Curious About Vaccinations

1235

Comments

  • MusicmamaMusicmama
    edited March 2015


    Sorry. I'll take my rationality and go home.




    I don't think that the issue is your rationality.


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    I don't think that the issue is your rationality.




     


    Oh, I know. It was sarcasm, since all my points were so utterly refuted by being called annoying. Cause that's how facts work...


     


    Science is hard, socioeconomics is hard, understanding population metrics is hard, and there seems to be a lot of people who would rather believe in something easy to grasp with just a handful of articles and video clips that agree with their own position. People tend to get upset when you ask for evidence of the conspiracies. They also apparently give no credence to scientific consensus...except in areas that they like (cell phones, laptops, tablets, vehicles, aircraft, surgery, painkillers, etc). So why would the entire scientific community lie about vaccines and not lie about all the other science you readily accept? Vaccines did not develop in a scientific vacuum.

  • You make some excellent points.  Nearly everyone is guilty of watching a five minute news report, then begin speaking as if they are experts, and no one like being told they are wrong.  In this case, it appears that there are participants that have a good deal of background in this area and you are accusing them of fear-mongering and conspiracy rather than addressing the ethos.  This is what is known as a straw man argument and it is discouraged on the Bulletproof forums.  Try composing posts without condescension and see if it facilitates rational discussion.


     


    I agree with you that we can solve many of these problems through education, but by prohibiting un-vaccinated children from attending public schools is a direct contradiction. How are we going to solve these political issues by socially isolating children for a decision that was made for them by their parents?  and all of this to protect other children with "organ transplants, degenerative diseases, genetic abnormalities, cancer treatments, minor or major surgery" who should be in a sterile environment.  A school environment could be deadly to any of these hypothetical individuals regardless of the vaccination percentage. 


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited March 2015


    In this case, it appears that there are participants that have a good deal of background in this area and you are accusing them of fear-mongering and conspiracy rather than addressing the ethos.  This is what is known as a straw man argument and it is discouraged on the Bulletproof forums.  Try composing posts without condescension and see if it facilitates rational discussion.




     


    You are equivocating individual responses to individual claims with my arguments as a whole, and that is dishonest. Ironic as it is, you are conflagrating my points into a straw man, right here and now!


     


     


    I said that using the threat of "mandatory vaccinations", which have not been advocated by anyone in the discussion, is fear mongering. This is not a straw man.


     


    There has been no evidence given that the various sciences are being controlled to produce harmful vaccines for profit. There has been no evidence given that these vaccines are being distributed knowingly with harmful chemical components. There has been no evidence of suppression of peer-reviewed studies showing vaccines to be harmful. There has been no evidence given showing that scientific consensus has been upheld in the face of new data. There has been no evidence given that doctors are knowingly promoting harmful vaccinations. These are conspiracy theories. Calling them conspiracy theories is not a straw man. 


     


    Since I also make special effort to address each particular point individually, identifying a single point as a conspiracy theory or as fear mongering does not invalidate the entirety of another person's post. I am not turning anyone's point into a straw man by exposing it for what it is.


     


     


    I thought people on the Bulletproof Forums would be more interested in accurate information rather than rhetoric. If it is condescending to demand evidence then the Bulletproof Forums may have deeper issues than some erroneous claims about vaccines being harmful. Merely asserting that my posts have been composed with condescension does not indicate that my points are not rational and does not refute my position.


     


     



     


    I agree with you that we can solve many of these problems through education, but by prohibiting un-vaccinated children from attending public schools is a direct contradiction. How are we going to solve these political issues by socially isolating children for a decision that was made for them by their parents?  and all of this to protect other children with "organ transplants, degenerative diseases, genetic abnormalities, cancer treatments, minor or major surgery" who should be in a sterile environment.  A school environment could be deadly to any of these hypothetical individuals regardless of the vaccination percentage.



     


    ...so you want to prohibit children with compromised immune systems from attending public schools (who physically cannot comply with the guidelines of those institutions) rather than those who can comply with the guidelines of those public institutions? You also seem to be ignoring the many teachers and faculty members who would also fall under the category of immune compromised. To say that these people should be relegated to sterile environments only is awful. It also displays your ignorance of the many ways an immune system may be compromised. I would suggest a deep look into the medical science so you can avoid making such gross sweeping statements.


     


    You have to educate their parents about vaccines. The children could have the best education possible and still cannot make their own legal decisions about vaccinations until they are adults. The issue is education of the parents.


     


    You seem to want to ignore the fact that these public institutions have rights as well. They have the right to make guidelines for the health and safety of those who work at and attend their facility. They are not actively prohibiting non-vaccinated children from pursuing education, these children can attend private schools, home schools, any school that does not require vaccinations. Public schools are exercising their rights to determine the requirements of who can and cannot attend. You also need shirts, pants and shoes to attend public schools. You also need pens, pencils, paper and scissors. There are programs set up to help children obtain all the things they need to attend public schools, and if parents prevent their children from meeting those requirements then it is no fault of the public education system.


     


     


    Again, and this will be said as many times as it needs to be: it is the parents who need to be educated. It is the parent's responsibility to make the best choices for their children's health and education, and to enable their children to attend the school that they determine to be correct, weather public, private, home school, a community school or a religious school. 


  • edited March 2015

    You are arguing that so far as vaccines are concerned, no one should have the right to opt out because you believe in the argument that they are for the greater good.  They are a medical treatment and ethically medical treatments require informed consent.  Informed consent is not possible when patients are only presented with one side of the argument, that's what's known as propaganda.  Many of the less common risks of vaccines are the same as the risks of the disease they are meant to protect against - parents are deliberately told that their children can die from measles (a rare event) to scare them into compliance. Children can also die from measles vaccines (a rare event) but but these risks are downplayed deliberately.  The argument is framed in such a way as to influence people's decisions in one direction - because somewhere someone or more likely some faceless committee decided its in their best interests.  This is not informed consent. People should have the right to refuse treatment if they do not believe that the medical treatment in question is in their own best interests. 


     


    Here's another example of a 4 year battle over the release of clinical trial data (in this case Tamiflu) that is yet another illustration of why we need to be sceptical.



  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭

    You already have the right to opt out. I advocate that you keep the right to opt out. Please do not misrepresent my position like that, I consider it lying.


  • I caution anyone to waste another second of one's time arguing with a self-important fool.  Such responses are a mere exercise of mental masterbation and should be disregarded.  The true irony is when someone claims to be rational and cannot seem to figure out simple truths like:


     


    1) Vaccine complications are well documented.  They have caused people harm.  Therefore, vaccines can be harmful.  This is not a conspiracy; it is well documented fact.


    2) Children often grow up to be parents.  Leaving them isolated and uneducated will result in more uneducated parents.


    3) Institutions do not have rights. (Corporate personhood does not apply).


    4) Immunocompromised people can die from diseases from which there are no vaccines just as easily.


     


    Advocating for a child's education is not fear-mongering.  Showing people the risks of vaccination is not a conspiracy.  These terms were assigned as an attempt to strengthen a fatally flawed ideology and nothing more.


  • John BrissonJohn Brisson The Legend Formerly Known as Ron Swanson ✭✭✭
    edited May 2015


    I have a similar situation of my (late and very lightly) vaccinated kids versus those of everyone around me. Anecdotal evidence doesn't feel quite so flimsy when it's happening right under your own eyes :)


    Varicella was one of the vaccines that we skipped altogether, but there was a chicken pox outbreak at my children's school that involved all vaccinated kids plus mine. Hers was the one case that was so mild that we would have completely missed it if not for the general outbreak. Everyone else was out for a week with fevers and tons of spots; she was cranky for a morning and had one reddish spot (and later we found two more when we looked for them).


     


    John, what's your detox/prep protocol when you have vaccinated your kids (seconding gscarlet's request for more info...). I haven't read this whole thread so will also go back to check.




     


    Ok since we are dealing with children there is no "protocol" I can give you but I can tell you what I did.


     


    I spaced the vaccinations apart and only allowed them to get one at a time. I did not start them on vaccinations until they were two. I also did not give them the combo vaccinations either and spread them a few months apart. I had to go to the doctor a lot, but I believe it was worth it.


     


    I gave them vitamin C before the vaccinations and up to three days afterwards, 500 mg.


     


    I gave them fish oil. Norwegian gold makes a good soft gel for children.


     


    Finally, I gave them 2,000 mg of glutamine a week before and after with food.


    My book Fix Your Gut, is offered on Amazon for $9.99.

     

    I also offer coaching:  http://fixyourgut.com/health-coaching-information/

     

    Please join or like the Fix your Gut Facebook. Also please add me on twitter @FixYourGutJB.

     

    http://www.fixyourgut.com

     

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited March 2015


    I caution anyone to waste another second of one's time arguing with a self-important fool.  Such responses are a mere exercise of mental masterbation and should be disregarded.  The true irony is when someone claims to be rational and cannot seem to figure out simple truths like:


     


    1) Vaccine complications are well documented.  They have caused people harm.  Therefore, vaccines can be harmful.  This is not a conspiracy; it is well documented fact.


    2) Children often grow up to be parents.  Leaving them isolated and uneducated will result in more uneducated parents.


    3) Institutions do not have rights. (Corporate personhood does not apply).


    4) Immunocompromised people can die from diseases from which there are no vaccines just as easily.


     


    Advocating for a child's education is not fear-mongering.  Showing people the risks of vaccination is not a conspiracy.  These terms were assigned as an attempt to strengthen a fatally flawed ideology and nothing more.




     


    1) That is not the argument I am refuting. The anti-vaccination advocates are stating that vaccines cause symptoms such as autism, increased infection rates and sterility.


     


    Here is the link to the CDC's vaccination advice that goes along with your link to vaccine side effects: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html It turns out you linked to an organization that recommends vaccinations. I appreciate your acceptance of the CDC's recommendations on vaccinations. 


     


    2) These children are not being left isolated or uneducated. Their parents make the choices on vaccination and education for these children. 


     


    3) Citation please. Public schools are local and federal governmental institutions, affording them the same rights as other governmental institutions.


     


    4) Immunocompromised people can die from a car crash. Please don't infect them with measles or polio due to your choices. At least they won't have to worry about those diseases.


     



    I said that using the threat of "mandatory vaccinations", which have not been advocated by anyone in the discussion, is fear mongering. This is not a straw man.




    There has been no evidence given that the various sciences are being controlled to produce harmful vaccines for profit. There has been no evidence given that these vaccines are being distributed knowingly with harmful chemical components. There has been no evidence of suppression of peer-reviewed studies showing vaccines to be harmful. There has been no evidence given showing that scientific consensus has been upheld in the face of new data. There has been no evidence given that doctors are knowingly promoting harmful vaccinations. These are conspiracy theories. Calling them conspiracy theories is not a straw man.

     


    I quoted myself so you can attempt to read it again. There is no ideology here. I was very specific on the labels I used and what arguments I referred to. Can you refute the points I have presented, or must you continue to rely on ad hominem attacks? 




  • Ok since we are dealing with children there is no "protocol" I can give you but I can tell you what I did.


     


    I spaced the vaccinations apart and only allowed them to get one at a time. I did not start them on vaccinations until they were two. I also did not give them the combo vaccinations either and spread them a few months apart. I had to go to the doctor a lot, but I believe it was worth it.


     


    I gave them vitamin C before the vaccinations and up to three days afterwards, 500 mg.


     


    I gave them Tylenol after the vaccination for one day. The dosage is based off of weight of the child.


     


    I gave them fish oil. Norwegian gold makes a good soft gel for children.


     


    Finally, I gave them 2,000 mg of glutamine a week before and after with food.




     


    Thank you, John!

  • Thank you, John!


    Yes, thank you! I will be discussing this further with my wife.
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Ok since we are dealing with children there is no "protocol" I can give you but I can tell you what I did.


     


    I spaced the vaccinations apart and only allowed them to get one at a time. I did not start them on vaccinations until they were two. I also did not give them the combo vaccinations either and spread them a few months apart. I had to go to the doctor a lot, but I believe it was worth it.


     


    I gave them vitamin C before the vaccinations and up to three days afterwards, 500 mg.


     


    I gave them Tylenol after the vaccination for one day. The dosage is based off of weight of the child.


     


    I gave them fish oil. Norwegian gold makes a good soft gel for children.


     


    Finally, I gave them 2,000 mg of glutamine a week before and after with food.




     


    I know you stated that you avoided the combination vaccines, but which vaccinations did you decide to go with and which ones did you leave out?


     


    Why Tylenol? Isn't that tough on the liver? Was there a specific reason for Tylenol vs baby aspirin?


     


    What was your protocol until they turned 2? Did they have much interaction with other children? Did you follow more strict hygiene regimes? Spend time at the pediatrician near potentially sick children?


     


     


    Always a good thing to see someone being educated on and utilizing the tools medical science has given us with forethought and discernment rather than throwing out the proverbial 'baby with the the bath water'!

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭

    After digging through the sources that Natural News cited I found that they had merely relied on other news sources rather than researching for themselves. Luckily those other news sources had cited the original material. These are links to the findings published by the FDA and JAMA identifying the problems and the solutions already in place:


    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2109855


    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2109848


     


    Their conclusion:



     


    Conclusions and Relevance 


    When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.



     


    Apparently the peer-review process self-corrects the science. This is evident from the very source that Natural News' sources got their information from. The actual inquiry itself.


     


     


     


    Interesting how Natural News would inflate the issue (almost as though they were using the tactics of traditional media to generate interest) as a particularly astute commenter on that very article noticed:



     


     


    4 in 10? Make that 2 in 100. If you'd bother to read the Introduction of the cited article:

    "The FDA classifies its inspections in 1 of 3 ways, depending on the gravity of violations found.... The most severe classification, official action indicated (OAI), is reserved for cases in which the inspection identified objectionable conditions or practices significant enough to warrant regulatory action. In the 2013 fiscal year, approximately 2% of the 644 inspections of trial sites carried out by the FDA’s Bioresearch Monitoring organization were classified as OAI. The nature and extent of the OAI violations, which include submission of false information and failure to report adverse events to the appropriate bodies, often raise questions about the validity and accuracy of the clinical trial site’s data. Consequently, the FDA typically excludes data from a site that received an OAI when judging the safety or efficacy of a new drug."

     


     


    Furthermore, even if this article was indicative of fraudulent medical publications it would not directly indicate that vaccinations are harmful, which is the discussion that has been taking place here. The studies published on those vaccines would then need to be reviewed to see if they had been fraudulently published. What is great about the over 200 years of vaccine development is that there has been ample review of the published studies on multiple generations of vaccines. This is how we advance vaccine technology. Fraudulent studies would not have provided the foundation on which to advance the technology as far as we have, and would not have resulted in more people living longer lives, especially if they were covering up something harmful. Harmful medical practices to not raise overall population longevity by definition.


     


     


    It is a good thing that medical science, like all proper science, relies on peer-review and falsifiability. Science has a built-in self-correcting mechanism for a reason. 


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited March 2015

    Evidence of fraud in anti-vaccination research:


     


    False accusations of data suppressed by the CDC


    http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp


     


    Did a high ranking whistleblower really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African-American boys?


    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african-american-boys/


     


    Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” under the microscope


    http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1127.long


     


    Retraction: Enterocolitis in Children With Developmental Disorders


    http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v105/n5/full/ajg2010149a.html


     


    WITHDRAWN: Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight


    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X09002228


     


    How Fraud Underlies Anti-Vaccine Claims (Feb 2015)


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-klitzman-md/vaccines-fraud_b_6631132.html


     


    A Discredited Vaccine Study’s Continuing Impact on Public Health (Feb 2015)


    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/us/a-discredited-vaccine-studys-continuing-impact-on-public-health.html


     


    Who Is Andrew Wakefield (Feb 2015)


    http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-andrew-wakefield-2015-2


     


    Andrew Wakefield, Father of the Anti-Vaccine Movement, Responds to the Current Measles Outbreak for the First Time


    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/20/andrew-wakefield-father-anti-vaccine-movement-sticks-his-story-305836.html


     


     


    Of course all these links really say nothing one way or the other about the actual effectiveness-vs-risk of vaccinations. For that you need actual data, not cases of false data. The main benefit from knowing that studies were faked is being able to disregard the fake information and to give extra scrutiny to any data that originated with/will originate from the group/groups associated with the fraud.


     


    To quote (and namedrop, oh noes) Neil deGrasse Tyson:



     


    The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.



    and



     


    When different experiments give the same result, it is no longer subject to your opinion.



     


     


    These quotes say nothing directly about the topic of this thread, of course. They don't need to.


  • dazdaz today is a good day ✭✭✭
    edited March 2015


    ...


    To quote (and namedrop, oh noes) Neil deGrasse Tyson:


     



    Quote


     


    The good thing about science is that it's true weather or not you believe in it.





     


    i trust that quote is not verbatim...weather?


    fake it till you make it

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭

    Edited! Thanks for the heads up.


  • John BrissonJohn Brisson The Legend Formerly Known as Ron Swanson ✭✭✭
    edited May 2015


    I know you stated that you avoided the combination vaccines, but which vaccinations did you decide to go with and which ones did you leave out?


     


    Why Tylenol? Isn't that tough on the liver? Was there a specific reason for Tylenol vs baby aspirin?


     


    What was your protocol until they turned 2? Did they have much interaction with other children? Did you follow more strict hygiene regimes? Spend time at the pediatrician near potentially sick children?


     


     


    Always a good thing to see someone being educated on and utilizing the tools medical science has given us with forethought and discernment rather than throwing out the proverbial 'baby with the the bath water'!




     


    I went with all of the vaccinations but did them separately.


     


    The liver can compensate for the brief period they are taking the Tylenol. You would never want to give a child asprin, especially if there is a chance they would have a fever from the vaccination because of the development of Reyes syndrome. Tylenol is used as a cox 2 inhibitor do reduce the inflammation caused by the vaccine. Curcumin and CBD oil is probably better to use. To be the devils advocate: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/study-evidence-that-acetaminophen-especially-in-conjunction-with-vaccines-is-a-major-cause-of-autism-and-asthma/.


     


    My children lived at home and had normal exposure outside of the home. They washed their hands a lot. They also took vitamin D3 and zinc to increase immunity.


     


    Sparefilms wont like this but my severely disabled son Abel did not receive any vaccinations while he was alive. His condition was so rare that his geneticist agreed that vaccination would be a huge unknown risk to him. He was never sick, even though he had a trach. His immune system was even better than my oldest. Weird huh?


    My book Fix Your Gut, is offered on Amazon for $9.99.

     

    I also offer coaching:  http://fixyourgut.com/health-coaching-information/

     

    Please join or like the Fix your Gut Facebook. Also please add me on twitter @FixYourGutJB.

     

    http://www.fixyourgut.com

     

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


     


    Sparefilms wont like this but my severely disabled son Abel did not receive any vaccinations while he was alive. His condition was so rare that his geneticist agreed that vaccination would be a huge unknown risk to him. He was never sick, even though he had a trach. His immune system was even better than my oldest. Weird huh?




     


    Why would I not like that? You consulted with a geneticist and made the best decision you could after considering what the current state of medical science had to offer. You didn't avoid 'vaccines' arbitrarily. You didn't avoid vaccines based on pseudoscience or fear-mongering. I do not know how this can be confusing to people. EDUCATION AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITYParents are responsible for the medical decisions not only of themselves but of their children. They should educate themselves so they can make the best decisions possible, and consult experts who are far more educated than the average parent. I think people should do this for themselves even if they don't have children, but it is IMPERATIVE in the case of children who depend on their parents to make good decisions. This cannot be that hard to understand.


     


     


    Parents also need to give some thought to the societal repercussions of their familial choices, but that does not particularly impact on your comment.



  • Sparefilms if you really want the answers look at the materials that people have linked to on here instead of trying to provoke an argument. I'm not interested in an argument. I'm interested in the other side of the vaccine story (aka not the marketing driven one that says that vaccines saved humanity) because it doesn't get a fair hearing - anyone who questions the orthodox view of "vaccines = good" is attacked as unscientific and yet when you actually look at the evidence yourself - pubmed is out there - or read what scientists who disagree with the industry position on vaccines you will find that the picture is far more complex. 


     




     


    So basically you don't want opinions from people who don't agree with you?  I think he raises many good questions that people should answer. Just as those on the other side did.


     


    Personally I'm definitely pro-vaccine, but that's my opinion.  My reasoning basically boils down to this:


     


    " greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively."- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18000199


     


    I've seen cases in mumps in children since this anti-vaccination thing started. Your chances of having permanent problems from vaccines are small at best but your chances of having long term problems if you get mumps is much higher.  Even if there is a risk the risk does NOT outweigh the benefits of vaccine.


     


    Some people obviously don't want to believe this and will just continue to believe what they want


     

    Do not take anything I say here as medical advice.

  • Dr Zed,  Mumps present the greatest risk of complications in adults (sterility in males for instance) not children.   The vaccine is not very effective  - case in point the recent outbreak of mumps amongst NHL players affected players who had all been fully vaccinated.  Most vaccines have short term effectiveness and for a large proportion of the population boosters become increasingly less effective which means that as time goes on a greater proportion of the population will have no protection against these diseases because they have no natural immunity from having had them as children and any initial short term protection they did get from the vaccines has either waned or can no longer be stimulated by boosters - See Tetyana Obukhanych PhD (Immunology) for a primer on this.  It is highly improbable that something like measles can be eradicated worldwide and as several epidemiologists have already posited in published work we are likely to see rebound epidemics in the coming decades - effectively the conditions that enabled infections like measles to kill so many indigenous americans centuries ago because the adults had no natural immunity are being recreated.  This is an unintended consequence of vaccination that could and should be foreseen.  As it is we can already see that during outbreaks the proportion of adults suffering infections increases and it tends to be adults who die from these infections.


     


    The largest drop in incidence of these infectious diseases occurred in the early part of the 20th Century and long predates the introduction of vaccines - these statistics have been compiled and graphed by Dr Suzanne Humphries in her book Dissolving Illusions.  This is conveniently left out of information presented by advocates of vaccination like the CDC who use 1950 as year zero.  


     


    As for adverse reactions, they're not accurately reported and there is a pattern of denial when they do occur usually in the interest of avoiding paying compensation for vaccine injury.  This story was in the UK paper's last week for instance and of course the manufacturer takes the position that 'we can't be sure it was the vaccine that caused it" :  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2987209/Did-swine-flu-jab-little-Mathilda-crippling-sleep-disorder.html


     


    Annecdotal I know, but in addition to having had 3 adverse reactions myself to 3 different vaccines, I've also seen others in my own family have problems:  an uncle suffered severe brain damage due to encephalitis after a flu vaccine and of my cousins children one developed a life threatening egg allergy post MMR vaccination and another suffers from severe epilepsy the onset of which occurred shortly after a routine vaccination.  The Dr's were always very quick to dismiss any connection to vaccines despite the fact that all of these things are known side effects that are included in the package insert warnings. My Uncle's brain damage was life altering and the egg allergy and epilepsy were life threatening.    


  • As for fraud in the pharmaceutical industry:


     


    Dr Marcia Angell a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine believes that they are a malign force in medical research:  


     


    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/21/big-pharma-is-america-s-new-mafia.html


     


    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/17/bad-pharma-ben-goldacre-review   -  Dr Ben Goldacre's book on the same topic


     


    and lets not forget Dr Peter Gotzsche


     


    http://www.anh-europe.org/ANH-Intl+Exclusive+Interview+with+Dr+Peter+Gotzsche+author+of+Deadly+Medicines+and+Organised+Crime

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Dr Zed,  Mumps present the greatest risk of complications in adults (sterility in males for instance) not children.   The vaccine is not very effective  - case in point the recent outbreak of mumps amongst NHL players affected players who had all been fully vaccinated.  Most vaccines have short term effectiveness and for a large proportion of the population boosters become increasingly less effective which means that as time goes on a greater proportion of the population will have no protection against these diseases because they have no natural immunity from having had them as children and any initial short term protection they did get from the vaccines has either waned or can no longer be stimulated by boosters - See Tetyana Obukhanych PhD (Immunology) for a primer on this.  




     


    Citation please? All you did was name-drop.


     


    Please explain the difference between "natural immunity" and vaccine-facilitated immunity.


     


    (I think to do this you will have to define what you are including under "natural" since it seems to mean something very specific to you. Nature could be understood to mean "That which exists" such as when juxtaposed to the 'supernatural' as in a more scientific light, or to a lesser degree a philosophical one)


     


     




    It is highly improbable that something like measles can be eradicated worldwide and as several epidemiologists have already posited in published work we are likely to see rebound epidemics in the coming decades - effectively the conditions that enabled infections like measles to kill so many indigenous americans centuries ago because the adults had no natural immunity are being recreated.  This is an unintended consequence of vaccination that could and should be foreseen.  As it is we can already see that during outbreaks the proportion of adults suffering infections increases and it tends to be adults who die from these infections.




     


    Citation please? 


     


    If we are likely to see "rebound epidemics" after eradication, then why are there no "rebound epidemics" of smallpox?


     


     




    The largest drop in incidence of these infectious diseases occurred in the early part of the 20th Century and long predates the introduction of vaccines - these statistics have been compiled and graphed by Dr Suzanne Humphries in her book Dissolving Illusions.  This is conveniently left out of information presented by advocates of vaccination like the CDC who use 1950 as year zero.  




     


    Citation please? 


     


    Also, please clarify which diseases and which vaccines.


     


    If 1950 is being used as "Year Zero" for something, it would make sense in the case of mumps. A rudimentary mumps vaccine was developed in 1948, and Leningrad-3 was developed in 1950 in Russia.


    http://www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/diseases/mumps_vaccine.shtml


     


     


     




    As for adverse reactions, they're not accurately reported and there is a pattern of denial when they do occur usually in the interest of avoiding paying compensation for vaccine injury.  This story was in the UK paper's last week for instance and of course the manufacturer takes the position that 'we can't be sure it was the vaccine that caused it" :  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2987209/Did-swine-flu-jab-little-Mathilda-crippling-sleep-disorder.html




     


    Why would you want manufacturers to blame a preventative medicine if they are not sure it is the cause? We do not cite a substance as a cause of death unless the forensic evidence is reasonably conclusive on the matter, because to do so would be fraud.


     


    As to the avoidance of compensation, I realize this is in the United Kingdom so I am hoping you are not making this a blanket claim about all vaccine manufacturers. In the United States there exists the "Vaccine Court" that functions as a designated litigation avenue for both actual, provable cases of vaccines being at fault and also cases in which vaccines are merely suspected culprits. Both types of case are settled, ensuring that the wronged party is compensated and avoiding expensive legal fees which would leave the litigants with little, or nothing at all. The following Wikipedia pages has links to further information in the citations section.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court 


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act


     


     




    Annecdotal I know, but in addition to having had 3 adverse reactions myself to 3 different vaccines, I've also seen others in my own family have problems:  an uncle suffered severe brain damage due to encephalitis after a flu vaccine and of my cousins children one developed a life threatening egg allergy post MMR vaccination and another suffers from severe epilepsy the onset of which occurred shortly after a routine vaccination.  The Dr's were always very quick to dismiss any connection to vaccines despite the fact that all of these things are known side effects that are included in the package insert warnings. My Uncle's brain damage was life altering and the egg allergy and epilepsy were life threatening.    




     


    In the interest of intellectual honesty, would you say that these life events that you have put forth here have colored your views on vaccines in any way?


     


    Was the cause of his encephalitis ever diagnosed?


     


     


    Such anecdotal cases are actually very useful in understanding some of the mechanisms behind movements like this. When events are more personal, or even seem more personally significant, they are usually held up as proof or evidence of the claim. At the same time, the hundreds of millions of instances where there were no side effects to speak of will be totally ignored.

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭

    The earlier "Fraud and coverup in clinical trials" article from Nat. News (which I consider to be dishonest click-bait) was responded to extensively, and has been conveniently ignored. Here we are seeing more assertions of fraud, and no acknowledgement of the mechanisms to discover such fraud which are already in place. The very study cited as evidence by the articles scalped by Nat. News (and referenced as evidence by @hackergirl) concluded by saying:


     



     


     


    Conclusions and Relevance

    When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.

     


    Again, we seem to be ignoring the "peer-review" part of science.


     


    Addition, I gave multiple links showing the "Evidence of fraud in anti-vaccination research" and this, too, has been ignored. I would like this to be addressed. If you look at the percentages then actual medical science has a rather small percentage of fraud when compared to anti-vaccination research!


     


     


     


    The pattern here is becoming much more apparent to any reading these threads. Refutations of the anti-vaccine claims are merely ignored, and new assertions are being made without the data to back them up. Hardly any discussion on any singular points, and what discussion does happen ends up with an accusation of trolling or attempt at an ad hominem (associative).


     


    The most telling part in all this is the sources. When scrutinized, most (I hesitate to say all, because I have not scrutinized all) of the vehemently anti-vaccine sources are just that, anti-vaccine sources. Not peer-reviewed. Major medical and scientific bodies continue to find the same results, over nearly 200 years of vaccination efforts. These are multi-generational pools of data. There are more than a mere handful of medical science professionals researching these things.


  • and hot off the press with a soon to close public consultation,  Here's the proposal for increasing life long adult vaccination rates in the US. There must be money to be made.  


     


     http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/national_adult_immunization_plan_final.pdf


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭

     


     


    Vaccination is considered one of the most important public health achievements of the 20th century and

    continues to offer great promise in the 21st century. Vaccines save lives and improve the quality of life by

    preventing serious infectious diseases and their consequences. However, the benefits of vaccination are not

    realized equally across the U.S. population. Adult vaccination rates remain low in the United States, and

    significant racial and ethnic disparities also exist.

     


    This is the opening paragraph, for reference ^


     


     


    After skimming the outlined goals in this document, I have failed to see an indication of increasing the number of vaccines that adults should receive. It seems to be about enabling more public access to vaccinations across minorities and increasing public education about vaccinations. The end goal seems to also look towards technological advancements and making vaccinations even safer and more effective. Please explain why this is a bad thing?


     


     


    Also, please show the indication in this document that there is an opportunity for significant revenue generation? 


     


     


     


    (Oddly enough, all the counterpoints in prior posts have been ignored yet again!)


  • So I'm intellectually dishonest now am I spare films?  I was actually unaware of the vaccine links until I started speaking to others in my family about vaccines 4 or 5 months ago after I became intellectually curious because there was so much so called 'anti-vaxxer' hysteria in the media and turning up on my news feeds.  The reflexive shutting down of debate tends to make me want to investigate more for myself and test my own preconceptions (pro-vaccine btw), i find my curiosity serves me well in life.  In this instance my views changed the more widely I read.  I mention these incidents because such reactions are supposed to be rare - I didn't anticipate knowing anyone who'd been vaccine injured and was surprised to find a different reality and no they aren't all genetically related to each other. 


     


    In my uncle's case, he was admitted to intensive care 15 days post vaccination, had it been 14 days the link would have been acknowledged but instead the family were told that as it was 15 days it had been too long since the vaccination so it couldn't be the cause. A one day difference is a rather arbitrary distinction but one that meant that my aunt and cousin were left to be his full time carers for the rest of his life with no compensation and no help.  People should expect the same if they're similarly unlucky. It was labeled an unexplained case -  an unfortunate bolt from the blue allegedly.   The vaccine court in the US is also notoriously difficult to gain compensation through. Only about a third of applicants are compensated. It was established when Reagan passed legislation indemnifying the pharmaceutical companies from any responsibility for vaccine damage in 1986.  At the time there were large numbers of lawsuits and the manufacturers were threatening to stop making vaccines altogether.  You've also missed the point I was making about the corruption within the industry. If Dr's like Ben Goldacre etc question the integrity of the industry with respect to products for which they have no legal indemnity how can we trust them on products for which they do have indemnity?  Sorry you consider links to anyone questioning the integrity of the industry as click bait - can't help you there.    


     

    In the article on the little girl with narcolepsy a similar attitude comes through in the quotes from the GSK spokesman:


     


     "A GSK spokesman told us: ‘While those vaccinated with Pandemrix have been shown in several published studies to be more likely to develop narcolepsy than those who were not, further research is needed to confirm what role the vaccine may have played in the development of narcolepsy among those affected.


    ‘Pandemrix went through a rigorous approval process . . . throughout the development of our pandemic vaccines there were no data to suggest a potential for an increased risk of narcolepsy among those vaccinated.


    ‘We continue to support ongoing work from other experts and organisations investigating reported cases of this condition.’ 


     


    I'll translate the PR speak for you: "we're aware that pandemrix has been linked to narcolepsy but we haven't yet had time to discredit those researchers. We're working on it but in the meantime don't expect any admissions or compensation from us."  I refer you back to Dr Peter Wilmshurst as an example of how people who publish research that is damaging to industry interests are treated.  They do try to discredit them.  Incidentally Pandemrix was withdrawn from use because of the problems with narcolepsy so someone thought it was enough of a problem to be cautious with it.


     


    And since you keep raising Wakefield as an example of vaccine fraud (the paper was actually on bowel disease in autistic children but posited a link to MMR) there are actually some rather curious things about the Wakefield case. His paper wasn't in fact discredited through the 'self correcting' peer review process that you keep going on about. Rather curiously he and the two Dr's he worked with at the Royal Free Hospital were investigated by the General Medical Council on the basis of a complaint by a freelance journalist (who was paid by amongst others a private company funded by the pharmaceutical industry to investigate allegedly fraudulent researchers - looks a bit like a private company set up to discredit researchers the industry aren't happy with).  I remember the news coverage of the journalist being confronted by the parents of the children in the study who were not permitted to take part in the hearings and not one of whom complained about the treatment their children received or the Dr's who conducted the research.  See for yourself, a documentary film maker found his behaviour so extraordinary he made a film about it.  


  • and one I forgot - a link to UK Office of National Statistics chart on measles mortality in the 20th Century


     


     http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/measlesChart.jpg


     


     


    As previously mentioned by me and others Dr Humphries book Dissolving Illusions presents official statistics for measles and other infectious diseases. 


  • Aloha Macmula,


     


    Just thought I'd chime in on your post...


     


    Boy looks like you opened a can of worms, LOL!


     


    I have 7 children, out of the 7, I had the first 4 of vaccinated, MMR I think it was called back then.


     


    I was young myself and just did what the state rules stated, didn't know any better.


     


    I didn't get the last 3 vaccinated because after hearing about and watching some documentaries on vaccines, I thought to myself, "When I was a kid, my Mom took me over to my cousins house just so I could catch the measles and then the mumps and the chicken pox...


     


    The thinking back in those good old days was to expose your kids to the actual virus when they are very young and their immune systems are functioning optimally, this will boost their immunity for the disease naturally.


     


    It worked for my generation, we grew up healthy until we reached our thirties and started suffering from all the partying and abuse in our teens and twenties, LOL!


     


    As for my 7 kids, the 4 that were vaccinated grew up healthy and even have kids of their own now...


     


    The other 3 grew up healthy, 2 of them are healthy adults and 1 is still a minor, they are yet to give me Grandchildren!


     


    That being said, if I have more kids (I want some and am still able) I will not get them vaccinated!


     


    Instead I will make them Bulletproof, and when they grow up, they can choose to eat kryptonite foods if they want! 


     


    Hope this helps, have a blessed day!


  • “Anyone who isn't embarrassed of who they were last year probably isn't learning enough.”


     


    I live by this philosophy.  Always be learning.  The wisdom that comes with age and study is priceless.


     


    I've had strings of epiphanies as I dug deeper into the many subjects that held my interest.  Life is so complex.  It's awesome.

    Seeing through the chaotic.
Sign In or Register to comment.