Debunked: The Vaccine Hoax is Over / JCVI

[lotek]

I keep seeing this link popping up again and thought for sure it was dead last year. i looked for a collected page on the subject and didnt find one so let us form it.

Id like to get at not just the article and the supposition points therein, but the FOIA - UK reference that is used rather often on the web. Id also like to cover the many other 'references' linked, including the widespread use of fallacy and examples of cognitive bias in these examples and references.

http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/09/29/the-vaccine-hoax-is-over-by-andrew-baker/
by Andrew Baker


1.)

Freedom of Information Act in the UK filed by a doctor there has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have
1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies

Content from external source

2.)

vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent)

Content from external source

3.)

Simultaneous to this on-going massive CDC cover up involving its primary “health” not recommendation but MANDATE for American children, the CDC is in deep trouble over its decades of covering up the damaging effects of fluoride and affecting the lives of all Americans, especially children and the immune compromised. Lawsuits are being prepared. Children are ingesting 3-4 times more fluoride by body weight as adults and “[t]he sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions.”

Content from external source

4.)

The CDC’s credibility in declaring such a pandemic emergency is non-existent, again based on Freedom of Information Act. For in 2009, after the CDC had declared the H1N1 “pandemic,” the CDC refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act filed by CBS News and the CDC also attempted to block their investigation. What the CDC was hiding was its part in one of the largest medical scandals in history, putting out wildly exaggerated data on what it claimed were H1N1 cases, and by doing so, created the false impression of a “pandemic” in the US.

Content from external source

5.)

The CDC was also covering up e financial scandal to rival the bailout since the vaccines for the false pandemic cost the US billions. And worse, the CDC put pregnant women first in line for an untested vaccine with a sterilizing agent, polysorbate 80, in it. Thanks to the CDC, “the number of vaccine-related “fetal demise” reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700% increase].

Content from external source

6.)

The exposure of the vaccine hoax is running neck and neck with the much older hoax of a deadly 1918-19 flu. It was aspirin that killed people in 1918-19, not a pandemic flu. It was the greatest industrial catastrophe in human history with 20-50 million people dying but it was blamed on a flu. The beginning of the drug industry began with that success (and Monsanto was part of it). The flu myth was used by George Bush to threaten the world with “another pandemic flu that could kill millions” – a terror tactic to get pandemic laws on the books in every state and worldwide. Then the CDC used hoax of the pandemic hoax to create terror over H1N1 and to push deadly vaccines on the public, killing thousands of unborn children and others. (CDC will not release the data

Content from external source

--------

 

[lotek]

BSEM March 2011
The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention

http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

A level headed summary:

1. Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;
2. Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;
3. On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;
4. Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;
5. Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;
6. Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;
7. Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;
8. Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage

​

Even if this paper is legit, and even if it shows what it claims to show -- the rest of it is presumably evidence for these claims, and it does have a long list of sources that at least look reasonable from a cursory glance-- it doesn't even claim what the linked article claims. Let's go back to that list:


Did they know the vaccines didn't work? The closest I can find here is that they "over-inflated" vaccine benefits. In other words, the vaccines did work, they did have benefits, they just (according to this paper) weren't as beneficial as the JVCI claimed.

Did they know they cause the diseases they were supposed to prevent? I can't find this in those claims at all, so no, and we don't either. It is possible this is one of the safety claims made, but that seems quite dubious, since I don't see this at all in the Wordpress blog post, and I'd be very surprised if the author of the "foodfreedomgroup" post actually went back and read the original paper.

Did they know these diseases are a hazard to children? The closest I can find is that they promoted "...a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk..." Note the weasel words. These aren't a hazard to children. They might be a hazard to some children.

Did they collude to lie to the public? Lie is a strong claim. The article, at best, suggests they exaggerated benefits and downplayed weaknesses, which is pretty much what every marketer does, ever.

Did they work to prevent safety studies? The article does claim they discouraged research on vaccine safety.

So if I'm feeling generous, that's one and a half out of five claims that foodfreedomgroup makes that are even in the article that all of this is based on. If anyone else wants to read those 45 pages and follow its sources, or check if it's actually published anywhere, go right ahead, but I certainly think it's safe to ignore the original article when it cites a wordpress blog instead of an actual source, and at least half the claims it's trying to use that source to support appear to be made up out of thin air.

Content from external source

 

[lotek]

Freedom of Information Act in the UK filed by a doctor there has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have
1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies

Content from external source

1.

• Before 1985, Haemophilus Influenzae type b (Hib) caused serious infections in 20,000 children each year, including meningitis (12,000 cases) and pneumonia (7,500 cases).1 In 2002, there were 34 cases of Hib disease.
• In the 1964-1965 epidemic, there were 12.5 million cases of rubella (German measles).2 Of the 20,000 infants born with congenital rubella syndrome, 11,600 were deaf, 3,580 were blind, and 1,800 were mentally retarded as a result of the infection.2 There were 9 cases of rubella in 2004 and only four cases of congenital rubella between 2001 and 2004.
• Before 1963, more than 3 million cases of measles and 500 deaths from measles were reported each year.2 More than 90% of children had measles by age 15.2 In 2002, there were 44 cases of measles
• In 1952, polio paralyzed more than 21,000 people.2 In 2002, there were no cases of polio in the United States.
• In the early 1940s, there was an average of 175,000 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) per year, resulting in the deaths of 8,000 children annually.2 In 2002, 9,771 cases were reported.
• In the 1920s, there were 100,000 to 200,000 cases of diphtheria each year and 13,000 people died from the disease.2 In 2002, there was only one case of diphtheria in the United States.

As a result of the high level of immunization in the United States these diseases have declined to near zero.

Content from external source

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize



2. This is, flat out a lie. There have been a handful of problems in production, but non human system is flawless... there is zero evidence to support the idea that vaccines spread disease, nor is it covered in the FIOA pdf...

"Experiencing a slight temperature and/or a sore arm after getting a vaccine is actually a good thing. While some people misinterpret this as “getting the flu after the flu vaccine” it simply indicates that your immune system is responding. Vaccines work by priming your immune system with a part of the disease, usually inactivated particles or a fraction of the organism, so that it can make antibodies. This means next time you come across the disease in the environment your body is ready with an arsenal of antibodies to attack it before it can make you really sick. Vaccines are not 100% safe – no medical intervention is without risk – and mistakes do happen. In the 1950s in America there was a spate of cases of polio caused by the vaccine, but this was due to a mistake in the manufacturing process and was quickly corrected. Regulations, monitoring and quality control has greatly increased since that time, meaning incidents such as this are very unlikely to be repeated. The risks associated with the disease greatly outweigh the risk from a vaccine."

Content from external source

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/vaccination-myths-busted-by-science-cheat-sheet-on-immunisation/

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

3.

"We have, on and in us, about 100 billion bacteria, which is 10 to 100 times more bacteria than there are cells that make us. That is just our normal flora. These represent about 1,000 separate species of bacteria. Humans are born bacteria-free and acquire a complex and enormous normal bacterial flora in months. In the first year of life, babies ares exposed, for the first time, to all the bacteria of their parents and siblings and some from the family pet and the environment.

The resultant antigen exposure is thousands of times greater than the exposure from the vaccine schedule. The number of bacteria in your own ecosystem, of course, pales into insignificance compared to the bacteria in the soil, at about a million species per gram of soil, plus those in the water, on pets, in the air, etc., etc. Estimates run as high as a billion different bacterial species in the world. Viruses, yeasts, molds, parasites, and mites may provide millions more. These microorganisms are kept at bay by the immune system. Each species of bacteria has multiple sites that can elicit an antibody response. It is not simply one antibody for each organism. How many develop against a microorganism depends on the complexity of the organism. It is not unusual to make dozens of antibodies against one bacterial strain. If we respond with only 3 antibodies to each bacterial species in our normal flora and 3 antibodies each to only 100,000 of the 10+ billion environmental organisms. that would be 300,000 antibodies. Making that many antibodies by age 18 would average 46 per day. The standard childhood vaccine schedule provokes a total of about 150 [6]. The leading infectious disease textbook identifies roughly 1,300 bacteria that can cause disease. This translates into more than 13,000 potential antigens, nearly 100 times as many as the recommended vaccine schedule.


Even though the number of shots has risen in recent years, the actual load on the immune system has gone down. That's because today's vaccines are "smarter" and better engineered than the shots from a few decades ago. For example, before 1991, the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine had 3,000 different antigens. Today's whooping cough shot has no more than five particles—just as effective, but much better designed to be easy on your immune system [7].


In May 2010, the journal Pediatrics published a study that compared more than 40 variables related to mental and neurological function among a large group of children to see whether delaying vaccination provided any benefit. After finding that no statistically significant differences favored the less-vaccinated children, the researchers concluded: "Timely vaccination during infancy has no adverse effect on neuropsychological outcomes 7 to 10 years later. These data may reassure parents who are concerned that children receive too many vaccines too soon." [8]"

Content from external source

http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/too_many.html

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...eaken-childrens-immune-syste-myth-vs-science/


4. Not really. this is a supposition of the author based on data not shown in the pdf

5. Maybe sorta sometimes, and only to some degree. business problems, not some evil plan. There is a need for some modifications to some review processes, but not for the reasons shared within the antivac movement. This applies to every area of business and internet fear mongering and hoax perpetuation wont help..


----bbiab
--------

 

[David Fraser]

So ironic when you think there is a measles epidemic in parts of England and Wales at the moment

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22492820

 

[Cairenn]

That is to be expected when folks are not getting children vaccinated.

 

[lotek]

2.)The claim:

vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent)

Content from external source

------------------------------------------------
Heavy Metals: Hg/mercury/thermasol has nothing to do with autism. ZERO. If you actually still believe this and want to talk about it, i guess im open to rehashing this scam. It isnt even used very much these days anyway, yet autism and such are still "on the rise", whatever that actually means. Now, i feel i must point out that Al isnt a heavy metal... but i guess that is beside the point. This item is again one of the many that stem from a lack of understanding of biology. even if there WERE heavy metals, which there are not, the dose would be so low it wouldnt matter. ill let someone else handle this one as it has been covered by everyone to the earth's end and is dead to me.

Finally, now that thimerosal has been removed from nearly all childhood vaccines, the antivaccinationists needed to find another bogeyman in vaccines to demonize, and, given their fear of heavy metals and belief that chelation therapy to remove them can cure autism, the most obvious candidate was aluminum, which has been used as an adjuvant in many vaccines for over 80 years to increase the ability of antigens to provoke the desired immune response. It has become other of the top two chemicals that antivaccinationists like to cite to demonize vaccines. True, aluminum is not nearly as scary-sounding as mercury, but with mercury falling by the wayside, antivaccinationists are certainly trying very hard to make it so, which brings us back to Mr. Heckenlively’s post:

Aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate are all used as adjuvants to stimulate the immune system. Aluminum products found in commercial antiperspirants have been linked with breast cancer. A recent article published in the Journal of Inorganic Chemistry based on research from Keele University in England was trying to explain the “known, but unaccounted for, higher incidence of tumors in the upper outer quadrant of the breast.” They found that aluminum content was higher in the outer regions where there would be the highest density of antiperspirant. In discussing aluminum’s potential danger the report stated, “Aluminum is a metalloestrogen, it is genotoxic, is bound by DNA and has been shown to be carcinogenic. It is also a pro-oxidant and this unusual property might provide a mechanistic basis for any putative carcinogenicity. The confirmed presence of aluminum in breast tissue biopsies highlights its potential as a possible factor in the etiology of breast cancer.”
​

I can’t help but ask here: Applying an aluminum-based compound to one’s skin over the course of many, many years is related to some injections of aluminum-based adjuvants in vaccines exactly…how? Of course, the above claim is a total nonsequitur, but what about the frequent confident claims on antivaccination websites that aluminum causes Alzheimer’s disease and that by implication vaccines cause Alzheimer’s? This is a claim by well-known antivaccinationist Hugh Fudenberg, who is often quoted thusly:

According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD (http://members.aol.com/nitrf), the world’s leading immunogeneticist and 13th most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals), if an individual has had five consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (the years studied) his/her chances of getting Alzheimer’s Disease is ten times higher than if they had one, two or no shots. I asked Dr. Fudenberg why this was so and he said it was due to the mercury and aluminum that is in every flu shot (and most childhood shots). The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. Is that why Alzheimer’s is expected to quadruple? Notes: Recorded from Dr. Fudenberg’s speech at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference, Arlington, VA September, 1997. Quoted with permission. Alzheimer’s to quadruple statement is from John’s Hopkins Newsletter Nov 1998.
​

Not surprisingly, this claim is not supported by science. There’s no good evidence that the flu vaccine is associated with an increased incidence of Alzheimer’s. Indeed, on his personal blog, my co-blogger Steve Novella has nicely summarized the evidence regarding whether or not aluminum is involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease, concluding:

The evidence of aluminum and AD is mixed, without a clear direction. At present the best answer we have is that aluminum probably does not cause AD but appears to be playing some role, perhaps influencing severity. But even after 42 years, there remains a question mark next to these conclusions. We can rule out that aluminum is the single cause of AD, but whether or not it is an independent risk factor is a qualified “probably not.”
​

And, most importantly, Steve said this about how the science looking at whether aluminum causes Alzheimer’s disease or not is abused:

The mainstream scientific and patient or disease-oriented groups accurately reflect the above interpretation of the research. But the complexity of the results make it very easy to exploit for the purpose of fear-mongering. The notorious crank website, Rense.com, for example, cherry picks the evidence that suggests there is a correlation and piles it up to present a very distorted view of the issue. There will likely persist rumors, scare e-mails, and conspiracy websites promoting the idea that aluminum causes AD regardless of how the research progresses.
​

Now the antivaccinationists are climbing aboard the aluminum scare train as well because the scientific evidence is becoming so clear that their previous favorite bogeyman vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, is not associated with autism that even the die-hards are having a hard time arguing that it is anymore, particularly now that thimerosal is no longer present above trace amounts in most childhood vaccines. Consequently, they have no choice but to branch out to other scary-sounding ingredients in vaccines and invoking vague (and, conveniently enough, almost impossible to demonstrate) “environmental toxins” or risk becoming irrelevant.

Content from external source

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/


Live/Active Viruses:

The vaccine is made from an inactivated virus that can't transmit infection. So people who get sick after receiving a flu vaccination were going to get sick anyway. It takes a week or two to get protection from the vaccine. But people assume that because they got sick after getting the vaccine, the shot caused their illness.

Content from external source

http://www.health.harvard.edu/flu-resource-center/10-flu-myths.htm

This is the flu myth most likely to drive experts bonkers. “There is simply no way that the flu vaccine can give you the flu,” says Hay. “It’s impossible.”
Why? For one, injected flu vaccines only contain dead virus, and a dead virus is, well, dead: it can’t infect you. There is one type of live virus flu vaccine, the nasal vaccine, FluMist. But in this case, the virus is specially engineered to remove the parts of the virus that make people sick.
Despite the scientific impossibility of getting the flu from the flu vaccines, this widespread flu myth won’t die. Experts suspect two reasons for its persistence. One, people mistake the side effects of the vaccine for flu. While side effects to the vaccine these days tend to be a sore arm, in the past, side effects often felt like mild symptoms of the flu. Two, flu season coincides with a time of year when bugs causing colds and other respiratory illnesses are in the air. Many people get the vaccine and then, within a few days, get sick with an unrelated cold virus. However, they blame the innocent flu vaccine, rather than their co-worker with a runny nose and cough.

Content from external source

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features/top-13-flu-myths


Mycoplasma: I dunno what to say here really. i dont understand the claim? Is this simple a place to rope in the conspiracy theory loyal people who have convinced themselves they have 'cronic' lymes? Sure, mycoplasma bacteria are eeeevery were, no they are not making you sick from vaccines, i cant really find enough AVM stuff about this that isnt just totally off the wall. this is a complex matter but i feel it enough to point out that there are billions of them in you already, whats a few more? if youd like to talk more on this im open for it.

Poop!: LOL the ONLY, and i mean ONLY place this information even comes up is on the fear mongering 'Lists" and right wing or AVM pages/ytube vids... i honesty cant even find out where they(AVM) got the idea from. The best i can guess, is that someone didnt understand how biology/laboratory chemistry works, and assumed that since polio and rota were cultured from poop, the vaccines had to have poop in them. I have NO idea what to say here other than it is just simple made up and wrong. even if it wasnt completly a hoax, and it is, so what. sterile shit is clean, every surface everywhere is covered in non sterile shit, actual poop. so be happy? lol. Here is the only discussion i could find on the subject, a thread on what is typically a AVM website where even they think it is ridiculous.

Seed stocks of polio virus and maybe rotavirus were created by culturing human feces. Edmonston Measles seed stocks were cultured from the nasopharyngeal secretions of a boy. Hepatitis B from human sera. They are maintained in sterile cell cultures not tapped from infected humans when the need arises thus you will not see shit, spit, snot, or blood listed in any vaccine ingredients lists. What you are reading and proposing is pure propaganda.

SM

Content from external source

This isnt totally accurate (the vaccine is even move removed in reality) but its to the point and cute:

Ok...imagine it like this:

You know how if you eat sesame seeds or corn, it doesn't totally digest?
Imagine a scientist scooping out a sesame seed that was eaten, like, 2 days ago.
(the sesame seed in this analogy represents polio virus)
Said scientist plants the seed in "soil". (the "soil" for polio is chopped monkey kidney, in case you're curious.)
The seed grows, produces more seeds, the scientist re-plants the new seeds (in more, different, fresh soil).

Repeat repeat repeat.

By the time you're eating a bagel with seeds on it, even if the first seed came from poop, there's no poop on your bagel.

Content from external source

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/794729/fecal-matter-in-vaccines


DNA Fragments: Again this is one of those points thats so off the wall ill go into it if you ask me to, but i feel its enough to say, so what? Basic lack of science/biology understanding.

Formaldehyde:

Concerns about safety have focused on formaldehyde in part because high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA (the building block of genes) and cause cancerous changes in cells in the laboratory. Although formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in several current vaccines (see table below). However, formaldehyde does not appear to be a cause of cancer in man. Further, animals exposed to large quantities of formaldehyde (a single dose of 25 mg/kg or chronic exposure at doses of 80-100 mg/kg/day) do not develop malignancies. (One kilogram [kg] is equal to 2.2 pounds.)

The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed at one time may be as high as 0.2 mg (see table below). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for two reasons:

• First, formaldehyde is essential in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation (about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood). Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value at least five-fold greater than that to which an infant would be exposed in vaccines.
• Second, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600 fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been given safely to animals.
  

  Vaccine	Trade Name	Quantity (per dose)
  Td (adult)/ DT	none	≤0.02 mg - 0.1 mg
  DTaP	Daptacel Infanrix Tripedia	≤0.1 mg
  DTaP-Hep B IPV	Pediarix	≤0.1 mg
  hepatitis A	Havrix	≤0.05mg (pediatric) ≤0.1 mg (adult)
  Vaqta	0.004 mg (pediatric) 0.008 mg (adult)
  hepatitis A - hepatitis B	Twinrix	≤0.1 mg
  Hib-hepatitis B	Comvax	< 0.0004 mg
  polio	IPOL	≤0.02 mg
  Japanese encephalitis vaccine	JE-Vax	< 0.2 mg
  Tdap	ADACEL	< 0.005 mg
  Boostrix	< 0.1 mg
  Influenza	Fluarix	≤0.005 mg
  FluLaval	< 0.025 mg

Content from external source

• [/ex]http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine...-safety/vaccine-ingredients/formaldehyde.html
  
  This again, comes from a simple misunderstanding of biology. You, me, everyone, has not only formaldehyde in their blood, but several far more tocix aldehydes as well, all naturally. your liver is great at regulating the compound and it only becomes an issue in an industrial or work setting where safetey rules are not followed and exposure is huge. I have made aprox. 900g of formaldehyde in the last three years, stored it as formalin, and used about half of it. it sure tweaks your nose awful, and i take safety measures when handleing it, but dont consider it as dangerous as say gasoline with a high diethyl ether content.
  
  Again, your body makes it, all on it's own, the amount of formaldehyde in a vacine given to a baby or child is like taking a leak in a river, ergo there is no real problem here, only fear mongering.

http://www.vaccinetimes.com/formaldehyde-fears-without-merit/ <--Good info
http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2012/04/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients.html <--Good info


Antibiotics, sterilizing agents, Polysorbate 80:

Neomycin is used as an anti-bacterial. It is also nephrotoxic and can cause kidney damage.

Content from external source

Polymyxin B is used as an anti-bacterial. It binds to the cell membrane and alters its structure, making it more permeable. The resulting water uptake leads to cell death. Side effects include neurotoxicity and acute renal tubular necrosis.
​

Streptomycin is used as an anti-bacterial. Streptomycin stops bacterial growth by damaging cell membranes and inhibiting protein synthesis. Specifically, it binds to the 16S rRNA of the bacterial ribosome, interfering with the binding of formyl-methionyl-tRNA to the 30S subunit. This prevents initiation of protein synthesis. Humans have structurally different ribosomes from bacteria, thereby allowing the selectivity of this antibiotic for bacteria. Streptomycin cannot be given orally, but must be administered by regular intramuscular injection. An adverse effect of this medicine is oto-toxicity. It can result in permanent hearing loss.​

Content from external source

/fear mongering

​

All of this is true but highly deceptive. Why? The recommended dosage of streptomycin for the treatment of various infections is 20-40 mg/kg per day, for a maximum of 1 g per day! Why is this relevant? Because every vaccine given to a child during his entire life probably doesn’t even come anywhere near 1 mg, that’s why. Antibiotics like streptomycin and neomycin are used in cell culture medium at low concentrations to suppress the growth of bacteria. The reason that these antibiotics are listed is because they’re used in culturing the cells necessary to grow the viruses used in making vaccines. By the time the vaccine is made, these antibiotics are only present in trace amounts, nowhere near enough to cause renal toxicity or ototoxicity, which only occurs with use at or above the range of the doses listed above. I suspect that Mr. Heckenlively knows this too but only mentions it because he knows it will scare parents.

Content from external source

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/

Polysorbate 80, TWEEN-80:

Consumption and potential effects In Europe and America people eat about 100 mg of polysorbate 80 in foods per day.[7]​ Influenza vaccines contain 25 μg of polysorbate 80 per dose.[6]​
In general, polysorbate 80 is safe and well tolerated, although a small number of people may be sensitive to this substance,[8]​ and it may be harmful to people with Crohn's disease.[9]​ Polysorbate 80 is not carcinogenic.[10]​

Rats fed with diets containing up to 5% polysorbate 80 by volume for 12 weeks showed no toxic effects.

Content from external source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysorbate_80

The food additive polysorbate 80 (polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate), which is a mixture of polyoxyethylene ethers of mixed partial oleic acid esters of sorbitol anhydrides and related compounds, may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:
(a) The food additive is manufactured by reacting oleic acid (usually containing associated fatty acids) with sorbitol to yield a product with a maximum acid number of 7.5 and a maximum water content of 0.5 percent, which is then reacted with ethylene oxide.
.

Content from external source

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=172.840

Note: you eat both oleic acid and sorbitol as well, all the time on their own. I have 475g of Tween80 on a shelf, paid like 6 bucks. its not some scary thing. ive used it for soap/oil/smell related projects.

The next section is aimed at a certain group of people i know will be reading this whom i plan to direct to the page later. Please disregard if it seems off topic to you, it will be familiar to them =]

Fun fact, it has been used extensively within the clandestine drug industry to make poorly available, non polar, or lipid soluble recreational drugs enter the blood stream and cross the BBB quicker and in greater molecular number prior to liver processing and excretion. Its been used, along with cyclodextrins, to make DOx, 25x-NBOME, LSx, tryptamines, and various other classes of drugs work with a smaller technical dose or to protect them from the environment for distribution. So Chances are you have willingly consumed this polysorbate many times and enjoyed it damn well.... that time so little worked so well... sometimes its shit like this...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...dZTJqKK1mZpfjk9Dhf2zEnQ&bvm=bv.46340616,d.eWU

 

[lotek]

3.) The claim:

Simultaneous to this on-going massive CDC cover up involving its primary “health” not recommendation but MANDATE for American children, the CDC is in deep trouble over its decades of covering up the damaging effects of fluoride and affecting the lives of all Americans, especially children and the immune compromised. Lawsuits are being prepared. Children are ingesting 3-4 times more fluoride by body weight as adults and “[t]he sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions.”

Content from external source

As this point is neither related to the rest, nor has any supporting evidence, i will not be covering it. i may edit this post at a later time, or if asked to cover it. i think it was added to lend a link between the UK government having "lied" and the US government having "lied", or something to that effect.

 

[lotek]

4&5.)The Claims:
4.)

The CDC’s credibility in declaring such a pandemic emergency is non-existent, again based on Freedom of Information Act. For in 2009, after the CDC had declared the H1N1 “pandemic,” the CDC refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act filed by CBS News and the CDC also attempted to block their investigation. What the CDC was hiding was its part in one of the largest medical scandals in history, putting out wildly exaggerated data on what it claimed were H1N1 cases, and by doing so, created the false impression of a “pandemic” in the US.

Content from external source

5.)

The CDC was also covering up e financial scandal to rival the bailout since the vaccines for the false pandemic cost the US billions. And worse, the CDC put pregnant women first in line for an untested vaccine with a sterilizing agent, polysorbate 80, in it. Thanks to the CDC, “the number of vaccine-related “fetal demise” reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700% increase].

Content from external source

Please first read this page, it is an annotated brief with the CDC where they cover their past over zealous statements to the degree they feel they happened. It also covers the uninformed type of reporter encountered in some of the end questions. Please read this with an objective mind. the man from the CDC is very honest and you need some understanding of what he is talking about before hand: http://www.psandman.com/col/presser.htm

She gives even more striking examples of the numbers the investigative report revealed. For instance:

• In Florida, 83 percent of specimens that were presumed to be swine flu were negative for all flu when tested!
• In California, 86 percent of suspected H1N1 specimens were not swine flu or any flu; only 2 percent were confirmed swine flu.
• In Alaska, 93 percent of suspected swine flu specimens were negative for all flu types; only 1 percent was H1N1 flu.

Content from external source

Note please that These three 'striking examples" are a farce. two of them are of the least effected states every year. all three geographically far from its point of origin as well. "Predictable" would have been a better word choice than "striking'

Was it overstated..? This gets said about far more than youd think. bird flu, canine flu, every special little one. if a new strain of pathogen doesnt turn out to be highly virulent, some people act disappointed, like it was a hoax or had one pulled over on them. What i can really say to you about whether it was over stated or not comes down to degrees of understanding. if you atleast partially understand biological sciences, and international health regulations, the change in definition makes logical sense and is benign. However from the outside it can be seen as signs of deception i guess. The idea pushed by alex jone's group, that the who and cdc did it for profit all enter a quote circle from which no sources can be found. this typically does not bode well.

This has sort of happened before. im not so sure about the overstock, that seems a new issue, ill assume from people failing to communicate effectively.

Please read the following:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777968/
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_20090611/en/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2N2

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), swine flu is present in 212 countries and, to mid-February, has caused nearly 16,000 deaths worldwide. This is substantially lower than the death toll for seasonal influenza, which the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) puts at around 30,000 a year in the United States, and a hundredfold lower than some initial estimates suggesting that one million deaths might be expected across the population of developed nations. The lack of virulence of H1N1 has left many countries with a stockpile of unused H1N1 vaccine. This is now prompting accusations that the WHO was guilty of scaremongering, with the complicity of drug companies. In reality, there's no reason to think that the WHO or drug companies should or could have acted differently.

Content from external source

Germany cancelled 30% of its order for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)'s Pandemrix; the French health minister, Roselyne Bachelot, has cancelled 50 million doses; and the Belgian government has cancelled around a third of its 12.6 million–dose order. The UK has not bought up an option it had on vaccine from Baxter, and it is currently sitting on a vaccine stockpile of around 20 million doses with the prospect of buying another 30 million from GSK under a contract that is not reversible. The US government, too, has a huge vaccine stockpile because only 61 million US citizens have been vaccinated.

Content from external source

this has created a finger-pointing environment in which governments are now being called to task for overreacting to the threat from swine flu. On December 18, a Socialist representative in the German Bundestag, Wolfgang Wodarg, and 13 other European national parliamentarians signed a motion claiming that “pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official [public health] agencies” leading them to “squander tight health care resources [on] inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”

Content from external source

These events raise several issues. It is disturbing that a rogue politician with a good sense of the zeitgeist can create such mischief for the WHO and drug industry, despite virtually no evidence of wrongdoing. Wolfgang Wodarg was the prime mover behind the fake pandemic outcry. He is a physician and a self-proclaimed expert in lung disease, who left medical practice in 1994. Back in August 2009, early in the swine flu outbreak, he was already talking up the possible side-effects of the vaccine. Wodarg has a history of dubious positioning with respect to biotech.

Content from external source

it is difficult to conclude, even now, that governments that bought into preventative strategies for H1N1 made the wrong decision. Although the nature of the threat may have been overstated, the WHO, CDC and other authorities had little scientific evidence at the beginning of the H1N1 pandemic to discount the most dire predictions of fatalities.

Content from external source

And worse, the CDC put pregnant women first in line for an untested vaccine with a sterilizing agent, polysorbate 80, in it. Thanks to the CDC, “the number of vaccine-related “fetal demise” reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700% increase].

Content from external source

this links to natural news..

If there is a place on the internet worse than natural news, it might be info wars, or the populist, i can never decide. However having once been a hippy i take natural news a bit more personal, so i am not going to give their points here much effort unless it is asked for. Cistern is a good word.

Sources go like this back in time: food freedom>natural news>progressive convergence>guerilla health report>the populist(!!!!!)>NCOW-pdf
By now it sounds real official, but its just a game of telephone...

We already covered polysorbate 80, the shit is awesome, all over the place, non toxic, and the vaccine amount is tiiiiiny.


Thats it for tonight,

 

[Leifer]

I was booted off (suspended) the Icke Forum (about this very topic) for replying to a moderator's claim......where he listed all the horrible effects of "crap" that are in vaccines......

My post
(....at the end of that post...I gave a little sample of over-stating the bad effects of something....something very common.)

I also have been looking for the full transcripts that Dr Lucija Tomljenovic used in her argument. There are many links in her claims, but they all came up as "not found". The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?
I wanted to see for myself if she was just cherry-picking, or if there really were cover-ups.

Regarding the VAERS database.....it's really not that useful, because the vast majority of "reports" are never verified....at least by VAERS. They say so.

(bold text done by me)

Data Limitations:

The data are unverified reports of health events, both minor and serious, that occur after vaccination. While some events reported to VAERS are truly caused by vaccines, others may be related to an underlying disease or condition, to drugs being taken concurrently, or may occur by chance shortly after a vaccine was administered.
VAERS data are from a passive surveillance system. Such data are subject to limitations of under-reporting, reporting bias, and lack of incidence rates in unvaccinated comparison groups.
Reports show the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccine antigens (making it difficult to know to which of the vaccines, if any, the event might be attributed).
VAERS occasionally receives case reports from US manufacturers that were reported to their foreign subsidiaries. Under FDA regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and unexpected (in other words, it does not appear in the product labeling), they are required to submit it to VAERS. These case reports are of variable data quality and completeness, due to the many differences in country reporting practices.
In some media reports and on some web sites on the Internet, VAERS reports are presented as verified cases of vaccine deaths and injuries. Statements such as these misrepresent the nature of the VAERS surveillance system.
Establishing causal relationships between vaccines and adverse events requires additional scientific investigation. The CDC and FDA take into account the complex factors mentioned above, and others, when monitoring vaccine safety and analyzing VAERS reports.
Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the health concern raised. However, in general, coding terms in VAERS do not change based on the information received during the follow-up process. VAERS data on WONDER should be used with caution as numbers and conditions DO NOT reflect data collected during follow-up. Note that information included in the VAERS data does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event. Review cautions in the interpretation of this data.

Content from external source

I tried it.
I just filled out the "Report Adverse Event Online" form, with made-up information, symptoms, and dates. Some info was required, much info was not. I got as far as "step 5 of 5", where I would click a button to send the report. I did not send the report though....I was just testing it.

 

[Leifer]

Are the doctors, regulators, health policy makers....presenting the public with the best possible vaccine picture ? Why wouldn't they, if it is in the public's best health interest (and their own health) ??

But are they possibly inching and nudging the few known hazards to sound less harmful ?.....like "re-wording" warning labels and to produce a slightly rosier picture than previously described ? This seems to be only what these meeting transcripts imply, as far as I can tell.....(from what limited snippets Dr Tomljenovic has put forth.)

If they are indeed doing that....why ?
It could be because they are battling the war of a changing public opinion regarding vaccine safety issues....they are battling the frightening accusations and fear mongering spread by many who have decided, for one reason or another, that vaccines are not very effective.....all the way to outright "dangerous" and even part of some evil plan.
These ideas are copied , disseminated, and mutate across the internet by armchair scientists and pajama pundits just like a virus that ironically, is in need of a vaccine itself.

More ironies abound....like when fear-filled/angry people claim the whole vaccine "scam" is just big-pharma's way of making money.....yet their hero's and the much referenced purveyors of vaccine scares are themselves making $$ based on their deceptive stance.
It's curious why some people refuse to compare the irony of this. Maybe "size does matter".....and that compared to big-pharma, Dr Mercola is still viewed as "the little guy".
With the recent trends and practice of Eastern medicine on the rise in western culture, "Big Karma" is beginning to catch up with "Big Pharma" (long way to go, though)
Karmacuticals, with it's homeopathic remedies, body cleanses, herbal supplements, is a profit industry, with much of it's advertizing being free, via the blogosphere and social media sites.

The other irony (more of a feedback loop that's edging on exponential), is that the more that vaccine fears are spread by rumor across the net, the more the "doctors, regulators, health policy makers" will have no choice but paint rosier pictures or embark on more "vaccine campaigns"....hence the more anti-vaxers will run their own "campaigns", hence the more....hence the more.....hence the more..........and so on.

 

[Cairenn]

I see a big problem with the whole concept of saying that 'big Pharma' promotes vaccines to 'make money'. Vaccines are poor money makers, since once someone is vaccinated they will not need that drug for years. Money makers are the drugs that folks need to take daily or for things like 'penile erection dysfunction' or 'restless leg syndrom', not vaccines.

 

[lotek]

I also have been looking for the full transcripts that Dr Lucija Tomljenovic used in her argument. There are many links in her claims, but they all came up as "not found"]
---
Regarding the VAERS database.....it's really not that useful, because the vast majority of "reports" are never verified....at least by VAERS. They say so.
-----
I just filled out the "Report Adverse Event Online" form, with made-up information, symptoms, and dates. Some info was required, much info was not. I got as far as "step 5 of 5", where I would click a button to send the report. I did not send the report though....I was just testing it.

This is a problem ive been having in producing posts for this thread. You cant get these "CDC scientist" statements, or the claims they all go off of. they dont exists sofar as i can tell. the NCOW thing gets spread around as proof of unrelated issues down the line from sites quoting sites who are quoting other sites who never realized that the NCOW pdf isnt even based off of scientific data....

Or it goes back to the pdf on the JCVI which is just cherry picking and a list of unrelated claims that stem out of a lack of familiarity with the sciences involved. It looks like a source of informations because it is a pdf, with an official name and page header, but its just some shit put together more sloppily than i did this thread.

Or all the claims on global monetary schemes, all that stems from a few pissed off politicians in europe. people who also cant seem to provides their sources well. people who may just be looking for money in times of austerity.. people who have a better understanding of politics and law than they do of biology and medicine.

It irks me that the AVM will put their faith in this group of politicians blindly, with ZERO checks into their credibility, while simultaneously trashing every other one and spreading mass mistrust of science/government officials simply because of the jobs they perform. It is blatant hypocrisy. they do it simply because it supports their point, their personal investment.

Its rather devoid of substance, leaving only the antivac stuff to deal with, and thats all so worn out and debunked to death that only a zealot would truly believe the AVM propaganda, one suffering very bad cognitive dissidence.


This reminds me of the haarp conspiracy almost. if you supply the public with irrelevant pictures/words that are sufficiently over their head, it will sound legit regardless of it's foundation or validity.

 

[Leifer]

Those people who genuinely buy into the Mercola, Blaylock (and for that matter, Alex Jones) stories......most often they claim pride that they are "thinking outside the box", when in reality they have (as Mick said somewhere)...."just chosen a different box".

 

[Pete Tar]

Any idea what this is about?

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/merck-dr-admits-cancer-other-viruses-found-in-vaccines-video/

Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines(NaturalNews) One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry — a Merck scientist — made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think it’s hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be “loaded down with tumors.” (Thus, they knew these vaccines caused cancer in humans.)

​

This isn’t some conspiracy theory — these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely reviewed across the internet (which didn’t even exist when he made this recording). He probably thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn’t get out to the press, he replied “Obviously you don’t go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community.”

Content from external source

 

[Cairenn]

Well, it's from naturalnews and I rarely find any truth in their posts.

I don't believe that vaccines were first tested in Russia.

I found the transcript of this and it doesn't have important details, like where it was made and such.

The comment about leukemia was about the very early yellow fever vaccines. Not a common modern one>

Hilleman was one of the early vaccine pioneers to warn about the possibility that simian viruses might contaminate vaccines.[7] The best-known of these viruses became SV40, a viral contaminant of the polio vaccine, whose discovery led to the recall of Salk's vaccine in 1961 and its replacement with Albert Sabin's oral vaccine. The contamination actually occurred in both vaccines at very low levels, and, because they were ingested rather than injected, did not result in infections or any harm.

Content from external source

I want more info before I will believe that 'interview'

 

[Pete Tar]

Found a discussion of the video, that also has a transcript...
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1858741#i
A main objection is that the video is edited to appear the way it does.

This clip is filled with editing tricks that were used to misrepresent or (straight out fabricate) what Hilleman actually said. What Hilleman was being interviewed about in this clip was a problem with the early Sabin polio vaccine; it was contaminated by SV40. Manufacturing processes were later changed specifically to guard against such contamination.

Content from external source

Edit.. a detail from the wiki biography...

Hilleman was one of the early vaccine pioneers to warn about the possibility that simian viruses might contaminate vaccines.[7]​ The best-known of these viruses became SV40, a viral contaminant of the polio vaccine, whose discovery led to the recall of Salk's vaccine in 1961 and its replacement with Albert Sabin's oral vaccine. The contamination actually occurred in both vaccines at very low levels, and, because they were ingested rather than injected, did not result in infections or any harm.

Content from external source

unrelated but interesting...

Hilleman was a forceful man who was at the same time modest in his claims. None of his vaccines or discoveries are named after him. He ran his laboratory like a military unit, and he was the one in command. He terminated every subordinate that did not measure up to his standards. For a time he kept a row of "shrunken heads" (actually fakes made by one of his children) in his office as trophies that represented each of his fired employees. He used profanity and tirades freely to drive his arguments home, and once, famously, refused to attend a mandatory "charm school" course intended to make Merck middle managers more civil. His men were fiercely loyal to him.[8]​

Content from external source

(sorry lotek, perhaps a spin-off thread worth a proper look?)

 

[Cairenn]

Good find. The transcript didn't seem 'right' to me. It sounded wrong. Editing could easily be the reason why.

 

[Leifer]

They were laughing because of Hilleman's dry sense of humor. He was cracking jokes, so they laughed. They were laughing at the absurdity.
Who were the interviewers ?

The whole interview was about (as expected)....ways to improve vaccines and how they eliminate problems. That goes very contrary to anti-vaxers who many think Merck etc. don't care about such things.
The same interview could be used to prove anti-vaxers are wrong.....and it does.

 

[lotek]

Any idea what this is about?

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/merck-dr-admits-cancer-other-viruses-found-in-vaccines-video/

Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman admitted presence of SV40, AIDS and cancer viruses in vaccines(NaturalNews) One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry — a Merck scientist — made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think it’s hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be “loaded down with tumors.” (Thus, they knew these vaccines caused cancer in humans.)
This isn’t some conspiracy theory — these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely reviewed across the internet (which didn’t even exist when he made this recording). He probably thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn’t get out to the press, he replied “Obviously you don’t go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community.”

Content from external source

feel free to cover it, the guy i wrote this thread for never replied to me, and im pretty sure what you are talking about is related to the mycoplasma bit i mentioned before. its an awful misrepresentation tho

 

[SPB]

....even if there WERE heavy metals, which there are not, the dose would be so low it wouldnt matter

Wrong. Hg has been found in vaccines and hypersensitivity makes it matter.
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:17374

2.)....Hg/mercury/thermasol has nothing to do with autism. ZERO.

Wrong.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15287394.2011.590097

 

[Pete Tar]

Better if you quote the pertinent bits that prove that wrong.

 

[MikeC]

Wrong. Hg has been found in vaccines and hypersensitivity makes it matter.
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:17374

which reads:

Despite the removal of the mercury (Hg)-based preservative thimerosal from vaccines listed on the Australian Immunization Program Schedule for children, concerns remain among some researchers and parents for the safety of the present schedule, in part due to a fear of residual trace levels of Hg. The purpose of this study was to independently assess childhood vaccines for the presence of Hg. Eight vaccines administered to children under the age of 5 yr were assessed for Hg content via a DMA-80 direct mercury analyzer. Seven of the 8 vaccines contained no detectable levels of Hg (less than 1 ppb); however, 1 vaccine (Infanrix hexa) tested positive for Hg at 10 ppb. The result was confirmed and validated by retesting the original sample. Follow-up testing was conducted on three additional samples of Infanrix hexa (one from the same production lot and two from a different lot). All three tested positive for Hg (average of 9.7 ppb). Although the levels of Hg detected are substantially lower than any established exposure safety limits, the results of this study reveal that inaccuracies exist in public health messages, professional communications, and official documentation regarding Hg content in at least one childhood vaccine. In the interests of public health, it is incumbent on vaccine manufacturers and responsible agencies such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Federal Department of Health and Ageing to address this issue as a matter of urgency.

Content from external source

so 1 vaccine was found with mercury at a very low level, and that is being addressed, while 7 other vaccines had no detectable mercury at all.
There is also nothing in this about your claim that "hypersensitivity makes it matter"

Wrong.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15287394.2011.590097

From there:

The results support the hypothesis that Hg sensitivity may be a heritable/genetic risk factor for ASD.

Content from external source

so no, actually - it does not say that mercury has anything to do with autism at all - it says that there may be a link between sensitivity to mercury and autism - not the same thing.
Sorry about that.

 

[MikeC]

I think this is also relevant for Vaccine deniers to consider:

After the eradication of smallpox in 1980, polio is the second disease in India that has been eliminated through immunisation.
Nearly 2.3 million volunteers vaccinate some 170 million children under five years of age in India during every round of immunisation.

Content from external source

- BBC article
It amazes me that people can still write nonsense about vaccines in this day and age based on this or that person's say so, and ignore the massive improvements in public health they have allowed all around the world!!

 

[Bill]

Wrong. Hg has been found in vaccines and hypersensitivity makes it matter.
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:17374

One vaccine out of eight was found to have traces of mercury

substantially lower than any established exposure safety limits

Content from external source

. This seems to be a quality control issue with the manufacturer. By the way what percentage of the population has the hypersensitivity you are concerned with and at what levels are they impacted?

Wrong.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15287394.2011.590097

And this study seems to be specifically designed to find a link between mercury and ASD, Fragile X and other disorders.

 

[cosmic]

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15287394.2011.590097

David Gorski deconstructs this paper, here: The mercury zombie rises again…this time, in the grandchildren of Pink disease (infantile acrodynia) sufferers

It's truly a hot mess from start to finish, exactly what one might expect from authors pushing an anti-vaccination agenda through a sympathetic journal.

 

[SPB]

David Gorski deconstructs this paper, here: The mercury zombie rises again…this time, in the grandchildren of Pink disease (infantile acrodynia) sufferers

I say the jury is still out on this because I don't believe anything Gorski says when he involves himself in the discredit of Sodium Dichloroacetate on the basis that it is not proven, when he well knows that science is constrained by economics to the point that cheap drugs will never have a chance of gaining government approval. He is a liar at best.

 

[Pete Tar]

What is he at worst then? A murdering psychopath?

 

[SPB]

By the way what percentage of the population has the hypersensitivity you are concerned with and at what levels are they impacted?

OK, I don't know the metrics but the aim of my post was to debunk the myth that vaccines are absolutely safe for everyone. That said; their overall efficacy can not be disputed, but for every crazed, ill-informed anti vaxer, there's a pro vaxer that thinks vaccination programs are and have always been infallible.

 

[Bill]

I say the jury is still out on this because I don't believe anything Gorski says when he involves himself in the discredit of Sodium Dichloroacetate on the basis that it is not proven, when he well knows that science is constrained by economics to the point that cheap drugs will never have a chance of gaining government approval. He is a liar at best.

Whatever you think about Gorski, his analysis of this paper is accurate. It is a poorly executed study designed to come to only one conclusion.

 

[Bill]

OK, I don't know the metrics but the aim of my post was to debunk the myth that vaccines are absolutely safe for everyone. That said; their overall efficacy can not be disputed, but for every crazed, ill-informed anti vaxer, there's a pro vaxer that thinks vaccination programs are and have always been infallible.

I don't know of any professional that claims vaccines are safe for everyone but for established vaccines and vaccine protocols the number of people they aren't safe for is very small.

 

[George B]

Conclusion: We take or accept the risk of death and/or bodily injury to travel in private autos all the time (and without much thought) but some of us strongly object to a death risk 330 times less likely when it comes to consenting to immunizations. Why? (see math and assumptions below)

The reasons "Why?" are IMO rather intriguing . . . a few that come to mind are:

1) The fear of getting some long term hidden consequences from the immunizations which are unknown presently but are irreversible in the future . . . long after the transient benefits of the immunizations are realized . . . i.e. . . . infertility, slow viruses, prions (spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)), autoimmune sensitization, cross-species infection, allergies, etc. . . . things that are difficult or impossible to detect before administering the vaccines . . .

2) an overall distrust of the medical establishment, governmental authority and their motives . . . our protection or their protection and benefit . . . profit driven motives emphasizing short term profit over longterm financial liabilities . . .

3) some plot to depopulate the earth by reducing fertility and/or eliminating the weakest of the herd through selective mortality of subgroups . . .

4) The effectiveness of vaccines are way over estimated once the risks of contracting a targeted disease are taken into consideration and the ability of the vaccine to protect one against that specific strain of infection . . .

----------------


Anything ingested, inhaled, absorbed or injected into the body have potential risks associated with them . . . people have hypersensitivities, allergies, and responses to even substances considered foods which are needed to sustain life . . . so when taking vaccines, medicines, ingesting foods . . . in the crudest way it is simply a numbers game . . . because to some predictable percentage of people, even if minuscule, there will be less than desirable outcomes to include even death. The question becomes when is this percentage of undesirable outcomes unacceptable and who gets to decide when that level is reached? Then the other question becomes . . . is the choice to participate or to reject participation allowable? And how much coercion is proper if the overall benefits of participation vastly outweigh the risks of rejecting participation?

Obviously, people who trust their government and medical authority have little objections to vaccinations because they feel some protection from a dreaded disease or infection is acceptable . . . unless they or someone they are aware of has had significant adverse reactions to what they know or suspect was a vaccination or maybe have a compromised immune system or a history of hyperactivity to allergens . . .

Most of us accept considerable risks every day and don't think much about it by getting in a private automobile or some form of public transportation . . . we know with considerable accuracy that a certain percentage of people will die each year because of that choice. . .

Of the 2,423,712 deaths in 2007 in the US . . . 43,945 people died from auto accidents . . . or 1.81% of all deaths in a population of over 300,000,000 . . . so we weigh the benefits of auto transportation and most decide to take the risk . . . data on death rates due to immunizations are hard to come by but for example the cited article below indicates 40 deaths out of 90,000,000 children vaccinated was experienced . . . a rate well below the risk of death by private auto exposure . . . so if we extrapolate the 40/90,000,000 death rate to X/300,000,000 we get 133 deaths assuming all 300,000,000 took the vaccines . . . or roughly 133 people could die from immunizations while 43,945 died from auto accidents . . . so auto related deaths are (43,945/133) 330 times more likely than death caused by immunizations . . . not precise but rough approximations which illustrate the general risks involved . . .
Conclusion: We take the risk of death to travel in private autos all the time without much thought but object to a risk 330 times less likely when it comes to consenting to immunizations . . .

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0119.pdf


The percentages of deaths due to:
23.2% Cancers
25.4% Heart
2.19% Suicide & Homicide
2.16% Pneumonia
1.81% Motor Vehicle Accidents"

--------------------

In the article ’40 deaths linked to child vaccines over seven years’ by Sarah-Kate Templeton (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news…), Templeton reported that when asked about the deaths the MHRA appeared to play down the deaths, saying that they should be seen in the context of the 90m doses of childhood vaccines which have been given since 2003. http://vactruth.com/2010/10/26/multiple-deaths-linked-to-childhood-vaccines/

Content from external source

 

[MikeC]

OK, I don't know the metrics but the aim of my post was to debunk the myth that vaccines are absolutely safe for everyone.

No one has ever said that AFAIK, so the myth only appears to exist as a strawman for vaccine deniers to knock down.

 

[deirdre]

the aim of my post was to debunk the myth that vaccines are absolutely safe for everyone.

if such a myth exists some evidence of that would be great.

 

[cosmic]

I say the jury is still out on this because I don't believe anything Gorski says when he involves himself in the discredit of Sodium Dichloroacetate on the basis that it is not proven, when he well knows that science is constrained by economics to the point that cheap drugs will never have a chance of gaining government approval. He is a liar at best.

If you look at what Gorski actually states about DCA, it's clear that he's not attempting to discredit it. He merely debunks egregious claims about DCA being touted a magical cure-all. Do read this article in full, and pay special attention to his conclusion:

One has to remember that cancer is not just one disease. Not only that, but even a single type cancer is often not just one disease. As I have written extensively about before, cancer is incredibly complex. Because of that complexity, it’s incredibly unlikely that any one drug will be any sort of “magic bullet” to cure cancer. Worse, simply using a drug like DCA outside the auspices of well-designed clinical trials will virtually guarantee that we will never know for sure whether the drug actually works. Because of that, as frustrating as it is, as slow as it is, letting science take its course to determine if DCA works, how it works, and for what cancers it works, is the best method to make sure that the most patients are helped and the fewest are harmed. I don’t say this because I want DCA to fail; I say it because I would very much like to see DCA succeed.

Content from external source

Your post hints at some sort of belief in a cancer "cure" conspiracy, and aside from misrepresenting Gorski's position, I don't think you can offer any justification for branding him a liar. It's truly absurd to suggest a respected oncologist is somehow attempting to conceal potentially beneficial treatments considering he's devoted his medical career to battling cancer.

Of course, none of the above has any bearing on the paper you linked. Aside from being flawed in every other respect, it cites and relies on work that's been disputed and discredited. In the case of the Geiers (who were cited repeatedly), the elder has had his license to practice medicine revoked in multiple states, while his son was fined for practicing without a license. This represents an epic level of failure on the authors' behalf, and that's to be expected when dubious studies are used to shore up an anti-vaccine ideology.

The fact remains that no causal link exists between mercury/vaccines and autism, reinforced by findings from the world's major medical organizations.

OK, I don't know the metrics but the aim of my post was to debunk the myth that vaccines are absolutely safe for everyone.

Who Should NOT Get Vaccinated with these Vaccines?

I think it's time for you to reconsider your position(s).

 

[dbcooper]

Heh thanks a lot Jenny McCarthy.

 

[Bill]

Heh thanks a lot Jenny McCarthy.

Jenny has done a lot to contribute to childhood illnesses.