Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: “The Truth About Vaccines”

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Not studies. Surveys. The children were not randomly selected, the responses were not verified. It's a bunch of people seeing exactly what they want to see.
    The children weren't randomly selected because the group of vaccinated children isn't the same as the unvaccinated children. In our world that's upside down such an argument would mean that it is impossible to compare a group of vaccinated to unvaccinated children...
    This doesn't mean that the trial was "unscientific"; we can read in the report how they did the research.

    Surveys: sure it's possible that all of the people that joined the "survey" were lying. But I don't have any reason to think that these people would lie more than "scientists" paid by big pharma.

    Even with this kind of reasoning the 1912 book that I've linked to in my last post is hard evidence...


    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    +1 I have been saying for years the reason why the US has less and less of these diseases is because we have sanitation, clean water and better hygiene. Of course all the pro-vax people laughed and said that was ridiculous. It's not so ridiculous when you do the research and pay attention.
    In my opinion the most important thing in this context are vitamins; it is well known (scientifically proven) that vitamin C is essential for the immune system.
    I haven't seen any evidence that vaccines have beneficial effects, while on the other hand adverse effects of vitamins are known.

    The argument that it would be "unethical" to demand that big pharma actually proves that vaccines work, is mostly by accusing people like me that any fool can see this.
    I was never too good at taking sheople seriously, who call me a "fool"...
    Last edited by Firestarter; 05-11-2017 at 10:02 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    The children weren't randomly selected because the group of vaccinated children isn't the same as the unvaccinated children. In our world that's upside down such an argument would mean that it is impossible to compare a group of vaccinated to unvaccinated children...
    This doesn't mean that the trial was "unscientific"; we can read in the report how they did the research.

    Surveys: sure it's possible that all of the people that joined the "survey" were lying. But I don't have any reason to think that these people would lie more than "scientists" paid by big pharma.

    Even with this kind of reasoning the 1912 book that I've linked to in my last post is hard evidence...


    In my opinion the most important thing in this context are vitamins; it is well known (scientifically proven) that vitamin C is essential for the immune system.
    I haven't seen any evidence that vaccines have beneficial effects, while on the other hand adverse effects of vitamins are known.

    The argument that it would be "unethical" to demand that big pharma actually proves that vaccines work, is mostly by accusing people like me that any fool can see this.
    I was never too good at taking sheople seriously, who call me a "fool"...
    I would agree that Vitamin A, C, D, E have significant roles in the health of people. Vitamin D3 in some of the studies I read, more than half of the country is Vitamin D3 deficient. Also mineral deficiencies like magnesium is huge too.

    The Vitamin C (sodium ascorbate) in my researched have done, has done wonders for people with all kinds of chronic illnesses. Dr. Suzanne Humphries has some great info here.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  4. #33

    Default

    ALL vitamins are important. There isn't a "magic" one.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  5. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    ALL vitamins are important. There isn't a "magic" one.
    They are all magic. Especially since you don't have to run to the doctor if your healthy--how magic is that?
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  6. #35

    Default

    Life is magic.
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  7. #36

    Default

    In any case, this is a liberty forum. Should the government seize children who are not vaccinated? Should the government force segregation based on vaccination choices? Should the government ever force a person to be injected with a drug or vaccine? Should parents be fully responsible for the health care choices they make on behalf of their children? When does that go from an informed decision to the full force of government at gunpoint?

    I wonder when the litigious nature of Americans will mean people have to sign a release from liability every time they go to a public event or go about their lives?
    Last edited by euphemia; 05-12-2017 at 10:38 PM.
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  8. #37

    Default

    ON THE CRIME OF HERESY AGAINST THE VACCINE RELIGION

    ARJUN WALIAMAY 13, 2017

    To question public vaccine policy is to commit the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion, as illustrated by how any dissent is met by its defenders.

    There is something wrong when you are not allowed to question public vaccine policy without automatically being labeled as “anti-science”, a believer in “pseudoscience”, or even a “conspiracy theorist”. The subject of vaccines is a serious one, and deserves to be taken seriously. Concerned parents are asking legitimate questions, and they deserve serious answers rather than dismissals. The public discussion about vaccines is essentially non-existent. Instead, the message we are told is that there is nothing to discuss. The mainstream media, for its part, has utterly failed to properly inform the public about the subject of vaccines, and rather than engaging in respectful debate, there is a tendency to try to bully people into silence and compliance. In this endeavor, the mainstream media has useful partners in the blogosphere.

    As someone who is openly critical of vaccine policy, I expect to be attacked and have such labels mindlessly flung at me. So I wasn’t surprised to discover that one of the more notorious apologists for public vaccine policy, an anonymous blogger who goes by the moniker “Skeptical Raptor“, set his sights on me recently for an article I wrote in response to a Washington Post op-ed by Dr. Daniel Summers. Dr. Summers took the usual dogmatic approach to the subject, insisting there is nothing to debate, just get your damned shots. The purpose of my rejoinder to his op-ed was to illustrate why this insistence is wrong. There is a discussion to be had about vaccines, and it’s past time we started having it.

    Raptor’s response to that article of mine provides me with the opportunity to reiterate that same point, as well as to illuminate the kinds of tactics employed by those who try to intimidate into silence anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy — rather than seriously addressing the legitimate concerns being raised.

    Naturally, Raptor’s post about my article is filled with such mindless attacks as:

    “Jeremy R. Hammond … attacked Dr. Summers with … tropes, myths, and conspiracy theories.”
    “Hammond uses pseudoscience….”
    “Hammond’s criticisms of Dr. Simmons [consist of] tropes, myths, conspiracy theories, cherry picking and, need I mention this, outright misinformation.”
    “But if you want to believe the ramblings of a right wing science denier, go right ahead.”
    It’s instructive, given such vitriolic rhetoric, that Raptor fails to point to even a single error in fact or logic in anything I wrote in my rejoinder to Dr. Summers. (Which might explain why Raptor didn’t link to my article so readers could check to see for themselves what I’d actually written, as opposed to his misportrayal.)


    On Doctors’ Confirmation Bias

    In my article, I quoted Dr. Summers saying that if vaccines can cause autism, then pediatricians like him must either be “too incompetent to discern the relationship between the two” or “too monstrous to care”.

    I observed that this gives us a useful insight into why doctors might easily succumb to confirmation bias, accepting of science that confirms their belief that they are competent and good while dismissing any evidence contradicting that belief. After all, how many doctors would be honest enough to admit that they are either incompetent or evil?

    So how does Raptor respond to this observation? He writes:

    First of all, Hammond does not quite understand confirmation bias. In fact, most of us who support vaccines use the scientific method – the evidence leads us to a conclusion. Hammond uses pseudoscience – establish a conclusion, like vaccines cause autism, and ignore all evidence that does not support his beliefs…. Frankly, Hammond is projecting the problems with his own arguments onto Dr. Simmons.

    In other words, Raptor is saying that I’m the one guilty of confirmation bias, and that I don’t understand what confirmation bias is. So what is confirmation bias? Here’s how Raptor defines it:

    [C]onfirmation bias is simply the tendency for individuals to favor information or data that support their beliefs. It is also the tendency for people to only seek out information that supports their a priori, or pre-existing, conclusions, and subsequently ignores evidence that might refute that pre-existing conclusion.

    I’m perfectly content to use that definition to reiterate the point I made in my response to Summers: that doctors will tend to have a confirmation bias because it would be difficult for them to accept that something they did to a child with the intention of helping that child might have ended up harming that child.

    Note that Raptor does not actually address this point. He simply asserts that I don’t understand confirmation bias without bothering to demonstrate in what way I don’t understand it and meaninglessly declares that doctors “use the scientific method” — as though having a medical degree meant that a person couldn’t possibly have such a psychological conflict.

    Compare this with Dr. Joseph Mercola of the leading health information website Mercola.com, a physician who once vaccinated his patients and had to overcome this very inner conflict himself; Dr. Mercola in a recent article on his website quoted my observation about this natural tendency toward confirmation bias among doctors, then added:

    As a doctor, I can empathize with this psychological conundrum. It’s a terrible feeling to realize that, at some point in your life, you didn’t have the knowledge you should have had and you led your patients the wrong way.

    In conclusion, Raptor, rather than actually addressing my valid point, resorts to obfuscation.

    As for his charge that I’m guilty of confirmation bias, here Raptor is simply resorting to strawman argumentation, attributing to me logic that I did not use in my response to Summers’ op-ed. His protest against what I did say in my article on the subject of vaccines and autism is instructive.

    The Autism Question

    In my article, I criticized Dr. Summers for repeating the trope that the hypothesis that vaccines can cause autism has been “thoroughly debunked”. I pointed out that the government has in fact acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage in genetically susceptible individuals, and that this brain damage can lead to developmental regression, i.e., autism. I quoted then Director of the CDC Julie Gerberding in 2008 admitting:

    Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

    Then I commented: “So seems to me there’s some room for debate there. (Gerberding, incidentally, left her government job to become head of Merck’s vaccine division.)”

    So how does Raptor respond to this point? Raptor simply asserts that “there are hundreds of studies that have debunked Hammond’s belief.”

    But what “belief” of mine is Raptor referring to, exactly? Are there hundreds of studies that have “debunked” that the head of the CDC acknowledged vaccines can cause brain damage leading to developmental regression? Or does Raptor mean hundreds of studies have “debunked” what Gerberding said?

    Is this former CDC director and president of Merck’s vaccine division into “pseudoscience”?

    We see once again all Raptor is doing is attempting to obfuscate the point. Raptor continues this effort by writing:

    Next, Hammond claims that the “government has actually acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage, and that this vaccine-caused brain damage can result in developmental regression in genetically susceptible individuals.”

    The “Next” here is puzzling, since this point about the head of the CDC acknowledging vaccines can cause brain damage was the one and only point I made in response to Dr. Summer’s repetition of the usual dogmatic mantra about any association having been “debunked”.

    Setting that aside, note how Raptor uses the verb “claims” — as though it wasn’t a fact that the CDC director acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage leading to developmental regression. This verb choice is puzzling, given how Raptor then proceeds to share the statement of Gerberding’s that I quoted.

    So how does Raptor address my point about that acknowledgment from the CDC director? Raptor writes:

    Sure, that’s an admission that vaccines can cause brain damage – in a child with an extremely rare disorder.

    Note that Raptor acknowledges that vaccines can cause brain damage in genetically susceptible individuals.

    Raptor nevertheless continues:

    Hammond, in the purest sense of pseudoscience, grasps onto a very rare adverse effect, and uses it to “prove” vaccines cause autism. It most certainly does not.

    Now, this is also quite a puzzling argument, given the actual context of the quote from Gerberding.

    See, when she spoke those words, the CDC director was referring to the case of Hannah Poling, who developmentally regressed and was diagnosed with autism after receiving five vaccines at once at 19 months of age.

    The Poling Case and Genetic Susceptibility

    One of the legitimate concerns parents have about vaccines is how the government constantly reassures them that vaccines are safe and effective while granting legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers, which was upheld by the Supreme Court on the grounds that injuries from vaccines are “unavoidable”. Under the 1986 law granting this legal immunity, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was set up to shift the cost burden from vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical industry and onto the taxpayers.

    Naturally, parents are confused by this, and it certainly raises some legitimate questions.

    The Poling family is among those who have been awarded compensation under the VICP. In the case of Hannah Poling, the government acknowledged that:

    The facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.

    Now given the context of Gerberding’s admission, note what Raptor is effectively arguing: the fact that vaccines can cause brain damage resulting in autism doesn’t prove that vaccines can cause autism!

    One could also argue that the fact you ran over a nail with your bicycle doesn’t prove that the nail caused your flat tire — technically, it was the hole in the tire that did it.

    Scientific American has commented on the Poling case by saying that “Theoretically, that makes sense” (that the vaccines triggered the cascade of events resulting in her autism). In Hannah’s case, her mitochondria, the “power plants of the cell”, were “already underperforming, so when she developed a fever from her vaccine, the increased energy requirements likely pushed them past their thresholds”, triggering her autism symptoms.

    Evidently, Scientific American is into “pseudoscience”, too.

    Another propagator of “pseudoscience” was Bernadine Healy, M.D., former director of the National Institutes of Health and president and CEO of the American Red Cross. Before her death, she had come to challenge the official dogma, writing that as a trigger of autism, “vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility”.

    But what about all those studies Raptor mentions that supposedly have proven there is no possible causal association between vaccines and autism?

    As Healy also said in an interview, “I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational.”

    When her interviewer pointed out that public health officials had been saying that “there’s enough evidence and they know its not causal”, Healy’s response was, “I think you can’t say that. You can’t say that.”

    Healy then offered another explanation for how confirmation bias can become institutionalized:

    There is a completely expressed concern that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.

    Healy also noted the lack of studies into — and lack of interest in studying — the possibility of some individuals having a genetic susceptibility to vaccine injury:

    If you turn your back on the notion that there is a susceptible group… what can I say?

    Hannah Poling’s father, Jon Poling, who happens to be a neurologist, has made the same observation about both the institutional confirmation bias and the lack of studies examining the question of whether vaccines can cause autism in genetically susceptible children:

    With regard to the science of Autism, I have no argument with the assertion that a single case does not prove causation of a generalized autism-vaccine link. What the case does illustrate though is a more subtle point that many physicians cannot or do not want to comprehend (ostensibly because vaccines are too important to even question). Autism is a heterogeneous disorder defined by behavioral criteria and having multiple causes. Epidemiological studies which have not found a link between autism and aspects of vaccination do not consider the concept of autism subgroups. Indeed, in a heterogeneous disorder like Autism, subgroups may indeed be ‘vaccine-injured’ but the effect is diluted out in the larger population (improperly powered study due to inability to calculate effect size with unknown susceptible subpopulation). I think former NIH Director, Dr. Bernadine Healey explained it best in that population epidemiology studies are not “granular” enough to rule-out a susceptible subgroup.

    Then there’s Dr. Frank DeStefano, who has acknowledged that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could trigger autism in genetically susceptible individuals.

    Evidently, this CDC Director of Immunization Safety, who has coauthored several of the CDC’s studies finding no link between vaccines and autism, is into “pseudoscience”, as well.

    The trouble is, DeStefano added, “It’s hard to predict who those children might be”, and trying to determine what underling conditions put children at risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.

    Acknowledging the lack of studies in this area, he added that, “if we ever get to that point, then that kind of research might be fruitful.”

    And here’s the CDC’s website, current as of this writing, on the lack of such studies: “More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.”

    When I contacted the industry-funded American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently to request them to provide studies that considered the existence of genetically susceptible subpopulations to support their claim that any association between vaccines and autism had been “disproven”, the AAP provided me with a list of studies. Not one of the studies provided by the AAP considered the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation.

    I pointed this out to the AAP, and I also pointed out that it isn’t logically possible to say — as they had in their press release — that a hypothesis has been “disproven” when it hasn’t even been studied. I therefore then once more asked whether they could produce any studies that considered the existence of genetically susceptible individuals. The AAP’s response was that they had already provided all that they were going to provide.

    When I asked whether the authors of the press release would like to comment, I was told by the AAP representative that she was going to hang up on me, which she promptly did.

    Now, for good measure, let’s turn to the medical literature on this question and look at a couple of papers written by individuals who can by no means be labelled “anti-vaxxers” to see what they have to say about the hypothesis that vaccines can cause autism in children who are genetically susceptible to vaccine injury.

    Dr. Paul Offit and ‘Poor Reasoning’

    In a September 2008 paper in the journal Paediatrics & Child Health, Asif Doja argues against a causal relationship between vaccines and autism, yet acknowledges that “Mitochondrial disorders represent a rare cause of autism” — as well as the possibility that vaccines could cause fevers that in turn could cause encephalopathy (brain damage) and regression in individuals with mitochondrial dysfunction.

    Doja is careful to emphasize that it is the fever that causes the encephalopathy, “not the vaccine itself”. (It was the hole in the tire that caused it to go flat, not the nail, remember.)

    Doja also argues that “it is unlikely that those with mitochondrial disease simply require a vaccine ‘trigger’ to set off the disease process because most patients with mitochondrial disease do not have an onset of symptoms associated with vaccination.”

    But this argument is a logical fallacy. It’s a non sequitur; the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. It may be true that most patients with mitochondrial disease do not have an onset of symptoms associated with vaccination, but it does not follow that it is therefore “unlikely” that vaccines could be the necessary “trigger” in some children.

    The title of Doja’s article, “Genetics and the myth of vaccine encephalopathy”, is a curious one, given how, despite his fallacious conclusion that it’s “unlikely”, Doja ultimately acknowledges the possibility that “fever associated with the vaccine” could provoke “the initial seizure” ultimately resulting in brain damage in genetically susceptible individuals.

    Doja also cites another article, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, by Dr. Paul Offit. So let’s look at that one, as well.

    Paul Offit is someone whose credentials as a defender of public vaccine policy are impeccable.

    He was sitting on an advisory board for the vaccine manufacturer Merck at the time he wrote that article.

    Offit is also a former member of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, a body that helps determine public vaccine policy. As a member of that committee, Offit advocated that the CDC recommend use of the rotavirus vaccine. He later profited handsomely from the sale of a patent for a rotavirus vaccine.

    Offit has made insane claims and is unafraid to brazenly lie knowing that, given the current climate surrounding the vaccine issue, his colleagues in the medical establishment will not hold him accountable for it. For instance, he is famous for once claiming that children could safely handle 10,000 vaccines at once. Another time, he declared that “Aluminum is considered to be an essential metal with quantities fluctuating naturally during normal cellular activity. It is found in all tissues and is also believed to play an important role in the development of a healthy fetus.”

    Offit is the director of the so-called “Vaccine Education Center” at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, where he also holds the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair in Vaccinology, created in honor of the former senior vice president of Merck, which provided a $1.5 million endowment to “accelerate the pace of vaccine research”.

    Offit also happens to be the mainstream media’s go-to guy when a comment is needed on anything related to vaccine safety. When you read an article in the mainstream media about vaccines, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll find a quote from Offit in it (which says a lot about mainstream journalism). He’s been appropriately dubbed by Philadelphia magazine as “Mr. Vaccine”.

    In the New England Journal of Medicine, Offit describes what happened to Hannah Poling:

    When she was 19 months old, Hannah, the daughter of Jon and Terry Poling, received five vaccines — diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), measles–mumps–rubella (MMR), varicella, and inactivated polio. At the time, Hannah was interactive, playful, and communicative. Two days later, she was lethargic, irritable, and febrile. Ten days after vaccination, she developed a rash consistent with vaccine-induced varicella.

    Months later, with delays in neurologic and psychological development, Hannah was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Hannah’s signs included problems with language, communication, and behavior — all features of autism spectrum disorder….

    For years, federal health agencies and professional organizations had reassured the public that vaccines didn’t cause autism. Now, with DHHS making this concession in a federal claims court, the government appeared to be saying exactly the opposite.

    Offit goes on to argue that the government’s decision was “poorly reasoned”.

    His first argument is that, while “it is clear that natural infections can exacerbate symptoms of encephalopathy in patients with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies, no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause similar exacerbations.”

    Compare this denial of Offit’s to Doja’s acknowledgment in his Paediatrics & Child Health article that “indeed febrile seizures have been shown to occur at an increased rate after vaccination”.

    Seizures are a recognized symptom of encephalopathy.

    In fact, Offit himself just two paragraphs later acknowledges that “experts testifying on behalf of the Polings could reasonably argue that development of fever and a varicella-vaccine rash after the administration of nine vaccines was enough to stress a child with mitochondrial enzyme deficiency” (emphasis added).

    Offit’s second argument is that due to technological advancements, the combined schedule of fourteen vaccines children received in 2008 (the time of his writing) exposed children to fewer “immunologic components” than just the one smallpox vaccine from a century ago, “which contained about 200 structural and nonstructural viral proteins”.

    This argument, however, overlooks, among other things, that the immunologic components of the target antigen (i.e, the virus or bacteria the vaccine is designed to prevent the disease of) are not the only antigens contained in vaccines.

    The smallpox vaccine did not contain aluminum or mercury, for example, both known neurotoxins contained in CDC-recommended vaccines today. (Aluminum is used as an adjuvant in some vaccines to cause a stronger immune response than the target antigen would alone, and influenza vaccines that come in multi-dose vials still contain the preservative Thimerosal, which is 50 percent ethylmercury by weight. Other vaccines may contain “trace amounts” of mercury from the manufacturing process.)

    As another example, vaccines can also contain contaminants, such as retroviruses. This is not theoretical; numerous vaccines have been found to be contaminated with other viruses or viral fragments. Polio vaccines used in the late 1950s and early 1960s, for example, were contaminated with a monkey virus (simian virus 40, or SV40) that’s been associated with an increased risk of some cancers.

    In fact, the vaccine Offit himself helped develop, Merck’s Rotateq, was found to be contaminated with pig virus DNA. GlaxoSmithKline’s rotavirus vaccine, Rotarix, was suspended from the market in 2010 because it was found to be contaminated with a pig virus.

    Offit’s third argument is that “Hannah had other immunologic challenges that were not related to vaccines”; namely fevers and ear infections. “Children typically have four to six febrile illnesses each year during their first few years of life; vaccines are a minuscule contributor to this antigenic challenge.”

    Offit’s logic here rests essentially on the same fallacy as Doja’s: it does not follow from the fact that most fevers in children are not caused by vaccinations that therefore it can’t be that, in some cases, vaccines are the trigger that sets off the cascade of events leading to developmental regression.

    Offit further argues that Hannah’s autism was caused by her mitochondrial disorder, not the vaccines she received.

    This is like arguing that celiac disease is caused by a patient’s HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 genes, not by gluten consumption. Just as having the genetic predisposition “is necessary for disease development but is not sufficient for [celiac] disease development” (Genomic Medicine), so it is that having a mitochondrial disorder does not necessarily mean that the child will develop autism; one or more environmental triggers are also required.

    Amidst his protests against the conclusion that the vaccines Hannah received caused her autism, Offit nevertheless acknowledges the “theoretical risk” of “exacerbations” from vaccines in children with mitochondrial disorders andthe absence of “data that clearly exonerates vaccines” in this respect.

    As Hannah’s father, Jon Poling, and three co-authors wrote in a case study published in the Journal of Child Neurology,

    It is unclear whether mitochondrial dysfunction results from a primary genetic abnormality, atypical development of essential metabolic pathways, or secondary inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation by other factors. If such dysfunction is present at the time of infections and immunizations in young children, the added oxidative stresses from immune activation on cellular energy metabolism are likely to be especially critical for the central nervous system, which is highly dependent on mitochondrial function. Young children who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore 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.

    Now recall Raptor’s admission “that vaccines can cause brain damage – in a child with an extremely rare disorder”. In other words, despite his best efforts to obfuscate my point, Raptor tacitly acknowledges that what I wrote is true.

    On ‘the cancer-preventing HPV vaccine’

    Another statement I quoted from Dr. Summers’ Washington Post op-ed was:

    Despite ample evidence of its safety and efficacy, many parents choose not to give their children the vaccination against the carcinogenic human papillomavirus, leaving their sons and daughters at increased risk of several different cancers.

    In response, I wrote:

    Can Dr. Summers point to any studies in the medical literature that have shown that the HPV vaccine reduces the risk of developing cervical cancer (or anal or mouth/throat cancers in men)? When the FDA approved its use allowing the vaccine manufacturers to advertise it on the grounds that it can prevent cancer, had this been proven in clinical trials?

    The answer to both questions is “No”. Dr. Summers’ assertion is an assumption, not a demonstrated fact. Room for debate on that one, too, then.

    Raptor writes that here I am “relying upon all of the tenets of pseudoscience and science denialism” to “trash Gardasil” (Merck’s HPV vaccine).

    Raptor then declares that he “can point to several” studies in the medical literature that have shown that the HPV vaccine reduces the risk of cervical cancer. In an attempt to support this claim, Raptor then provides five links. Turning to Raptor’s very first source cited, we find a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

    Does this study show that the HPV vaccine reduces the risk of cervical cancer, as Raptor claims?

    No, it does not.

    The FDA and ‘Surrogate Endpoints’

    On the contrary, Raptor’s source confirms what I wrote originally: the FDA approved Gardasil for licensure on the grounds it could prevent cancer despite no clinical studies having demonstrated the truth of this claim. As Raptor’s source observes (emphasis added):

    Both vaccines have been shown to be highly effective against HPV16/18–associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN2/3) and adenocarcinoma in situ, endpoints accepted in trials for vaccine efficacy against cervical cancer.

    That is to say, the FDA used what is called a “surrogate endpoint”, defined as “a biomarker that is intended to substitute for a clinical endpoint”.

    As Thomas Fleming explains in the journal Health Affairs (full text here; bold emphasis added),

    Establishing that an experimental drug can provide quality-of-life or survival benefit in a newly diagnosed patient with prostate or breast cancer, or that a vaccine can reduce the spread of HIV, or that a device can reduce risk of serious illness or death from cardiovascular disease could require trials that are large, long term, and financially costly.

    In many instances, sponsors have proposed alternative endpoints (that is, “surrogates”) for these clinical endpoints, to reduce the duration and size of the trials….

    Unfortunately, demonstrating treatment effects on these biological “surrogate” endpoints, while clearly establishing biological activity, may not provide reliable evidence about effects of the intervention in clinical efficacy measures.

    Fleming provides the remarkable example of the drugs encainide and flecainide. Since these drugs were shown to be “very effective in suppressing” ventricular arrhythmias, which are “a known risk factor for sudden cardiac death”, the medical establishment assumed that patients who took these drugs would have a lower risk of that outcome.

    Fleming continues (emphasis added):

    In fact, they were so persuaded that between a quarter-million and a half-million patients each year in the United States alone were receiving these drugs for this purpose. Many were so confident that the drugs provided important therapeutic benefits that they thought it would not be ethical to withhold these drugs from patients in the control group of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to reliably evaluate their effects on overall mortality. (Similar arguments are made today by advocates for continued widespread use of antibiotics in children with acute otitis media, even though we lack scientific evidence to establish that antibiotics meaningfully decrease complications or reduce the time to resolution of symptoms.)

    Fortunately, a controlled trial of encainide and flecainide was conducted. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial provided results that astounded cardiologists. These two anti-arrhythmia agents, while suppressing arrhytmias effecively, not only did not provide an improvement in survival, but actually tripled the death rate. Encainide and flecainide may have produced some benefit though [sic, “through”] suppression of arrhythmias, yet they also had unintended and previously unrecognized mechanisms that ultimately led to an adverse effect on overall survival, mechanisms that would not have been detected if there had not been a trial to directly assess the effects on the clinical-efficacy endpoint of overall survival.

    This raises an important point I overlooked when writing my rejoinder to Dr. Summers’ Washington Post op-ed: just as important as the question of whether the HPV vaccine actually reduces the risk of cervical cancer is the question of whether the vaccine reduces mortality.

    After all, if the vaccine, say, reduces the risk of cervical cancer while increasing the risk of death due to some other cause, then, obviously, it does not follow from the fact that it reduces the risk of cervical cancer that therefore it is a good idea to get the vaccine.

    Also, while Fleming cites the example of pediatricians routinely resorting to antibiotics for ear infections, he might just as well have cited the argument given by the medical establishment and public policy defenders for why it would be unethical to do a study comparing autism rates (or other health outcomes, for that matter, such as autoimmune disease) for children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule with children who remained completely unvaccinated.

    No such study has been done because to withhold the vaccines from children, the argument goes, would be unethical since it would deprive children of the vaccines’ benefits.

    Just as those who believed that encainide and flecainide must be effective at lowering mortality based on a surrogate endpoint, so does this argument against doing vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies beg the question. It assumes in the premise the very proposition to be proven (the petitio principii fallacy) — namely, that vaccines given according to the CDC’s schedule are safe and effective.

    The DTP Vaccine and Mortality

    A stark example of this fallacy is found in the case of the DTP vaccine (which has been replaced in the US with the acellular pertussis vaccine, DTaP, but is still widely used elsewhere around the globe). Since receipt of the vaccine has been shown to reduce the incidence of diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus, the assumption has been that therefore mass vaccination with DTP will reduce mortality.

    In fact, however, what studies show is that the DTP vaccine increases mortality.

    The most recent of these, a study published in February of this year in the journal EBioMedicine, stated researchers’ findings bluntly (emphasis added):

    DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated [with DTP]. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP3 is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs.

    It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infection.

    To return to Raptor’s claim that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute study showed that the HPV vaccine prevents cancer, recall that it in fact confirmed what I had written about the FDA, which relied on a surrogate endpoint in its licensure of Gardasil.

    Furthermore, this study in fact confirms what I wrote about why Dr. Summers would be unable to point to any such studies: because none exist.

    As Raptor’s own source states, “it may be many years before the effect on HPV vaccination on the incidence of cervical cancer can be assessed.”

    Hence we can see that Raptor’s claim that this study showed that the HPV vaccine reduced the incidence of cervical cancer is a bald-faced lie.

    It would be superfluous to examine the remainder of the Raptor’s links.

    On the Measles Vaccine

    “I’m rapidly becoming impatient with Hammond’s arguments”, Raptor informs readers as we come to the next matter I raised in my rejoinder to Dr. Summers: the measles vaccine.

    Summers had pointed out that one rare complication of measles is encephalitis, or brain inflammation, and then asked why any parent would risk their child becoming brain damaged by measles “when there’s a safe way of of protecting their children” (referring, of course, to the measles vaccine).

    I pointed out that Summers’ statement wrongly implied that encephalitis is not a possible adverse effect of vaccination. I cited a couple of studies in the medical literature that have indicated that encephalitis is a rare outcome of measles vaccination, and I also pointed out that it’s included on the list of possible adverse events on the product insert for Merck’s MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine.

    Raptor’s response to my observation is to assert that I’m guilty of creating “a false dichotomy – either a vaccine is 100% safe or it’s unsafe”.

    It’s Raptor, however, who is here guilty of the fallacy of strawman argumentation. Of course, I neither said nor suggested any such ridiculous thing. I merely observed — accurately — that Dr. Summers was characterizing the vaccine as though it was 100% safe.

    Next, Raptor asserts that I think “that package inserts are some sort of infallible document” — another ludicrous strawman. Raptor notes that “a package insert is never evidence of correlation or causality”. That is true, and of course I hadn’t suggested otherwise. I simply observed the fact that encephalitis is listed under the section listing possible adverse events on Merck’s product insert.

    So we can see how the very act of stating a fact in a context of questioning public vaccine policy automatically renders the person stating the fact a believer in “pseudoscience”. It’s through such tactics that defenders of public policy attempt to stifle any form of dissent.

    Raptor’s next point is a valid one: assuming the three cases of encephalitis reported for every three million doses of MMR given were actually caused by the vaccine, “the risk of encephalitis from measles is still substantially higher than the vaccine”. That is true.

    It’s also true that adverse reactions to vaccines are for numerous reasons widely underreported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which was also established under the 1986 law granting vaccine manufacturers legal immunity (The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act).

    But both of these facts are beside the point I was making, which is that it is dishonest to characterize vaccination as though it was a medical intervention that entails no risk of any serious harm.

    Raptor rightly frames it as a question of weighing benefits versus risks. But this just bolsters my whole point, which is that the public ought to be properly informed of what those risks are rather than told they don’t exist.

    In Raptor’s calculation, the benefits of the measles vaccine far outweighs any risks. But that’s a decision that every parent should make for every child with every vaccine. And there are countless other variables to consider to be able to make an informed choice that the public just isn’t being informed about.

    For example, parents aren’t being informed that, just as studies show that the DTP vaccine has “non-specific effects” (that is, consequences that are unintended or unexpected) resulting in increased mortality, so have studies long found that natural infection with measles has non-specific effects that are beneficial. Natural infection with the measles virus not only confers lifelong immunity against measles, but also seems to be an important childhood disease that primes the immune system to help protect against other diseases, as well.

    Benefits of Getting Measles

    “In the 1970s,” as Science Daily notes, “measles infections were observed to cause regression of pre-existing cancer tumors in children.” This observation has led Mayo Clinic to experiment with using measles virus to treat brain cancer.

    A study published in The Lancet in 1985 found a negative history of measles to be associated with an increased risk of developing “immunocreactive diseases, sebaceious skin diseases, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, and certain tumours.”

    A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology the same year found that infection with measles is associated with a reduced risk of Parkinson’s disease, suggesting “a truly protective effect of measles”.

    More recently, a study published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2013 found “a protective role of childhood infectious diseases” — namely measles — “on the risk of CLL [chronic lymphoid leukaemia] in adults”.

    A study published in the journal Atherosclerosis in 2015 found that “Measles and mumps, especially in case of both infections, were associated with lower risks of mortality from atherosclerotic CVD [cardiovascular disease].”

    Dr. Summers naturally fails to disclose this kind of information in his op-ed so parents could do a proper cost-benefit analysis to determine whether vaccination is right for them.

    One begins to see why studies have shown that parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children, far from being unintelligent or “anti-science”, tend to be well-educated and affluent.

    It’s the parents who choose not to put blind faith in an observably corrupt medical establishment that, rather than address their legitimate concerns, has shunned and ridiculed anyone who dares to question public policy, including parents of vaccine-injured children.

    It’s the parents who understand how bias can become institutionalized. (No “conspiracy theory” is required to explain how the medical establishment could be wrong, though when it comes to “tobacco science”, there is certainly an element of willfulness. Older generations may recall how advertisements for cigarettes used to feature doctors’ endorsements, and it is not as though there wasn’t an abundance of other examples where the medical establishment has gotten it wrong.)

    It’s the parents who are doing their own research, including by doing something most doctors and journalists can’t seem to be bothered with: digging into the medical literature (which can be searched at PubMed.gov) to see for themselves what science actually has to say about vaccines.

    Measles and Mortality

    Raptor emphasizes that “measles can be a serious illness requiring hospitalization”.

    That is true. It is also true that the mortality rate from measles had already plummeted prior to the introduction of the vaccine. This can be seen in the CDC data presented in the below graph (note that the vaccine was licensed in 1963, after the last year shown on this graph).



    In fact, as an article in the journal Pediatrics notes, “nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.”

    Moreover, the risk factors for complications from measles, unlike the risks from the vaccine, are quite well understood — such as malnourishment and, most specifically, vitamin A deficiency.

    This brings us to the next objection of Raptor’s to my reply to Summers’s op-ed. Summers had written:

    Preventing measles isn’t a matter of avoiding some minor ailment. The disease killed over 100,000 people in 2015.

    I replied:

    Summers notes the the deaths of over 100,000 people in 2015 as a result of measles infection as though the mortality rate in the US, absent mass vaccination, would be no different than in third-world countries in Africa.

    Raptor asserts that I’m “just plain wrong” here; “Dr. Simmons [sic] wasn’t trying to imply that 100,000 children would die in the USA, he’s speaking worldwide.”

    But that was precisely my point. Dr. Summers was citing a statistic suggesting a mortality rate that would apply to other countries, but not to the US — a fact which Raptor here tacitly acknowledges.

    Raptor claims Summers “wasn’t trying to imply” that the mortality rate of measles would be the same in the US as it would be in developing countries. One might wonder how Raptor can read Summers’ mind, but it makes no difference because it isn’t a question of intent. Whether intentionally or not, Summers did in fact imply just that.

    In fact, it was in this very same paragraph that Summers noted that there is a risk of brain damage from measles and asked, “Why on earth would parents opt for that risk when there’s a safe way of protecting their children?”

    Summers was, of course, directing his question specifically toward American parents when he wrote that.

    Raptor’s next comment is, “Of course, Hammond’s point sounds vaguely offensive that somehow only Africans will die of measles, and not privileged white Americans. Sigh.”

    So now, in addition to it being “anti-science” to point out the acknowledged fact that the mortality rate in the US would not be the same as in developing countries, it is also “offensive” to point out that Americans enjoy a higher standard of living.

    Sigh.

    Unintended Population Effects of Mass Vaccination

    Among other factors that aren’t taken into consideration in the risk-benefit analysis underlying public policy are unintended effects at the population level. For example, one effect of mass vaccination for measles is that in the event of an outbreak today, the risk burden has shifted away from children in whom it is a generally mild disease onto those for whom it poses a greater risk of complications: infants.

    This is because in the pre-vaccine era, most women experienced measles infection as a child and developed a robust cell-mediated immunity. Frequent reexposure to the virus also kept antibody levels high. Since antibodies are passed from mother to baby via breastmilk, breastfeeding provided a strong passive immunity to infants, who do not yet have a developed immune system to be able to handle the infection on their own.

    Now, however, thanks to mass vaccination, mothers aren’t as well able to confer immunity to their infants via breastmilk. This is because the immunity conferred by the vaccine isn’t as robust as that conferred by natural infection and wanes more quickly over time, and by reducing the circulation of the virus, the natural boosting of antibody titers from frequent reexposure no longer occurs.

    Thus, because mothers in the era of mass vaccination aren’t as well able to pass protective antibodies on to their infants via breastmilk, in the event of an outbreak, infants are at a higher risk.

    Conclusion

    Raptor closes by describing my response to Summers’ op-ed as consisting of “tropes, myths, conspiracy theories, cherry picking and, need I mention this, outright misinformation.”

    It is fitting that Raptor should close with such words because, in the end, having failed to identify even a single error in fact or logic in anything I wrote, such empty rhetoric is all Raptor has got. Rather than reasonably addressing my points, Raptor resorts to misrepresentation, strawman argumentation, obfuscation, and ad hominem attacks.

    I am perfectly content to let intelligent readers decide for themselves, therefore, who is more “anti-science”.

    Such efforts to bully and intimidate people into conformity will ultimately fail, but there’s a lesson in it: to dare to question public vaccine policy is a sin for which one must be rebuked.

    It is to commit the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion.

    The heretics, however, will not be intimidated.

    We will not be silenced.
    http://www.collective-evolution.com/...cine-religion/
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  9. #38

    Default Vaccination for reduced fertility and abortions

    For some time I’ve been thinking that the main objective of vaccines is to reduce fertility, to reduce the population. This type of eugenics couldn’t be discovered (especially with the same elite that control big pharma, also controlling education and mainstream media).
    And such a strategy would really cut both ways, because the happy couple that would be “helped” by the medical industry with artificial insemination techniques to give them a baby, would stand in awe of big pharma, which would be to blame for their misfortune in the first place…

    I have finally found evidence that this is indeed happening.

    The GAVI Alliance was founded in 2000 with the help of the Gates Foundation, other donors include: the Rockefeller foundation, UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), and World Bank.
    GAVI has the goal of vaccinating the entire third World.
    Obviously part of the plan is to reduce fertility for depopulation purposes.
    The research by Jurriaan Maessen, is an important source for information on anti-fertility vaccines.
    There are not only vaccines to reduce fertility, but pregnant women are forced to get vaccinated, which has caused abortions in Thailand and the Philippines: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2010/0...ion-reduction/


    A 2010 study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) indicated that Philippine women were “unwittingly vaccinated against their own children”.
    By linking hCG with tetanus antigens in a vaccine, researchers fool a woman’s immune system into producing antibodies against hCG, which makes her allergic to her own embryo.
    Once her immune system is sufficiently stimulated against hCG, the pregnant woman will spontaneously abort the embryo: https://www.pop.org/bad-blood-in-the-philippines/


    The following report shows that influenza vaccination causes abortions in lab animals; Ayoub & Yazbak “Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)” (2006): http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ayoub.pdf



    The 1978 WHO task force “Evaluating the safety and efficacy of placental antigen vaccines for fertility regulation”, shows initiatives to use vaccines for reduced fertility.
    It even shows that they already knew then that hCG can cause abortions.
    Although substantial progress has been made over the last few years in the provision of family planning services to many of the World's populations, there is still an urgent need for a greater variety of safe, effective and acceptable methods of fertility regulation to meet widely differing personal, cultural and service requirements.
    Immunization as a prophylactic measure is now so widely accepted that it has been suggested that one method of fertility regulation which might have wide appeal as well as great ease of service delivery would be an anti-fertility vaccine.
    (…)
    In principle, anti-fertility vaccines may: (a) prevent sperm transport and/or fertilization; (b) prevent or disrupt implantation; and (c) prevent blastocyst development.
    (…)
    Several potential complications have to be considered upon immunization of humans with immunogenic conjugates of HCG-derived antigens. Some of these hazards are related to potential disruption of the endocrinological balance and maternal-embryonal relationships; others are related to the possible autoimmunity induced with human-derived material as an autoantigen. Consideration of these potential hazards should provide guidelines for design and evaluation of animal and human studies.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...00215-0170.pdf


    The Gates Foundation is heavily involved in vaccinating the world.
    In the following 29:32 video Bill Gates, in a presentation for the TED 2010 conference, explains that we need “solutions” that will make the “miracle” of zero CO2 emission happen. By 2050 we must realize an 80% reduction in CO2 emission...
    Gates explains that “people” (P) are at the basis of this “problem” (4:00-4:55)
    It includes the following notorious quote: “The world today has 6.8 billion people … that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.



    Isn’t that a great tactic - when an epidemic is already effectively finished, quickly pushing a vaccination through, to prove the efficacy of the vaccine…?
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    That is true. It is also true that the mortality rate from measles had already plummeted prior to the introduction of the vaccine. This can be seen in the CDC data presented in the below graph (note that the vaccine was licensed in 1963, after the last year shown on this graph).
    Last edited by Firestarter; 05-16-2017 at 09:41 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason.

  10. #39

    Default

    ^^^Excellent points^^^

    It's not like they haven't been caught before trying to sterilize people. They have god-complexes.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  11. #40

    Default

    A 2010 study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) indicated that Philippine women were “unwittingly vaccinated against their own children”.
    By linking hCG with tetanus antigens in a vaccine, researchers fool a woman’s immune system into producing antibodies against hCG, which makes her allergic to her own embryo.
    Once her immune system is sufficiently stimulated against hCG, the pregnant woman will spontaneously abort the embryo:
    Is that why the Philippine population has been declining?
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  12. #41

    Default

    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  13. #42

    Default

    Still posting that online survey conducted at one website? Online surveys are not valid and are not reliable.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-16-2017 at 07:57 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    Still pushing vaccines are children? How much do they pay you?
    Vaccines are children?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-16-2017 at 08:13 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Vaccines are on children?
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    A 2010 study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) indicated that Philippine women were “unwittingly vaccinated against their own children”.
    By linking hCG with tetanus antigens in a vaccine, researchers fool a woman’s immune system into producing antibodies against hCG, which makes her allergic to her own embryo.
    Once her immune system is sufficiently stimulated against hCG, the pregnant woman will spontaneously abort the embryo:
    Is that why the Philippine population has been declining?
    You mean that we most believe the statistrics of the US national census?
    A 5 time increase of the population from 1950 to 2012 (from 20 to 100 million) - yeah right!

    I must admit that a World population of 7 billion people makes me terrified…
    I’m just a simple guy and all of this state propaganda is just too difficult for me to understand, while you’re so incredibly smart…
    Maybe you can explain how communist China introduced a strict one-child policy at the end of the 1970s, but the population of China increased with some 40%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

    According to the CBS (the Dutch bureau of statistrics) in the 1980s the Netherlands was the most densily populated country in the whole wide world (14 million at the time).
    Since then a huge amount of buildings have been demolished, in the name of health care, and according to the CBS our population has grown to 17 million.

    According to the state propganda the Dutch reach about the highest age in the world at over 80 years.
    When I walk the streets most of these elderly have apparently gone missing.

    Since September 2001, the percentage of Dutch natives has drasically dropped (especially in the "big" cities).
    In parts of my home town Amsterdam I’m actually the minority (with my “white” skin).
    Breaking up roads causes traffic jams, while using ultra short trains is a guarantee for everybody to believe that we are terribly overpopulated.

    Maybe you’re a supporter of the “philanthropic” organisation Negative Population Growth, that is “helping” us to solve the “devastating effects of overpopulation”: http://www.npg.org/
    Negative Population Growth, Inc. (NPG) is a national nonprofit membership organization. It was founded in 1972 to educate the American public and political leaders about the devastating effects of overpopulation on our environment, resources and standard of living. We believe that our nation is already vastly overpopulated in terms of the long-range carrying capacity of its resources and environment.
    Last edited by Firestarter; 05-17-2017 at 03:38 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason.

  17. #46

    Default

    The Boston Herald editorial board thinks that any dissent, skepticism, or questioning of vaccines, such as the dangers of hyper levels of vaccination, or the injection of mercury compounds into newborns, or the efficacy of the use of rushed vaccines for non-lethal mild ailments, is a “hanging offense.”
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul.
    "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
    "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  18. #47

    Default

    Unvaccinated Children Have Much Lower Rates of Chronic Illness, Jackson State Study Finds



    By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    The first peer-reviewed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated children versus unvaccinated was recently published in the Journal of Translational Science by epidemiologists from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University. The study’s conclusions are likely to inflame the fierce debate over whether vaccines and a mercury-containing vaccine preservative may be culprits in the dramatic rise in certain neurodevelopmental disorders in our children, including autism.

    The “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children” implicates vaccines in a host of chronic illnesses now epidemic in our nation’s children. The team of scientists, led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Mawson, the author of more than fifty published studies, concluded that “In a final adjusted model designed to test for this possibility, controlling for the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination, the following factors remained significantly associated with NDD: vaccination (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.6), nonwhite race (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.4), and male gender (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.4). Preterm birth itself, however, was not significantly associated with NDD, whereas the combination (interaction) of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5) (Table 8).” Jackson State is a leading university research center.

    The study suggests that fully vaccinated children may be trading the prevention of certain acute illnesses (chicken pox, pertussis) for more chronic illnesses and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) like ADHD and Autism.



    In order to find a large population of children who hadn’t received any vaccines, the Jackson State scientists utilized Homeschool organizations in four states and compared the incidence of a broad range of health outcomes in 666 children, 39% of whom were unvaccinated. Among the more concerning findings, vaccinated children had increased risks of autism (4.2 times), ADHD (4.2 times), learning disabilities (5.2 times) eczema (2.9 times), and an astounding 30 times the risk of allergic rhinitis compared to unvaccinated children.

    As would be expected, vaccinated children did have lower likelihood of two vaccine-preventable illnesses compared to unvaccinated children: chicken pox (7.9% vs. 25.3%), and pertussis (2.5% vs. 8.4%), but the scientists found no significant differences in rates of other vaccine-preventable illnesses like hepatitis A or B, measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, meningitis or rotavirus. The study suggests that fully vaccinated children may be trading the prevention of certain acute illnesses (chicken pox, pertussis) for more chronic illnesses and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) like ADHD and Autism.

    Despite numerous requests over the years from parents and vaccine safety advocates for just this type of research, the CDC has failed to act. The Jackson State scientists called for more scientific studies to help explain and clarify these findings.

    View/Download Unvaccinated-Vaccinated Study

    View Download Unvaccinated-Vaccinated Preterm Birth Study
    https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...e-study-finds/
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  19. #48

    Default

    That is the retracted online survey- not a valid, scientific study. Re-posting it again and again doesn't make it any more legit.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  20. #49

    Default

    I don't care what the surveys say. According to liberty thought, parents have the right and responsibility to determine the health care needs of their children. I had rubella and measles when I was a baby. Fortunately, I suffered no complications. I had chicken pox and mumps. Again, no complications, and none in our community.

    We did the traditional MMR and polio when our daughter was a baby, and she was updated on the tetanus. We did the HepC vaccine when it came out. This was well over 30 years ago. The protocol has changed and kids are being given very high doses of vaccine all at once. I know several kids who have had complications from what I call "etreme vaccinations." It seems like the protocol demands too much at once.

    We did not do HPV. By the time it came out, our daughter was old enough to understand the risks and complications. She was at <1% risk for contracting the disease, so we decided together not to vaccinate.

    I think we would still vaccinate, but we would do them later and space them out. We have always lived in urban areas with a travel and tourism economy, and a lot of immigrants. The risk of exposure is higher than if we lived out in a rural are that stayed mostly contained.

    It is a parent's choice until the child is old enough to decide for him/herself. Adults always have the choice to be vaccinated.
    Last edited by euphemia; 05-18-2017 at 11:50 AM.
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    It includes the following notorious quote: “The world today has 6.8 billion people … that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
    I think his argument is that reducing child mortality and raising standards of living will lead to less children per couple and lowered population growth.

    Evil people in power deciding to kill millions based on desired genetic and cultural characteristics wouldn't be a new thing though. Hmm Soviets....

    There's no need to be on either extreme side of the Vaccination debate. Vaccines have been successful, and the logic and science behind them in principle holds-up. However there's no good reason to trust everything the industry or government wants to pump into your children.
    Last edited by merkelstan; 05-18-2017 at 03:05 PM.

  22. #51

    Default

    As I mentioned previously, the Journal of Translational Science never came out and said they retracted it.

    It is back up online:

    http://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparat...en.php#Article
    Uncensored Health Freedom News:
    http://healthimpactnews.com/

    Yes, I believe the science of vaccines is settled - Zippyjuan Team

  23. #52

    Default

    https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/com...are_much_more/

    Above link contains some more debate about the quoted study... The points raised about self-reporting bias and cofactors are pretty significant. Also nobody seemed to mention that homeschool kids have orders of magnitude less exposure to pathogens from other children....

    I'd definitely like to see more studies, but there is real power and influence from the vaccine industry that makes less than likely.

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/com...are_much_more/

    Above link contains some more debate about the quoted study... The points raised about self-reporting bias and cofactors are pretty significant. Also nobody seemed to mention that homeschool kids have orders of magnitude less exposure to pathogens from other children....

    I'd definitely like to see more studies, but there is real power and influence from the vaccine industry that makes less than likely.
    So would I. However, the industry would lose if they did they would conduct a study totally independent without collusion. They have government agencies that cover for them like CDC and FDA.

    If more people read the inserts they would also think twice about jabbing their children with these toxic concoctions.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  25. #54

    Default

    A couple of months ago I saw a scientific study that shows that vaccination causes Anorexia Nervosa, Compulsive Disorder, Tic Disorder and Anxiety Disorder in the following thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...d-inflammation


    D.L. Leslie et al “Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case–Control Study” (2017): http://journal.frontiersin.org/artic...017.00003/full

    This is not just a “survey” (like the report that I’ve posted in #7), but this is hard evidence that these disorders are caused by vaccines.
    Probably some highly intelligent pro-vax-astroturfers can show me I’m wrong again…

    The study shows that vaccines have a higher Hazard Ratio, in 3 6, and 9 months, (see Table 2):
    Anorexia Nervosa (AN) - 1.80, 163, 1.47 [especially high for Flu vaccines];
    Compulsive Disorder (OCD) - 1.23, 1.27, 1.23 [especially high for Flu and Hep. A vaccines];
    Tic Disorder - 1.11, 1.25, 1.19 [especially high for Flu an Meningitis vaccines];
    Anxiety Disorder - 1.12, 1.13, 1.14 [especially high for Flu vaccines];


    Varicella is smallpox by the way…
    These results are very troubling and significant (it does show a “causal role”).
    To make it even more damaging, the conclusion shows that this report was written by a pro-vaxxer, who came with the ridiculous conclusion:
    Conclusion: This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuropsychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals. However, our findings do not demonstrate a causal role of vaccination in the pathoetiology of any of these conditions. This is especially important given the clear public health benefits of the timely administration of vaccines in preventing mortality and morbidity (38). Vaccines are among the most successful and cost-effective preventive public health interventions (39).


    I have really tried to find evidence for “the clear public health benefits” of vaccines.
    I think I have found it...

    Edward Jenner is the legendary “scientist”, who made “evidence” for the wonderful benefits of vaccination:
    In 1796, Jenner enlisted a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes and an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to test his theory. Jenner transferred pus from Nelmes’s cowpox blisters onto incisions he’d made in Phipps’s hands. The boy came down with a slight fever, but nothing more. Later, Jenner gave Phipps a standard smallpox inoculation – which should have resulted in a full-blown, albeit mild, case of the disease. Nothing happened. Jenner tried inoculating Phipps with smallpox once more; again, nothing.
    In 1798 Jenner published his results, claiming lifelong protection against smallpox using “vaccines”. Some doctors of the time challenged this myth, because they had seen smallpox follow cowpox.
    In 1799, Mr. Drake vaccinated some children with cowpox matter obtained from Edward Jenner. The children were then tested by being inoculated with smallpox; all of them developed smallpox. Jenner received the report but ignored the results.

    Vaccination was quickly embraced by the medical quacks. By 1801, an estimated 100,000 people had already been vaccinated in England with the belief that it would produce lifelong protection.
    Early reports indicated that there were cases of people who were vaccinated, and then developed cowpox, and some still died of smallpox.

    In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that after vaccinating 1,200 people, he became disappointed. He saw that, after vaccination, people could still contract and even die from smallpox.

    Because arm-to-arm vaccination was used, other diseases could spread causing epidemics, including tuberculosis and syphilis.

    Then in one of those great examples of science, the medical profession no longer claimed lifelong protection against smallpox from a single vaccination. Instead, revaccination had to be performed anywhere from yearly to every 10 years.

    In Leicester they didn’t vaccinate, which resulted in considerably less deaths from smallpox (see the 1912 book that I’ve posted a link to in post #27).

    I found this on the following (anti-vaxxer) site, it also includes some nice graphics that show that vaccines were quickly administered after the “infectious disease” was already steadily in decline: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...-humphries-md/
    Last edited by Firestarter; 05-20-2017 at 10:19 AM.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason.

  26. #55

    Default

    Varicella is smallpox by the way…
    Actually it is chickenpox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox

    In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that after vaccinating 1,200 people, he became disappointed. He saw that, after vaccination, people could still contract and even die from smallpox.

    Because arm-to-arm vaccination was used, other diseases could spread causing epidemics, including tuberculosis and syphilis.
    A lot has been learned since then.

    Your study does note:

    However, our findings do not demonstrate a causal role of vaccination in the pathoetiology of any of these conditions.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  27. #56

    Default

    Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over ‘Serious Health Concerns'

    http://www.healthnutnews.com/sweden-...eath-concerns/
    But the fact of the matter is that there are often times in life even a curmudgeonly, misanthropic old grouch like myself has to "join the team" to accomplish a larger goal. -AF

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to donnay again
    But the fact of the matter is that there are often times in life even a curmudgeonly, misanthropic old grouch like myself has to "join the team" to accomplish a larger goal. -AF

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  29. #58

    Default

    Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?

    By: Celeste McGovern



    Originally published on CMSRI.org.

    The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?

    The first-ever study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children (and a subset study) published two weeks ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Translational Science have reappeared online after briefly disappearing while under fire from a small band of Skeptics and the staff at Retraction Watch, an organization that reports Science retraction news. Snopes, the fact-checking website, is still misreporting that the study has been retracted, even while it sits, published, in the science journal’s pages.

    It is a troubling saga unfolding in the scientific publishing world, and it is worth paying attention to because it’s revealing of powerful forces in that realm that are trying to censor scientific research and to shield important data from public viewing. Not at all the methodical and logical sort of thing you would expect from modern scientific types. It looks more like a secret 17th century Salem witch trial…interrupted.

    Most readers here will be aware of Anthony Mawson et al.'s pivotal pilot study on the health of homeschooled American children. It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers). And it is the only study (yes, the ONLY study to contain totally unvaccinated American subjects.) There are no other studies of American children who have never had a vaccine compared to kids with the motherload of CDC protection.

    The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune –mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents? (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation -- that wasn’t so sick -- got?

    The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example. And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children. We better have another study, the researchers concluded. A bigger and better study.

    Round One: Suppressing the Study Results

    Enter the Skeptics. When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

    “I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published. It was never published. NEVER RETRACTED. Just tweeted away by Leonid and his Skeptic friends.

    Most scientists are skeptical -- they don’t like claims without evidence – but not all scientists are Skeptics. Skeptics are champions of objective scientific inquiry who fight against anything they see as irrational and unscientific, which is everything outside of pharmaceutical manufacturing interests. Functional Medicine is equal to Bigfoot to them. They know the difference between Good Thinking and Bad Thinking and some theories (like evolution) they think are very good and some ideas, like God, are particularly bad. They don’t like religion, but Skeptics can be quite dogmatic themselves about some things. Like vaccines. According to them, all vaccines are safe and effective. No one is ever injured by vaccines. Every child is healthier because of vaccines. The epidemic of childhood disorders is caused by something that is not vaccines. Questioning vaccines is heresy.

    Retraction Watch, which bills itself as "a window into the scientific process," got a little more involved than window-watching and inaccurately reported that the study was retracted, based on a Tweet. It ignored that accepting science on its merits, and then rejecting it on Tweets from those who disagree, is in violation of the publishing code of conduct. Not to mention that there is a big difference in the world of science between having a paper retracted – which implies scientific misconduct or gross scientific error – and having a paper declined because of disgruntled Tweets.

    Frontiers publicly posts their retraction policy and affirms that they abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction. Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:

    Retractions are not about punishing authors.

    Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.
    There was no retraction statement ever made or posted by Frontiers; therefore Retraction Watch's statement about Dr. Mawson’s paper being retracted is inarguably false. This proven lie was used to interfere with and misconstrue Dr. Mawson’s research, resulting in a temporary removal of his article from The Journal of Translational Science pending an inquiry. Inquiry resolved, the articles have been reinstated on the journal’s website, demonstrating sufficient proof that the articles were never retracted as claimed by Retraction Watch.

    Round Two: Discrediting the Study Results

    Retraction Watch was again the first to misreport the retraction of the Mawson paper from the Journal of Translational Science last week. Rather than reporting on the facts, Retraction Watch took an activist role in the attempted takedown of Dr. Mawson’s research. Misconstruing and misrepresenting another scientist’s research is considered scientific misconduct. Retraction Watch still has (at the time of writing) an article posted that claims the paper has been doubly retracted. Their actions have a ripple effect, furthering the harm to Dr. Mawson and his younger colleagues, actions which are harmful to reputations, careers, and their future livelihoods. Snopes, the “fact-checking” entity, was still reporting that the papers were retracted because of methodological flaws, with only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom showing the papers restored to the Journal’s webpages. I pointed out the error to the editors and they updated the story today, without apology for inaccuracies.

    Continuing to retain articles that are demonstrably and provably false on their website shows a lack of regard for the integrity and truth they espouse to protect. The public should be aware that their representations are not well researched and supported by the facts, and that the due diligence they claim to conduct in the interest of scientific integrity is not as it appears once you scratch the surface.

    No answers have been forthcoming from Retraction Watch's editor Alison Cook. She has not replied to my inquiries. Snopes founder David Mikkelson and managing editor Brooke Binkowski did not reply to messages. I did not receive explanations from the journal editors either.

    The Digital Media Law Project publishes guidelines for publishing information that “harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization.” Injury to one’s reputation that stems from a falsehood is defamation, and claiming an article was retracted when it wasn’t is false, defamatory and should be corrected when notice and evidence has been provided to the author of the defamatory article. In the case of the Snopes article, the DMLP states “the republication of someone else's words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to its source.”

    The DMLP also advises publications to "be prompt and give your correction the same prominent position that you gave the inaccurate information you previously posted.”

    Can Snopes and Retraction Watch be Trusted?

    The whole ordeal puts scientific publishing into a bad light. Can it be so easy to push editors out of publishing? Is the code of conduct meaningless? Don't the researchers have recourse to defend their work if there are allegations against it, in a scholarly manner? Has science stooped so low, so beneath accepted standards of professionalism, that it is time to call in lawyers?

    This disturbing event leaves the public bewildered. Is there something to worry about for our children's health or not? Why did these researchers find such a high risk of autism and other disorders in vaccinated children? What are the possible mechanisms of immune system injury from vaccination in children?

    The way the Mawson study was received undermines public trust in a system that is meant to be seeking better health for humanity. It will continue to erode so long as it fails to answer these questions that our children need answers to, now.

    The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) is a medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic.

    Celeste McGovern is an award-winning independent journalist in Scotland. She reports on medical news, drug scandals, alternative health and more at www.ghostshipmedia.com.
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/has...-watch-retract
    Last edited by donnay; 05-23-2017 at 05:33 PM.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  30. #59

    Default SV40 and heavy metal

    The following article about the cancer causing Simian Virus (SV40) in polio vaccines is excellent.
    It shows that as late as the year 2000 SV40 was still found in vaccines: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article...ne-2899957.php


    An excellent thread could be made about vaccines, by simply collecting the best posts on this topic on Ronpaulforums.com.
    See for example the following quote about how Simian Virus (SV40) was added to polio vaccines to cause cancer: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5133787

    Quote Originally Posted by Dannno
    A screen capture of the CDC’s information sheet shown above claims “The majority of scientific evidence suggests that SV40-contaminated vaccine did not cause cancer; however, some research results are conflicting and more studies are needed.”

    So only some research results? Interesting statement considering that back in 2002, a whopping 61 reports from 49 different laboratories from all over the world were detecting SV40 monkey virus strains in many different types of human cancers including mesothelioma, lymphoma, brain and bone tumors.

    In fact, only three studies failed to produce similar results then. Two of these were reportedly compromised by two of the main researchers involved: Dr. Howard Strickler and Dr. Keerti Shah.

    Shah was under contract by Dr. Strickler to perform SV40 studies, and it was revealed later in a deposition that Strickler gave Shah the positive controls and allowed him to adjust his methods for SV40 detection after the study had begun, thus according to Shah’s testimony, Strickler comprised what should have been a blind study.

    An excerpt from the book The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher.

    Dr. Shah had also apparently completed consulting work for pharmaceutical giants Merck (a company behind some of the polio vaccines which were tainted with SV40 back in the 1950s) and Pfizer as well, as noted in the book excerpt above.

    In addition, a 2003 House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness hearing on “The SV40 Virus: Has Tainted Polio Vaccine Caused an Increase in Cancer” raised some serious questions about Dr. Strickler’s findings which only claimed less than one percent of cancer cases studied had SV40 present — a claim that stood out against a backdrop of researchers from all over the world confirming SV40 in cancer tumors again and again and ultimately finding that SV40 did, in fact, cause cancer.

    During the hearing, Burton asked:

    Well, Dr. Strickler evidently has done some research on this, and he showed that in 1996 there was no evidence that the SV-40 was in any tumors and was the cause of these cancers. And in 2001 he said the same thing. Now, how do you account for the fact that your scientist, he was working for you I think at the time, couldn’t find any trace of SV-40 tumors when eminent scientists that I just mentioned to you and many others from 60 different laboratories around the world found many cases of its existence? Why is there that inconsistency?
    Burton also mentioned that Dr. Strickler had obvious Big Pharma ties, including to Merck and Wyeth which both developed polio vaccines used during the 1960s.

    You know, this Dr. Strickler, he — one of the favored labs that he uses for the tests that he does is funded in large part and does a lot of work with Merck, Pfizer, and Wyeth, and while that doesn’t apparently look like a conflict of interest, it certainly does raise some questions.
    Indeed. Under “disclosure of potential conflicts of interest” on studies done in subsequent years on human papillomavirus (HPV) for example, Dr. Strickler has listed himself as “consultant/advisory board, Merck and GSK”. (Side note: Gardasil and Cervarix, the two HPV vaccines currently approved for sale on the market, are manufactured by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline respectively.)

    Interestingly, during the hearing, Burton also asked about Strickler’s position as a consultant with the FDA. Notably, the FDA was listed on the now-defunct CDC information page as “the federal government lead agency in answering questions relating to SV40 in polio vaccine.” Representatives from neither the CDC nor the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attended the Congressional hearing on this matter.

    Obviously, looking into this document brings up many more questions than answers, and more research needs to be done to connect the myriad dots here.

    Even more alarming, a 2001 San Fransisco Chronicle article discusses the fact that a second, slower-growing SV40 virus was found in 1955 polio vaccines recovered from a retired public health official and tested in 1999 — a different strain that would not have been picked up by the tests used to find SV40 in the tainted vaccines back in the 1960s. This shocking discovery led the researcher who found it to warn:

    It was possible…that this second strain of SV40 had been evading manufacturers’ screening procedures for years — and infecting vaccine recipients after 1962.

    The CDC information sheet even brought up linkages to studies of SV40 potentially being passed from mother to infant during pregnancy, but in the end the organization’s position seemed to remain that ‘further research is needed’ in this area. Of course, that was back when the CDC had those pages up, and they are no longer live.

    Regardless, nothing has been done to hold any of the pharmaceutical giants responsible for this monstrosity liable for their actions, and the companies continue to produce vaccines administered to Americans every single day.

    Whatever master agenda could be at work here, it is amazing that the American and global public continue to trust their bodies to the same science that ‘accidentally’ contaminated tens of millions of people vaccinated for polio with a monkey virus found time and again in cancerous tumors. The presence of SV40 – which Merck vaccine scientist Maurice Hilleman joked in the video below caused tumors – has not officially been recognized by the government as having caused all these cancers (again, the CDC has continued to affirm ‘further research is needed’).

    As this strain of monkey virus has consistently been found present in many types of cancerous cells in people all over the world at this point, the significance of such a correlation cannot be denied.

    I also saw an interesting thread started by Dannno about the contamination of vaccines with all kinds of dirty stuff, “including red cells of human or possibly animal origin and metals including lead, tungsten, gold, and chromium” and formaldehyde: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...is-in-New-Stud
    I’m not sure about this last one though, Zippyjuan made some strong posts, arguing that the concentration of the contamination was too low: “fewer than ten particles (molecules) of each in the entire vaccine”…
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason.

  31. #60

    Default

    RFK JR RECEIVES A STANDING OVATION AT THE AUTISM ONE CONFERENCE. “LET THE SCIENCE SPEAK”

    ARJUN WALIAJUNE 2, 2017

    Robert F Kennedy Jr was the keynote speaker at the recent AutismOne conference. AutismOne is a nonprofit, parent-driven organization that educates people and supports advocacy efforts for children and families touched by an autism diagnosis.

    In his lecture, he explained his efforts in vaccine safety advocacy through being Chairman of the World Mercury Project.

    Their goals are to:

    Successfully advocate that the government and pharmaceutical companies to remove all thimerosal (even trace amounts) from all vaccines, medicines and personal products in the US and globally.
    Successfully require the government and corporations to acknowledge the corruption and damage perpetrated on a generation of children
    Successfully advocate to to revamp the broken system currently in place to take care of the needs of the vaccine injured
    Successfully remove vaccine safety from CDC control the pass policy to remove all vaccine patents from their control/ownership
    Require that all vaccines undergo rigorous testing using placebo controlled trials prior to FDA approval, including the synergistic effects of giving multiple vaccinations at once.
    Fund research to prevent and reverse the ill effects of mercury induced
    Kennedy pointed out the corruption that exists within and between the CDC and the pharmaceutical industry. He mentions the “captive agency phenomenon,” where government agencies become “sock puppets” for the very industries they’re supposed to be regulating. He explained that we must stand fast in our mission to bring awareness and attention to the fact that there are people out there who are knowingly putting our health at risk, stating that they are constantly working to make the links between vaccines and serious health consequences disappear.

    “Vaccines are big business. Pharma is a trillion-dollar industry with vaccines accounting for $25 billion in annual sales. CDC’s decision to add a vaccine to the schedule can guarantee its manufacturer millions of customers and billions in revenue with minimal advertising or marketing costs and complete immunity from lawsuits. High stakes and the seamless marriage between Big Pharma and government agencies have spawned an opaque and crooked regulatory system.” (source)

    Perhaps the best example of such fraud taking place is Dr. William Thompson, a senior CDC scientist who has authored multiple CDC studies that are commonly cited and used to debunk any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. He recently came out and blew the whistle on his own published research, saying a portion of it was actually fabricated and that the CDC is well aware of significant evidence linking vaccines and autism.


    You can read more about that here, as well as watch Kennedy and Robert De Niro host a press conference offering a $100,000 reward to any journalist, doctor, or scientist who can provide a study showing that it is safe to inject mercury into babies.

    He presented approximately 100 studies that show how dangerous it is, but found zero studies saying it’s safe. It’s hard to imagine how any study could assert that injecting one of the most toxic substances on Earth into babies is a good idea.

    A fairly recent meta-analysis published in the journal Bio Med Research International determined:

    The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies. (source)

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/...zen.yandex.com
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Truth in Media: CDC, Vaccines and Autism
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 02:50 PM
  2. The Truth About Vaccines & Blue Foot Syndrome
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-24-2015, 08:35 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-11-2014, 08:51 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-20-2012, 01:33 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 09:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •