Curious About Vaccinations

12346»

Comments

  • This is a long thread. I skimmed over all pages, but found mostly a debate about the fillers. The thing is, that a couple of months ago I came across a youtube presentation addressing another major point. Thirty years ago, babies were vaccinated against only a few very dangerous diseases. Now small infants receive vaccinations against a lot of viral strains, and that is a huge load for such a small body. When I came across this info, I checked it with a neonatalogist in my network, who completely agreed to this point. Those who design these vaccines as well as the health authorities who approve of them have too little knowledge of infants and children. All the ruckus about mercury etc in fillers works against getting attention to this very real problem. I will try to dig up the reference, but it. Might take some time.
  • Can't find the youtube presentation. But this artcle states the point clear enough.

    https://www.indiacurrents.com/articles/2014/11/10/hiden-dangers-over-vaccination
  • MusicmamaMusicmama
    edited March 2015

    Hackergirl, thank you for the video! I heard Wakefield interviewed many years ago, and he sounded reasonable and intelligent. The later mess of things just didn't make sense to me, didn't line up with the impression I got from the interview. It's nice to see more about it in the film (though maddening, of course... I'm only partway through and I have a feeling it's going to get worse).


     


    One thing I find so frustrating in all of this is that it seems to me that you can look at all the information and evidence and make a good case for a strong (pro)vaccine policy despite the many problems. But you can't look at all of the evidence and reasonably say "anyone questioning vaccines is anti-science and crazy, and Wakefield's a fraud" which of course is most of what's being said. It's as if any questioning = antivaxxer, which of course= crazy, so dialogue is impossible.


  • Belittling is what people who are out of other actual debate options tend to do.  N=1 is scientific. 


    Seeing through the chaotic.
  • This is a video presentation from Dr Shiv Chopra a veterinarian and PhD Microbiologist who before becoming Health Canada's first scientific advisor on vaccine safety worked for a drug company as a vaccine developer.  He personally reviewed the safety submissions from Merck for measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. He did not believe the case had been made for mass childhood immunization for these diseases but his advice was ignored by politicians in the face of massive lobbying from Merck and it's US federal government allies in the 1960s. He publicly states that he doesn't believe that any vaccine is safe and effective. He's also the reason that bovine growth hormone was never approved for use in Canada as he and some of his fellow scientists exposed Monsanto's attempt to bribe them into approving it. 


     



  • Deer also has form in terms of making allegations that trials have been run unethically.  New Scientist magazine ran this story in April 1989 about his threats to wreck a major study into the HIV drug AZT via an 'expose' in the Sunday Times if the hospital running the study didn't give him the information he wanted.  


     


    https://books.google.ca/books?id=CLYbUQlpb-kC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=brian+deer+journalist&source=bl&ots=ob5SwEW5-u&sig=oI2J-S_qNC4HFqIG4qXxnhkaMeo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mVkGVbXaI9PSoATe_oGgBw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=brian%20deer%20journalist&f=false 


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    So I'm intellectually dishonest now am I spare films? 




     


    I believe I was calling the Nat News article "dishonest click-bait", not you hackergirl. That article was click-bait because it did not even do the initial research into the sources and it deliberately misrepresented both the prior article and the journal publication itself. The conclusion drawn in the Nat News article was the exact opposite of the conclusion reached in the very paper it was referencing!


     


     


     




    One thing I find so frustrating in all of this is that it seems to me that you can look at all the information and evidence and make a good case for a strong (pro)vaccine policy despite the many problems. But you can't look at all of the evidence and reasonably say "anyone questioning vaccines is anti-science and crazy, and Wakefield's a fraud" which of course is most of what's being said. It's as if any questioning = antivaxxer, which of course= crazy, so dialogue is impossible.




     


    I take heart in the idea that you agree with my stance then, since it has been unchanged throughout and always hinged upon: "Educate yourself, rely on good data instead of rhetoric, understand the science, understand the logistics, understand the business model, be responsible for your own health."


     


    It is very important to understand that "questioning vaccines" does not make you anti-science. The belief that all of science is lying to you about vaccines, and the subsequent condemnation of all vaccinations in perpetuo, is what is anti-science.


     


     


    If, however, the blanketing statement that most of what is being said is that "anyone questioning vaccines is anti-science and crazy" is being applied to my own posts, then I would appreciate citation. The thought of honest forum posters arguing against straw men rather than what I have actually posted would be unsettling to me, to say the least.


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


     


    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. 


     




     


    Yes, this does correlate with the onset of modern medicine and our ever-increasing ability to keep patients alive despite infection. The major concern comes in with how incredibly contagious measles is, and how easy it is to carry it symptom-free back to the home and expose the too-young-to-be-vaccinated or the immune-compromised.


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


    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. 




     


    An excerpt from the British Medical journal (link to the full article):


     



     


     


    The paper in The Lancet was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed "new syndrome" of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an "apparent precipitating event." But in fact:

    Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism;

    Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were "previously normal", five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns;

    Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination;

    In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school "research review" to "non-specific colitis";

    The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link;

    Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

     


    A quote from the BJM editors who are not Brian Deer, since you have taken issue with the man:



     


    Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare ... Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children's cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC's 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study's admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards. http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full



     


    Here's a link to the actual Wakefield paper if anyone would like to read it rather than believe quotations (which I highly recommend!):


    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract


     


     


     


    If we are going to be commenting on who was paid by what organization, then I must bring up the obvious market surrounding such a documentary, the many camera crews, key grips, script writers, directors, editors and others who were paid via producing the documentary, the millions made by those supporting and promoting Wakefield, ect.


     


    These allegations of individuals receiving financial compensation prove nothing and are entirely distractionary. Focus should be given to the science, and the fact is the quality of the study was lacking, and data was proven to have been changed and/or fabricated.




  • If, however, the blanketing statement that most of what is being said is that "anyone questioning vaccines is anti-science and crazy" is being applied to my own posts, then I would appreciate citation. The thought of honest forum posters arguing against straw men rather than what I have actually posted would be unsettling to me, to say the least.




     


    I wasn't referring to your posts; just to the general public discourse re: vaccinations.

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    I wasn't referring to your posts; just to the general public discourse re: vaccinations.




     


    I agree, which is why I view providing the information in response to individual issues, in detail, to be so important. Then we can get to the very real shortcomings and make improvements to the technology on multiple fronts, rather than sitting around waiting for someone to administer them to us like sheep. Proactive healthcare is a very attainable goal I think.

  • @Skeletor said:
    I don't know where you guys are getting your information from, but everything I've ever read on this issue seems to point to the vaccine business being extremely unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies. If anyone's got some good data on that that I've overlooked, please share. But as I understand it, most vaccines, with perhaps a few exceptions, don't rake in much dough.

    @Skeletor said:
    I don't know where you guys are getting your information from, but everything I've ever read on this issue seems to point to the vaccine business being extremely unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies. If anyone's got some good data on that that I've overlooked, please share. But as I understand it, most vaccines, with perhaps a few exceptions, don't rake in much dough.

    @Skeletor said:
    I don't know where you guys are getting your information from, but everything I've ever read on this issue seems to point to the vaccine business being extremely unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies. If anyone's got some good data on that that I've overlooked, please share. But as I understand it, most vaccines, with perhaps a few exceptions, don't rake in much dough.

    @Skeletor said:
    I don't know where you guys are getting your information from, but everything I've ever read on this issue seems to point to the vaccine business being extremely unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies. If anyone's got some good data on that that I've overlooked, please share. But as I understand it, most vaccines, with perhaps a few exceptions, don't rake in much dough.

    @John Brisson said:
    People will concern themselves with their vitamin suffixes but don't bother looking at the difference between mercury ethyl and methyl, how convenient.

     

    That is true, ethyl mercury might be quickly excreted from the body with little harm. But it hasn't been studied in humans extensively to know for sure yet.

    @John Brisson said:
    People will concern themselves with their vitamin suffixes but don't bother looking at the difference between mercury ethyl and methyl, how convenient.

     

    That is true, ethyl mercury might be quickly excreted from the body with little harm. But it hasn't been studied in humans extensively to know for sure yet.

  • Ethyl mercury is in no way excreted from the body! Read into it, the study states it was excreted because it was not found in sweat, poop or pee. That because it crossed the blood brain barrier and was being stored in fat cells. Vaccines have a huge profit margins, roughly 30 BILLION a year. I guess if you ask skeletor that's not much money tho?

  • I recommend that you read Biological Monitoring of Toxic Metals by Thomas W. Clarkson, ‎Lars Friberg, ‎and Gunnar F. Nordberg (Springer, 2012). They do a great job of showing how ethylmercury is reduced, bound, transported, and excreted from the human body. They reference hundreds of peer-reviewed studies to support their writings. It is probably the best source out there if you are interested in the biochemistry of toxic metal exposure.

12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.