Vaccine - Autism link

[Jerky]

Just chiming in with a "here here" to Brandon and Slomo's takes on the issue. I concur whole-heartedly.

There's a really good book I bought recently, called A Spiritual Autopsy of Science and Religion explaining how both are wanting. It goes into great detail about vaccines.

I will attempt to type out those segments for this discussion in the near future. If too much time passes, somebody poke me to remind me.

Jerky

[stickdog99]

I notice people who are generally very skeptical of power and authority (and rightfully so) suddenly become apologists for the ruling class with this particular issue, and I think that is because of what it represents, rather than the facts of the issue itself.

If the "science/left vs religion/right" debate was not a permanent backdrop behind this subject, then I suspect people would look at it differently.

IMO the assumption that a medical establishment composed of profit-driven corporations is being motivated by the greatest good of the general public is absurd, and only becomes more absurd with each passing year. It is equivalent to the assumption that politicians are motivated by the greatest good of the general public. It is naive, especially considering that both fields involve a great amount of money and prestige.

I also think many others on this forum would look at the medical and scientific establishments through a more skeptical lens, were it not for the underlying sentiment that acknowledging any wrongdoing or deception from these groups is tantamount to "conceding" to the religious right and their Jesus crusade.

I have noticed this as well, and agree with the analysis.

To repeat a point that has been made often in this thread: the issue isn't whether certain well-established vaccines are safe for most people (this is demonstrably true). It is whether the public health system, in collusion with institutional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry, should be given any legal precedent to mandate, population-wide, any medical procedure, Because given the current system for approving drugs (as well as their frequent off-label uses), it is not a stretch to imagine additional vaccines being added to the mandatory list without adequate testing for either efficacy or general safety. All of this runs counter to established principles of informed consent and autonomy. THAT is the real issue.

Of course that is the real issue. But somehow there is a "carve out" in that issue in the minds of the majority for vaccination. And thus addressing the misplaced faith of that "carve out" head on (by invoking flu and Gardasil vaccinations, for example) is beneficial. The precedent this law sets only for currently recommended vaccines themselves is totally horrifying, much less the precedent it sets for future vaccines and all other forms of medical coercion.

[Sounder]

Here is one way to deal with all those pesky rebel flag supporters.

[divideandconquer]

If vaccines work so well, why should the vaccinated worry? Shouldn't their vaccines protect them from the un-vaccinated? Even if you escape the one disease through vaccination, they very often set other diseases in motion such as cancer, far more deadly than for example, polio, and much more widespread.

Even as far back as 1918 (Spanish Influenza) vaccines appear to be the cause rather than the solution. During the first World War, unable to use up all of their vaccines on soldiers the vaccine makers decided to sell it to the rest of the population. So they drummed up the largest vaccination campaign in U.S. history. There were no epidemics to justify it so the propaganda claimed the soldiers were coming home from foreign countries with all kinds of diseases and that everyone must have all the shots on the market. I know that In my family-- taking into account both my mother and father's side (my grandparents and 42 great uncles and aunts)--only the vaccinated veterans died during the 1918 flu epidemic. My un-vaccinated grandfather, 20-years old at the time, who had the job of collecting flu victims from their homes and transporting them to make-shift morgues, despite being in such close contact, did not get sick, nor did anyone in his family.

Vaccines have always been about profit, and regarding the vaccination of soldiers and possibly even the general population, I believe there is even a more sinister motive: to enfeeble, debilitate, etc. As far as veterans are concerned, the war profiteers don't want to take the chance of allowing strong men with first-hand knowledge of what war really is coming back to possibly upset the apple cart. They not only vaccinate them with god only knows what before war, but continue to drug them when they get back, ensuring their depleted state.

In my humble opinion, the bottom line is even if vaccines induce immunity for one disease, it seems they also ensure a population of life-long patients for the medical industrial complex.

[stickdog99]

Any prophylactic that is mandated by law for all healthy individuals needs to be held to the highest possible standards of safety and efficacy. If a lifesaving medication injures 1 of 50 people who take it, that is acceptable because it benefited the other 49. However, if a vaccine injures or sickens 1 out of 300 perfectly healthy people it was forced upon by state law, that means it injures a million Americans who would probably have been far better off taking their chances against the rare and generally fully recoverable diseases the vaccine was designed to prevent.

For very effective vaccines that protect against widespread, untreatable, fatal and/or debilitating communicable diseases, the injury threshold for which the vaccine's benefits to the population clearly outweigh its costs and negative effects could be more like 1 in 100 injuries. But benefits must be estimated as precisely as possible against costs and risks for each individual vaccine. The VAERS reporting system was purposely designed to make precise estimates such as these impossible. Instead, just keep adding vaccine after vaccine to the mandated regime and do not ever question your "scientific" credo that they all must be doing far more good than harm. I mean, if you can't put your full, unquestioning faith in any and all vaccines, you might as well believe in God.

[alwyn]

Here is one way to deal with all those pesky rebel flag supporters.

WTF! Is this even real? The guys you tube page looks really over the top....


What is really scary about this is that the 'normal' people, on hearing a religious text (not named, by the way. which one?) show disgust. That's rather anti-fundie, i guess, but it is not neutral on the subject. Not enough information here, other than that certain scientists love to play god with things they don't fully understand.

[Sounder]

Pushing vaccines is an example of system legitimating brilliance.



Doctor Explains Why Vaccine Policies and Injections In Children Are An 'Egregious Crime'
Tuesday, August 18, 2015



Board Certified Medical Doctor Explains Why Vaccine Policies and Injections Onto Children Are An 'Egregious Crime' - Testimony to the Maine Legislature

My name is Dr. Suzanne Humphries. I am a medical doctor, board certified in Nephrology and trained in Internal Medicine. I hold active unrestricted medical licenses in Maine and Virginia. After 10 good years as a nephrologist at Eastern Maine Medical Center, I resigned from my position, sold my share of my medical practice and left because of the issues I faced regarding vaccination in my own patients.

For me the problems began with a hospital policy, which changed in 2008 to vaccinate as many patients as possible, on the first hospital day, even if they were in acute kidney failure, heart failure, sepsis, or were cancer patients on chemotherapy.

A pharmacist would go into the patient’s room, show them one sheet of paper from the CDC with limited biased information, and offer them one or more vaccines. If the patient consented, which most did, an order was put into the computer with the attending physician’s name often before a doctor had even seen the patient or a diagnosis had been made, and the nurse would give the vaccine.

Sometimes the order had my name on it, even though I would not have ordered the vaccine.

I was not happy, and decided to speak to the hospital management about what I was seeing. So I put my concerns in writing, and meetings were held to discuss the issue, but I was not invited to attend. The result? I was told that acutely ill inpatients would continue to be offered vaccines on arrival at hospital. I asked myself... "exactly what is the science that says that these vaccines are safe for really sick people?"

I assumed that there were studies on the subject, and writings in the medical literature, in order for them to be so sure of the rightness of their policy. After all, it’s science we’re talking about? And the science is supposed to be all settled on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.


Because the hospital policies were centered on flu and pneumonia vaccines, this was where my research started.

I submitted a written report to the administration, which is now available on drsuzanne.net. HERE.

This paper outlines the many issues involved in adult vaccines and kidney patients.

So, I discussed all this evidence for over a year with the administration and with my various colleagues. Other doctors were starting to change their previously set minds, and a high number of nurses were catching on. But then, because the hospital administration could not rebut my arguments, they called upon an expert to set me straight.

He never addressed any of my questions regarding acute kidney patients or acutely ill new admissions. He gave me a list of studies showing that some vaccines raise antibody levels in most immunosuppressed people with HIV or kidney failure. His argument was that ipso facto, for acutely ill kidney patients with sepsis, heart attacks, Guillaine Barre Syndrome, cancer, urinary tract obstruction, nephrosis and so on, vaccines were also safe .

His letter was quite bizarre. I kept thinking, "And this is the expert? Why can’t he answer to my specific concerns? Where is his proof that side effects don’t happen to my patients?" Nowhere, could I find studies that looked at vaccines in acutely ill patients commonly seen by nephrologists. Even my pro-vaccine colleagues agreed that there was no scientific basis to give these injections so quickly upon admission, and supported my motion to have the policy changed to vaccinate at discharge.

At the same time, the hospital turned up the heat on me. My progress notes in hospital charts were reviewed, which was something totally new to me. Nobody had ever before challenged my integrity or patient care.

The consultant said that BECAUSE there were no published data sets showing influenza vaccines caused kidney ailments, that my suggestion to exercise caution vaccinating acutely ill patients was unwarranted.

Yet he never showed me any data sets demonstrating that is was safe to vaccinate heart failure, sepsis, inflammatory kidney patients and the like.

The executive committee of my hospital also told me that it was not appropriate for me to stop vaccination orders on my patients and that I was confusing the nursing staff. However, nurses rarely use the SAME treatment plan for all patients so this made no sense to me or the nursing staff.

My experience was not one of confusing nurses at all, but of finding other vaccination critical people on the hospital staff who agreed with me. Among the nursing staff, there were more allies than I would have imagined.

Once I realized the problems with adult vaccines, I researched the issues with childhood vaccines, the result of which is a book called Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History.

Even if vaccines can protect for some diseases for a period of time in a lifespan (which is the best that some of them can claim), the assurances given to both sick and well people regarding safety and effectiveness is not backed by science, history, or even much of the medical literature.

We have peer reviewed writing that details the historical tragedies with vaccination campaigns. We have case reports of unexpected vaccine injury, and we know some of the mechanisms of vaccine injury.

We have a list of highly educated whistleblowers who were harassed and silenced by government agencies for trying to protect the public from drugs and vaccines they knew were unsafe.

We have prominent pro-vaccine vaccinologists today stating that pertussis, flu, and measles vaccines are failing and that the problem is not just vaccine refusal, but they are ignored.

My position is that vaccines are not guaranteed to be safe, that ongoing production problems do exist, that foreign animal DNA, and chemicals are in the vaccines, which don’t reliably protect. The public is given a false sense of security over the safety and efficacy of vaccination. There is no literature on the safety of vaccinating the kinds of sick people I tried to protect.

There is evidence that viruses from the 1950s were introduced into the human population via vaccination, that can and do cause cancer and are related to other medical problems. The attempts of scientists, to look in depth at these issues have been sabotaged and discouraged. Today, we continue to have vaccines contaminated with animal viruses such as porcine circovirus in rotavirus vaccines, that third parties discovered -- not the vaccine manufacturers.

The VAERS system is a lame duck. It is a reporting system that has no clout in making arguments against the supposed safety for kids. When I reported my cases to VAERS, I was harassed by the CDC employees with repeated phone calls stating that "someone else would be calling me". This went on for months until I had an outright argument with a CDC doctor who asked me "What happened to you?"

I left my career, my financial stability and everything comfortable and familiar in order to spend uninterrupted time researching vaccines in all aspects; the need for them; their manufacture; the safety, and any other aspect that was related to the topic.

I foresaw that this day would come when parents could lose the right to refuse any of the 69 doses of 16 vaccines scheduled by the age of 18, the first being an aluminum loaded vaccine on the day of birth.

I have spoken publicly on many areas of infant immunity, kidney function, aluminum toxicity, and most of the vaccines individually. These videos are all available for free on youtube.

No doctor walks away from a lucrative and successful career the way I did if there is no cause.

I implore all voting members to research the history and safety and efficacy record of vaccines, independently using a wide array of materials beyond what the CDC and WHO provides.

Please also watch my one-hour video called "Honesty vs Policy" available HERE where I provide medical journal references for everything I have said in this letter, including the well known conflicts of interest in the members of the ACIP, CDC and WHO.

Vaccination is a medical procedure done to healthy children, the outcome of which is not entirely known. We do know that vaccination is a trauma of considerable intensity as measured a long time ago, by Dr Del Campo in 1967. He evaluated 200 children over 5 years of age after their vaccinations. This is a brief summary of his findings:

(Go to link for missing images.)http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/08/doctor-explains-why-vaccine-policies.html

Interestingly, it is almost impossible to find any other studies looking at the metabolic impact of vaccines given today.

But there are other studies that show how cancer genes, autoimmune genes, allergy and many other disease-causing genes are upregulated after vaccination. I will also include those studies, Orntoft and Lahndenpera and the slides in this letter.

In 2013, Dr Orntoft published research detailing the genetic network changes in white blood cells before, and six weeks after, DTP booster vaccination in 8 different girls. Here is a list of the top networks altered after the vaccine.

(Image at link)

Orntoft’s conclusions are as follows:



Swedish authors Lahdenpera et al. prove that what Orntoft found, is also true for DTaP as well as DTP and that the potential outcomes for vaccinations could be quite severe.

In my opinion, because there is no study that has looked for such problems at the appropriate time frame, there is no guarantee of saftey.



One look at these summaries should alert any reader that no parent can be guaranteed their child will be better off getting vaccinated. To force such vaccine policies and injections onto the children of Maine in my opinion is an egregious crime.

We have no studies looking at the long-term effects of this growing vaccination program as a whole, for cancer, neurologic disease, autoimmune diseases and allergies and other chronic diseases that have become epidemic in children at the same time the vaccine programs were ramped up in the 1980s and 90s.

If you think you are voting away the philosophical and religious exemptions of the parents of Maine, in order to create herd immunity and protect anyone, you just don’t have all your information.

And worse, if you vote to remove exemptions, you are naive to the fact that you will be next in line for a barrage of vaccines as adults. If this legislation is passed then you are paving the way for not just the aggressive vaccine policy of today but of a future in which you will not be allowed to turn the clock back.

Sources:
drsuzanne.net and Prevent Disease
- See more at: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/08/doc ... MBYIZ.dpuf

[brainpanhandler]

@Sounder,

Since you provide no commentary and since you are a proponent, as are most if not all of us here, including myself, of questioning everything, I am curious to know what questions/doubts/concerns you have about the information in the article you posted above and/or the way it is presented.

[Sounder]

My commentary is: Pushing vaccines is an example of system legitimizing brilliance.

As to the question, I do see that propaganda comes from both sides, however this (to me) deserves consideration because it comes from a person directly involved with care of patients.

Much more consideration than Jerry Brown (and all the rest of the conformity choir) deserves.

[Sounder]

I found this interesting because I did not expect to find a major foundation going against the grain on the vaccine issue.


Published on Jul 24, 2015
What they are not telling you about vaccines.
http://www.westonaprice.org/vaccinations/

[Burnt Hill]

Unintended Consequences of Invoking the “Natural” in Breastfeeding Promotion

Medical and public health organizations recommend that mothers exclusively breastfeed for at least 6 months. This recommendation is based on evidence of health benefits for mothers and babies, as well as developmental benefits for babies. A spate of recent work challenges the extent of these benefits, and ethical criticism of breastfeeding promotion as stigmatizing is also growing.1 Building on this critical work, we are concerned about breastfeeding promotion that praises breastfeeding as the “natural” way to feed infants. This messaging plays into a powerful perspective that “natural” approaches to health are better, a view examined in a recent report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.2 Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic, and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier.This may ultimately challenge public health’s aims in other contexts, particularly childhood vaccination.

This sinister suggestion is from The American Academy of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/03/02/peds.2015-4154

Oh, and Merck is a major source of funding for the AAP.

[Sounder]

Thanks Burnt Hill, good catch


It is useful to listen to Mr. Bigtree given the recent response and banning of his Vaxxed movie. This is the full interview with ABC. Great stuff.

[backtoiam]

These vaccine articles have been popping out of the woodwork this week since the big Deniro Vaxxed documentary flap up.

Former NBC boss asserts his grandson damaged by vaccines
Apr
20
by Jon Rappoport

Former NBC boss asserts his grandson damaged by vaccines

by Jon Rappoport

April 20, 2016


The roof is beginning to cave in on the vaccine empire.

Now, in the wake of the unsuccessful attempt to censor the film Vaxxed (trailer), we have Bob Wright, the former CEO of media giant, NBC Universal, authoring a new book, “The Wright Stuff: From NBC to Autism Speaks.”

In its review of the book, Accuracy in Media provides a devastating quote from Wright about his autistic grandson:

“Right after he got the standard one-year vaccinations, he developed a very high fever and screamed for hours. Katie [Wright’s daughter] was so frightened she called her husband to come home from work and they put the baby in an ice bath to bring down the fever. When they called the doctor they were told the reaction was completely normal.”

Yes, completely normal in the eyes of a lunatic licensed to practice medicine.

Normal, if brain damage is something parents should be expected to shrug off.

Normal, if destroying the life of a child, through officially sanctioned means, is simply written off as the cost of doing pharmaceutical business.

Wright goes on to say that he tried, without a shred of success, to convince Bush and Obama they needed to improve vaccine safety. According to Wright, the Bush people feared negative press reaction, and Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett killed the idea.

In the past few days, a long-time blogger for Huffington Post, Lance Simmens (twitter), submitted a positive review of Vaxxed. It was posted, then deleted—and Simmens’ account at Huff Po was canceled without notice. More censorship. The geniuses at Huff Po haven’t gotten the memo yet: blacking out information about the film only gives it more legs. Do they even have a press operation over there? I always assumed Huff Po was built as a façade/cardboard box, in order to sell it. That objective was achieved in 2010, when AOL gobbled it up for $315 million. What an extraordinary hustle.

Huff Po can’t even stomach allowing a positive review of Vaxxed to see the light of day. I wonder how they feel about vaccines causing brain damage—I mean the actual occurrence of it. Perhaps they don’t care. Perhaps they’re so far removed from the truth they don’t even think about it. But I’m willing to bet at least a few people on the payroll know the reality of it, and under the surface they’re boiling.

exit from the matrix

The CDC has large numbers of vaccine scandals buried in their files. One of them involves a vast over-exaggeration of flu deaths in the US every year. As researcher Peter Doshi noted, years ago, the old canned figure for annual flu deaths, 36,000, was a gross exaggeration. One year, the actual number of confirmed flu deaths in America—where the flu virus was positively identified—was, wait for it: 18. Of course, the CDC uses those flu-death stats to convince Americans they must take the flu vaccine.

Stay tuned.

Jon Rappoport

[DrEvil]

^^His talk about censorship reminded me of this:

[Sounder]

“Right after he got the standard one-year vaccinations, he developed a very high fever and screamed for hours. Katie [Wright’s daughter] was so frightened she called her husband to come home from work and they put the baby in an ice bath to bring down the fever. When they called the doctor they were told the reaction was completely normal.”

Material manipulation via the chemical solution is God in this culture, and one cannot question God. It is all perfectly normal to make baby's bodies explode with toxic overload, it's OK, go back to sleep now.

Those silly non-God believers need to be shunned and there need to be laws that require the acceptance of God, or we must take their kids from them to put them in better God fearing homes.