Vaccines Debate

[dogman6126]

One of the most contentious vaccine controversies to date is the proposed causal relationship between the receipt of the measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. Andrew Wakefield, a gastroenterologist in the UK, was the first to postulate the so-called 'leaky-gut' theory. Wakefield's theory was supported by studies that identified measles virus nucleic acid sequences in the blood cells and intestinal tissue of some children who had experienced severe behavioral regression.[12,13] A similar investigation with a larger sample failed to reveal persistence of measles virus nucleic acids in the peripheral blood of children with autism-spectrum disorder.[14] Subsequently, results of several large population- and ecologic-based studies have failed to provide any support for Wakefield's theory.[15] In light of the compelling evidence refuting Wakefield's contention, most of his coauthors have published a formal retraction of the findings of the original article and the journal Lancet has recently fully retracted the original publication based on several elements of the paper being proven to be false.[16,17] Further details about this controversy and autism research have been published in a recent book.[18] The Institute of Medicine (IOM) in a report on vaccine safety has stated that "the committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism".[19] Although there are rare side effects such as immediate hypersensitivity reactions and febrile seizures, as well as mild fever and rash that occur relatively commonly in association with its use, the MMR vaccine continues to be safe, efficacious and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US CDC, and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Practice (AAFP).

Here was some interesting information.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722174_2

Thimerosal is another hot button issue that has been debated in relationship to the onset of autism. Thimerosal has served as a preservative in vaccines since the 1930s. It is added to multidose vaccine vials for its bactericidal properties to preserve the sterility of the contents. In the late 1990s, the government became aware of and concerned about mercury exposure in the general population and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published standards of safe limits of methylmercury exposure.[20] Thimerosal contains 49.6% mercury by weight and metabolizes into ethylymercury and thiosalicylate.[15] The use of thimerosal came under fire as more thimerosal-containing vaccines were added to the recommended infant and child immunization schedule. The possibility of subsequent neurodevelopmental problems related to the cumulative amounts of thimerosal that a child was receiving in the first 2 years of life, the total amount of mercury being administered at a single clinic visit, especially for the very smallest of infants (including premature infants in whom safety data were unavailable at the time) were raised as concerns.[20,21]

In 1999, the AAP and the US Public Health Service (USPHS) took a cautionary stance and issued a joint statement calling for the removal of thimerosal from pediatric vaccines.[22] At that time, the risks of low-dose ethylmercury in vaccines were unknown, although there was no evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines contributed to toxic mercury levels. Studies conducted subsequently suggest that ethylmercury behaves very differently to the more concerning environmental neurotoxin methylmercury.[21] The action taken by the AAP and USPHS had a significant ripple effect on the general public's acceptance of vaccine safety. The birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine, which at the time contained thimerosal, was subsequently withheld by many healthcare providers and the hepatitis B vaccination campaign experienced a serious setback. The removal of thimerosal from vaccine vials has also increased production costs, which are ultimately passed on to the consumer. At present, with the exception of some influenza vaccines, none of the routinely recommended pediatric vaccines contain thimerosal as a preservative.

I want to point out a few parts of this.

At that time, the risks of low-dose ethylmercury in vaccines were unknown, although there was no evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines contributed to toxic mercury levels.

This is where the media and a panicked public grasped onto and formed a bad opinion of thimerosal.

Studies conducted subsequently suggest that ethylmercury behaves very differently to the more concerning environmental neurotoxin methylmercury.

This is very true by common sense if you are aware of basic chemistry principles. These two chemical compounds are very different. Just because they contain elemental mercury does not mean it will have the same chemical properties and effects of elemental mercury. This is also true to the different compounds. Just because they both contain mercury does not mean that they are both harmful, or at least harmful in the same way.
Here is a quote from a scientific periodical (a much more reliable source with actual evidence *please read ahead in the article for evidence, this is a quote from the conclusion* and not full of conjecture like media sources) that talks about this.

Central to the public story of thimerosal has been a battle over the meaning of “mercury.” Those in the scientific community take it as axiomatic that all forms of mercury are not created equal; in particular, there are good reasons to believe that the ethylmercury used in vaccines is very different from the methylmercury studied in environmental science. In public discourse, however, such distinctions are subsumed under a single entity, mercury, with a long and very public history. Perhaps unfairly, history has endowed mercury in all of its forms with a notoriety that is not easy to erase, as will quickly be discovered by any pediatrician trying to convince an anxious mother that a “trace” of mercury in a vaccine is safe. One cannot simply brush aside this perception in constructing policy.

From the same scientific article:

The first is directed at the insinuation prevalent on the Internet that thimerosal was a dubious product smuggled into vaccines by avaricious drug companies bent on profits rather than the welfare of children. A more sober assessment would suggest that thimerosal was the result of ethical scientific and corporate research in the 1920s and 1930s, specifically to improve vaccine safety. Despite questions regarding its efficacy, it has performed well in practice and posed toxicity so low as to be considered negligible until recent years.

This is supported by earlier reading. I feel it necessary to directly point this out:

Understanding why mercury was first incorporated into childhood vaccines leads back to the preantibiotic era, a time when physicians employed a variety of compounds known as “germicides” to combat bacteria. Perhaps the best known was Joseph Lister’s carbolic acid, developed in the 1860s for surgical antisepsis and later employed as a germicide and preservative known as phenol.5 Yet a variety of mercury compounds were also used for the same purpose. No less an authority than Robert Koch championed the use of mercury chloride as an antiseptic, although the product’s propensity to cause tissue irritation limited its use. In the early 20th century, investigators synthesized a new class of compounds they claimed to be both more effective and less toxic, the organomercurials. Often brilliantly colored, these products soon found widespread usage, from operating suites to home medicine cabinets.6

Thimerosal was one of the most promising new organomercurials that excited the pharmaceutical industry after World War I. It was a white, crystalline powder, approximately 50% mercury by weight, in the form of ethylmercury bound to thiosalicylate. The emerging pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company provided grant support for its synthesis at the University of Chicago and in 1928 patented it under the trade name Merthiolate.7 Over the next several years, Lilly’s investigators H.M. Powell and W.A. Jamieson conducted extensive in vitro testing, showing that thimerosal was 40 to 50 times as effective as phenol against Staphylococcus aureus. The two men evaluated toxicity by injecting the compound into over 300 rabbits and a variety of other animals observed for a week’s time. The animals appeared to tolerate significant doses—up to 20 mg per kg body weight in rabbits and still higher in rats—without apparent injury.8

These encouraging results prompted the Lilly team in 1929 to offer their product to the Indiana General Hospital during an epidemic of meningococcal meningitis. Hospital physicians gave 22 patients as much as 180 mL of a 1% solution of thimerosal intravenously divided over five doses. From a therapeutic standpoint, the trial was a failure, but investigators were struck by how well the patients seemed to tolerate such high doses.9 Combined with the animal studies, the data further reinforced the impression that thimerosal was far more benign than earlier mercurials, preparing the way for its incorporation at low concentrations into a wide range of biological products as a preservative. Vaccines would become an especially important niche.

One of the most troublesome safety issues afflicting early 20th-century child immunization was that of bacterial contamination. This could easily occur on a sporadic basis, when general practitioners might have to draw vaccines from multidose vials under poor hygienic conditions. Contamination of entire lots could be much more spectacular. In Columbia, South Carolina, in 1916, a tainted batch of typhoid vaccine stored at room temperature caused 68 severe reactions, 26 abscesses, and 4 deaths. A still more disturbing incident took place in 1928 in Queensland, Australia, where 12 of 21 children inoculated with contaminated diphtheria vaccine died of multiple staphylococcal abscesses and toxemia. The need for effective preservatives was readily apparent and represented one of the most important safety issues for the promoters of new vaccines.10

In this context, Powell and Jamieson’s studies suggested that Merthiolate had an unexpected advantage. The problem with existing preservatives such as phenol and cresol was that they often reduced the potency of the biological products they were intended to protect. By contrast, thimerosal not only inhibited bacterial growth in vaccines and antisera at concentrations as low as 1:10000 but also had no such deleterious effects.11 A series of other investigators confirmed these findings over the next several years, and by 1940 thimerosal was incorporated into diphtheria toxoid, meningococcal serum, pertussis vaccine, and a host of other biological products.12 Indeed, in 1938 Lilly’s assistant director of research listed Merthiolate along with insulin as one of the five most important drugs ever developed by the company.13

Also:

In 1999, the AAP and the US Public Health Service (USPHS) took a cautionary stance and issued a joint statement calling for the removal of thimerosal from pediatric vaccines.

This makes it quite obvious that it was not some conspiracy of the pharmicutical companies or the government as you suggested [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] in your comment:

The CDC and FDA who are the people you are supposed to trust were feeding you thimerosal STRAIGHT INTO YOUR BLOODSTREAM until a PUBLIC OUTCRY STOPPED THEM

Do you understand? The only thing that has lessened the poisoning that the authorities were knowingly and willfully carrying out was an outcry from the public

Do you understand? Public=right, lying authorities=wrong

This is an example of you only seeing what you want to see and reaching false conclusions as I have pointed out in another thread. Please, try to see more than just what agrees with your own perspective.
In reality, they thought it would do good, which it was the best at doing the job they made it for. And it was not a public outcry, rather a cautionary stance in case something was wrong with it. In this case, yes, there are some worries of thimersal in vaccines given to young children, that's why in the end, after further study, they kept thimersal out of the vaccines (with the acception of influenza).

To directly address your comment about an overwhelmed immune system in young children, please read the following:

Maturation of the immune response occurs in an orderly fashion from approximately 16 weeks gestation and slowly gains momentum in the first year of life. This, along with the presence of maternal antibodies provided passively, may account for the need for multiple injections to complete the primary series of several vaccines.[49,50] Data suggest that, theoretically, the intact immune system could respond to 10^9–10^11 different antigens.[51] Today's vaccines contain far fewer antigens than the immune system is designed to respond to. Medical advances in vaccinology have contributed to the decline in the number of antigens in modern vaccines. For example, the whole-cell pertussis vaccine contained approximately 3000 proteins compared with the two to five proteins found in the current acellular pertussis vaccines.[51]

Thus, parents and caregivers should be reassured based on these data that vaccines will not overwhelm or weaken the infant immune system.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722174_6
Yes, there could be some variation as you suggested muir, but enough variation that the minimal number of proteins in actual vaccines is greater than the child's capacity to deal with when the average is 10^10 antigens? The child would have to have near complete immune suppression BEFORE receiving all of those vaccines over the course of two years for the 10^10 average to be lowered to the 10^3 needed for it to reach immune overload as you suggested. The numbers are there. Its almost impossible.
From the scientific article, I would also like to point out the following:

the IOM has already determined over the course of two reviews that available evidence fails to support such a conclusion.

If you continue to read the IOM report by following the citation in that article, you will see that there is no evidence of autism being caused by vaccines. Case studies are NOT causational. That video you posted muir is an example of a case study.
Here is a site that summarizes the report:
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/iom-reports/iom-report-vaccines-and-autism
Here is a site where you can find the original text:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309076366
On page 65 in the causality argument part, this report discusses how there is no evidence to show a causation between autism and vaccines. On other pages, you can see where they reached such a conclusion.

Anyone who will give honest consideration to what I have pointed out, and continues to look at the evidence in the reading I did not point out shows that there is nothing to worry about from vaccines. Most of the media sources and articles arguing otherwise are paranoia of the public and misinformation from media sources.. The fact is, vaccines are safe. The data is there, the evidence, the proof. If anyone wishes to ignore that proof, well then I suppose there's nothing that can be done for them.

 

[dogman6126]

Vaccines are used to ''reduce population growth'' says Bill Gates:

[video=youtube;04pJdaFOwgQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04pJdaFOwgQ[/video]

Bill Gates on climate change saying we must use vaccines to REDUCE THE GLOBAL POPULATION:

[video=youtube;xqAGasF6Hfo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqAGasF6Hfo[/video]

Say what Bill? Reduce the population?

How do vaccines do that if they help people?

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous.
The following points I gleaned from the following source:
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/05/bill-gates-vaccines-and-human-depopulation/

Quote from Bill Gates:

and we only need about six or seven more — and then you would have all the tools to reduce childhood death, reduce population growth, and everything — the stability, the environment — benefits from that

As pointed out in this article, you are confusing reducing population growth through economic principle with an idea of mass murder! That is ridiculous.

Here is the economic principle/concept on which Bill Gates is basing his statement:

Macroeconomic research bears out this picture. Fertility starts to drop at an annual income per person of $1,000-2,000 and falls until it hits the replacement level at an income per head of $4,000-10,000 a year (see chart 2). This roughly tracks the passage from poverty to middle-income status and from an agrarian society to a modern one.

[...]

The link between living standards and fertility exists within countries, too. India’s poorest state, Bihar, has a fertility rate of 4; richer Tamil Nadu and Kerala have rates below 2. Shanghai has had a fertility rate of less than 1.7 since 1975; in Guizhou, China’s poorest province, the rate is 2.2. So strong is the link between wealth and fertility that the few countries where fertility is not falling are those torn apart by war, such as Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone, where living standards have not risen.

Reducing population growth is not by murdering people with vaccines! Its by this economic principle which is plainly apparent in India. Vaccines are not population control. They are helping the population which in turn leads to lesser birth rates simply because the parents are more successful/happier/better off. NOT SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY TO KILL THE POPULATION.


The cite I posted early shows many more examples that disprove this conspiracy theory. Please don't believe anything you see online. This obviously shows a jump of conclusion from a simple statement by Bill Gates to a concept of murdering people. Based on the scientific principle of Occam's razor, it is apparent that Bill Gates is NOT killing everyone off. Just one example where a Bill Gates sponsored vaccine went bad does not prove the conspiracy theory. It is expected that with that many vaccines out, there will be some mistakes. No one is perfect. The connection to Bill Gates is coincidental, after all he is one of the richest people on the planet. He invests in many many things.

 

[muir]

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous.
The following points I gleaned from the following source:
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/05/bill-gates-vaccines-and-human-depopulation/

Quote from Bill Gates:

As pointed out in this article, you are confusing reducing population growth through economic principle with an idea of mass murder! That is ridiculous.

No i'm not

You are looking far too myopically at this

You need to zoom out and educate yourself about:

• The Club of Rome and their paper 'the limits to growth' 1972
• Agenda 21
• Eugenics and how Bill Gates father was the head of a group called 'Planned Parenthood'
• Social Darwinism
• The Fabian society
• The Bilderberg Club (especially relating to eugenics)
• The Council on Foreign Relations and the Round Table Groups
• The Billionaire Club (especially their focus on population control)
• Quiet Weapons for a Silent War

Reducing population growth is not by murdering people with vaccines!

Vaccines are just one part of the process

Its by this economic principle which is plainly apparent in India. Vaccines are not population control. They are helping the population which in turn leads to lesser birth rates simply because the parents are more successful/happier/better off.

How so?

Even Bill Gates says they are for controlling the population numbers

NOT SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY TO KILL THE POPULATION.

Wrong! They are social engineering brought to you by the eugencist movement

The cite I posted early shows many more examples that disprove this conspiracy theory. Please don't believe anything you see online. This obviously shows a jump of conclusion from a simple statement by Bill Gates to a concept of murdering people. Based on the scientific principle of Occam's razor, it is apparent that Bill Gates is NOT killing everyone off. Just one example where a Bill Gates sponsored vaccine does not prove the conspiracy theory. It is expected that with that many vaccines out, there will be some mistakes. No one is perfect. The connection to Bill Gates is coincidental, after all he is one of the richest people on the planet. He invests in many many things.

No the connection to Gates is not incidental, like i said his father was head of planned parenthood

Bill Gates is a member of the CFR and is very much on board with the globalist agenda. His foundation is used by the globalists to fund their various projects

Microsoft is part of the spy net

 

[muir]

Here was some interesting information.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722174_2


I want to point out a few parts of this.

This is where the media and a panicked public grasped onto and formed a bad opinion of thimerosal.

This is very true by common sense if you are aware of basic chemistry principles. These two chemical compounds are very different. Just because they contain elemental mercury does not mean it will have the same chemical properties and effects of elemental mercury. This is also true to the different compounds. Just because they both contain mercury does not mean that they are both harmful, or at least harmful in the same way.
Here is a quote from a scientific periodical (a much more reliable source with actual evidence *please read ahead in the article for evidence, this is a quote from the conclusion* and not full of conjecture like media sources) that talks about this.

From the same scientific article:

This is supported by earlier reading. I feel it necessary to directly point this out:

Also:

This makes it quite obvious that it was not some conspiracy of the pharmicutical companies or the government as you suggested @muir in your comment:

This is an example of you only seeing what you want to see and reaching false conclusions as I have pointed out in another thread. Please, try to see more than just what agrees with your own perspective.
In reality, they thought it would do good, which it was the best at doing the job they made it for. And it was not a public outcry, rather a cautionary stance in case something was wrong with it. In this case, yes, there are some worries of thimersal in vaccines given to young children, that's why in the end, after further study, they kept thimersal out of the vaccines (with the acception of influenza).

To directly address your comment about an overwhelmed immune system in young children, please read the following:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722174_6
Yes, there could be some variation as you suggested muir, but enough variation that the minimal number of proteins in actual vaccines is greater than the child's capacity to deal with when the average is 10^10 antigens? The child would have to have near complete immune suppression BEFORE receiving all of those vaccines over the course of two years for the 10^10 average to be lowered to the 10^3 needed for it to reach immune overload as you suggested. The numbers are there. Its almost impossible.
From the scientific article, I would also like to point out the following:

If you continue to read the IOM report by following the citation in that article, you will see that there is no evidence of autism being caused by vaccines. Case studies are NOT causational. That video you posted muir is an example of a case study.
Here is a site that summarizes the report:
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/iom-reports/iom-report-vaccines-and-autism
Here is a site where you can find the original text:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309076366
On page 65 in the causality argument part, this report discusses how there is no evidence to show a causation between autism and vaccines. On other pages, you can see where they reached such a conclusion.

Anyone who will give honest consideration to what I have pointed out, and continues to look at the evidence in the reading I did not point out shows that there is nothing to worry about from vaccines. Most of the media sources and articles arguing otherwise are paranoia of the public and misinformation from media sources.. The fact is, vaccines are safe. The data is there, the evidence, the proof. If anyone wishes to ignore that proof, well then I suppose there's nothing that can be done for them.

I'm pretty sure i have explained this to you already that the globalists own many of the major publishing houses and they decide what research gets funding and what gets published

They absolutely destroyed wakefield for his study which should show how aggressively they try to counter any questioning of their agenda

If you want a balanced view you should look at research provided by people and publications that aren't just paid mouthpieces for the globalists

There's plenty in this thread

 

[muir]

http://pathwaystofamilywellness.org/Informed-Choice/the-vaccine-bubble.html

Remember the tech stock bubble? The housing bubble? Now a world-renowned financial forecaster reveals the profit motive inflating the impending vaccine bubble.


My business involves advising portfolio managers about asset allocation in global financial markets. During my career, I have observed several extreme speculative bubbles, including the Japanese stock market in the late 1980s, the NASDAQ frenzy in 1998—2000 and the U.S. housing bubble from 2006—2008.
These bubbles all ended in tears. I see the same elements now in the pharmaceutical industry’s preoccupation with vaccines. I coined the term “vaccine bubble” (in the book Vaccine Epidemic) to describe the economic and psychological factors that are driving the obsession with and over-investment in vaccines. The psychology of making big profits is causing a lemming-like rush into vaccine research and production. Ultimately, many of these companies and vaccine products will likely turn out to be flash-in-the-pan nobodies and nothings that simply waste investment and get discarded on the ash heap of medical history. In the meantime, families and individuals need to educate themselves and make informed decisions about vaccine acceptance or refusal.
The business model of vaccccine manufacturers relies on compulsion–you must take their product, or else.

Appearing in Issue #32. Order A Copy Today ​

Investing in Health
Taking pharmaceutical company advice about vaccine safety and efficacy is like trusting a stockbroker or real estate agent to tell you the market is in a bubble. As investors and homeowners have learned the hard way, those with corrupt financial or professional incentives cannot be relied upon to provide trustworthy advice.
From a financial and industry perspective, here is what you need to know. Vaccines are licensed by the FDA and recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Vaccine manufacturers perform (or outsource) their own efficacy and safety studies, so there is plenty of wiggle room for juggling the data. Manufacturers can choose their own placebo to either flatter efficacy or safety. If you think vaccine safety studies use saline solution for a placebo, think again.
The Merck Manuals (the pharmaceutical company’s best-selling series of medical textbooks) defines an adverse reaction to a vaccine: “Encephalitis is inflammation of the brain that occurs when a virus directly infects the brain or when a virus or something else triggers inflammation…. Encephalitis can occur in the following ways: A virus directly infects the brain. A virus that caused an infection in the past becomes reactivated and directly damages the brain. A virus or vaccine triggers a reaction that makes the immune system attack brain tissue (an autoimmune reaction).”
Thus, an adverse vaccine reaction that causes brain damage (encephalitis) has the same result as a complication from an infectious disease like measles. In vaccine safety studies, manufacturers can disguise the neurological damage caused by the vaccine they are testing by using another vaccine (or another substance that contains an aluminum adjuvant) known to cause neurological adverse reactions as placebo. The standard language they use is: “Adverse reactions were no different than placebo.” They don’t mention that the placebo causes neurological adverse reactions.
Another trick they use is to compare adverse reactions to a fully vaccinated population that has neurological damage from those vaccines. They claim it is unethical to compare vaccine adverse reactions in their new product being tested to unvaccinated controls, because the unvaccinated would supposedly miss out on all the great benefits of vaccines. This is a cheap statistical trick to camouflage adverse neurological reactions from vaccines.

Products in the Pipeline
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s (PhRMA) 2010 Report on Medicines in Development for Infectious Diseases boasts, “Among the medicines now being tested are…145 vaccines to prevent or treat diseases such as staph infections and pneumococcal infections.” The report didn’t include “medicines in development for HIV infection,” and stated, “A 2009 survey by PhRMA found 97 medicines and vaccines are in testing for HIV/AIDS and AIDS-related conditions.”
The current CDC-recommended vaccine schedule contains 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. PhRMA obviously would love to double or triple that vaccine burden by cramming the new vaccines under development into the ACIP-recommended schedule.

A Government-Subsidized, Captive Market
ACIP vaccine recommendations are a godsend to pharmaceutical manufacturers. The simple ACIP recommendation that so many doses of such-and-such vaccine should be given at such-and-such age is transformed into public school attendance mandates by the alchemy of drug industry sales reps, state health officials and gullible state legislatures. The business model of vaccine manufacturers relies on compulsion–you must take their product, or else. Imagine you were in business selling something and you could snap your fingers and compel everyone to be your customer. Normal businesses have to attract customers with an attractive product and compete with other providers of that product. Compulsion is a nice way to capture an involuntary market, isn’t it?
Since most people won’t pay hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket for every vaccine, manufacturers must find someone to foot the bill. They have been very effective in coercing federal and state governments and health insurers into subsidizing their products. One little-noticed feature of the Affordable Care Act (the Obama administration’s healthcare reform program) is that health insurers must provide subsidized vaccines to their customers. Big Pharma’s vaccine business model consists of taking choice away from the individual and getting someone else to foot the bill.

Filling the Profit Void
Pharmaceutical companies are losing patent protection on about $140 billion of blockbuster drugs (such as Lipitor) over the next few years. Their research departments have produced few product replacements with blockbuster potential (sales greater than $1 billion/ year). This pending loss of business is causing a wave of layoffs and restructurings within the industry. Also, disastrous drugs like Vioxx have caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks and about 40,000 deaths, according to FDA estimates cited by epidemiologist David Michaels, current head of OSHA for the Obama Administration, in his excellent book Doubt Is Their Product.
According to Michaels’ book, Merck exploited the FDA drug approval process by gaming the placebo and claiming that the higher rate of heart attacks observed in Vioxx clinical trials was due to the placebo (naproxen) preventing heart attacks. According to Michaels’ book, “Merck chose the interpretation that implausibly credited naproxen over the one that more plausibly indicted its own drug and it embarked on a four-year defense of this almost ridiculous hypothesis.” Incidentally, Merck is a primary manufacturer of U.S. vaccines. Its corporate behavior with Vioxx certainly discredits its ethical credibility with regard to pharmaceutical safety studies.
Pharmaceutical companies now tout vaccines as the Holy Grail that will help replace the lost revenues from expiring patents on blockbuster drugs that will face generic (cheap) competition. But the numbers don’t add up. Vaccines are currently about a $25 billion market. As previously mentioned, patent expirations amount to about $140 billion. Pharmaceutical companies desperately need to grow that $25 billion vaccine market in a hurry. Hence the big push to create, license and mandate new vaccines.

Popping the Vaccine Bubble
Now, if you are in the pharmaceutical industry charity market, you can donate your body to Merck and other vaccine manufacturers by volunteering to be a human pincushion for every vaccine recommended by the ACIP or in development. That is your decision, and I fully support your right to vaccinate yourself into oblivion.
However, if you (like me) do not agree with forced medication using products that may have been approved using safety studies involving bogus placebos, then you probably face persecution by your allopathic doctor, public school or employer (flu vaccines are now mandatory for many healthcare workers). I fully support your right to refuse vaccines. In fact, the position of the American Medical Association (AMA) on informed consent states that with regard to patients, “He or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.” Please notice the word refuse. It is our right to refuse “a particular course of medical intervention.” Notice it doesn’t say “except vaccination.” Informed consent is the backbone of medical ethics. You have the right to say no. Doctors who assert that you do not have a choice about vaccines are violating this medical code of ethics.
Contrast that AMA official position on informed consent with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position on “terminating” vaccine refusers: “If, after discussion about the importance of vaccination and the risks of not vaccinating, the parent refuses, the pediatrician should document the discussion and have the parent sign a waiver affirming his/her decision not to vaccinate (i.e., AAP Refusal to Vaccinate Form). If the situation becomes such that you are no longer comfortable having the parent/patient in your practice, the AAP manual, Medical Liability for Pediatricians, Chapter 3, offers resources for risk communication and termination of the physician-patient relationship.”

The Basis for My Choice
My daughter Lyla died within hours after receiving her hepatitis B vaccine at the age of five weeks. We subsequently had two more children and I looked closely at the rate of vaccine adverse reactions contained in the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) versus the risk of contracting an infectious disease and the risk of complications from that disease. As a professional statistician who provides econometric forecasts for institutional investors, I am qualified to make decisions based on statistical models. That is what I do, day in and day out. My conclusion? I would have to be a total idiot to vaccinate my children.
If mainstream pediatricians are going to “terminate” patients like me (like a pest control company), then perhaps my family is better off not being a captive of such a totalitarian doctor in the first place. For others in favor of vaccine choice, I’ve written an article entitled “How to Terminate a Relationship With an Uncooperative and Combative Pediatrician.” Sadly, most pediatricians wouldn’t know what to do with themselves and their practices if they weren’t vaccine pushers. As mentioned above, they are simply the agents of a medical system that is addicted to a vaccine bubble. Vaccine refusers should find trustworthy medical professionals who support the AMA’s position on informed consent.

Ghosts in the Machine
Bubbles always have corruption hidden under the surface. Look how the mortgage and banking industries are now choking on lawsuits and destroyed reputations. Corruption in the vaccine bubble probably exists in ghostwritten medical journal articles (penned by pharmaceutical companies but supposedly authored by respectable doctors). Ghostwriting has recently become a huge issue in medical research. We have yet to find out which vaccine studies were ghostwritten by industry flunkies.
Another area of corruption is front groups. Front groups using straw-man citizens are a standard PR technique to hype a product. Full Frontal Scrutiny, a joint venture between Consumer Reports WebWatch and the Center for Media and Democracy, describes the technique as such:
A front group is an example of what is known in the PR trade as the “third party technique.” The idea behind the term is that when one person (the first party) wants to persuade someone else (the second party) to believe or do something that benefits the first party, it helps if the message comes from a seemingly disinterested, independent source. As Daniel Edelman, the founder of Edelman PR Worldwide, has stated, “A third party endorsement can position a new brand so that it’s poised for great success or, conversely, can blunt a serious problem before it gets out of hand and proves disastrous for a particular product or for a company overall.”...
“The best PR ends up looking like news,” bragged one public relations executive. “You never know when a PR agency is being effective; you’ll just find your views slowly shifting.”
When you see supposedly grassroots groups lobbying for vaccine mandates, you may be seeing the invisible hand of just such a PR agency.
Another prime example of corruption in the vaccine bubble is Paul Thorsen, a Danish epidemiologist who is under federal indictment for fraud. Thorsen allegedly absconded with millions of dollars of CDC money. Thorsen’s Danish data forms the backbone of several scientific studies the CDC uses to claim that vaccines and thimerosal (a mercury-containing vaccine preservative) do not cause autism. So far, no one seems to care that a principal author of those studies stands accused of fraud.
One other noteworthy fact with regard to vaccines and autism: In the DTaP package insert, autism and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) are listed as “adverse events reported during post-approval use.... Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.” So much for CDC denials of a vaccine/autism link.
Vaccines are in a bubble. Pharmaceutical companies are working on hundreds of new vaccines that they are drooling to make mandatory to replace their vanishing blockbuster drug patents. If you choose to resist the vaccine bubble, many people (and doctors) will regard you as loony, in the same way people looked down at those who didn’t buy into the NASDAQ bubble in 2000 or the housing bubble in 2007. But look how those people turned out when the bubbles burst–postponed retirements, foreclosures and underwater home equity. Is that what you want?
- See more at: http://pathwaystofamilywellness.org...-the-Vaccine-Bubble.html#sthash.WWCx0mzo.dpuf

 

[muir]

http://pathwaystofamilywellness.org...mmune-mechanisms-and-consequences/Page-2.html

How Do Vaccines Work? Immune Mechanisms and Consequences

Author // Stephen C. Marini, DC, PhD
Labels: Children's Health & Wellness, Informed Choice, Issue #13, Author Stephen Marini, D.C., Ph.D.

From Dr. Moskowitz’s previous article in Pathways (issue 10), we learned that the theoretical effect of vaccines on the infectious diseases they are designed to protect against is misleading at best.
He also illuminated the potential long-term consequences of vaccines on an individual’s overall health and wellness. I would like to present what is known about the body’s immunologic response when exposed to a microorganism naturally as compared to the response generated by the conventional vaccines. Questions that this discussion will raise are:

Appearing in Issue #13. Order A Copy Today ​

1. Can the immune responses generated by the vaccines create a pattern of immune imbalance that actually compromises the child’s immune system?
2. Does the resulting pattern of immune imbalance promote imbalances in other body systems resulting in chronic health issues?
3. What is known about reversing the imbalance generated by vaccines and/or other immune stressors?

We have known for decades that getting the childhood diseases naturally results in a permanent immunity to the specific microorganism. Getting the vaccines results in a temporary immunity, meaning that susceptibility is deferred and repeated booster shots will be required for the ENTIRE life of the individual. In the 80s, the specific immune mechanisms involved in vaccine-induced immunity was discerned. In the 90s, the same mechanisms in humans were explored. T cells (thymus cells) are the major cell in the immune system; they direct and control all immune responses as well as immune memory. Subsets of T cells are the T-helper cells (Th). T-helper cells coordinate and direct the safest and most effective immune response. Using Moskowitz’s measles example, we know that, when infected with the measles virus naturally via the nasopharyngeal route, the body produces a Th1 response that externalizes the infection and provides permanent immunity.[SUP]1[/SUP] Fever, rash, coughing, sneezing, etc are signs of the body ridding itself of this infection. Bypassing the normal body lines of defense by injecting a vaccine forces the immune system into an emergency-based Th2 response which serves to internalize the infection. You don’t get the disease but are susceptible to the disease later since the Th2 response results in poor immune memory. So, if a natural, viral (measles) infection results in a Th1 response, why don’t we make vaccines that could elicit the same response.
In 1995, Golding and Scott,[SUP]2[/SUP] published the need for strategies to make vaccines that would generate the “required” Th cell to the corresponding microorganism. Since that time, attempts to produce vaccines that would generate a “natural”- type response have failed. So, we are left with vaccines that generate “protective” responses as a second choice. How does this work? In vaccine-induced Th2 responses, called humoral responses, the body produces large quantities of specific antibodies that block the virus from entering cells. This response is why a vaccinated child doesn’t get a full blown infection and why the child won’t spread as many viruses into the environment. However, antibodies cannot get into cells to eliminate viruses once the viruses are in the cells or cannot kill infected cells themselves. Therefore, the body has no choice other than to internalize the virus and be chronically infected when the body is forced into a Th2 antibody response. The body is essentially constipated with viruses that it cannot expel!
Unvaccinated children who are exposed to measles will generate the immune response that is required to make permanent immunity as well as kick out the virus from the body. The normal, healthy body’s response to viruses is to externalize them. To suppress this natural response can be as hazardous to our health as suppressing waste elimination from the bowel or toxin release from the skin. Natural Th1 responses generate cell-mediated responses that serve to both neutralize viruses by producing antibodies and most importantly stimulate the immune cells necessary to kill any cells infected with viruses. The body works to externalize and eliminate viruses when the Th1 response is generated. So we understand now that when a Th2 response is induced, “it drives the infection deeper into the interior and causes us to harbor it chronically.”[SUP]3[/SUP] It is commonly held that the presence of antibody to viruses is a sign of a chronic on-going infection not a sign of immunity.[SUP]4[/SUP] Our bodies generally need to have Th1 cells to defend against viral, Gram-negative bacterial, and fungal infections, and tuberculosis, as well as to protect against cancer. Th2 response is necessary to protect against Gram-positive bacterial, parasitic infections, as well as to neutralize toxins from microorganisms and the environment. A balance of Th1/Th2 cells in the body is defined as immunostasis (or immune balance) and is required for optimum health and wellness. Vaccines promote a failure in immunostasis by making the Th2-type cells dominant.

Can the immune responses generated by the vaccines create a pattern of immune imbalance that actually compromises the child’s immune system?
We saw how a vaccine-generated Th2 response can burden the body and exhaust the immune system by forcing the body to deal with a chronic ongoing infection. A Th2 response to a specific virus infection will specifically suppress Th1 cells from becoming activated against the same virus. With the resulting failure to generate a Th1 response, cells infected with virus cannot be destroyed. Chronically infected cells, like nerve cells, can occasionally trick the immune system into reacting to and attacking similar nerve cells resulting in autoimmune disease such as multiple sclerosis, Guillain Barré, etc. Cells chronically infected with live vaccine viruses also risk having the viruses mutate, trade genes with each other, as well as interact with the host cell DNA.[SUP]5[/SUP] The live vaccines used presently include, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella (chickenpox), and flu-mist. Overactive Th2 activity, underactive Th1 capability, chronic infection, potential for novel virus infection and autoimmunity characterize failed immunostasis or Th-cell imbalance in vaccinated children.
The classic work by Ader & Cohen,[SUP]6[/SUP] taught us that the immune system can be classically conditioned. Like Pavlov training dogs to salivate at only a ringing bell, the immune system can be conditioned into inappropriate responses through repeated vaccinations. Natural exposure to the environment and infectious diseases conditions immune responses to be more Th1 dominant; whereas repeated vaccine exposure conditions responses to be more Th2 dominant. A child with Th2-dominance is more susceptible to intracellular organisms such as viruses and is therefore more prone to chronic ear, respiratory, and gastrointestinal infections. Children need a vibrant Th1 response to appropriately deal with the childhood intracellular viral infections, whooping cough, and hemophilus. Healthy immune systems are said to be in Th1/Th2 balance or “immunostasis.” Unhealthy immune systems are said to have a failure in or an imbalance in “immunostasis.” Parris Kidd,[SUP]7[/SUP] has compiled a fascinating review indicating that there may be a link between Th1/Th2 balance and disease. Diseases such as allergies, asthma, atopic dermatitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, cancer, tuberculosis, and AIDS, appear to result from a Th2-dominant immune response. It is imperative that we discern the impact of conditioning children’s immune responses to be more Th2 dominant and the consequences of this pattern on the incidence of the Th2-dominant diseases listed by Parris Kidd. When we become Th2 dominant, the antibody-producing part of our immune systems gets derailed like a freight train going a hundred miles per hour, out of control. E. Hurwitz et al has shown that unvaccinated children have less incidence of respiratory conditions, such as asthma and allergies, when compared to their vaccinated counterparts,[SUP]8[/SUP] thereby supporting Kidd’s hypothesis.
The focus of much current research is the role of inflammatory responses of varying degrees of severity serving as precursors to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic degenerative diseases being influenced by the different Th cells. Th2 immune responses direct and support bad, excessive inflammation whereas Th1 cells promote healthier type inflammation.
With evidence to support the adverse effects on the immune system by the vaccines, then why do we continue to vaccinate? The role of public health office is to reduce the incidence of infectious disease in the pediatric population. Vaccines generate protective immune responses on a temporary basis and reduce the incidence of infectious disease in the vaccinated kids as well as the unvaccinated kids. Why are the unvaccinated kids protected too? The risk of exposure to the disease is lessened when more individuals are vaccinated. As described, that happens because vaccinated children have tons of antibodies which neutralize infectious virus thereby lessening their ability to spread viruses to others. The phenomenon of unvaccinated children being protected by the vaccinated is known as herd immunity. Herd immunity is a welcomed effect of the vaccination process from a public health perspective. But, according to physicians like James Taylor,[SUP]9[/SUP] this may not be a good thing. Unvaccinated children progress into their adult years with a diminished chance of exposure to childhood diseases.
With the passage of time and the vaccinated population not getting their boosters, all become susceptible to the disease. Susceptibility to childhood diseases when we are adults greatly increases severe morbidity and mortality from those diseases. Parents and the powers that-be desire this vaccination approach in order to defer infectious disease to a later date so they do not have to stay home, miss work, and care for a sick child. Th2 dominance from vaccinations results in children being at risk of diseases arising from chronic ongoing infections as well as being vulnerable to the damaging effects of the infectious disease they were vaccinated against when they age and forget about getting booster vaccinations. On the other hand, there are parents anxious to expose their children to the childhood diseases through measles and chickenpox parties so a natural (Th1) immunity can be established early, provide lifelong immunity and appropriately condition the immune system to the natural environment.

Does the resulting pattern of immune imbalance promote imbalances in other body systems resulting in chronic health issues?
The 80s and 90s also brought us an explosion of research describing the various chemicals released by cells, especially the Th cells and the receptors on cell membranes capable of reacting to these chemicals. The chemicals (cytokines, interleukins) released by T cells act as signals interacting with satellite dish like receptors on all cell membranes, especially the cells of the nervous system. Similarly, chemical communication signals from the nervous system (neurotransmitters, neurohormones) can react with T-cell satellite dishes. T-cell chemicals can react and effect the entire brain.[SUP]10[/SUP] The concept that science now employs is psychoneuroimmunology. So, what you think can affect your nervous and immune systems as well as the immune and nervous system affecting how you think. So, when the immune system is out of balance and depressed, it sends out interleukins which react with the brain, generating depressed behavior, depressed moods and depressed thinking.[SUP]11[/SUP] This depression theme excites the sympathetic (flight or fight) nervous system and the cycle keeps on streaming out of control. Patterns of immune imbalance as seen with a Th2 vaccine-conditioned immune responses beget patterns of abnormal neurological and psychological patterns which can then affect all other body systems. Patterns of subluxation have been shown to result from and enhance sympathetic activity. Therefore, patterns of immune imbalance can generate subluxation and vice versa. Other factors that condition as well as support a Th2-dominant immune pattern and should be avoided are negative consciousness patterns, which generate stress, and antibiotics, which delete the normal Gram-negative bacteria and suppress Th1 cells, sugar, caffeine, trans-fatty acids, progesterone, antibiotics, mercury, oxidative damage etc.[SUP]7[/SUP]


What is known about reversing the imbalance generated by vaccines and/or other immune stressors?
We know that a fetus thrives in a progesterone-rich maternal environment that is Th1 suppressive. But nature solves this by first exposing the baby to normal, probiotic bacteria while coming through the birth canal. These friendly Gram-negative bacteria from the mother stimulate Th1 activity in the neonate. Secondly, breastmilk contains the normal probiotic bacteria as well as the prebiotic chemicals that selectively supports the growth of the good bacteria and Th1 activity and discourages the growth of the bad fermenting-type bacteria. Colostrum and breast milk are also rich in the interleukins necessary to stimulate Th1 activity. It is understandable from this knowledge that breastfeeding is recommended for at least one year. Lastly, exposure to environmental viruses, other Gram-negative bacteria, and fungi will also stimulate neonatal Th1 activity. It is apparent that newborns who are delivered by C-section, not breastfed, and receive their baby shots have a remarkable squashing of their Th1 capability. Repeated vaccinations, poor nutrition, and nerve interference from subluxations, serve to support this failure in immunostasis. Things to do to reinforce Th1 activity and assist in reversing the immune imbalance generated by vaccines, C-sections, formula-only feeding, and other immunostasis disrupters, include developing positive, affirming consciousness behavior patterns and choices individually as well as within the family unit. Antioxidants, mushroom extracts, melatonin, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), probiotic bacteria such as Lactobacillus acidophilus and GG, phytosterols and sterolins, and omega-3-fatty acids (fish oils) are just a few things that have been shown to increase Th1 levels. Chiropractic adjustments are also recommended to reduce the sympathetic nervous system influence on Th1 suppression. The summary table will review the roles of the Th1 and Th2 responses as well as list what is known to increase their respective levels.
Concerns for the future well being of our children should include yearly evaluations of their immune balance either through direct T-cell assessment or indirect analyses through cytokine evaluation. If children must submit to the current vaccine schedule12, their immune systems need to be evaluated for T-cell imbalances and all steps necessary employed to restore immune balance prior to the onset of chronic health issues. On the vaccine strategy end, it appears that the future focuses on the “dream vaccine.” This vaccine will consist of a large viral DNA strand containing spliced genes from all the microorganisms desired for vaccination. The genetically engineered DNA will be injected into the baby and then be integrated into the child’s cells. Once inside the cell, the vaccine DNA will be treated like the cell’s own DNA allowing the host cell to produce vaccine components over a prolonged period. So, the child’s cells will serve as their own vaccine manufacturing plant supplying the body with continuous booster stimulation for the immune system. Such implantation technology has already been implemented with the use of the Norplant device designed to release birth control medication over a 3 to 5-year period. Will the vaccine device generate the appropriate Th response? I cannot see how it can, but the real issue, from the public health standpoint, is not whether the appropriate Th response is generated but is a protective, antibody-generating response stimulated. So, we will end up where we began with regard to having vaccines generate Th2 responses only to replace that strategy with an implanted device that will condition the immune response the same way. The prospect of having our children implanted with a DNA-based vaccine device that promote an immune conditioning outcome over years is harrowing. Maintaining immunostasis as a result of this vaccine strategy will be a challenging struggle for years to come.


References:

1. Abbas AK, Murphy KM, Sher A. Functional Diversity of Helper T Lymphocytes. Nature: 1996: 383 pp.787-793

1. Golding S., Scott DE., Vaccine Strategy: Targeting Helper T Cell Responses. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 754:126-137, May 31, 1995

1. Moskowitz R., How Do Vaccines Work? Pathways, Is. 10: 5-9, 2006

1. Taylor,J. Which Arm of the Immune Response most Likely Plays the Predominant Role in Host Defense Against Influenza Virus: humoral or cell-mediated? Medscape Feature, 1998, 08.98, p.443

1. Urnovitz H., Archiving of Live Viral Vaccines. From Proceedings of the First International Public Conference on Vaccination. September 13-15, 1997.

1. Ader R., Felten D., Cohen N., Psychoneuroimmunology. Academic Press, 2nd edition, 1991.

1. Kidd P., Th1/Th2 Balance: The Hypothesis, its Limitations, and Implications for Health and Disease. Alt. Med. Review, Vol.8 #3, 2003, p223-246.

1. Hurwitz E., Morgenstern H. Effects of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis or Tetanus Vaccination on Allergies andAllergy Related Respiratory Symptoms Among Childern and Adolescents in the U.S. JMPT Vol. 23#2 Feb. 2000

1. Taylor, J . Herd Immunity: The Varicella Vaccine Is it a Good Thing? Archives Peds. Vol 155#4 Apr. 2001.

1. Pert C. Molecules of Emotion. Touchstone, 1997.

1. Watkins A. Mind Body Medicine - A Clinicians Guide to Psychoneuroimmunology. Churchill Livingstone, 1997.

- See more at: http://pathwaystofamilywellness.org...consequences/Page-2.html#sthash.JS4np0aJ.dpuf

 

[dogman6126]

Ok, so everything you said in this post except this one line was pure conjecture without any actual scientific reasoning to support your claim.

How so?

Even Bill Gates says they are for controlling the population numbers

If you had read the article I posted, you would not have to ask this question. I even explained it a bit in my post which tells me you didn't even actually read my post. I'm not going to debate with you if you won't even read about my evidence. I read all of yours and at least skim the articles you post. I would expect you to do me the same favor.

 

[dogman6126]

I'm pretty sure i have explained this to you already that the globalists own many of the major publishing houses and they decide what research gets funding and what gets published

They absolutely destroyed wakefield for his study which should show how aggressively they try to counter any questioning of their agenda

If you want a balanced view you should look at research provided by people and publications that aren't just paid mouthpieces for the globalists

There's plenty in this thread

I will post a few arguments to this.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/
http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c696

Which is more likely, one bad doctor falsifying his study, or a huge conspiracy by the rich people manipulating news agencies everywhere, from America to Brittan, as well as a multitude of other doctors. The news report was from America, and Brittan pulled the guys medical license because of the unethical behavior. Cheating is no way to do science.

There are a lot of articles that claim new studies supports Wakefield's original paper, but that isn't correct. If you read the actual paper that it talks about, you see that it only shows a relation between autism and gastrointestinal disorders or inflammatory bowel disorders. I saw nothing about the correlation to the MMR vaccine. The connection to the MMR vaccine comes from the original wakefield paper also showed a relation between autism and gastrointestinal diseases, however his evidence was refuted due to fraud. There is no proof of the relation to the MMR vaccine that I could find.

The journal was, and remains, independent, without affiliation to a medical or scientific organisation. More than 180 years later, The Lancet is an independent and authoritative voice in global medicine. We seek to publish high-quality clinical trials that will alter medical practice; our commitment to international health ensures that research and analysis from all regions of the world is widely covered. Critical appraisal of research and reviews is ensured by strong Comment and Correspondence sections; The Lancet's opinion and personality is communicated by three editorials every week; fast dissemination of priority issues is delivered by online first publication through thelancet.com; and the continued success of our monthly specialty titles ensures that The Lancet delivers in-depth knowledge in key medical disciplines Between our first online publication in 1996 and today, 1.8 million users have registered at thelancet.com.

from http://www.thelancet.com/lancet-about
I think this shows, based on your own point, that this is a spate journal from the government, therefore reliable. However, I suppose you will argue that because they disagree with you and wakefield, they must be part of the conspiracy as well. No way they can be reliable even though its a peer reviewed journal from another country even. Maybe we should stick to the events then.

Before you start claiming the court rulings prove that wakefield was correct, please read this article, but I will point out the important parts.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/mmr-and-autism-rises-from-the-dead/

In many cases families do not have to prove that a vaccine caused a specific injury, only that their child had a certain medical outcome within a specific time frame of being vaccinated. Further, certain outcomes are considered “table injuries,” meaning that all the family has to do is establish that the child has the condition and the onset was within a certain window after getting a vaccine, and then compensation is automatic.

They did not even rule that the MMR causes Ryan’s injury, only that compensation is appropriate under their rules. Further, Ryan did not have autism. He had encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) which caused brain injury. This can cause symptoms which superficially might resemble autism (to a non-expert), but it’s not autism.

There is no clear evidence that vaccines increase the risk of encephalitis. In fact, they clearly decrease the risk of encephalitis caused by the infections they prevent. There is a net and very large advantage to being vaccinated in terms of encephalitis risk, even if we assume that cases of encephalitis occurring after vaccination were caused by the vaccination. We know statistically this cannot be true in all cases, and it is possible that it is true in no cases.

The kid didn't even have autism. He had encephalitis. Very different. I found that interesting.
Also:

In the section Post-Marketing Reports, encephalitis (infection of the brain) was added to reflect the receipt of reports following ProQuad vaccination. Previously, this adverse reaction was listed under adverse events seen after MMR or varicella vaccination. Encephalitis has been reported approximately once for every 3 million doses of MMR vaccine. Post-marketing surveillance of more than 400 million doses distributed worldwide (1978 to 2003) indicates that encephalitis is rarely reported after MMR vaccination. In no case has it been shown conclusively that encephalitis was caused by a vaccine virus infection of the central nervous system.

This means that based on statistical probability, there will be cases where a child developed encephalitis after getting the MMR vaccine. This is not to say that the vaccine caused the disease.

It sounds scary but even in cases where someone contracted Encephalitis/Encephalopathy after receiving the MMR vaccine, it can’t be considered a causal link. One huge reason why is because Autism and Encephalitis are not the same aka Encephalitis is not Autism. It may share some similarities but it is not Autism. Encephalitis does not lead to or cause Autism. Secondly, someone contracting a disease after they receive the vaccination against it is not proof that the vaccination caused the disease. Other contributing factors are ignored. Thirdly, someone showing symptoms of a disorder after receiving a vaccination is not, again, not proof that the vaccination caused the disorder. Many times the signs and symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorder NATURALLY do not begin to show persistently until the same time certain vaccines are routinely given. In someone who already has ASD in their genetic code, it’s possible that vaccines could be one of the environmental triggers, sure. That’s being researched by reputable scientists.

Those cases are statistical probability! Not causation!

 

[muir]

Ok, so everything you said in this post except this one line was pure conjecture without any actual scientific reasoning to support your claim.
If you had read the article I posted, you would not have to ask this question. I even explained it a bit in my post which tells me you didn't even actually read my post. I'm not going to debate with you if you won't even read about my evidence. I read all of yours and at least skim the articles you post. I would expect you to do me the same favor.

Wrong i listened to Bill Gates say it

I'm talking about what gates said NOT about what you said...and i have listened to gates...you should too

I have posted plenty of 'science' in this thread, which you would know if you had read it

 

[muir]

I will post a few arguments to this.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/
http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c696

You haven't listened to me at all!

i told you already that the mainstream media for example CNN and the British Medical Journal are controlled by the big money interests

MONEY is what makes the world go round under this system NOT truth

The mainstream corporate media is not interested in spreading the TRUTH it does what big money tells it to do

If you cannot grasp that you will never understand how the world really works

Which is more likely, one bad doctor falsifying his study, or a huge conspiracy by the rich people manipulating news agencies everywhere, from America to Brittan, as well as a multitude of other doctors. The news report was from America, and Brittan pulled the guys medical license because of the unethical behavior. Cheating is no way to do science.

Big business does not care about national boundaries

When the americas were being colonised big money moved in and took control of the industry there for examples steel, railways, oil and so on as well as banking

The rothschilds who dominated the european banking scene moved into the US through its agents such as J.P.Morgan

They control your government, they control your federal reserve, they control the mainstream media, they control the corrupt doctor who created that skewed research, they control the mainstream journals, they own the big pharma companies etc

This clip from the 1970's film 'Network' describes it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxiT30N6ti4

There are a lot of articles that claim new studies supports Wakefield's original paper, but that isn't correct. If you read the actual paper that it talks about, you see that it only shows a relation between autism and gastrointestinal disorders or inflammatory bowel disorders. I saw nothing about the correlation to the MMR vaccine. The connection to the MMR vaccine comes from the original wakefield paper also showed a relation between autism and gastrointestinal diseases, however his evidence was refuted due to fraud. There is no proof of the relation to the MMR vaccine that I could find.

His paper was refuted because it challenges the perception of reality that the system is trying to uphold

from http://www.thelancet.com/lancet-about
I think this shows, based on your own point, that this is a spate journal from the government, therefore reliable. However, I suppose you will argue that because they disagree with you and wakefield, they must be part of the conspiracy as well. No way they can be reliable even though its a peer reviewed journal from another country even. Maybe we should stick to the events then.

Oh so you need to hear it from government people to believe it do you?

Ok here is some words from some presidents and politicians warning you about the conspiracy:

President Eisenhower warning the public in his farewell speech about the growing threat of what he labelled the 'military industrial complex':

[video=youtube;8y06NSBBRtY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY[/video]

Congressman Larry McDonald warning the american public about the new world order operatin through the CFR (council on Foreign relations which has its sister organisation in the UK called 'Chatham House'):

[video=youtube;_BPhYEFGaGM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BPhYEFGaGM[/video]

President kennedy warning the US press against the influence of a 'monolithic conspiracy' whilst telling them that the US is as a nation opposed to secret societies and secret oaths:

[video=youtube;FnkdfFAqsHA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA[/video]

President Andrew Jackson fighting the bankers (who later managed to get the central bank they campaigned so hard for with the passing of the federal reserve act 1913):

[FONT=&amp]"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out." [/FONT]​

- Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)

Before you start claiming the court rulings prove that wakefield was correct, please read this article, but I will point out the important parts.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/mmr-and-autism-rises-from-the-dead/




The kid didn't even have autism. He had encephalitis. Very different. I found that interesting.
Also:

This means that based on statistical probability, there will be cases where a child developed encephalitis after getting the MMR vaccine. This is not to say that the vaccine caused the disease.

Those cases are statistical probability! Not causation!

What wakefield said was that the combined vaccine acted as a stressor which was too much for some children

Here is a clip of the director of the CDC admitting that a certain percentage of children have an underlying mitochondrial disorder which leaves them vulnerable to the stress of a combined vaccine leading to autism. This is straight from the CDC!

[video=youtube;Dh-nkD5LSIg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg[/video]

 

[dogman6126]

Wrong i listened to Bill Gates say it

I'm talking about what gates said NOT about what you said...and i have listened to gates...you should too

I have posted plenty of 'science' in this thread, which you would know if you had read it

No you heard Bill Gates say "reducing population growth" and you assume it means some form of mass murder. However that is not the case. I will repost my earlier quote:

Macroeconomic research bears out this picture. Fertility starts to drop at an annual income per person of $1,000-2,000 and falls until it hits the replacement level at an income per head of $4,000-10,000 a year (see chart 2). This roughly tracks the passage from poverty to middle-income status and from an agrarian society to a modern one.

[...]

The link between living standards and fertility exists within countries, too. India’s poorest state, Bihar, has a fertility rate of 4; richer Tamil Nadu and Kerala have rates below 2. Shanghai has had a fertility rate of less than 1.7 since 1975; in Guizhou, China’s poorest province, the rate is 2.2. So strong is the link between wealth and fertility that the few countries where fertility is not falling are those torn apart by war, such as Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone, where living standards have not risen.

As you can see, and you can double check this principle with data if you wish, as living standards increase, birth rates go down. People simply don't want to have more children generally. So by making quality of life better, you reduce population growth. Even notice the word choice. Reduce population growth means the rate at which the population is growing. That is a change of rate like acceleration is to velocity. Mass murder is reduced population count. Its a change not a rate of change. Big difference. Bill gates is using a smart tactic to reduce rate of change. Don't hear only what you want to hear, this kind of thing is common sense....or at least should be.

 

[dogman6126]

I have posted plenty of 'science' in this thread, which you would know if you had read it

Don't try to turn this around on me. I have read everything you posted. It's just what I call science and what you call science are VERY different things. My kind of science relies on proof. It seems you are satisfied by conjecture.

 

[muir]

No you heard Bill Gates say "reducing population growth" and you assume it means some form of mass murder. However that is not the case. I will repost my earlier quote:

As you can see, and you can double check this principle with data if you wish, as living standards increase, birth rates go down. People simply don't want to have more children generally. So by making quality of life better, you reduce population growth. Even notice the word choice. Reduce population growth means the rate at which the population is growing. That is a change of rate like acceleration is to velocity. Mass murder is reduced population count. Its a change not a rate of change. Big difference. Bill gates is using a smart tactic to reduce rate of change. Don't hear only what you want to hear, this kind of thing is common sense....or at least should be.

You are not making any sense

I know that poverty leads to a larger population but i also know that the smaller but wealthier populations use more energy and create more CO2 despite their smaller populations

How can vaccinating people improve peoples economic wellbeing? What it is supposed to do is prevent death through certain diseases. For poor families this would mean they would have more children survive which they would then have to feed or in the case of India if they were girls the family would have to marry them off and pay a costly dowry which would leave the family poorer

So you are not explaining how stopping deaths from disease amongst the poor is cutting population numbers

Also you mentioned fertility but rich people should be more fertile because they get better nutrition yet sperm counts have been DROPPING in rich vaccinated countries. The smaller families amongst the wealthy is also to do with family planning

Vaccines are desinged to DAMAGE the immune system and lower fertility which WILL lead to a reduction in health and fertility and a drop in the population numbers, not in a sudden die off but in a general drop in health and fertility

I'll make a prediction...

We are hearing more and more noise about alzheimers in the mainstream media and the excuse commonly given for this is that people are living longer. However i predict that people will begin having neurodegenerative diseases at younger and younger ages and as that happens the excuse that we are seeing more figures for neurodegenerative diseases because we are living longer will then fall down because it will be affecting the young as well

Just as the excuse about autism being about a greater degree of diagnosis is BS so is that excuse about an ageing population and time will prove it but by then it will be too late for a lot of people

Just like they denied cigarettes were bad for people and now it is widely recognised so too will these vaccines be seen as harmful in the future; people will wonder what the hell we were doing allowing it when we weren't sure of the science

 

[muir]

Don't try to turn this around on me. I have read everything you posted. It's just what I call science and what you call science are VERY different things. My kind of science relies on proof. It seems you are satisfied by conjecture.

I have posted plenty of proof by peoplewith scientific credentials

You would know that if you had read the thread

 

[muir]

Bill Gates says ''if we do a really good job on...vaccines...we can lower that (the population) by 10-15%'' @ 2.35

If you had watched the videos i posted earlier you would know this and you wouldn't be misquoting Gates:

[video=youtube;gROhNaJoGzI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gROhNaJoGzI[/video]

 

[dogman6126]

You haven't listened to me at all!

i told you already that the mainstream media for example CNN and the British Medical Journal are controlled by the big money interests

MONEY is what makes the world go round under this system NOT truth

The mainstream corporate media is not interested in spreading the TRUTH it does what big money tells it to do

If you cannot grasp that you will never understand how the world really works

I misunderstood, that's why I posted multiple points. Some based on logic rather than source. Now that I see what you mean better, I will post a few different sources. However I would like to again point out you assume that such a group existed and were pulling such strings, you have no way to prove such a group. This is only an assumption.
http://aop.sagepub.com/content/45/10/1302.short
This is a scientific article that talks specifically about the fraudulent study done by wakefield. I will quote the abstract:

In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, described a new autism phenotype called the regressive autism-enterocolitis syndrome triggered by environmental factors such as measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination. The speculative vaccination-autism connection decreased parental confidence in public health vaccination programs and created a public health crisis in England and questions about vaccine safety in North America. After 10 years of controversy and investigation, Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of ethical, medical, and scientific misconduct in the publication of the autism paper. Additional studies showed that the data presented were fraudulent. The alleged autism-vaccine connection is, perhaps, the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years.

This shows the general story of wakefield from a different source as you would like. Notice again this is a peer reviewed article.
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d22

As Deer explains, the GMC set out to unpick the ethics of Wakefield’s research, including whether the Lancet study had been properly authorised and whether Wakefield had been paid by a lawyer to find a link between MMR and autism. It hadn’t, and he had. But while the GMC panel pored over the children’s anonymised case records, Deer compared these with what was published in the Lancet. He found that their data had been substantially misrepresented in order to give the result Wakefield needed.

Thanks to the recent publication of the GMC’s six million word transcript, the BMJ was able to check Deer’s findings and confirm extensive falsification. As my colleagues and I write in an editorial this week, in no single case can the medical records be fully reconciled with what was published. This means that the MMR scare was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud (doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452).

This is self explanatory.
The next few quotes are from this article: http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/ar...sue=2;spage=95;epage=96;aulast=Sathyanarayana

Almost immediately afterward, epidemiological studies were conducted and published, refuting the posited link between MMR vaccination and autism. [3],[4] The logic that the MMR vaccine may trigger autism was also questioned because a temporal link between the two is almost predestined: both events, by design (MMR vaccine) or definition (autism), occur in early childhood.

Those shows an inherent error with wakefield. Much of his study was based on correlative evidence including time frame. Because these both happen near the same time, he was able to find cases where a child got the vaccine, then developed Autism. This is how he picked and choose his "evidence". This is falsifying facts. It is important to note that they also found that wakefield included cases where autism presented itself as much as a year after the vaccination as "evidence". This is not possible. The effects would have to be almost instantaneous in all cases if wakefield were correct.

The Lancet completely retracted the Wakefield et al.[1] paper in February 2010, admitting that several elements in the paper were incorrect, contrary to the findings of the earlier investigation. [7] Wakefield et al.[1] were held guilty of ethical violations (they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances) and scientific misrepresentation (they reported that their sampling was consecutive when, in fact, it was selective)

Wakefield broke the medical code of ethical conduct and that's why he was stripped of his license. Not some kind of conspiracy. He was a bad doctor and a bad scientist. Almost the entire scientific community recognizes this.

They control your government, they control your federal reserve, they control the mainstream media, they control the corrupt doctor who created that skewed research, they control the mainstream journals, they own the big pharma companies etc

Again, this is conjecture, you have no proof of such a group and no proof of such control. You have guesses. I would also like to point out this is irrelevant to our discussion about the safety of vaccines. Even if such a conspiracy were real, it does not prove that vaccines are dangerous.

His paper was refuted because it challenges the perception of reality that the system is trying to uphold

You think this, but most of the scientific community thinks otherwise. And they have evidence to support it. You think this cause you want to believe it and it supports what you think. Personally, I find the scientific community a more reliable source.

What wakefield said was that the combined vaccine acted as a stressor which was too much for some children

Yes, the vaccine was a kind of environmental stressor on a genetic deformation of the children was the cause according to Wakefield. However, due to fraud, falsifying records (don't know if it was Wakefield himself, but they know the records were falsified), Wakefield's study is unreliable and is known as no evidence to prove causation. Now lets see what that means. Lets assume for a moment that Wakefield were correct (which is unknown if he is right or not, we need further studies). The vaccine is a kind of environmental stressor. That means that the vaccine DOES NOT CAUSE AUTISM. An environmental stressor could be anything, simply the vaccine is one thing that could trigger it in this case. By definition of this, the vaccine does not even cause autism, it just triggers the child's innate predisposition towards autism. Again, there is not even any proof that such is the case, however if it were, the vaccine is not a cause but a trigger.

Here is a clip of the director of the CDC admitting that a certain percentage of children have an underlying mitochondrial disorder which leaves them vulnerable to the stress of a combined vaccine leading to autism. This is straight from the CDC

This video was ridiculous. There was so much smoke blowing I nearly choked. However at this point, I am going to the movies (gonna go see the new Godzilla with friends, really excited lol ). I will address this video and everything in it when I get back. So please be patient with me on that.

 

[magister343]

 

[dudemanbro]

It absolutely is a slippery slope. If the conspiracy theories about vaccines are not true, then imposong mandatory vaccination legislation only helps to make such conspiracies a reality. A real conspiracy with vaccines as a catalyst will be ever easier to implement with mandatory vaccination to practically participate in society as few are homeschooled and personal education is not accounted for unless you have participated in the common school system as we know it today.

Utter madness I say. But alas he who protests is marked as a schizophrenic and suspected criminal.

Like, most people you see walking around these days are suspected criminals, because we have become SO PARANOID and AFRAID of EACH OTHER AND OURSELVES.

I say, FUCK globalist megacorporatocratic conglomerate delusional wanna-be God-men egotist psychopaths with money and power competing against one another game-of-thrones style except that this entire area of the solar system is being ASSFUCKED by SATAN HIMSELF.













To hell with total moral relativism, accept Unconditional Love as your Lord and Saviour.

 

[dogman6126]

How can vaccinating people improve peoples economic wellbeing? What it is supposed to do is prevent death through certain diseases. For poor families this would mean they would have more children survive which they would then have to feed or in the case of India if they were girls the family would have to marry them off and pay a costly dowry which would leave the family poorer

Ok, this does make sense. Think about it. With less concerns and more options available, families can better plan for the future. Vaccines are one piece of that. Without having to worry about loosing children to diseases when they are young, knowing that it is extremely likely your child will live to be an adult, you won't need to have as big of a family. Having multiple children is a kind of insurance policy incase one of them dies. That is a basic principle that goes back to the earliest humans. Poor families won't need as many children in the long run because of this. That is why it works.
This principle says nothing about vaccines. Think about it please. The India example is simply to demonstrate the effect of this principle. In richer, healthier, and more successful areas, there are less children being born. In poorer areas without adequate care, more children are born. India is a good example because their class system leads to very defined boarders as compared to countries like the U.S.
Again, that is just to demonstrate the principle. Now Bill gates is talking about applying that principle. Vaccines are one way to do this. More would be needed, but that is one very effective add on. To know your child will survive, you will only want one or two, maybe three, children instead of like 5 simply because you can better afford it with fewer children and knowing they will be ok is a major help in that. That is the principle I'm talking about, it makes sense.
Here is a cite where you can find more detailed information on this principle straight from a macroeconomics textbook. That tells you this principle is reliable and real. Its taught at colleges.
http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/23?e=rittenmacro-ch19_s02

Also you mentioned fertility but rich people should be more fertile because they get better nutrition yet sperm counts have been DROPPING in rich vaccinated countries. The smaller families amongst the wealthy is also to do with family planning

Fertility in this case is only referring to birth rates per person. Not sperm/egg counts. I don't know anything about sperm counts dropping in rich areas (that is not to say it is real or not, simply that I do not know about it). However, just because sperm counts are dropping in rich areas does not mean it is caused by vaccines. That's like saying 10 people are depressed and they all live in the same town, well then it must be that town is depressing. That is not causation, it is a correlation. That does not prove anything
In case you have a misunderstanding about causation and correlation, I will give you a really good example.
A study was done a while ago that measured the amount of ice cream consumed in Chicago over the course of the year and crime rates. They noticed a very strong correlation. As more ice cream was bought, crime rates also went up a lot. This is not to say that ice cream causes crime, even though there is a correlation. After further study, they noticed that it was during the summer and winter. During the summer more people bought ice cream and crime rates were greater. During winter, a lot less people bought ice cream (obviously) and crime rates went down significantly (because it was cold, people generally have less energy, its harder to steal or fight when its cold). In this case there was a very strong correlation, but that does not mean it is the cause.

Vaccines are desinged to DAMAGE the immune system and lower fertility which WILL lead to a reduction in health and fertility and a drop in the population numbers, not in a sudden die off but in a general drop in health and fertility

This is just blatantly incorrect. Vaccines are not designed to damage the immune system. They are designed to stimulate the immune system in a safe and controlled manor that will cause the body to develop appropriate responses should the body encounter the real disease the vaccine is designed to prevent. Anyone with medical knowledge can vouch for this. This is basic fact! Given its a lot more complicated, but this is the general way vaccines work.

 

[dogman6126]

I have posted plenty of proof by people with scientific credentials

You would know that if you had read the thread

Every single post you made by people with "scientific credentials" has been disputed by stronger evidence to the contrary which I have tried to point out. However, peer reviewed articles are the most reliable rather than just people with scientific credentials. That's why I prefer peer reviewed articles. I checked on your previous articles of that type, and in those cases you either applied them incorrectly, misunderstood what they were saying, or used an obscure article that has been retracted due to a fraudulent study(in the case of wakefield). For example, your article about thirmasol was proven inaccurate by later studies that I pointed out.

I have said it once and I will say it again. I do read everything you put and at least skim the articles for relevant information. I'm open to what your saying, if only you were correct. It doesn't seem you are showing me the same courtesy and are using this excuse as a way to needle me.