Randi fan. He tends to be data driven and logical so I give what he says weight.

[PaulConventionWV]

So someone thought of introducing sterility through vaccines? Okay.

Now if someone thought of introducing sterility through poisoning the water supply, would you stop drinking water? No, you'd just remove the contaminants and continue to drink water.

Science involves study and careful research. Citing what someone said in a book isn't science.

If you want to go through actual vaccine science, go ahead, there is plenty of science about the actual adverse effects of vaccines. None of them are as dramatic or scary as anti-vaxxers would have us believe:

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

I have no problem with you choosing not to vaccinate. Feel free to not take a malaria shot and walk the forests of Africa if that is your desire.

I didn't say anything about sterility, so it's odd you would mention that.

There you go making assertions without backing them up with any actual reason or evidence. At least donnay actually reads. He/she is analyzing this stuff instead of just repeating "What I say is fact and supported by science" over and over. It's a tyranny of pseudoscience is what it is. We're not allowed to question you and your "science" is accepted no matter what you say because it's popular and the government supports it. If the government supports it, then it must be good for you, right?

Oh, thanks for not making me take vaccines. I can only hope they won't be forced on me by the government while you sit by and smile because you think it's ultimately for the best. You keep acting like vaccines are my only defense against things like malaria. If that were true, why aren't all us anti-vaxxers dying off? How is it that we find other ways to strengthen our immune system? If I walked through an African forest, I may get malaria, but the question is, would you do any better if you had a shot? I say no. There is no evidence to support the idea that vaccine science works. What happened when the flu vaccine was introduced? Cases of influenza went up by 600%.

[jmdrake]

It's interesting that you say that. Most of my opinions on this issue come from things I have heard him say. I'm definitely a James Randi fan. He tends to be data driven and logical so I give what he says weight.

Interesting. So did James Randi tell you that Steve Jobs would have lived longer had he gone with "modern medicine" when the data shows that the exact opposite is most likely true?

[Anti Federalist]

It's interesting that you say that. Most of my opinions on this issue come from things I have heard him say. I'm definitely a James Randi fan. He tends to be data driven and logical so I give what he says weight.

Just an observation that I have found true.

Of course, people can hold whatever view they want, no skin off my nose.

Until, that is, they send armed men in government uniforms to force me to comply with what they think is best.

Are you in favor of forcibly medicating people against their will?

ETA - Also, it is wise to consider that liberty itself is not particularly "logical".

[misean]

Interesting. So did James Randi tell you that Steve Jobs would have lived longer had he gone with "modern medicine" when the data shows that the exact opposite is most likely true?

It's funny that you smugly think you made good points.



Just an observation that I have found true.

Of course, people can hold whatever view they want, no skin off my nose.

Until, that is, they send armed men in government uniforms to force me to comply with what they think is best.

Are you in favor of forcibly medicating people against their will?

ETA - Also, it is wise to consider that liberty itself is not particularly "logical".

I am very pro-individual even if it makes the group worse off. I definitely don't think any parent should be forced to vaccinate their kids.

I think capitalism and liberty are very logical if accept the initial premise of non-aggression.

[jmdrake]

It's funny that you smugly think you made good points.

So I take that as a "no"? And I take it that you're still laboring under the delusion that Steve Jobs would have lived longer if he hadn't used alternative medicine? I don't find it funny. I find it fascinating. It's more evidence that people who claim to be "fact driven" are often just as emotionally driven as others. Oh, and for the record, I like the Amazing Randi. But I've seen him exaggerate in person. I went to one show where he was, among other things, attacking chiropractors as "quacks". I went up to him after the show, told him how much I liked the show, but added that I disagreed with the chiropractor attack because my brother went to one for his back and it genuinely seemed to help. Randi was like "Oh sure. Chiropractors are good for back problems. It's just that they make all sorts of other claims." Well....he didn't make that qualification in his show! Sorry, but there's a major distinction between saying chiropractic medicine is "quackery" and saying that some chiropractors make claims that cannot be verified. Take the Amazing Randi with a grain of salt. Be skeptical even of the skeptics.

[misean]

So I take that as a "no"? And I take it that you're still laboring under the delusion that Steve Jobs would have lived longer if he hadn't used alternative medicine? I don't find it funny. I find it fascinating. It's more evidence that people who claim to be "fact driven" are often just as emotionally driven as others.

Is the experience of one person a large sample size? Jobs could have lived 20 years more and it wouldn't have made his decision to forgo surgery correct. I'm not sure you have the facts correct as it is with his life expectancy, but even it is the case it doesn't a change my point.

[LibForestPaul]

You are sorely mistaken. The only thing holding up vaccines is government-funded science. That means, yes, the FDA keeps vaccines relevant because it suppresses competition. If there was more competition, don't you think more people would choose other types of medicine? Don't you think more scientists would be allowed to publish their papers on the benefits of alternative types of medicine?

If vaccines are so dominant in this society while being helped by government, it is completely logical and rational to believe that vaccines would be much less dominant if the government did not control the medical industry.
indeed

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825.htm

Based on claims made on your firm's website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.

[jmdrake]

Is the experience of one person a large sample size? Jobs could have lived 20 years more and it wouldn't have made his decision to forgo surgery correct. I'm not sure you have the facts correct as it is with his life expectancy, but even it is the case it doesn't a change my point.

Hey, you picked the sample. :p Common sense suggests that if Steve Jobs beat the odds on cancer, then if you could contact his ghost he wouldn't say "Yeah, I wish I could go back in time and try the other alternative when it only promised by 5 more years and instead I lived 9." You're "point" wasn't unintelligible. You haven't posted a scientific study comparing the treatment Steve Jobs received to what he would have gotten otherwise. So you don't really have a point to change.

Edit: It's kind of like the Amazing Randi's overblown attack on chiropractors. Lot's of flash, little data, easily disproved conclusion.

[misean]

Hey, you picked the sample. :p Common sense suggests that if Steve Jobs beat the odds on cancer, then if you could contact his ghost he wouldn't say "Yeah, I wish I could go back in time and try the other alternative when it only promised by 5 more years and instead I lived 9." You're "point" wasn't unintelligible. You haven't posted a scientific study comparing the treatment Steve Jobs received to what he would have gotten otherwise. So you don't really have a point to change.

Edit: It's kind of like the Amazing Randi's overblown attack on chiropractors. Lot's of flash, little data, easily disproved conclusion.

The outcome is totally irrelevant. The decision is what is important But...

http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to-alternative-medicine/
"Most pancreatic cancers are aggressive and always terminal, but Steve was lucky (if you can call it that) and had a rare form called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor, which is actually quite treatable with excellent survival rates — if caught soon enough. The median survival is about a decade, but it depends on how soon it’s removed surgically. Steve caught his very early, and should have expected to survive much longer than a decade. Unfortunately Steve relied on a diet instead of early surgery. There is no evidence that diet has any effect on islet cell carcinoma. As he dieted for nine months, the tumor progressed, and took him from the high end to the low end of the survival rate."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briancaulfield/2011/10/20/why-steve-jobs-refused-surgery-that-could-have-saved-him-until-it-was-too-late/

I think that he kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don’t want something to exist, you can have magical thinking…we talked about this a lot,” Isaacson tells CBS‘s Steve Kroft in the interview. “He wanted to talk about it, how he regretted it….I think he felt he should have been operated on sooner.”

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/food-thought/201110/alternative-medicine-the-death-steve-jobs

"I started my research career some 23 years ago working on pancreatic cancer. It is a relatively rare, yet ugly and often aggressive disease that usually is asymptomatic until later stages. The type Steve had was an "islet cell neuroendocrine" tumor, a somewhat less aggressive type that is more responsive to early treatment."

"Current research suggests that alternative treatments are not helpful in curing certain conditions like cancer,"

[enjerth]

I think 640k [vaccines] ought to be enough for anyone.

[jmdrake]

Actually Steve Jobs did get early cancer surgery. Your "skeptic blog" didn't tell you that. I guess they were too busy trying to score points to deal with mundane things like checking facts.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/news/20110825/faq-steve-jobs-pancreatic-cancer

In 2004, nine months after his diagnosis, Jobs underwent surgery to remove the tumor. In 2009 he underwent a liver transplant, a procedure appropriate for only a small number of patients with this uncommon form of pancreatic cancer.


The outcome is totally irrelevant. The decision is what is important But...

http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to-alternative-medicine/
"Most pancreatic cancers are aggressive and always terminal, but Steve was lucky (if you can call it that) and had a rare form called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor, which is actually quite treatable with excellent survival rates — if caught soon enough. The median survival is about a decade, but it depends on how soon it’s removed surgically. Steve caught his very early, and should have expected to survive much longer than a decade. Unfortunately Steve relied on a diet instead of early surgery. There is no evidence that diet has any effect on islet cell carcinoma. As he dieted for nine months, the tumor progressed, and took him from the high end to the low end of the survival rate."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briancaulfield/2011/10/20/why-steve-jobs-refused-surgery-that-could-have-saved-him-until-it-was-too-late/

I think that he kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don’t want something to exist, you can have magical thinking…we talked about this a lot,” Isaacson tells CBS‘s Steve Kroft in the interview. “He wanted to talk about it, how he regretted it….I think he felt he should have been operated on sooner.”

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/food-thought/201110/alternative-medicine-the-death-steve-jobs

"I started my research career some 23 years ago working on pancreatic cancer. It is a relatively rare, yet ugly and often aggressive disease that usually is asymptomatic until later stages. The type Steve had was an "islet cell neuroendocrine" tumor, a somewhat less aggressive type that is more responsive to early treatment."

"Current research suggests that alternative treatments are not helpful in curing certain conditions like cancer,"

[misean]

Actually Steve Jobs did get early cancer surgery. Your "skeptic blog" didn't tell you that. I guess they were too busy trying to score points to deal with mundane things like checking facts.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/news/20110825/faq-steve-jobs-pancreatic-cancer

In 2004, nine months after his diagnosis, Jobs underwent surgery to remove the tumor. In 2009 he underwent a liver transplant, a procedure appropriate for only a small number of patients with this uncommon form of pancreatic cancer.

"As he dieted for nine months, the tumor progressed, and took him from the high end to the low end of the survival rate."

[RonRules]

Actually Steve Jobs did get early cancer surgery.

Wrong again. He was told to have an immediate surgery, but he preferred to seek and listen to the silly advice of Quacks for 9 months. When it became obvious the doctors were right, he had the surgery.

Alt Med killed Steve Jobs.

[PaulConventionWV]

It's funny that you smugly think you made good points.

WTF? He told you that data shows that Steve Jobs lived longer because he went with alternative medicine. If that's true, that's most certainly a good point. Are you people going to keep responding with one-liners or actually try to refute good points with evidence? If it's not a good point, explain why it's not a good point.

Apparently the pro-vaxxers don't get the fact that saying something doesn't make it true. If you dismiss someone's claims as "not good points" then that doesn't mean they didn't make good points.

[James Madison]

I didn't say anything about sterility, so it's odd you would mention that.

There you go making assertions without backing them up with any actual reason or evidence. At least donnay actually reads. He/she is analyzing this stuff instead of just repeating "What I say is fact and supported by science" over and over. It's a tyranny of pseudoscience is what it is. We're not allowed to question you and your "science" is accepted no matter what you say because it's popular and the government supports it. If the government supports it, then it must be good for you, right?

Oh, thanks for not making me take vaccines. I can only hope they won't be forced on me by the government while you sit by and smile because you think it's ultimately for the best. You keep acting like vaccines are my only defense against things like malaria. If that were true, why aren't all us anti-vaxxers dying off? How is it that we find other ways to strengthen our immune system? If I walked through an African forest, I may get malaria, but the question is, would you do any better if you had a shot? I say no. There is no evidence to support the idea that vaccine science works. What happened when the flu vaccine was introduced? Cases of influenza went up by 600%.

Wow. Just wow. I didn't think it was possible, but you just went full-retard.

You actually said it would be better to have malaria than receive a vaccine. Congrats. You can be just like the other 2,000,000 people that die every year from malaria.

Vaccination works. It dates back thousands of years and was used by the Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, and Mesopotamians. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before government ever got involved. Give me a credible source that counters their efficacy.

[PaulConventionWV]

indeed

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825.htm

Based on claims made on your firm's website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not talking about walnuts. I'm talking about the effects of the FDA controlling the medical industry. If they were not controlling the medical industry, then vaccines and pharmaceuticals would not be nearly as dominant as they are today. That's just common sense.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't give a shit what the FDA defines something as. They are eliminating competition that would and should be there in a free market. We don't have that because of the FDA and it is helping vaccines and pharmaceuticals dominate the market.

[PaulConventionWV]

Wrong again. He was told to have an immediate surgery, but he preferred to seek and listen to the silly advice of Quacks for 9 months. When it became obvious the doctors were right, he had the surgery.

Alt Med killed Steve Jobs.

If alt med killed Steve Jobs, then it was only by a few years. Pharmaceuticals and vaccines kill hundreds of thousands of people each year. Why are you arguing against a virtually harmless form of medicine?

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow. Just wow. I didn't think it was possible, but you just went full-retard.

You actually said it would be better to have malaria than receive a vaccine. Congrats. You can be just like the other 2,000,000 people that die every year from malaria.

Vaccination works. It dates back thousands of years and was used by the Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, and Mesopotamians. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before government ever got involved. Give me a credible source that counters their efficacy.

Thanks for the ad hominems. We see who is the first to throw around insults. That says a lot right there.

I did not say that, by the way. I said you would probably also get malaria even if you had a shot. Maybe you want to read a little next time before you start making bold assumptions.

Once again, your assertion that vaccination works is just an assertion, it is not evidence. Saying it is so doesn't make it true. You people need to get that through your heads. I'm going to need to see a source on your assertion that the ancient Egyptions, Chinese, Greeks and Mesopotamians used vaccinations. What exactly was it that was used because I'm sure it's not the same thing that we use today. Did they put thimerosal in their vaccines? What about formaldehyde?

Also, define "credible source".

[jmdrake]

Wrong again. He was told to have an immediate surgery, but he preferred to seek and listen to the silly advice of Quacks for 9 months. When it became obvious the doctors were right, he had the surgery.

Alt Med killed Steve Jobs.

:rolleyes: He got the alt medicine after the surgery. And he outlived the prognosis for surgery. But you can't be bothered with the facts can you?

http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/Tr...ne.php?area=tr
PROGNOSIS

The most important prognostic factor is whether or not the tumor can be removed surgically. Other significant prognostic for patients with an islet cell tumor / pancreatic endocrine neoplasm include the size of the tumor, the presence or absence of blood vessel invasion, the presence or absence of metastases to lymph nodes or other organs, The 5-year survival rate ranges between 50 and 70% in most series.

[James Madison]

I did not say that, by the way. I said you would probably also get malaria even if you had a shot. Maybe you want to read a little next time before you start making bold assumptions.

I read your post again. You said getting the malaria shot would not grant immunity. Because you maintain that vaccines do not work and are, in fact, dangerous, my statement is the logical conclusion to your argument.


Once again, your assertion that vaccination works is just an assertion, it is not evidence. Saying it is so doesn't make it true. You people need to get that through your heads. I'm going to need to see a source on your assertion that the ancient Egyptions, Chinese, Greeks and Mesopotamians used vaccinations. What exactly was it that was used because I'm sure it's not the same thing that we use today. Did they put thimerosal in their vaccines? What about formaldehyde?
Also, define "credible source".[/QUOTE]

You want evidence the sky is blue? If you take the time to learn about the immune system and the science behind vaccination you would understand why it is sound.

The technique of variolation, the precursor to modern vaccination, began several thousand years ago across multiple civilizations. They realized that exposing oneself to cowpox pustules resulted in immunity to smallpox. Similarly, exposure to a weaken strain, Variola minor, granted immunity to the more virulent strain of smallpox, Variola major. Popular in Turkey at the hight of the Ottoman Empire, it was brought to England by 1750. Edward Jenner would later produce the first smallpox vaccine in 1796.

Formaldehyde is already present in most of the cells in your body. Its presence in vaccines is due to trace residues left over from the industrial process.

A credible source uses real science. Not someone's blog or naturalnews.

[jmdrake]

"As he dieted for nine months, the tumor progressed, and took him from the high end to the low end of the survival rate."

And what's the survival rate for Steve Jobs "lucky" form of pancreatic cancer?

http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/TreatmentEndocrine.php?area=tr
PROGNOSIS

The most important prognostic factor is whether or not the tumor can be removed surgically. Other significant prognostic for patients with an islet cell tumor / pancreatic endocrine neoplasm include the size of the tumor, the presence or absence of blood vessel invasion, the presence or absence of metastases to lymph nodes or other organs, The 5-year survival rate ranges between 50 and 70% in most series.

Hmmmm....Steve Jobs lived 9 years. So you should be "skeptical" about the claims made by your skeptic blog.

[Zippyjuan]

:rolleyes: He got the alt medicine after the surgery. And he outlived the prognosis for surgery. But you can't be bothered with the facts can you?

http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/Tr...ne.php?area=tr
PROGNOSIS

The most important prognostic factor is whether or not the tumor can be removed surgically. Other significant prognostic for patients with an islet cell tumor / pancreatic endocrine neoplasm include the size of the tumor, the presence or absence of blood vessel invasion, the presence or absence of metastases to lymph nodes or other organs, The 5-year survival rate ranges between 50 and 70% in most series.


Incorrect. He refused surgery when his cancer was just developing and treatable but he was afraid of being opened up and sought alternative treatment. By the time he did agree to surgery, it had spread to other organs including his liver and it was too late to help once it spread.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/21/steve-jobs-refused-cancer-treatment-biography


Apple co-founder Steve Jobs refused potentially life-saving cancer surgery for nine months, shrugging off his family's protests and opting instead for alternative medicine, according to his biographer.

When Jobs eventually sought surgery, the rare form of pancreatic cancer had spread to the tissues surrounding the organ, his biographer, Walter Isaacson, said in an interview with 60 Minutes on CBS, to be aired on Sunday.

Jobs also played down the seriousness of his condition and told everyone he was cured but kept receiving treatment in secret, Isaacson said in the interview.



In his 60 Minutes interview, Isaacson confirmed details that had been speculated upon or widely reported, including that Jobs might have been cured of his "slow-growing" cancer had he sought professional treatment sooner, rather than resorting to unconventional means.

Jobs deeply regretted putting off a decision that might have ultimately saved his life, according to Isaacson.

"He tries to treat it with diet. He goes to spiritualists. He goes to various ways of doing it macrobiotically and he doesn't get an operation," Isaacson said in the interview.

"I think that he kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don't want something to exist, you can have magical thinking," he said. "We talked about this a lot."

Jobs announced in August 2004 that he had undergone surgery to remove a cancerous tumour from his pancreas. In 2008 and 2009 – as his weight loss caused concern in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street – he said first he was fighting a "common bug", then that he was suffering from a hormone imbalance. In 2009, news emerged that he had undergone a liver transplant.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/technology/book-offers-new-details-of-jobs-cancer-fight.html?pagewanted=all

Friends and family, including his sister, Mona Simpson, urged Mr. Jobs to have surgery and chemotherapy, Mr. Isaacson writes. But Mr. Jobs delayed the medical treatment. His friend and mentor, Andrew Grove, the former head of Intel, who had overcome prostate cancer, told Mr. Jobs that diets and acupuncture were not a cure for his cancer. “I told him he was crazy,” he said.

Art Levinson, a member of Apple’s board and chairman of Genentech, recalled that he pleaded with Mr. Jobs and was frustrated that he could not persuade him to have surgery.

His wife, Laurene Powell, recalled those days, after the cancer diagnosis. “The big thing was that he really was not ready to open his body,” she said. “It’s hard to push someone to do that.” She did try, however, Mr. Isaacson writes. “The body exists to serve the spirit,” she argued.

When he did take the path of surgery and science, Mr. Jobs did so with passion and curiosity, sparing no expense, pushing the frontiers of new treatments. According to Mr. Isaacson, once Mr. Jobs decided on the surgery and medical science, he became an expert — studying, guiding and deciding on each treatment. Mr. Isaacson said Mr. Jobs made the final decision on each new treatment regimen.

The DNA sequencing that Mr. Jobs ultimately went through was done by a collaboration of teams at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Harvard and the Broad Institute of MIT. The sequencing, Mr. Isaacson writes, allowed doctors to tailor drugs and target them to the defective molecular pathways.

A doctor told Mr. Jobs that the pioneering treatments of the kind he was undergoing would soon make most types of cancer a manageable chronic disease. Later, Mr. Jobs told Mr. Isaacson that he was either going to be one of the first “to outrun a cancer like this” or be among the last “to die from it.”

[jmdrake]

Incorrect.

Says you. The facts say he outlived the general prognosis for surgery for his type of cancer.

http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/Tr...ne.php?area=tr
PROGNOSIS

The most important prognostic factor is whether or not the tumor can be removed surgically. Other significant prognostic for patients with an islet cell tumor / pancreatic endocrine neoplasm include the size of the tumor, the presence or absence of blood vessel invasion, the presence or absence of metastases to lymph nodes or other organs, The 5-year survival rate ranges between 50 and 70% in most series.

Edit: Further fact checking shows that Jobs particular form of cancer had worse survival rates than normal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077912/
In an earlier publication that was based on data from the SEER Program, Modlin et al.9 described the five-year overall survival of patients with carcinoid tumors to be 59.5% to 67.2%. The survival of patients with islet cell carcinoma seems less favorable. In the present study, we observed a median overall survival of 38 months. This is identical to the median survival observed in a large retrospective series of 163 cases from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.16 The survival duration of patients with distant metastases was also similar (23 months in current study vs. 25 months in the M. D. Anderson series). We did, however, observe improvements in the outcome of patients with islet cell carcinoma over time. These improvements were observed among all SEER stage groups (data not shown), and are likely due in part to improvements in supportive care.

Be sceptical of sceptics skewing science to match an agenda.

[Anti Federalist]

Be skeptical of skeptics skewing science to match an agenda.

+rep

[Zippyjuan]

Says you. The facts say he outlived the general prognosis for surgery for his type of cancer.

http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/Tr...ne.php?area=tr
PROGNOSIS

The most important prognostic factor is whether or not the tumor can be removed surgically. Other significant prognostic for patients with an islet cell tumor / pancreatic endocrine neoplasm include the size of the tumor, the presence or absence of blood vessel invasion, the presence or absence of metastases to lymph nodes or other organs, The 5-year survival rate ranges between 50 and 70% in most series.

Edit: Further fact checking shows that Jobs particular form of cancer had worse survival rates than normal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077912/
In an earlier publication that was based on data from the SEER Program, Modlin et al.9 described the five-year overall survival of patients with carcinoid tumors to be 59.5% to 67.2%. The survival of patients with islet cell carcinoma seems less favorable. In the present study, we observed a median overall survival of 38 months. This is identical to the median survival observed in a large retrospective series of 163 cases from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.16 The survival duration of patients with distant metastases was also similar (23 months in current study vs. 25 months in the M. D. Anderson series). We did, however, observe improvements in the outcome of patients with islet cell carcinoma over time. These improvements were observed among all SEER stage groups (data not shown), and are likely due in part to improvements in supportive care.

Be sceptical of sceptics skewing science to match an agenda.

Not says me- says his biography.

[BlackTerrel]

You better go back an listen to what he says: "Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [number of 9 billion] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

Yes. 10-15% less than 9 billion. That is what I said.


Why does it bother you how thrid-world countries procreate? Is that any of OUR business? Governments throughout history are the ones who oppress and starve their people. Remember that.

Do you know anyone from those countries? Or known people who volunteered to go to those countries and volunteer? Life is pretty miserable. If you care about humanity a lower birth rate would be a good thing.


Again if you dig a little deeper you will see who help implement those ideas. Just like Women's Lib was a ploy to get the women out to work, so they can tax the second income. It had nothing to do with equality and rights. They (TPTB) were hell-bent to make sure the family unit was broken. A strong family unit is what helped build this country to the greatness it was.

Why shouldn't women work? Who carea?


Government schools indoctrinate children (in many cases some are now adults) who think this earth is over populated and it needs to stop.

I never got this from school.


There are places in this world that have not even been traveled, much less, inhabited. So to say this world is over populated is quite naive and follows the indoctrination that TPTB would like people to believe.

It's not about land mass. People that can't afford food for their kids shouldn't have kids and people that can afford food and housing and care for their kids should have kids (if they so desire). I know plenty of people even in this country who can't even feed themselves who have kids out of wedlock - who benefits from that?

[Anti Federalist]

I am very pro-individual even if it makes the group worse off. I definitely don't think any parent should be forced to vaccinate their kids.

I think capitalism and liberty are very logical if accept the initial premise of non-aggression.

See, that is "illogical".

[Zippyjuan]

More info on Job's type of cancer:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/05/steve-jobs-dies-his-unorthodox-treatment-for-neuroendocrine-cancer.html


Steve Jobs was right to be optimistic when, in 2004, he announced that he had cancer in his pancreas. Although cancer of the pancreas has a terrible prognosis—half of all patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer die within 10 months of the diagnosis; half of those in whom it has metastasized die within six months—cancer in the pancreas is not necessarily a death sentence.


The difference is that pancreatic cancers arise from the pancreatic cells themselves; this is the kind that killed actor Patrick Swayze in 2009. But cancers in the pancreas, called neuroendocrine tumors, arise from islands of hormone-producing cells that happen to be in that organ. Jobs learned in 2003 that he had an extremely rare form of this cancer, an islet-cell neuroendocrine tumor. As the name implies, it arises from islet cells, the specialized factories within the pancreas that produce and secrete insulin, which cells need in order to take in glucose from the food we eat. Unlike pancreatic cancer, with neuroendocrine cancer “if you catch it early, there is a real potential for cure,” says cancer surgeon Joseph Kim of City of Hope, a comprehensive cancer center in Duarte, Calif.




There is virtually no debate about the best treatment. “It has long been held that surgery can lead to very long-term survival,” says Kim. In a 2010 analysis of cancer registries, he and colleagues found that patients with neuroendocrine cancer who were eligible for surgery (the cancer has not spread beyond the pancreas) “can have outstanding outcomes,” living for many more years. In part, that is because neuroendocrine cancers tend to be quite slow growing, or indolent. Even those that have been present for years, and in some cases decades, often stay safely confined to the pancreas. This kind of cancer can be so indolent that patients often die with it than from it. Although an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed every year with neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas, autopsies find the disease in hundreds more—people who were apparently not harmed by this very slow-growing cancer.


Despite the expert consensus on the value of surgery, Jobs did not elect it right away. He reportedly spent nine months on “alternative therapies,” including what Fortune called “a special diet.” But when a scan showed that the original tumor had grown, he finally had it removed on July 31, 2004, at Stanford University Medical Clinic. In emails to Apple employees immediately after, Jobs said his form of cancer “can be cured by surgical removal if diagnosed in time (mine was),” and told his colleagues, “I will be recuperating during the month of August, and expect to return to work in September.” Despite the delay in having the surgery, Jobs’s upbeat report was not unrealistic: most patients diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumors in the pancreas live at least another 10 years.

Not that the surgery was a walk in the park. In many cases, says Kim, “you can just remove the tumor with a little of the surrounding [pancreatic] tissue.” But Jobs’s was not such a simple case. He underwent an operation called a modified Whipple procedure, or a pancreatoduodenectomy, Fortune reported. The surgery removes the right side of the pancreas, the gallbladder, and parts of the stomach, bile duct, and small intestine. The fact that so much more than the pancreas itself had to be removed suggests that Jobs’s cancer had spread beyond the pancreas. The cancer might have already spread by the time it was discovered in 2003, though Jobs’s sanguine description of his prognosis suggests that if that were the case, the metastasis might have been so small— “micrometastases”—as to be undetectable. Alternatively, the cancer could have spread during the nine months that Jobs was experimenting with nonstandard therapies.


more at the link- see page 2

[donnay]

Yes. 10-15% less than 9 billion. That is what I said.

You missed the whole point. Who the hell is Bill Gates and why should anyone care what he thinks? Let alone the fact that he is delving into other countries affairs. He thinks the population will be 9 million...he would like to see it reduced. By what moral authority does Bill Gates have to do any of this?


Do you know anyone from those countries? Or known people who volunteered to go to those countries and volunteer? Life is pretty miserable. If you care about humanity a lower birth rate would be a good thing.

Yes as a matter of fact I do know people who have been in third world countries. Kenya, Madagascar, Niger, Haiti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Trinidad. In many of these places it is government who makes their lives miserable and most of the time a living hell. I have also gave money to the people I know who work as missionaries in these places. I have worked with Haitians and became very close to many of them. I was told horrible stories of when Papa Doc was put in power (with the help of our government, mind you). These people were traumatized by that government and later to be traumatized by his son.


Why shouldn't women work? Who carea?

The example was to point out the same foundations who funded and supported both sides of the women's Liberation movements are the same foundations who also funded the schools and colleges and lobby government have senators and congressmen in their pockets. These foundations play both sides against the middle. These agendas were to destroy the family units and to divide this country.


I never got this from school.

We'll you learned it somewhere. The environmental movements again funded by Foundations (Rockefellers, Gates et al) are another way they push population control and UN agendas.


It's not about land mass. People that can't afford food for their kids shouldn't have kids and people that can afford food and housing and care for their kids should have kids (if they so desire). I know plenty of people even in this country who can't even feed themselves who have kids out of wedlock - who benefits from that?

Government does. Welfare is just another word for slavery. It is outright theft to steal money from my paycheck to give to someone who doesn't work or isn't willing to work. That is exactly what Dr. Paul has railed about for thirty years. When people become dependent, they expect it and think it is owed to them. Then they ask government for more--government then gets bigger and bigger off the backs of those who work harder and harder and get less and less.


Many indigenous people lived off the land and were doing just fine until governments came in. Then governments controlled the land and enslaved them, making them be beholden to government.

[moostraks]

Haven't read through the whole thread but am responding to the argument about government schools teaching over population and the need to address this issue. Try finding social studies and science books from roughly the 70s and newer at flea markets, used book stores, or thrift stores and skim them with a critical eye. I was aghast at how aggressive the propaganda was in these books regarding this issue.

[Athan]

Man this is crazy.

[Athan]

You know what? Now that I think about it, this is an easy fix. Simply take information sharing off-line and into people networks. Don't give them more information they need to do analysis of what people say what to which people.

[jmdrake]

Not says me- says his biography.


More info on Job's type of cancer:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/05/steve-jobs-dies-his-unorthodox-treatment-for-neuroendocrine-cancer.html


You're quoting biographies and "TheDailyBeast". I'm quoting scientific articles published by the National Institute of Health. Which has more credibility?

[donnay]

Haven't read through the whole thread but am responding to the argument about government schools teaching over population and the need to address this issue. Try finding social studies and science books from roughly the 70s and newer at flea markets, used book stores, or thrift stores and skim them with a critical eye. I was aghast at how aggressive the propaganda was in these books regarding this issue.

Absolutely! Great point. One book I had mentioned how people pollute the water, as if individuals, themselves, are the REAL reason for polluting the rivers, streams and lakes. How many big Corporations like DuPoint have polluted the waterways and got off with a small fine and back to business the next day?

Read some examples of this educational propaganda:
http://renewourrivers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ROR-Color-Book-Teachers-Lesson-Plan.pdf
http://www.acpe.lake.k12.ca.us/download/unit4/Unit4_14_Water-Pollution-Causes-Affect.pdf
http://graysreef.noaa.gov/education/activities/pdfs/gr_what_is_water_pollution.pdf
http://syracusecoe.org/coe/images/allmedia/classroom/Watershedcurriculum6thGrade.pdf


DuPont Hid Teflon Pollution For Decades (http://www.ewg.org/analysis/dupont-hid-teflon-pollution-decades)

8.5 Million Pounds of Toxic Chemicals Dumped into New Jersey’s Waterways (http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/news/nje/85-million-pounds-toxic-chemicals-dumped-new-jersey%E2%80%99s-waterways)
Poisoning Our Water Report (http://www.newhopepa.com/DelawareRiver/currentissues_3.htm)


In the name of environmentalism they brainwash kids today. Some of the big corporates that are the very reason many of our waterways are polluted sponsor these educational events!

[Zippyjuan]

You're quoting biographies and "TheDailyBeast". I'm quoting scientific articles published by the National Institute of Health. Which has more credibility?
The biography is specific to Job's condition and treatment. The other articles are not.

Let us just take your last link (which isn't working).

The most important prognostic factor is whether or not the tumor can be removed surgically. Other significant prognostic for patients with an islet cell tumor / pancreatic endocrine neoplasm include the size of the tumor, the presence or absence of blood vessel invasion, the presence or absence of metastases to lymph nodes or other organs, The 5-year survival rate ranges between 50 and 70% in most series.


At first diagnosis, Job's cancer was deemed to be able to be removable surgically. That greatly improves survivability- as the quote indicates. It says that up to 70% are still alive after five years. This all fits with what was reported on Jobs. After waiting nine months experimenting with alternative treatments, it spread to where a simple operation to remove the tumor was impossible so a more extreme operation was used and new treatments were tried.

He also received a liver transplant which does not cure but buys more time.
Most people are diagnosed later than Jobs was.

From the National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/isletcell/Patient/page1

Certain factors affect prognosis (chance of recovery) and treatment options.

Pancreatic NETs can often be cured. The prognosis (chance of recovery) and treatment options depend on the following:
•The type of cancer cell.
•Where the tumor is found in the pancreas.
•Whether the tumor has spread to more than one place in the pancreas or to other parts of the body.
•Whether the patient has MEN1 syndrome.
•The patient's age and general health.
•Whether the cancer has just been diagnosed or has recurred (come back).



The plan for cancer treatment depends on where the NET is found in the pancreas and whether it has spread.

The process used to find out if cancer has spread within the pancreas or to other parts of the body is called staging. The results of the tests and procedures used to diagnose pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are also used to find out whether the cancer has spread. See the General Information section for a description of these tests and procedures.

Although there is a standard staging system for pancreatic NETs, it is not used to plan treatment. Treatment of pancreatic NETs is based on the following:
•Whether the cancer is found in one place in the pancreas.
•Whether the cancer is found in several places in the pancreas.
•Whether the cancer has spread to lymph nodes near the pancreas or to other parts of the body such as the liver, lung, peritoneum, or bone.

There are three ways that cancer spreads in the body.

The three ways that cancer spreads in the body are:
•Through tissue. Cancer invades the surrounding normal tissue.
•Through the lymph system. Cancer invades the lymph system and travels through the lymph vessels to other places in the body.
•Through the blood. Cancer invades the veins and capillaries and travels through the blood to other places in the body.


When he was first diagnosed, it had not spread and was operable. Nine months later, when he did finally agree to surgery, it had spread and the progonosis was worse (and odds of survival much lower). As noted in the Daily Beast piece, they not only removed part of the pancreas but parts of surrounding organs as well and later his whole liver.

[jmdrake]

Let us just take your last link (which isn't working).


At first diagnosis, Job's cancer was deemed to be able to be removable surgically. That greatly improves survivability- as the quote indicates. It says that up to 70% are still alive after five years. This all fits with what was reported on Jobs.


That part's fact yes. Of course you leaving out the 50% lower end. Kind of dishonest of you don't you think?



After waiting nine months experimenting with alternative treatments, it spread to where a simple operation to remove the tumor was impossible so a more extreme operation was used and new treatments were tried.

And that's where your unscientific opinion kicks in. The more extreme treatment didn't come until towards the end of the 9 years. Steve Jobs had the worst form of pancreatic cancer. Using the standard treatment, 5 years is about all that's promised for most people. He lived 9 years. He beat the odds. Your side is inexplicably insists on blaming altmeds for Steve Jobs not doing better than 9 years when there is no scientific reason whatsoever to believe that he would have lived longer then 9 years anyway.

[Zippyjuan]

And that's where your unscientific opinion kicks in. The more extreme treatment didn't come until towards the end of the 9 years. Steve Jobs had the worst form of pancreatic cancer. Using the standard treatment, 5 years is about all that's promised for most people. He lived 9 years. He beat the odds. Your side is inexplicably insists on blaming altmeds for Steve Jobs not doing better than 9 years when there is no scientific reason whatsoever to believe that he would have lived longer then 9 years anyway.

No- this is where your opinion kicks in. I have cited descriptions of his condition- you have not.

He began agressive conventional treatment after nine months of alternative treatments- not near the end of nine years. The first diagnosis was in 2003 and the first surgery was in 2004. The liver transplant came in 2009. The alternative treatments did not necessarily harm him but his delay in beginning conventional treatment lowered his odds of surviving since the cancer spread during that time.

And to go back to one of my sources http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/05/steve-jobs-dies-his-unorthodox-treatment-for-neuroendocrine-cancer.html

Despite the expert consensus on the value of surgery, Jobs did not elect it right away. He reportedly spent nine months on “alternative therapies,” including what Fortune called “a special diet.” But when a scan showed that the original tumor had grown, he finally had it removed on July 31, 2004, at Stanford University Medical Clinic. In emails to Apple employees immediately after, Jobs said his form of cancer “can be cured by surgical removal if diagnosed in time (mine was),” and told his colleagues, “I will be recuperating during the month of August, and expect to return to work in September.” Despite the delay in having the surgery, Jobs’s upbeat report was not unrealistic: most patients diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumors in the pancreas live at least another 10 years.

[jmdrake]

No- this is where your opinion kicks in. I have cited descriptions of his condition- you have not.

All of your sources are from blogs. People with an axe to grind and who wish to push a particular agenda. You've posted nothing to counter the fact that his type of cancer was the most aggressive form of pancreatic cancer with the worst survival rate, yet he beat the odds. In fact your stupid sources got that scientific fact backwards.

[Zippyjuan]

The National Cancer Institute is a blog? The New York Times? Perhaps you can share with us your sources on Steve Job's particular diagnosis which leads you to believe he "beat the odds"?

Let me again requote them:

Certain factors affect prognosis (chance of recovery) and treatment options.

Pancreatic NETs can often be cured. The prognosis (chance of recovery) and treatment options depend on the following:
•The type of cancer cell.
•Where the tumor is found in the pancreas.
•Whether the tumor has spread to more than one place in the pancreas or to other parts of the body.
•Whether the patient has MEN1 syndrome.
•The patient's age and general health.
•Whether the cancer has just been diagnosed or has recurred (come back).

From Johns Hopkins: http://pathology.jhu.edu/pc/basicintro.php?area=ba

Pancreatic cancer is treatable when caught early; the vast majority of cases are not diagnosed until too late.
Five-year survival rates approach 25% if the cancers are surgically removed while they are still small and have not spread to the lymph nodes.

Pancreatic cancer is difficult to diagnose
There is no reliable screening test for the early detection of pancreatic cancer.
Symptoms are often vague and easily confused with other diseases.
We need to invest in the development of an effective screening test.


Jobs was in the "diagnosed early" category when it was first discovered in him. It was not considered "early" when he did have his surgery.


http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PancreaticCancer/DetailedGuide/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rates


Exocrine pancreatic cancer




Stage 5-year survival

Stage IA 14%

Stage IB 12%

Stage IIA 7%

Stage IIB 5%

Stage III 3%

Stage IV 1%


In general, those treated with surgery survived longer, while those not treated with surgery fared worse. However, only about 1 one of every 6 patients was treated with surgery.

For pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, survival statistics by stage are only available for patients treated with surgery. These numbers come from the National Cancer Data Base and are based on patients diagnosed between 1985 and 2004.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors treated with surgery


Stage 5- year survival

Stage I 61%

Stage II 52%

Stage III 41%

Stage IV 15%

[jmdrake]

The National Cancer Institute is a blog?

Let me again requote them:


Perhaps you can share with us your sources on Steve Job's particular diagnosis?

I got the type of Steve Job's diagnosis from your fellow anti-Altmed "gurus".

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?388358-Bill-Gates-to-target-anti-vaccine-advocates-with-smear-campaign&p=4628343&viewfull=1#post4628343

They posted information that he had islet cell carcinoma. But the claims being made is that that particular type of cancer is the easiest to treat, when it's actually the more difficult one to treat. Here's another source WebMD.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/news/20110825/faq-steve-jobs-pancreatic-cancer

So, doing research on islet cell carcinoma I discovered the prognosis for it is not good. None of the information that you've posted has contradicted the claim that 1) Steve Jobs had islet cell carcinoma or 2) the claim that islet cell carcinoma is difficult to treat or 3) the claim that people with islet cell carcinoma don't typically live much longer than 5 years. You seem to be posting just for the sake of posting. Point out specifically what information you have that contradicts claims 1, 2 or 3.

[Zippyjuan]

All of your sources are from blogs.

I see. I guess your blogs were better than my blogs? (your link to the Ron Paul thread is to a WebMD blog).

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/news/20110825/faq-steve-jobs-pancreatic-cancer
Let's see what your link actually says:


If Jobs had suffered the most common form of pancreatic cancer, adenocarcinoma, the chances are he would have died soon after his 2003 diagnosis. But as Jobs later revealed, he had an unusual form of pancreatic cancer known as a neuroendocrine tumor or islet cell carcinoma.

In 2004, nine months after his diagnosis, Jobs underwent surgery to remove the tumor. In 2009 he underwent a liver transplant, a procedure appropriate for only a small number of patients with this uncommon form of pancreatic cancer.

What is known about this kind of cancer? Can it be cured? What if it comes back? WebMD answers these and other questions.



Pancreatic Cancer Overview



What Is a Neuroendocrine Tumor/Islet Cell Carcinoma?

When doctors discover that a patient has pancreatic cancer, the outlook usually is grim. But once in a while -- about 200 to 1,000 times a year in the U.S. -- it turns out to be an islet cell carcinoma.

Islet cells are the hormone-producing cells of the pancreas. It's no walk in the park to be diagnosed with cancer of these cells. But these cancers include "a highly treatable and often curable collection of tumors," according to the National Cancer Institute.

The course of disease depends on which of these cells become cancerous. Sometimes, as the tumor cells grow in number, they emit various hormones. This can have weird results, such as the inability to digest fats or sudden growth of the hands or feet. These hormone-emitting tumors often are benign.



The first choice of treatment for islet cell carcinoma is surgery, says David Levi, MD, professor of clinical surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. Levi did not treat Jobs or have access to his medical records. His comments are about islet cell carcinoma in general and not specifically about Jobs' case.

"If it can be cured with surgery we try for that," Levi says. "If not there are options: chemotherapy and a number of other options to try to control this tumor. Some of these cancers are not curable, but patients can do well for years and years. ... Many can be treated medically for months and years and do quite well and lead normal lives to the last."

Info from Cancer.net:
http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/islet-cell-tumor/statistics

Islet cell tumors are uncommon, with about 1,000 new cases diagnosed each year in the United States. They are often treatable. The overall five-year survival rate (percentage of people who survive at least five years after the tumor is detected, excluding those who die from other diseases) of people with an islet cell tumor is about 42%. The survival rate depends on a variety of factors, including whether the tumor can be removed using surgery.

Cancer statistics should be interpreted with caution. Estimates are based on data from multiple cases of this type of tumor in the United States each year, but the actual risk for a particular individual may differ. It is not possible to tell a person how long he or she will live with an islet cell tumor.

You have not disproved any of the information I have provided. The form of pancreatic cancer he had was actually more survivable than the more common form of it. Yes, even with surgery, only about half are still alive after five years but that does not mean it was impossible for Jobs to be among the other nearly half who do survive longer. (the stats from Cancer.org indicate that even with Stage Three at the time of their surgery, 41% live beyond five years).

[Zippyjuan]

And back to the original point I got in on:

He got the alt medicine after the surgery. And he outlived the prognosis for surgery. But you can't be bothered with the facts can you?

That is still wrong.

1) Diagnosis in 2003.
2) alternative treatmens for nine months
3) surgery after nine months and follow up treatments starting in 2004.
4) liver transplant in 2009.
5) passed away in 2012.

Prognosis for surgery at Stage One was 61% still alive after five years.
Prognosis for surgery at Stage Two was 52% still alive after five years.
Prognosis for surgery at Stage Three was 41% still alive after five years.

Stage three is when it has spread to other organs. At original diagnosis, he was stage one. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/staging

Living for nine years is not necessarily ouside his prognosis (though he did have access to the best of care which probably did give him a longer life than somebody say with limited or no medical insurance and he tried many new treatments as well which may or may not have added time).

[jmdrake]

I see. I guess your blogs were better than my blogs? (your link to the Ron Paul thread is to a WebMD blog).

:rolleyes: It was the source your side provided to make it's claim about Steve Jobs having a more survivable form of cancer. You are intelligent enough, I assume, to realize that an argument is stronger when you use the other sides information against it right?

After using your side's argument as a starting point, I went to actual medical websites websites like the NIH to research if the claim that islet cell carcinoma was more survivable than other forms of pancreatic cancer. That turned out not to be true. Now, the only question that remains is can you understand this fact? I'm beginning to doubt that.

[jmdrake]

And note that you have no prognosis for 10 years. Come on Zippy. You have to know that you can't make a claim about 9 years out based on a prognosis that only goes 5 years out.


And back to the original point I got in on:


That is still wrong.

1) Diagnosis in 2003.
2) alternative treatmens for nine months
3) surgery after nine months and follow up treatments starting in 2004.
4) liver transplant in 2009.
5) passed away in 2012.

Prognosis for surgery at Stage One was 61% still alive after five years.
Prognosis for surgery at Stage Two was 52% still alive after five years.
Prognosis for surgery at Stage Three was 41% still alive after five years.

Stage three is when it has spread to other organs. At original diagnosis, he was stage one. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/staging

Living for nine years is not necessarily ouside his prognosis (though he did have access to the best of care which probably did give him a longer life than somebody say with limited or no medical insurance and he tried many new treatments as well which may or may not have added time).

[Zippyjuan]

:rolleyes: It was the source your side provided to make it's claim about Steve Jobs having a more survivable form of cancer. You are intelligent enough, I assume, to realize that an argument is stronger when you use the other sides information against it right?

After using your side's argument as a starting point, I went to actual medical websites websites like the NIH to research if the claim that islet cell carcinoma was more survivable than other forms of pancreatic cancer. That turned out not to be true. Now, the only question that remains is can you understand this fact? I'm beginning to doubt that.

You criticized me for using quotes from his biography and a blog to describe Job's medical condition and you said they were wrong and were blogs. I asked you for where you got your information and privided a nearly identical source. I guess you were unable to show my sources were incorrect. I since provided additional medical sources about the survivability of the type of cancer Jobs had and you have not disproved any of that either. The NIH article points out that most patients were diagnosed at later stages- Jobs diagnosis came at an earlier stage so his survival odds were greater.

Don't know if this is the same NIH paper (did my own search) but it says:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077912/


At present, surgery is the only curative treatment for islet cell carcinoma. Surgery should be recommended for most patients in whom cross-sectional imaging suggests that complete resection is possible.19 Although islet cell carcinoma has a better prognosis than adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, the disease remains incurable once multifocal unresectable metastatic disease exists. Although survival beyond 10 years has been described in the literature for some patients with metastatic disease, the survival duration for most with advanced disease is far shorter.

Metatastic disease means it has spread throughout the body into other organs. Curable in early stages with surgery, not curable later on.

[jmdrake]

You criticized me for using quotes from his biography and a blog to describe Job's medical condition and you said they were wrong and were blogs. I asked you for where you got your information and privided a nearly identical source.


*facepalm* I'm not disagreeing with you on the type of cancer Steve Jobs had. Goodness! I pointed out the fact that that type of cancer (islet cell carcinoma) does not have a good survival rate!



I guess you were unable to show my sources were incorrect.


I did. Your sources said islet cell carcinoma was the easiest to cure. It isn't.



I since provided additional medical sources about the survivability of the type of cancer Jobs had and you have not disproved any of that either. The NIH article points out that most patients were diagnosed at later stages- Jobs diagnosis came at an earlier stage so his survival odds were greater.


And he got surgery within a year of diagnosis.

Edit: And again (please read it this time).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077912/
In an earlier publication that was based on data from the SEER Program, Modlin et al.9 described the five-year overall survival of patients with carcinoid tumors to be 59.5% to 67.2%. The survival of patients with islet cell carcinoma seems less favorable. In the present study, we observed a median overall survival of 38 months. This is identical to the median survival observed in a large retrospective series of 163 cases from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.16 The survival duration of patients with distant metastases was also similar (23 months in current study vs. 25 months in the M. D. Anderson series). We did, however, observe improvements in the outcome of patients with islet cell carcinoma over time. These improvements were observed among all SEER stage groups (data not shown), and are likely due in part to improvements in supportive care.

What part of The survival of patients with islet cell carcinoma seems less favorable. do you not understand? :confused:

Edit: And the part of the NIH article you missed.

Certainly, pancreatic resection carries considerable operative risks and the medical comorbidities that are associated with advancing age may have precluded some patients from resection while increasing the risk to those taken to surgery.

This wasn't a risk free surgery. Steve Jobs weight the risk of the surgery while doing the sensible thing and eating better. But saying "Altmeds killed Steve Jobs" is a much better play on words for people with an agenda isn't it?

[dancjm]

Ron Paul called the polio vaccine a great thing. Said vaccines can add "many blessings". He saw people who suffered with polio when he was growing up. He is for choice in vaccines but is not against them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f74xvtRijMc

"There are dangers in taking vaccines, there are also many blessings with vaccines."

"I think we've gone way overboard...I think Gulf War syndrome is related to vaccines."

"They bunch them together, 4 and 5 of these vaccines together, and they overwhelm the immune system."

"In a free society, it would be assumed that the individual makes up their own mind."

"There's a lot of people who have suffered severe consequences for overdoing these immunizations."


The day someone claims that they have the right to forcibly inject something into my bloodstream against my will, it's game over for Liberty.

Let some government agent come at me with a needle, see what happens.

[jmdrake]

"There are dangers in taking vaccines, there are also many blessings with vaccines."

"I think we've gone way overboard...I think Gulf War syndrome is related to vaccines."

"They bunch them together, 4 and 5 of these vaccines together, and they overwhelm the immune system."

"In a free society, it would be assumed that the individual makes up their own mind."

"There's a lot of people who have suffered severe consequences for overdoing these immunizations."


The day someone claims that they have the right to forcibly inject something into my bloodstream against my will, it's game over for Liberty.

Let some government agent come at me with a needle, see what happens.

+rep! You have to realize that Zippy only listens to Ron when Ron agrees with him. ;)

Seriously though, I'm neither "vaxer" nor "anti-vaxer" and neither is Ron Paul. Here's Ron Paul talking about how more were killed in 1976 from the swine flu vaccine than from the flu.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJiTStZtrlE

[Zippyjuan]

*facepalm* I'm not disagreeing with you on the type of cancer Steve Jobs had. Goodness! I pointed out the fact that that type of cancer (islet cell carcinoma) does not have a good survival rate!



I did. Your sources said islet cell carcinoma was the easiest to cure. It isn't.



And he got surgery within a year of diagnosis.

Edit: And again (please read it this time).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077912/
In an earlier publication that was based on data from the SEER Program, Modlin et al.9 described the five-year overall survival of patients with carcinoid tumors to be 59.5% to 67.2%. The survival of patients with islet cell carcinoma seems less favorable. In the present study, we observed a median overall survival of 38 months. This is identical to the median survival observed in a large retrospective series of 163 cases from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.16 The survival duration of patients with distant metastases was also similar (23 months in current study vs. 25 months in the M. D. Anderson series). We did, however, observe improvements in the outcome of patients with islet cell carcinoma over time. These improvements were observed among all SEER stage groups (data not shown), and are likely due in part to improvements in supportive care.

What part of The survival of patients with islet cell carcinoma seems less favorable. do you not understand? :confused:

Edit: And the part of the NIH article you missed.

Certainly, pancreatic resection carries considerable operative risks and the medical comorbidities that are associated with advancing age may have precluded some patients from resection while increasing the risk to those taken to surgery.

This wasn't a risk free surgery. Steve Jobs weight the risk of the surgery while doing the sensible thing and eating better. But saying "Altmeds killed Steve Jobs" is a much better play on words for people with an agenda isn't it?

The article does differentiate with the stages of the two pancreatic cancers.

Given the longer survival duration often experienced by patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma, we report only limited duration prevalence data which may somewhat underestimate the complete prevalence. By incidence, islet cell carcinomas account for only 1.3% of all pancreatic cancers. However, because of the better outcome generally experienced by patients with islet cell carcinoma, they represent almost 10% of pancreatic cancers in prevalence analyses.
IF you catch it early, the odds of surviving islet cell carcinoma are better. Once it matasticizes, it is more deadly. Jobs was diagnosed early.

Yes, his surgery did entail lots of risks. And I did not make any claim that altmeds killed him. I (and others) said that delaying traditional treatment while he tried alternative medicines allowed his cancer to get to the point where it was more difficult to treat and cure.

But we are debating on a pretty insignificant point here.

[jmdrake]

But we are debating on a pretty insignificant point here.

Well with that much I agree.

[donnay]

"If we accept this notion that the federal government is going to dictate what we can put into our bodies, then it leads to the next step: that the government is going to regulate everything that is supposedly good for us. That's where they are. They have an FDA that won't allow somebody who's dying to use an experimental drug which might speed up the process of finding out which drugs are good and which drugs are bad and the federal government comes in and dictates that they want complete control over vitamins and nutritional products and I just think the whole principal of government telling us what we can take in or not take in is just a dangerous position to take... it's related to the drug industry because they'd like to control all of this." ~Dr. Ron Paul

http://infowars.net/articles/january2008/230108Vaccines.htm

[BlackTerrel]

You missed the whole point. Who the hell is Bill Gates and why should anyone care what he thinks? Let alone the fact that he is delving into other countries affairs. He thinks the population will be 9 million...he would like to see it reduced. By what moral authority does Bill Gates have to do any of this?

No the point was the infowars article was claiming depopulation. That's 100% false based on its own source. He said he wanted to slow growth - not depopulate. Don't you think that's a big difference?


You missed the whole point. Who the hell is Bill Gates and why should anyone care what he thinks? Let alone the fact that he is delving into other countries affairs. He thinks the population will be 9 million...he would like to see it reduced. By what moral authority does Bill Gates have to do any of this?

What moral authority does he have to educate people and provide free birth control? Why doesn't he have that right?


Yes as a matter of fact I do know people who have been in third world countries. Kenya, Madagascar, Niger, Haiti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Trinidad. In many of these places it is government who makes their lives miserable and most of the time a living hell. I have also gave money to the people I know who work as missionaries in these places. I have worked with Haitians and became very close to many of them. I was told horrible stories of when Papa Doc was put in power (with the help of our government, mind you). These people were traumatized by that government and later to be traumatized by his son.

Do any of these people think condoms and not having kids starting at age 14 would be a bad thing?


Many indigenous people lived off the land and were doing just fine until governments came in. Then governments controlled the land and enslaved them, making them be beholden to government.

The world is more complex than "government = evil".

Condoms and less unwanted kids would benefit most everyone. It benefits the poor and unwanted far more than it benefits Bill Gates who will be fine regardless.

[John F Kennedy III]

more bs from you.

HEY... guess what??
injecting something is so much more potentially harmful than ingesting simply due to the fact that the digestive processes that protect and filter are not there..

ITS INJECTED RIGHT INTO THE BLOOD STREAM!

you think trace amounts of aluminum and mercury and MSG and squalene are going to do the same thing being injected as being ingested?? that is complete nonsense.

"theres only the same amount of mercury in a tuna sandwich.. you eat tuna right??"

^this kind of argument is totally insane.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kotin again.

[John F Kennedy III]

If you think that it's impossible for vaccines to cause autism then you aren't smart enough to be allowed to be on the internet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?
Posted: 02/25/08 12:42 PM ET
React
Amazing
Inspiring
Funny
Scary
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird
Follow
Autism , Autism Vaccines , Vaccine , Vaccine Court , Kennedy Krieger , Autism Spectrum Disorder , Autism Thimerosal , Concession , Hhs , Mitochondria , Oxydative Phosphorylation , Thimerosal , Healthy Living News

share this story
585
0
30
Get Healthy Living Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government's concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called "oxidative phosphorylation." If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

The authors -- who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court -- noted that "children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time."

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in "classic" cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease -- and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:


"DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination."

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism, but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism, isn't that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury "manifested" as autism in only one case, isn't that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely "mimics" autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as "autism," are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined "look-alike" syndrome that merely presents as "features" of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let's say the government does determine that these kids don't have actual "autism" (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn't the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see "autism" cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like "Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?"

And if this child was technically "misdiagnosed" with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren't Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child's Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn't that have manifested as "ASD features" anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a "single nucleotide change" in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested "features" of autism.

While it's true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What's more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of "disorder" at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn't they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of "autistic features?"

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the "sporadic" form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? "Medicines or other toxins," says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal's introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn't HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl's vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for "aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?" Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn't these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn't children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It's too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is "absolutely no link" between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government's Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it's simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way -- and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are "aggravated" and "manifested." Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say "his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death."

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

NOTE: Full text of the government's statement is posted here.

David Kirby is the author of "Evidence of Harm - Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy" (St. Martins Press 2005.

This.

[John F Kennedy III]

“If you control the oil you control the country; if you control the food, you control the population.”
~Henry Kissinger

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. "
~John Holdren Obama's Science Czar A Book he co-authored with two others titled: Eco-Science (1977).

More excerpts from John Holdren's

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/IMG_0899.JPG

Eco-Science:
Page 786-7

Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. "

___________________
Page 838

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection. "

________________________________
Page 838

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

_____________________________
Page 942-3

Toward a Planetary Regime
...
"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. "

_______________________________
Page 837 full-length extended quote:

"To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however."
_
________________________________________
Page 786 full-length extended quote:

"Social pressures on both men and women to marry and have children must be removed. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "All lives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for every married couple." If society were convinced of the need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarily been assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soon disappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people, and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved "marriage" for the childless is one possibility. Indeed, many DC societies now seem to be evolving in this direction as women's liberation gains momentum. It is possible that fully developed societies may produce such arrangements naturally, and their association with lower fertility is becoming increasingly clear. In LDCs a childless or single lifestyle might be encouraged deliberately as the status of women approaches parity with that of men.

Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even he possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Somewhat more repressive measures for discouraging large families have also been proposed, such as assigning public housing without regard for family size and removing dependency allowances from student grants or military pay. Some of these have been implemented in crowded Singapore, whose population program has been counted as one of the most successful. "

___________________________
Page 787-8 full-length extended quote:

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Physiologist Melvin Ketchel, of the Tufts University School of Medicine, suggested that a sterilant could be developed that had a very specific action—for example, preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum. He proposed that it be used to reduce fertility levels by adjustable amounts, anywhere from five to 75 percent, rather than to sterilize the whole population completely. In this way, fertility could be adjusted from time to time to meet a society's changing needs, and there would be no need to provide an antidote. Contraceptives would still be needed for couples who were highly motivated to have small families. Subfertile and functionally sterile couples who strongly desired children would be medically assisted, as they are now, or encouraged to adopt. Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries."

___________________________
Page 838 full-length extended quote:

"Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/


You can also read this book online: http://www.questia.com/library/98156526/ecoscience-population-resources-environment

Now if some of you naysayers do not believe that our hijacked government have eugenicists embedded within our system, that this government has full control of, it's probably because you haven't been paying close attention.


Here is a transcript of Norman Dodd interview that G. Edward Griffin conducted in 1982: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

You can watch the interview here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZqZGEBkX1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZqZGEBkX1s

Because this needs to be read and watched twice ^

[Anti Federalist]

Why? Why would Bill Gates benefit by killing people?

By the way he's doing a shitty job. There are more people on earth than ever and despite lack of exercise and shitty eating habits we generally live longer than ever as well.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27607972.jpg

[ZenBowman]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27607972.jpg

It would increase my support for these programs if you did tell me that.

[alucard13mmfmj]

If the human population becomes too large... nature will take over. There is no need for eugenics or population control.

We can reach 20 billion and if nature wants to trim off 10-15million, it will do it. Nature might have a harder time with humans because we are able to overcome a lot of problems using our superior critical thinking and problem solving skills.

If the elites really wanted to do population control.. they could just accidently set off 10 nuclear weapons and blame some country.

[Anti Federalist]

It would increase my support for these programs if you did tell me that.

So...you're in favor of genocide of 3 billion people?

[RonRules]

http://www.thegatesnotes.com/~/media/Images/GatesNotes/Personal/Catalytic-Philanthropy/BillMelinda5.jpg

Melinda and I inspecting a child’s vaccination record while visiting with mothers at the Manhica Health Research Center