PDA

View Full Version : Vaccinations. From their Origins to their Consequences



cdm
January 1st, 2011, 11:44 PM
I gathered some links useful for the study of alternative ideas on vaccines and the vaccination "dissidence". I hope this is enough for a study of the subject at the moment. Perhaps a discussion may ensue. The unification of the AIDs dissidence and the vaccination dissidence is one of my concerns. I think there are relative grounds for this unified front. The enemy is common.
Whoever wants may contribute to this effort

1. Gaublomme against vaccinations. Describes the implication of the petrochemical cartel in their promotion
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gaublomme.html

2. Gerhard Buchwald . His book: Vaccination - A Business Based on Fear
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/buchwald_b1.html

3. Andrew Maniotis on vaccination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOWb9cDXuz4&feature=related

4. Some lay people's sites
http://www.flu-treatments.com/flu-vaccine-side-effects.html

5. smallpox vaccination induces myocarditis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284365?ordinalpos=28&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


6. combination of vaccinations more harmful than individually taken shots
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5710a3.htm

7. Vaccination trials are not reliable (it is good to find this article- unfortunately pubmed ignored to give a summary of it)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18338432?ordinalpos=39&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

8. Rubella vaccine responsible for psoriatic arthritis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714091/pdf/ar2585.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez

9. Hep B vaccine responsible for multiple sclerosis realized also in England (firstly in France)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC518925/pdf/bmj3290703a.pdf/?tool=pmcentrez

10. In Germany it was announced the annihilation of measles grace to the relative vaccine in 1976. Damages in nervous system are not overlooked. (They postulated that combination of polio vaccination and measles is safe, but this was a tragic mistake)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366415/pdf/bullwho00458-0028.pdf
33 years later it is admitted the failure of annihilation of measles
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636188/pdf/07-050187.pdf

11. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/080603_Terada_Graph.jpg
Research in Japan showing the dependence of autism from MMR vaccination

12. Corruption of the Blair administration helped the selling of MMR
http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/millerc.pdf


13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85tgwh3HpsM&feature=player_embedded
Video about destruction of nerve cells by mercury of vaccines

14. http://www.qtpies7.com/2007/07/where-i-step-on-my-soap-box.html
A recipe for a cocktail!!!. Whoever paediatrician or other doctor manages to drink it he will win 80.000 dollars

15. Soviet Union rejected the use of mercury in vaccines
http://www.naturalnews.com/011764.html
In Sweden smaller incidence of autism. Absence of mercury is responsible for this? Sweden, soon after Soviet Union stopped the enrichment of vaccines with ethyl mercury, implemented the same policy
http://www.autismforum.se/gn/export/download/af_oversattningar/Introduktion_om_autism_engelska.pdf

16. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16896058?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=8
Mercury creates damages to the nerve cells. These damages are compensated by antioxidative agents, like ascorbate sodium, glutathione, NAC etc

17. Mercury intoxication resembles autism
http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/bernard.pdf

18. http://www.theeternalrock.org/?p=155
During summer a EU committee was established in order to investigate accusations against swine flue vaccination of 2009-2010 creating narcolepsy

19. Treatment of autism http://treating-autism.tclstaging.com/links/

positivenegative
January 1st, 2011, 11:53 PM
Thanks CDM for starting this thread anew.

Originally Posted by UKSteve on another thread.
I've yet to be convinced by any evidence that proves that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits for a large number of vaccines that have saved millions of lives.

My response:

When did vaccinations become part of the established (missionary) medical milieu of Africa? Is it possible that Africans could be testing "hiv cross reactive positive" (among other co-factors) leading to and eventually causing millions to die of "AIDS"? [/QUOTE]

UKSteve
January 2nd, 2011, 01:02 AM
I agree with general concerns about the drug industry, and its connections with governments, state research bodies and publicy-funded academics and scientists.
However, I do not believe that these commonalities with how the 'HIV=AIDS' theory came to rule, go any way at all to making 'vaccines' and 'HIV=AIDS' being the same, and it would actually be a massive mistake if there was any attempt to suggest 'AIDS Dissidence' must equal 'Vaccine-Dissidence', because it will simply push people away unnecessarily.
In the case of MMR the actual evidence proves the complete opposite of its detractors. When MMR vaccination rates fall illness and death in children rockets.
The increase in Autism has been shown to be at least as much because of better and earlier diagnosis than any other reason, and no scientific evidence to link it to MMR.
The work of Dr Andrew Wakefield and his tiny number of supporters has been completely discredited in the biggest and most indepth study of all published research on Autism and MMR. In addition, Wakefield and another colleague were found guilty of lying, and falsification of scientific data. They were also found guilty of carrying out unauthorised, medically unsupported invasive medical procedures on children and infants, for which they had no informed consent and no ethics committee approval.
That's why they were struck off the UK Medical Register after the longest and most detailed case (100% in public) ever to come before the General Medical Council.

I think there is a danger if questioning HIV and AIDS simply starts to 'appear' as a bolt hole for people who simply don't like any allopathic medicine. There are plenty of strands within alternative medicine that deserve no more credibility than those who dogmatise the 'HIV=AIDS' argument and brook no questioning of it. As much as there are corrupt people in Western Medicine, there are plenty of figures in AM that as are dangerous as Gallo and his ilk, and sometimes simply nutcases. Wakefield has as big an ego and is as arrogant as any HIV=AIDS figure.

UKSteve
January 2nd, 2011, 01:18 AM
I gathered some links

I don't think attaching headings to a link that are frankly a distortion of what the article says is is helpful. It makes it very easy for people to simply dismiss what you say as unreliable.
In link 9, the article neither has a heading saying Hep B vaccine caused MS ('responsible for..' as you say) and the body of the article makes clear that the numbers involved (just 11 people who had both the Hep B Vaccine and MS) are a serious weakness in the study.
Suggesting that as a 'useful' link is nothing of the sort.
Just as in the same way, suggesting a very tenuous link (at best) with MMR and Autism, and publically stating is as almost proven, actually caused the unneccesary death and illness among many children.
If people who question certain things about western medicine can't even keep to a decent or better level of intellectual rigour and honesty than allopathic practioners that they criticise, then they don't deserve to be taken seriously.

cdm
January 2nd, 2011, 01:46 AM
and it would actually be a massive mistake if there was any attempt to suggest 'AIDS Dissidence' must equal 'Vaccine-Dissidence', because it will simply push people away unnecessarily.


I agree it might be too early for such an intermingling of ideas and actions of the two groups. The only thing I hope at the moment is a kind of approximation.

cdm
January 2nd, 2011, 01:59 AM
In link 9, the article neither has a heading saying Hep B vaccine caused MS ('responsible for..' as you say) and the body of the article makes clear that the numbers involved (just 11 people who had both the Hep B Vaccine and MS) are a serious weakness in the study.

You are right .. Actually I ought to find the similar subject about France. http://www.rolandsimion.org/spip.php?article14&lang=fr
http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Hepatitis-B/francesuspends.aspx
I don't have at hand the relative data, but it seems that 4 years after its release in 1994 the Engerix vaccine had been accused of multiple sclerosis, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis in children and multiple sclerosis in adults. Personally I have also experienced at that time the same, as in a place where the vaccination was done in 50 individuals personell, 2 of them got sick after a few months - and another 3 young individuals died of brain tumors in 7 years' time. This last one made me suspicious, although not substantiated by research.



Just as in the same way, suggesting a very tenuous link (at best) with MMR and Autism, and publically stating is as almost proven, actually caused the unneccesary death and illness among many children.


I think the association between autism and MMR has deep roots and we need to discuss it a little before accepting the assertions of the petrochemical cartel.

John Bleau
January 2nd, 2011, 02:08 AM
I'm sitting on a fence as far as vaccination goes. I have looked into the literature and have questions, but beforehand, I'm wading through CDM's links. I'm glad UKSteve can argue the establishment side on this matter.

jonathan barnett
January 2nd, 2011, 02:10 AM
I share the concern about bringing this subject up outside of the "Off-topic" forum.

Something about slippery slopes come to mind.

John Bleau
January 2nd, 2011, 02:23 AM
I agree, Jonathan; could you move it there?

cdm
January 2nd, 2011, 10:42 AM
Personally I don't agree.
Vaccinations affect the health of billions of people. The proper place should be at least in the Body and Mind sector. If we consider the implication of various vaccinations into production of the Gallo positivity, then even the matter may be posted in the main sector, in the general discussion.

jonathan barnett
January 2nd, 2011, 11:17 AM
Personally I don't agree.
Vaccinations affect the health of billions of people. The proper place should be at least in the Body and Mind sector. If we consider the implication of various vaccinations into production of the Gallo positivity, then even the matter may be posted in the main sector, in the general discussion.

The thread was moved before seeing this. When a viable connection between vaccinations and "AIDS" is made, we can reconsider whether it should be moved back. So far, it looks like this subject is all over the board, and not specific to questioning AIDS. It is a judgment call and your point may yet prove to be the case, CDM. Let's see where it goes.

UKSteve
January 2nd, 2011, 04:41 PM
I think the association between autism and MMR has deep roots and we need to discuss it a little before accepting the assertions of the petrochemical cartel.

You will forgive me for finding this bogeyman figure, the 'petrochemical cartel', being somehow responsible for every possible or alleged failing in western medicine unconvincing. It actually undermines an understanding of the real danger of big business (when it clearly does collude with governments) because it is so unpolitical, so intellectually 'wolly'.

As far as MMR is concerned, this link of a resume to a long BBC Horizon programme is pretty informative and respresents pretty much the consensus among tens of thousands of honest and reputable clinicians and scientists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml

While I probably do appear as someone presenting the 'establishment' view on vaccines, that is simply because I happen to believe that many vaccines are proven to have played a vital part in preventing debilitating illnesses and deaths far and away greater than any side effects seen. And I see overwhelming belief in vaccines among people who are given all the information. It's a cost-benefit analysis. Any idea that any form of medicine can avoid that is for me like sticking one's head in the sand.

cdm
January 2nd, 2011, 08:02 PM
UKsteve
before proceeding to a discussion about vaccines I think it is crucial to delineate our ideas about what is or isn't the so called by some people - dissidents or not- petrochemical cartel or drug/oil cartel or triple cartel, as I call it. It is crucial because the vaccines are made by this cartel. It is the same cartel that produced drugs of the HIV/AIDS industry. The cartel has its own agenda of purposes, sometimes apparent and obvious and other times hidden and misleading. So we must know who produces the vaccines and what is the purpose of it. I am not against science and I do not yet fully reject the idea of vaccination. I am only cautious of their current use, current manufacture and current real consequences.
I don't like to reiterate myself, so I would beg you to move, especially in the number #25 post of mine in the following thread I raised in my early times of my boarding in this forum, where I posted my ideas on the subject, that nearly remained the same till now.
http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=5840&highlight=cartel
This thread I raised is one of my bests I have made. I enjoyed it and I had a harsh but fruitful debate with a very thoughtful member that used to post those days, IMMichael his pseudonym. I wish you to find the time and have a look at it, forgiving me for my not responding directly to you.
I want also to say to you that my ideas on the cartel have been raised through my association with the Alliance for health of Dr Rath. Dr Rath loves to present facts and evidence. In his political activism he likes to act as a scientist does. He collects data and makes theories out of it. He gathered a lot of historical clues that are available in his site that shed some light to the matter of the petrochemical cartel. The general idea is that the cartel is something like a unified web connecting all of its main web-knots in time and space.

cdm
January 2nd, 2011, 08:16 PM
See this in order to realize what I mean with the wording triple cartel in another thread's post
http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=6823&highlight=triple+cartel&page=3


This is business of the small pharmas, the subsidiaries of the maternal pharma. The real big pharma does not need money, because it creates the money by issuing it.
The trinity of the cartel is the banking cartel, the drug and oil/energy cartel and last but not least the information/communication mass media cartel. They are one in essence.
The bank cartel by creating money, distributes it and regulates on will the flow of it, creating development and growth or shrinking and crisis like the one we experience nowadays. This is the "Holly Father".
The drug and oil/energy cartel has the power/knowledge to make the world move. This is a great power. They may destroy whole nations by this power if they wish. They do not need money. They use money to corrupt people and nations and then by dividing them and creating wars, since the chemical industry is the base of every war making industry, they rule. They try to keep under control every source of energy, especially the chemical energy (petrol, gas), so that to monopolize the knowledge, the technology of its exploitation, and the very sources. In the past they have killed people trying to develop cheap forms of energy, like that from water. They did not want to lose the power, not the money. They created a fake school of medicine in order to make their chemical experiments on people. This is the "holly Son."
Finally the mass media cartel serves the purposes of these both, by throwing a shadow over them and so they would keep ruling unseen. This cartel distracts the attention of the societies to trivial matters, so they would keep being slaves to the cartel and subjects to the worst manipulations. People are dragged to fake wars and become human guinea pigs of the "holy Son" ie of the drug cartel, in experiments of vaccinations, insecticide application and so forth. The mass media cartel also is the big brother who controls everything. It is like the eye of the Sauron , the lord of the rings. The internet is one of its big creations. We are naive to believe that the internet is a source of information. It is a means of watching everything. And this the "holly Spirit" of the dreadful trinity.
All the other cartels are subsidiaries and servants to this big cartel. The weapon/military industrial cartel, the food cartel, the constructions, the transportation, the diamond cartel are smaller and owe their existence to this trinity.
They do not have home land. Their homeland is power and they get it through exploitation of knowledge and natural resources.

computergeek
January 2nd, 2011, 11:16 PM
It is also distinctly possible that vaccines are something for which the quality varies over time.

Ergo, one can look at smallpox, polio, MMR, etc. as being "early" vaccines that have a body of evidence to consider and from which one can draw conclusions.

We now have newer vaccines to consider: H1N1, Gardasil, Pneumovax, Lyme Disease, etc. Their track record seems to be far less clear (at least to me.)

Many of these are now pushed on the HIV+ community as well; the local clinic here has signs "grading" staff on adherence to immunization goals, for example. When I saw that I wondered if I were at "Best Buy" looking at appliances...

cdm
January 3rd, 2011, 12:16 AM
We now have newer vaccines to consider: H1N1, Gardasil, Pneumovax, Lyme Disease, etc. Their track record seems to be far less clear

Speaking of HPV vaccination it seems it is not helpful to women already infected with HPV, according to a mainstream JAMA article.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/298/7/743.long
Of course the truth is harsher than this scientific realization...

John Bleau
January 6th, 2011, 04:28 AM
Here are some of my queries about vaccinations:

Some sites, such as whaleto (http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html), give prevalence figures for diseases supposedly wiped out by vaccines. The figures would indicate that most or even all of those diseases were mostly gone when the vaccines were unveiled. Are there any orthodox sites that address these figures? Also among these figures are spikes in prevalence immediately after a vaccination program.

Why is mercury used in some vaccines (including Hep-B, which is given to newborns, and flu shots, pushed onto very young children now that mercury is no longer used in the DTP shots) and not in others? In other words, what is it about those vaccines that makes it necessary to use mercury?

I've often read that VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) reports only 1-2% of actual cases. Is that so?

Are vaccines against measles, chickenpox and other relatively harmless diseases really necessary?

Is it constitutional (in the USA) to mandate vaccination?

I'd like to see solid figures for or against the autism-thiomersal or the autism-MMR link.

Is there a link between vaccines and SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)?

How effective are vaccines? On the basis of the prevalence curves in dissident sites such as whale.to, they would seem ineffective. However, there are recent claims that measles cases shot up with a reduction in people taking the MMR shots (this reduction being blamed on Dr. Wakefield).

Janine Roberts made a strong case about a polio and heavy metal pesticide use (in apple orchards) in her book, Fear of the Invisible. Are there readily-available figures that would show such a link, for example local prevalence figures correlating with apple orchards and/or pesticide use, or seasonal prevalence also correlating with such use? Would Judy Roberts' Guillain-Barré (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qePstRnLhRs) syndrome have been diagnosed as polio 30 years earlier?

I once looked into the eradication of smallpox. The vaccination programs were, wherever I looked, combined with containment. I wonder if containment alone would have had the same results.

UKSteve
January 6th, 2011, 07:03 PM
Are vaccines against measles, chickenpox and other relatively harmless diseases really necessary?

The very idea that Measles and Rubella are 'relatively harmless' illnesses makes me almost speechless. At least 2 in 100 children who are not-vaccinated and contract Measles die. Larger numbers who survive end up in intensive care.
My own understanding is that in the US, prior to vaccination, there were at least 800,000 cases of serious measles illness in children every year.
I agree that Chickenpox is not, in my view, sufficiently morbid to warrant a vaccine, and it is not used to my knowledge in the UK.



I'd like to see solid figures for or against the autism-thiomersal or the autism-MMR link.

Following the 'announcement' by the recently debarred physician Andrew Wakefield that he had found a link between MMR and Autism (based on research that was subsequently found to involve falisfication of data, misrepresentation of data, massively inflated cases to back up the data, criminal actual bodily harm to infants and children who had illegal invasive unconsented medical procedures performed on them, children at Wakefield's *own* child's birthday party offered MONEY to allow Wakefield to carry out tests on them) the UK/US/European medical profession collaborated to set up a panel of physicians and researchers (including some who were either agnostic about any link, or had indicated they leant towards there being a link) to thoroughly review *every single piece* of published and known data on MMR and Autism, and the unanimous conclusions were to not only find Wakefield's paper a *deliberate* piece of falsehood, but that the research leaves *no evidence* whatsover of a link between MMR and autism.
In any case, all the above is in the BBC link provided earlier.
While I respect the human right of anyone to continue to hold the eccentric view that MMR 'might' or 'does' cause autism, it doesn't stop me from rolling my eyes and sighing and wondering why brains don't engage properly in what is an open and shut case about life versus death among the most vulnerable in our society. Children simply die in agony when MMR vaccination rates fall below a minimum of 80% of most communities.


Is there a link between vaccines and SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)?

If there was then we would know about it already. It is one of the most heavily researched areas of Pediatric medicine.


How effective are vaccines? On the basis of the prevalence curves in dissident sites such as whale.to, they would seem ineffective. However, there are recent claims that measles cases shot up with a reduction in people taking the MMR shots (this reduction being blamed on Dr. Wakefield).

John you simply can't talk about 'vaccines' lumped in one bag likew that. It's unscientific, and not very logical.
In the case of MMR, there was a significant drop in vaccination numbers over most of the UK - some areas worse than others. That resulted in very significant spikes in measles outbreaks, hospital and ICU admissions and *deaths*.
The most dangerous result was to place at massive risk those infants under 12 months - pre vaccination - who would normally be protected by the 'herd immunity' if 80%+ vaccinations rates had been maintained.
But many people were understandably made fearful of the dishonest claims of a physician now legally barred from practising.

I tend towards the Richard Dawkins philosphophy, that notwithstanding the enlightenment and supposedly being centuries away from the time when women were routinely executed to see if they were 'witches' (in which they came alive) or not, the last 70 years or so have seen a quite inexplicable questioning of reason, whether it be nutcase religions, nutcase 'alternative' therapies that are simply scams, or questioning of rigorous science as if it is *always* a con and being carried out by evil people.
The evidence (not even drug scandals) does not back up such a flight from reason.

John Bleau
January 6th, 2011, 09:03 PM
As I recall, measles was a harmless disease. Quotes from UKSteve's post, except for the one attributed to me.

"recently debarred physician Andrew Wakefield" - for 1998 research. One wonders why it took so long. My questioning goes as far as to ask whether he is the victim of an unscrupulous witch hunt, as were doctors in Australia who blew the whistle on Vioxx (http://www.naturalnews.com/027116_Merck_doctors_vaccines.html).

"rolling my eyes and sighing and wondering why brains don't engage properly in what is an open and shut case about life versus death among the most vulnerable in our society" - the fact that a case is open and shut is reason enough to inquire about what makes it open and shut. Falsification of data is rampant on the orthodox side (see Aspartame Controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy)) and I question as much as I have time for. Basically, I vet my own beliefs (I got vaccinated for my trip to India).

"If there was then we would know about it already." - I'll dig up a video that claims there is.

"How effective are vaccines? [...]" [Me] Your answer still leaves open the question about prevalence curves (a very important question for me). As for increased deaths, I remind you that falsification (or selectivity or omission) of data does occur on the orthodox side. So that I can get an idea as to who is telling the truth, I seek more information.

"John you simply can't talk about 'vaccines' lumped in one bag like that. It's unscientific, and not very logical." - Possibly. However, when someone questions a specific vaccine, such as Gardasil or anti-swine flu, or a component of some vaccines, such as thiomersal or aluminum, he's accused of being anti-vaccine. There is also the matter of whether the underlying principle of vaccines is any good.

"the last 70 years or so have seen a quite inexplicable questioning of reason" - When put as a questioning of 'reason' it might seem inexplicable. If put as a questioning of motive (money, power), Dawkins might come to see it as explicable. I refer you again to the Aspartame controversy.

positivenegative
January 6th, 2011, 10:42 PM
Mercury free vaccines are available at a price.

Or is mercury now nutritious?

Aion
January 7th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Mercury free vaccines are available at a price.

Or is mercury now nutritious?

Nutritious enough to be in all amalgam dental fillings. I've had most of mine removed, but one last big one, in a molar, is going to be expensive and difficult to replace. This one amalgam filling, though dentists and the ADA insist is safe, continually "gasses out". There's a phenomenon known as "amalgam tattoo, whereby the mercury in the amalgam gradually releases, permanently staining the adjoining gum tissue. I had my doubts that the amount was significant; that is, until I was fitted for a night guard. It is now permanently stained by that filling, and the stain gets darker and larger every month. I was absorbing all that into my body at night, for nearly four decades.

Now we have aluminum in most of the vaccines, instead of thimerosal.

I remember as a teen ager, all my contact lens solutions contained it.

It was voted Allergen of the Year in 2002 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

It is interesting to note that thimerosal is also in many tattoo inks.

UKSteve
January 7th, 2011, 08:19 PM
As I recall, measles was a harmless disease.
'Recall' from what John? How can you 'recall' something that simply isn't true - or have you slipped into the 'when I was young we just got ill and recovered' syndrome?
Unless you are suggesting that public records in all countries are forged, then no, measles is not a harmless illness.


"recently debarred physician Andrew Wakefield" - for 1998 research. One wonders why it took so long. My questioning goes as far as to ask whether he is the victim of an unscrupulous witch hunt
Questions around the falsification of data and illegal medical treatments of children did not come out until some brave people started to question the methods of Wakefield and his colleagues, and that motivated increasing numbers of clinicians and scientists to subject his paper to the kind of 'peer review' that the 'Lancet' manifestly failed to do. The Lancet subsequently made an abject apology for its failure, and removed his paper from their publication.
As well as that, Wakefield decamped to the USA to carry out mysteriously funded, and somewhat odd research and has a similary 'crackpot' following.
Neither Wakefield nor his colleagues (many of whom who subscribed to his original work have now stated publically that they disagreed with Wakefield's black and white conclusions at the time) have been subject to a 'witch hunt', rather their work has been subject to intense scientific scrutiny, in the same way dissidents suggest the 'HIV=AIDS' hypothesis should be subject to intense scrutiny.



"rolling my eyes and sighing and wondering why brains don't engage properly in what is an open and shut case about life versus death among the most vulnerable in our society"[/I] - the fact that a case is open and shut is reason enough to inquire about what makes it open and shut. Falsification of data is rampant on the orthodox side

I see now you are eliding the 'orthodox'/'dissident' terms outside of the HIV/AIDS arena to things like MMR, and probably vaccines in general.
I reject that passionately.
I don't believe for one milli-second that the HIV/AIDS dogma is either representative of a fundamental fault line in western science, or a general tendency in medico-science.
For me the problem is principally a political one.




"the last 70 years or so have seen a quite inexplicable questioning of reason" - When put as a questioning of 'reason' it might seem inexplicable. If put as a questioning of motive (money, power), Dawkins might come to see it as explicable. I refer you again to the Aspartame controversy.

Dawkins speaks eloquently in his work 'Age of Unreason' about the two 'evils' of modern society - the danger of all 'religion', at a time when fewer people in the world actually practice any religion than at any time since data on it was collected, and the questioning of scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world. So much so that crackpot theories that beggar belief, and superstitious nonsense that places lives at risk, take hold in otherwise educated communities - particularly white, middle class people in affluent societies who have the luxury to spend time and money on such stuff.

John Bleau
January 7th, 2011, 10:27 PM
UKSteve, thanks for taking the time to reply to my points, but there's nothing tangible in your answer.

The vaccination issue is vast. We might consider for the time being the history of smallpox and polio vaccinations, and prevalence curves in general for diseases for which inoculations have been developed. If you wish to use terminology other than orthodox vs dissident, propose it and I'll probably accept it. It could be pros vs cons, for example.

cdm
January 9th, 2011, 01:46 AM
As I recall, measles was a harmless disease.

From my childhood I probably met over 2000 fellow pupils in several schools I attended. Nobody was vaccinated at that time for measles. There was a big percentage of children and acolescents gotten sick from measles during measles outbreaks. I never heard anyone of having died. In the rare case of a child dying all school attendants learnt the news and the cause of death. I remember one child died in an accident, another one died at the age of 11 of lung cancer (he was a heavy smoker since the age of 8!!! and he used to faint in church's smoking air- he was a friend of mine). Some died of various causes soon after they became adults. But none from measles. The same with rubella.
It seems that measles being a very dangerous disease is a propaganda of the drug/oil cartel. Measles of course might be dangerous for undernourished or chronically sick children. This is a very rare event in the caucasians.


"recently debarred physician Andrew Wakefield"[/I] - for 1998 research. One wonders why it took so long. My questioning goes as far as to ask whether he is the victim of an unscrupulous witch hunt, as were doctors in Australia who blew the whistle on Vioxx (http://www.naturalnews.com/027116_Merck_doctors_vaccines.html).

Isn't it obvious?

cdm
January 9th, 2011, 02:13 AM
"How effective are vaccines? [...]"[/I] [Me] Your answer still leaves open the question about prevalence curves (a very important question for me). As for increased deaths, I remind you that falsification (or selectivity or omission) of data does occur on the orthodox side. So that I can get an idea as to who is telling the truth, I seek more information.


Very effective indeed in the case of Yanomami kids being injected an Edmonton B vaccine of measles.
http://www.nku.edu/~humed1/darkness_in_el_dorado/documents/0055.htm
2/5 of the children of Yanomami died after vaccination in one of the most hidden scandals of vaccination experiments.

cdm
January 9th, 2011, 02:22 AM
Even in Africa there was no proof a measles vaccine - Edmonton B (surely an attenuated form of that which killed the Yanomami kids)- can prevent death from measles (no statistical significance)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2500198/pdf/bmj.a661.pdf?tool=pmcentrez

quote from the article
No placebo was given. Ethical committees in Africa have been reluctant to use a placebo injection in vaccine trials, usually preferring some potentially beneficial vaccination (for example, rabies or meningococcal vaccine), but irrelevant to the main outcome of the trial.We have used inactivated polio vaccine as a control vaccine in previous trials of early measles vaccination. As reported recently, however, such a vaccine may have an impact on the female to male mortality ratio. It was therefore preferable not to have another active control vaccine
unquote
I think there is no need to comment on it

John Bleau
January 9th, 2011, 06:37 AM
Thanks for those posts, CDM. In your most recent one, the linked study claims lower incidence of measles for the vaccinated group, but an insignificant difference in overall mortality.

cdm
January 9th, 2011, 09:04 AM
Thanks for those posts, CDM. In your most recent one, the linked study claims lower incidence of measles for the vaccinated group, but an insignificant difference in overall mortality.
I think the quote is more important. It speaks by itself. But you are tempting me to comment on it. "Ethical committees" do always the job. They preclude the use of controls by implying conceptually that vaccination is life saving and there is no need to doubt its usefulness. "It has been already proven its efficacity" they say.
And I ask:
When? On what ground? And finally who are these who promulgate vaccinations' ample use? Do they have any association with the ethical committees who approved the experimental use of AZT without proper control?
It is more sunshining than the sun (greek ancient expressio, namely "ηλίου φαεινότερον") if you go back to the early experimentation of vaccination you will find more and more scientific misconceptions and wrongly or fraudulently designed vaccination trials and experiments.
In one phrase ethical committees execute science and scientific boards of journals do the finishing stroke. They are all paid by the same boss.

cdm
January 9th, 2011, 12:05 PM
Some sites, such as whaleto (http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html), give prevalence figures for diseases supposedly wiped out by vaccines..

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/morris_h.html
Not unlike Wakefield, an eminent scientist suffered humiliation for his resistance to swine flu vaccination campaign of 1976 ..

cdm
January 9th, 2011, 02:48 PM
http://www.wellsphere.com/autism-autism-spectrum-article/the-sting-of-thimerosal-in-autism/389155

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/aut_inc_vs_vax_prog.jpg

http://www.adventuresinautism.com/images/2006-4-1-111graph.jpg
One possible mistake of Wakefield might be he did not insist that all vaccines carrying mercury and or aluminum -and not only MMR that does not contain it- may be responsible for the incredible rise of autism from almost zero (1/10.000) to 1/150 in a period of less than 30 years. And that it is related to the introduction of mercury (thimerosal) in the constituents of vaccines by Eli Lilly in 1929 (year of the crisis, not surprisingly !). Autism or Asperger syndrome or whatever might be called the dysfunction of a heavily loaded brain, began to be recognized a few years after the introduction of thimerosal.

But it is not only thimerosal that is implicated in autism rise, and this might be a justification of Wakefield.
.http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/vaccination-causes-autism-%E2%80%93-say-us-government-merck%E2%80%99s-director-of%C2%A0vaccines/
Watch in this series of articles, and especially in the interview of the head of CDC, where it is admitted that vaccines do cause actually autism. A combination of vaccinations and a mitochondrial dysfunction predisposes 1 out of 50 children into autism or “autism like symptoms”!!! Why was then Wakefield debarred? The only one reason seems to have been that he had compelled persons of authority, like Julie Gerberding, to use a doublespeak and make full of her(them)self. It is still incredible a scientist pointing to the problem to be excommunicated from the scientific medical community and that reminds us of not only the persecution of HIV/AIDS dissident scientists but of the medieval times

cdm
January 9th, 2011, 03:56 PM
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/#The_Vaccination_Data_HondaRutter

It seems scientific fraud has been engaged in order the rise of autism not to be attributed to the escalation of vaccine implementation.
One 2005 article from Japan deceitfully compared data from Yokohama city and the town Kurachiki showing increase of autism despite no use of MMR in Yokohama. What the writers hid was the fact that other kind of vaccination was used in Yokohama.

cdm
January 9th, 2011, 04:48 PM
1. ADEM (Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis) is the result of vaccines and a major factor contributing to autism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21186344
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139988
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20393243
This scientific fact was the basis for compensation achievement in a law suit http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Abell.BANKS.02-0738V.pdf

2. In China it is postulated that ADEM is attributed to measles vaccination
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19909830

3. A lot of kinds of vaccinations cause ADEM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18976924

4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15295226
A few years ago, in 2004, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis had no chance to be attributed to vaccines. It was admitted yet that it ended in multiple sclerosis“Overall incidence of ADEM was 0.4/100,000/year; incidence quadrupled during 1998-2000 compared with earlier years. No gender, age stratum, ethnic group or geographic area was disproportionately affected. A total of 4 (9.5%) patients initially diagnosed with ADEM were subsequently diagnosed with MS after multiple episodes of demyelination. “

5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18802800 More confirmatory articles that multiple sclerosis develops after vaccination, with the intermediate step of ADEM.

John Bleau
January 9th, 2011, 06:24 PM
CDM,

The links you provided not only validate the link between vaccines and autism and other brain disorders, but also the official acknowledgment of it.

It is this kind of tangible information that I would like to see addressed by the official side.

John Bleau
January 9th, 2011, 06:35 PM
This page (http://www.healthy.net/scr/Article.aspx?Id=892) argues a link between DTP and SIDS.
In one of your links, CDM, we have the following quote:

The Court found, supra, that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused
by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the
Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it
did actually cause the ADEM.

And this article (http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html#CHAPTER%20I) gives statistics showing the uselessness and even injuriousness of smallpox vaccines.

I'll try to dig up graphs I once saw of prevalence curves associated with vaccines.

UKSteve
January 9th, 2011, 09:02 PM
CDM,
The links you provided not only validate the link between vaccines and autism and other brain disorders, but also the official acknowledgment of it.


They provide nothing of the sort.

This really is just a lot of conspiracy theory gone mad.

Why has independent research of every piece of data found no link whatsoever - even the most tenuous - between MMR and Autism?

Now if what you and CDM are saying, is that Vaccines are, and essentially always have been, about a drug industry seeking to make money irrespective of need, and that all research by all scientists is geared towards 'proving' a 'need' that involves mutli-national fraud, then fine. Say that. Indeed if you were saying that in the context of a political point about the nature of capitalism, then I would understand where you are both coming from.
But it is this abstract notion that drug/medico science has, for decades, been about committing the most audacious fraud for no discernible reason other than that they can, and that our 'saviours' are (equally corrupt, equally arrogant, egotistical and immune to the feelings or health of those they 'fight for' every bit as much as those you accuse) people like the debarred Wakefield. I can't take that anymore seriously than the idea that a jet didn't plunge into the Pentagon, or that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were mined for demolition.

jonathan barnett
January 9th, 2011, 10:01 PM
UKSteve and positivenegative:

Your most recent posts have been unapproved as personal attacks, per the Guidelines (http://www.questioningaids.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=75):


While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposelessly inflammatory posts.

If you have something to say about vaccinations, feel free to repost.

John Bleau
January 9th, 2011, 10:04 PM
UKSteve, are you even reading the links CDM gave?

Do you disagree with this court ruling (http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Abell.BANKS.02-0738V.pdf) (link originally given by CDM):

The Court found, supra, that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM.

There's nothing abstract about that and it isn't "conspiracy theory gone mad" - it's an actual court ruling from a document taken from a government website.

"Why has independent research of every piece of data found no link whatsoever - even the most tenuous - between MMR and Autism?" [UKSteve]
Why indeed. Isn't the Hannah Poling case (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/eveningnews/main3915703.shtml) at least a "tenuous" link?
Also, since according to this page¹ (http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/vaccination-causes-autism-%E2%80%93-say-us-government-merck%E2%80%99s-director-of%C2%A0vaccines/), the rubella virus is one of the few known causes of autism and MMR contains live (albeit "attenuated") rubella virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine), is that not at least a tenuous link?

¹The CDC link that page gives for its quote no longer works.

"Now if what you and CDM are saying, is that Vaccines are, and essentially always have been, about a drug industry seeking to make money irrespective of need, and that all research by all scientists is geared towards 'proving' a 'need' that involves mutli-national fraud, then fine. Say that." [UKSteve]
If - if - CDM has been saying something like that, I'll let him defend it. I'm looking at the details. If you don't wish to address those, that's your prerogative, though I'd appreciate your saying so.

UKSteve
January 9th, 2011, 10:14 PM
Vaccinations are about cost-benefit analysis.
When, in the case of MMR, the benefits far outweigh the potential costs - in terms of severe adverse reaction - the case is answered.
MMR is a good example, because we have seen first hand what happens when vaccination rates fall below certain minimum percentages - terrible cases of ill-health, multiple cases of admission to ICU care, and deaths.
Autism has been better understood and diagnosed in the last 15-20 years than ever before, and is the biggest reason for the increase in cases. Nothing to do with MMR.

NB: Yes, I did read the links, including this one: "Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) is a monophasic, immune-mediated demyelinating disorder that can follow immunizations or more often infections including rubeola, rubella, varicella, herpes zoster, mumps, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, or, more commonly, other nonspecific upper respiratory tract infections
You know, read the data however you like, but that says something rather different to what you and CDM postulate. The 9 month old in question had an URTI and so should not have been immunised.

John Bleau
January 9th, 2011, 10:32 PM
UKSteve, whether you like it or not, your post validates a link between MMR and ADEM.

UKSteve
January 9th, 2011, 10:47 PM
UKSteve, whether you like it or not, your post validates a link between MMR and ADEM.

That's simply pedantic.
It proves no direct link outside of a pre-existing condition.
It still comes down to cost-benefit analysis.
Many many more children suffer severe illness and death without MMR than among those who are vaccinated.
It's very simple and straight-forward.

positivenegative
January 9th, 2011, 10:50 PM
In his documentary film Vaccine Nation, award-winning investigative film director Dr. Gary Null challenges the basic health claims by government health agencies and pharmaceutical firms that vaccines are perfectly safe. This is one of the most critical questions facing today's children and future generations to come. If inoculation with a large regimen of vaccines is safe, what can account for the rapid increase in autism and other mental disabilities that are now at epidemic proportions? And why isn't the sudden onset of neurological illnesses in children being treated as an urgent crisis by our government and medical industries?

Weaving together interviews with many of the nations most expert medical researchers, private physicians specializing in autism, parents of children victimized by immunization, congressmen, vaccination activists, legal authorities and more, Vaccine Nation will awaken viewers to one of the continual perils to the health and future of children


jUMZ-O-OsG0

UKSteve
January 9th, 2011, 11:03 PM
parents of children victimized by immunization

I can't talk about what happens outside of the UK but no parents are 'victimised' by immunisation, there is no compulsion.
Maybe the epidemic rates of medication of children for 'HD' and 'ADHD' in the US are also to do with vaccines?
If so why is it not replicated here?
There are all kinds of diet, emotional, stress and societal factors for all kinds of changes in health.
Sitting on a toilet is suggested as one of the the biggest reasons for epidemic proportions of Hiatal Hernia in the West, especially when combined with a low fibre high processed diet.
So let's all eat more greens and adopt the squat position instead.

John Bleau
January 9th, 2011, 11:12 PM
"That's simply pedantic." - hardly.

"Many many more children suffer severe illness and death without MMR than among those who are vaccinated." - hard figures, please.

positivenegative
January 9th, 2011, 11:13 PM
I can't talk about what happens outside of the UK but no parents are 'victimised' by immunisation, there is no compulsion.

No victimization here! Everybody is a scientist! Is Britain propaganda free?


yr_BgMrcXI4

The full diabolical episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tpmiGFxRg4&feature=related

UKSteve
January 10th, 2011, 12:21 AM
JB: It's your opinion, so providing the data to suggest MMR is not beneficial is down to you. YOU need to show that more children have serious adverse reactions to MMR than the number who are hospitalised and die due to illness covered by the non-administered vaccine.
It was a major controversy, and scandal, in the UK regarding MMR, and many years of research have shown MMR to be one of the most successful vaccines in terms of preventing serious illness and death, and at the same time one of the safest vaccines.

PN:
No we are not propaganda free, we simply don't give the same number of vaccinations to children as is the case in the USA. Just like the medicating of 'unruly' children in the US, in societies where health care is much more 'evidence-based' and where there is not a 'profit' issue, less routine vaccinations and less drugs are administered.
NB: Here, only 4 specific vaccines are routinely offered to children, and only one offered at early teens (to girls only) alongside one booster. Other vaccines are only offered to very narrow and specific risk groups. It really comes down to the issues discussed in comparative health care. If there is an evil drug cartel it doesn't have the success in the UK that it clearly does in profit-based health care systems.

John Bleau
January 10th, 2011, 12:46 AM
JB: It's your opinion, so providing the data to suggest MMR is not beneficial is down to you.

I don't recall expressing that [sic] opinion. (I have to presume that the opinion UKSteve is attributing to me is that MMR is not beneficial, in which case I have to remind readers that asking questions and expressing opinions are not the same thing.)

UKSteve
January 10th, 2011, 12:52 AM
I suggest you re-read your posts John. You have stated that links by CDM 'proved' the link between MMR and Autism. They didn't.
Once again, if you want to push a line that MMR causes Autism, then please dig up some evidence that thousands of scientists and researchers haven't yet found.
On the general question of MMR, if it is your view that the dangers of its administration outweigh the benefits, then provide some links to audited and proven cases of severe illnesses and deaths among children as a result of MMR, and we can move on.

John Bleau
January 10th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Considering that MMR and Autism are linked does not constitute an opinion that MMR isn't effective. As for the MMR-Autism link, CDM orovided that and I re-posted the links.

UKSteve
January 10th, 2011, 01:00 AM
But it didn't prove that.
I copied and pasted from that very link that referred to ADEM and that while ADEM did occur in a minute number of cases post MMR vaccination (about 1 in 1 million), it was *more* common in children actually suffering with that and other illnesses and *even more* common in children with an URTI.

UKSteve
January 10th, 2011, 01:53 AM
Wikipedia gives some useful links to issues around MMR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine
And this salient fact:
"In Japan, the MMR vaccination has been discontinued, with single vaccines being used for each disease. Rates of autism diagnosis have continued to increase, showing no correlation with the change."
It was the discredited Wakefield and some of his supporters who here in UK encouraged parents to use the single vaccines.
Consequently, cases of measles in the UK went from 56 and no deaths in 1998, to 1348 and 2 deaths in 2008 - directly as a result of fraudulent research and irresponsible claims about MMR.

computergeek
January 10th, 2011, 03:34 AM
I wonder if it is the thimerosal link that is at the root of this issue. In other words, is it the cost benefit of multi-dose vials (thimerosal free doses are single use as I understand it) worth the autism (see PN's post of the MSNBC video about the 2005 Salon article (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/).)

So, perhaps MMR is not the issue, but rather mercury preservatives are. This could actually create quite a bit of confusion when comparing different research.

I did notice that almost any web search turns up very conflicting information on this point:

http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15691220

for example.

cdm
January 10th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Wikipedia gives some useful links to issues around MMR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine

Before using wikipedia, I think it is good to see this thread and form a view after consideration of the relative ideas. This is not a personal suggestion to UKsteve
http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=6970



It was the discredited Wakefield and some of his supporters who here in UK encouraged parents to use the single vaccines.

I guess I ought to apologize to UKsteve because my effort to defend Wakefield perhaps hid a subconscious attitude to make inflammatory verbalism. The reason - or my excuse- is that I have a sensitivity in debarring scientists and since fraudulence in the case of Wakefield (ie someone fighting the establishment) is unjustified. I also should apologize since I was ready to force UKsteve to syrpass an ancient natural social law that says:
"No prophet is acceptable inside his home country or among his relatives"
(Since Wakefield is British and UKSteve also:) - no offense)



Consequently, cases of measles in the UK went from 56 and no deaths in 1998, to 1348 and 2 deaths in 2008 - directly as a result of fraudulent research and irresponsible claims about MMR.
There are no official numbers of the side effects/mortality of the vaccinations to compare it with no vaccination results. The controls are prohibited for this reason. There have been such researches in the past but they were lost "in the process". One of them is recorded in one of the books by George Vythoulkas - you may visit his site for an overview of his books.
According to his knowledge one research was made in the newly formed state of Israel during the sixties. The researchers compared native Israelites - aborigins inhabitants of the land- to immigrants Israelites who have come from Europe. The fundamental difference was that the newcomers had been vaccinated for smallpox, while the natives, living in a not so "civilized" environment had not. The outcome of the research was that those of european origin had 400 fold increase of multiple sclerosis.!

UKSteve
January 11th, 2011, 01:46 AM
CDM

Wakefield is most definitely *not* a clinician who was simply 'fighting the establishment'. That is frankly an insulting travesty of a description - of someone who has been subject to the *longest* enquiry and tribunal in the history of the UK General Medical Council, and found to have breached his code of ethics, behaviour and the law in the most *serious* way.
This is what he did:
1. He falsified data deliberately
2. He carried out invasive medical procedures on children and infants *without* authorisation from any 'Ethics Committee' (since they had NO medical necessity so were for research purposes only) and *without* informed consent from the parents/guardians of those patients.
3. He lied to colleagues, parents/guardians of patients, health officials here and abroad.
The man actually deserves to be serving a prison term.

As far as adverse reactions to vaccinations is concerned, there is a codified reporting procedure here in the UK and it works.

Vaccinations have been under the spotlight for decades and it is about judgements that people make based on the empirical and scientific evidence.
As far as I am concerned, here in the UK Vaccines for children are pretty limited and are offered on a strong basis of evidence. The evidence I see points to them being successful while at the same time being kept under review.
As for adult vaccines, I tend to feel the same and it is a matter of choice.
No one here is compelled to have any vaccines.

As far as thimerosal is concerned, I don't see any peer-reviewed scientific data proving even a tenuous link with Autism in those vaccines currently offered, and at the ages they are given. And that is the consensus view of the medical profession.
That may change, and yes it would probably be great if all vaccines were preservative-free but the cost-benefit analysis doesn't really support it.

Life is life and there is no 'risk-free' way of living. It's about what the balance of those risks is.

For the great majority of people (anywhere in the world) on average or below average incomes, evidence-based health care and protection that covers the most people, for the most reasonable cost, is what I want to see. And virtually *none* of those people have the benefit of an unlimited or even generous private health insurance plan to cover the niceties that 'risk-free' vaccines or a whole panoply of added-value services would cost.

computergeek
January 11th, 2011, 05:07 AM
I found one bit of your post a bit troubling:



As far as thimerosal is concerned, I don't see any peer-reviewed scientific data proving even a tenuous link with Autism in those vaccines currently offered, and at the ages they are given. And that is the consensus view of the medical profession.


I would note that it is the consensus view of the medical profession that HIV is the sole and exclusive cause of AIDS (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406015a0.html) as well. I personally don't find the democratic view of science to be a priori definitive.

In doing some searching this evening I found an interesting link to Changing the Course of Autism: A Scientific Approach for Parents and Physicians (http://books.google.com/books?id=BP86uPB3bi8C&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=thimerosal&source=vrt&ots=D77TYRQIiD&sig=0eH1xgBGiSLstgQvaf0Thf2JBi8&hl=en&ei=C8wrTYqnEMys8Aahxu2XCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CG8Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=thimerosal&f=false). It discusses the role (or potential role) of mercury in autism and argues it is a factor, but not the sole factor.

What I found most interesting about the table of contents was that it read quite a bit like alternative texts on HIV/AIDS, including discussions of immune dysfunction, TH1/TH2 shifts, intestinal dysbiosis, etc. This made the topic a bit more germane (at least to me).

I understand the point of risk/reward trade-offs, particularly in terms of public health policy. At the same time, that same risk/reward trade-off argument is being used in BC (and other locales) to justify ARV treatment for all HIV positives, so I'm equally understanding of the impact that public policy decisions can have on individual people. Balancing personal interests against group interests is a real tension in human activities and no answer we choose is going to have a positive outcome for all involved.

John Bleau
January 11th, 2011, 05:46 AM
computergeek,

The thimerosal link is compelling. For one thing, mercury poisoning looks very much like autism. I'm occupied with a contract right now and will not be posting much until the weekend.

Here are some of the suspects behind the rise in the incidence of autism:

- thimerosal (why in god's name put any amount of mercury in any vaccine???)
- the ever-increasing number of vaccines
- MMR (remembering that rubella is one of the few recognized causes of autism)
- the 10,000+ toxins in our environment
- degradation of our food and possibly the prevalence of HFCS in our (well, not mine) diets
- changes in diagnostic protocols

Science by consensus is suspect. Science must ask questions and not vilify naysayers whose position threatens some corporate livelihoods.

computergeek
January 11th, 2011, 07:27 AM
I ran across an interesting article (http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2011/01/deth.html)this evening discussing the BMJ retraction of Wakefield's original paper about MMR and autism. This interview with Richard Deth of Northeastern included a number of comments about this I found interesting:



I think it’s very unusual, but at the same time revealing, that the BMJ chose to publish this story. Investigative journalist Brian Deer has been on a mission to discredit Wakefield for years. His report is not a scientific article, but rather an opinion piece that doesn’t focus on the scientific finding of whether or not autistic children have inflammation in their gastrointestinal tract, which I believe is the crux of the original paper. That paper never set out to prove an explicit link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Nobody studying 12 subjects could conceive of proving a link. Wakefield found that subjects had gastrointestinal inflammation and at least some of parents reported that they thought this occurred after their children received the MMR vaccine.


and


The British General Medical Council and Brian Deer have conspired to make an example of Wakefield for daring to suggest that vaccination may cause disease in some individuals.

Wakefield's identification of gastrointestinal inflammation in autism will remain an important scientific contribution. The magnitude of the effort to discredit him betrays a strong fear that his suggestion of a link to vaccination may be correct. It amounts to a public pillorying that frightens others from investigating this controversial but important issue.


It makes me think of how things might have been for Duesberg if he had a bit less credibility.

In all fairness, Deth did state:


I support vaccination and safer vaccines that don't contain aluminum or mercury.

UKSteve
January 11th, 2011, 04:58 PM
I don't see any real connection or similarity between vaccination development and HIV/AIDS - to me that is just clutching at slightly irrational straws and undermines challenging the real danger of the HIV/AIDS dogma.
I can see the reasons for doubts and fears about vaccination development and yes it does sit within the context of the drug industries insatiable appetite for profits. But then so do all of those issues raised by John. They exist in great part because of political and economic globalisation, massive negative consumption and production, rapacious and almost unfettered 'big farming', 'big pharma', 'big food retailing' and the military/industrial complex. They go alongside cultural phenomena such as the sexualisation of children, 'celebrity', 'fashion', alcohol and drug consumption. I would suggest they all contribute to the ills of contemporary society - brainwashing and demoralisation of people through relative poverty and lack of power, lack of access to honest and transparent information so that people stand on streets 'cheering' wars and military interventions and campaigns against 'terror' that are essentially lies.

cdm
January 13th, 2011, 01:17 AM
Is there a link between vaccines and SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)?



John
this is a very serious question we have not addressed yet properly. We should do something more
It seems mathematical analysis is implicated in the interpretation of results. Sometimes wrong mathematical methods underestimate the risks. Here is the responsibility of your fellow-mathematicians.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117266

[quote:]
A modified self-controlled case series method to examine association between multidose vaccinations and death.

Kuhnert R, Hecker H, Poethko-Müller C, Schlaud M, Vennemann M, Whitaker HJ, Farrington CP.

Robert Koch-Institute, Division for Health of Children and Adolescents, Prevention Concepts, Postfach 650261, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Abstract

The self-controlled case series method (SCCS) was developed to analyze the association between a time-varying exposure and an outcome event. We consider penta- or hexavalent vaccination as the exposure and unexplained sudden unexpected death (uSUD) as the event. The special situation of multiple exposures and a terminal event requires adaptation of the standard SCCS method. This paper proposes a new adaptation, in which observation periods are truncated according to the vaccination schedule. The new method exploits known minimum spacings between successive vaccine doses. Its advantage is that it is very much simpler to apply than the method for censored, perturbed or curtailed post-event exposures recently introduced. This paper presents a comparison of these two SCCS methods by simulation studies and an application to a real data set. In the simulation studies, the age distribution and the assumed vaccination schedule were based on real data. Only small differences between the two SCCS methods were observed, although 50 per cent of cases could not be included in the analysis with the SCCS method with truncated observation periods. By means of a study including 300 uSUD, a 16-fold risk increase after the 4th dose could be detected with a power of at least 90 per cent. A general 2-fold risk increase after vaccination could be detected with a power of 80 per cent. Reanalysis of data from cases of the German case-control study on sudden infant death (GeSID) resulted in slightly higher point estimates using the SCCS methods than the odds ratio obtained by the case-control analysis. [unquote]

An old research indicated a 30 fold rise of SIDS the first 3 days post triple vaccine and a 7 fold the first month post the same vaccine. It seems other vaccinations share too a risk of SIDS.

cdm
January 13th, 2011, 01:22 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660877

The reexamination of the subject of pertussis of 80s, reveals that the pertussis vaccine might truly have produced SIDS, as parents claimed those days.

computergeek
January 13th, 2011, 07:41 PM
Here's an interesting conclusion (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001269/frame.html) I ran across this morning regarding vaccines (from the Cochrane Collaboration):



Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.

WARNING:
This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

jonathan barnett
January 15th, 2011, 03:05 AM
Dr. Andrew Wakefield issued this public statement (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-dr-andrew-wakefield--no-fraud-no-hoax-no-profit-motive-113454389.html?cf_synd_id=MDvAHEw) in response to Brian Deer's recent article in the British Medical Journal:


"I want to make one thing crystal clear for the record – my research and the serious medical problems found in those children were not a hoax and there was no fraud whatsoever. Nor did I seek to profit from our findings.

"I stand by the Lancet paper's methodology and the results which call for more research into whether environmental triggers cause gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in children. In fact, despite media reports to the contrary, the results of my research have been duplicated in five other countries (to see citations to studies, visit http://tinyurl.com/4hrdt5y.)

UKSteve
January 16th, 2011, 11:14 PM
I personally find it impossible to accept anything Wakefield says since he falsified data, lied to colleagues and health officials both here and abroad on multiple occasions, carried out illegal invasive medical procedures on children and infants without informed consent and (despite now using phrases such as 'environmental factors' for GI disorders and developmental regression) publicly scared the living shit out of millions of parents by suggesting a direct proven link between MMR and Autism.
All the above was verified in documents considered by the longest investigational tribunal in the history of English medicine.
Wakefield has never, ever denied those actions let alone tried to disprove them.
For that he is now among a very small number of physicians barred from practising here for the rest of his life.
The man is a liar and a charlatan, and for the illnesses and deaths that were a direct consequence of his actions I would rather he was in prison.
As far as those peer-reviewed papers supporting his work in 1998, and his press conference held at the time, that is simply scientific nonsense and has been proved to be so.
But then, tell a lie often enough and some will believe it.

Aion
January 17th, 2011, 09:12 AM
The man is a liar and a charlatan, and for the illnesses and deaths that were a direct consequence of his actions I would rather he was in prison.

Why isn't he then (in prison) ?

positivenegative
January 19th, 2011, 04:36 AM
Why isn't he then (in prison) ?

Here's an amazing recent interview between Dr Andrew Wakefield and Robert Scott Bell, who discuss the current smear campaign being engineered by the conventional medical industry to destroy Dr Wakefield's reputation. Dr Wakefield, of course, is the vaccine researcher who first linked vaccines to autism. His work has been systematically attacked and discredited by the medical journals, drug companies and even health authorities who are desperate to spread their vaccine mythology in order to protect the profits of the vaccine industry.


M6uUCvfkyVQ

UKSteve
January 19th, 2011, 06:03 PM
smear campaign

You mean the one mounted by almost the entire membership of the British Medical Association and Royal College of General Practitioners, who have variously described Wakefield as 'irresponsible' 'arrogant' 'egotistical' 'dishonest' 'corrupt' 'unethical' 'publicity hungry'.
Did you know, from your ignorance over the pond there, that all but one co-signatory of the paper that the Lancet published disassociated themselves *AT THE TIME* from his Press Conference remarks about what the paper allegedly proved?
Is that the fictitious smear campaign you clearly know nothing factually about?
Or is it the 'smear' campaign of the vast majority of parents to express a public view, who condemned Wakefield?
Or the 'smear' campaign of the parents of children in intensive care, some of whom were left deaf and some DEAD, as a result of the lower uptake of MMR as a direct result of Wakefield's press conference?
Or all the parents (and thinking people generally) who have the where with all to research the facts on the numbers of deaf or dead children pre and post-MMR, and that MMR is the single greatest reason for a drop in post-birth deafness?


being engineered by health authorities who are desperate to spread their vaccine mythology in order to protect the profits of the vaccine industry.

I'm only concerned with the UK and in that respect such drivel is ignorant, irresponsible, factually baseless and lazy-minded bollocks. It's that kind of nonsense that undermines genuine concerns about a lack of transparency in health care matters and private industry, and makes its proponents look like pseudo-anarchist nutters that can be dismissed.



Wakefield... is the 'vaccine' - [sic he is no such thing] researcher who first linked vaccines to autism.

He is nothing of the sort, and has never established to *any scientific standard* any link whatsoever. His co-authors even state that. In fact, he no longer himself makes that connection and talks about various 'environmental' factors.
It was his 1998 press conference where he made the direct connection, and that caused such a controversy (since it was untrue in his own paper), that people started to dig deeper and discovered it was much, much WORSE.
He falsified data, lied to colleagues here and abroad, carried out invasive research medical procedures on children and infants with no medical need, no informed consent, and no 'Ethics Committee' approval (actually worse than most of what HIV researchers do).
He even touted for MONEY for children at a birthday party of one of his own children, to let him take their blood for STG£10!!!!

Once some people go down the road of finding one bad thing to occupy their time in opposing, they sometimes end up supporting any crackpot, egotist, liar, charlatan, fraud, criminal simply because it appears that the 'establishment' (that so well structured, well-organised, uniformly agreeing, easily definable homogeneous entity) are not supporting.

Simple lazy-minded madness. Giving 'dissidence' a thoroughly sour if not bad name.

positivenegative
January 19th, 2011, 06:15 PM
Simple lazy-minded madness.

Take all the vaccines you wish.

UKSteve
January 19th, 2011, 06:21 PM
I'll do whatever I feel is right for me, including answering posts point by point.
You rarely do.

Smart-ass comments are water off a duck's back to me.

Which is why, outside of posts about your direct personal health experiences which I find useful and informative, I have little respect for much else of what you post, and especially the deterring manner of it.

computergeek
January 19th, 2011, 07:32 PM
Steve,

It is clear you feel rather strongly about Wakefield. I've read a myriad of pieces from across the spectrum and must say that I have a rather mixed view of what has happened. It is difficult for me to piece together the various articles I've read after the fact, but I certainly did not get the clear picture of undeniable fraud that you paint.

But it is clear that even now there is a broad range of opinion on this matter.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/06/autism-activists-defend-embattled-dr-andrew-wakefield/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/smith-scott8.1.1.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20027552-10391704.html

One challenge with increasing ones skepticism is that it is easy to start wondering how many of those accused of improper conduct are guilty of same. It is a mistake to assume they are ALL guilt, or they are ALL innocent.

For example, Duesberg has been attacked repeatedly using some of the same arguments used against Wakefield (e.g., the number of lives lost because of their respective mis-founded fears.) But again, lumping cases together like this really isn't sufficient.

This conversation has caused me to step back and do some reading on autism and, as I observed previously, the similarities between autism and HIV/AIDS were surprising to me (e.g., GI health impact.) There is no question that the rate of autism appears to be substantially higher, whether because we are collecting information on it more assiduously, or because the actual rate of autism has increased.

I also have some serious questions about immunization in general, and that doesn't help my own skepticism, either. But I will admit, I'm not sure about MMR. I was immunized as a child, for MMR, as well as DPT, polio, and smallpox. I've been immunized against Hepatitis A - although I'm told that didn't work, and Hepatitis B - since that's the standard advice these days. I've been immunized for Lyme Disease as well (I lived in an area thick with deer ticks, owned dogs that would regularly get ticks, etc.) But I've not been a seasonable influenza immunization person and I have avoided the pneumovax as well, based largely upon my readings that suggest they don't improve morbidity/mortality. I've argued against vaccination for my mother (shingles, H1N1, influenza) in recent years as well, and I share links to that research with her.

So while I know you feel passionate about this case, I must admit I have more lingering doubts based upon what I've read, reinforced by my fundamental distrust of anyone that represents the pharmaceutical industry arguing that someone opposed to their products is doing it "for the money." It doesn't mean the charges aren't true, but it does make me rather skeptical.

I DO think that eliminating mercury from these compounds is a good idea (except perhaps from an economic perspective.) I'm not even opposed to looking at breaking it up into multiple distinct vaccinations. Opposition to these seems to be largely economic in nature, in which case we're really arguing a public health/economic issue and not a scientific issue.

In the US there is a fund established for reimbursing those people demonstrably injured by immunization. Is there a similar program to this in the UK? Of course, in the US, if one is striken with Guillain-Barré there is no guarantee you can afford the treatment, while in the UK there will be at least some level of treatment, so perhaps such a fund isn't really necessary?

UKSteve
January 19th, 2011, 11:18 PM
Hi CG

I do see where you are coming from and I appreciate the seriousness with which you approach the whole issue.

For me it really is a chicken and egg situation, vis vaccination per se. Is it the scientific and medical route that is fundamentally flawed, or the underlying 'profit' motive in the production and supply of them, or a combination of that and the sheer egotism that clearly does sit very firmly among those personalities involved in vaccine developments?

I think there is a good case to be made for vaccine development being a 'reactive' process to a whole series of problems: poverty and malnutrition and a serious decline, over centuries but particularly in the last 100 years, in the quality of diet generally, lifestyle factors and the loss of cultural knowledge and experience of healthy practices that used to be passed down through the generations.

But then, it would take a massive and quite extraordinary worldwide cultural change to go back to a healthier whole food vegetarian diet, less stressful lifestyle and closer and greater kinship.

But that would still not change the history of deaths and illnesses that some vaccines have prevented.

I don't agree with the notion of having vaccines for everything and anything, and I personally have only had the Hep B vaccine (and a couple of tetanus boosters) in adulthood.

But I do believe, by the weight of evidence that I have read, that there is an acceptable role for some vaccines and MMR is one I believe is overwhelmingly acceptable in every sense.

I agree with you that moves should be made towards making all vaccines free of preservatives that good studies show might carry risk.

But this is all about choices around cost/benefit and even if MMR were to be proven to have a possible side-effect causing Autism to some, a comparison would need to be made between the numbers of deaths and serious long term disabilities caused by not using it MMR, and the incidence of Autism.

I suppose it must be clear that I see these issues, whether it be vaccine development, or HIV/AIDS - in fact most health care, most food issues and most environmental issues - in political terms and about power, property-ownership, capital. All the problems around health - whether HIV/AIDS, vaccines, drug production, food policy, energy policy, housing (which all impact on health) cannot be seen outside of a system of economics that is fundamentally flawed, and *always* acts to the detriment of most human beings, but especially those without power and wealth, ie the vast majority.

I simply reflect on the origins of most forms of medicine - and vaccine development no less - as inherently good underpinned by basic good human values which have become distorted exactly in line and time span with the development of an economic and political system based on private property, from feudalism through to capitalism.

In the case of Wakefield, I don't see any point in getting bogged down with it any further. Suffice to say that as far as I am concerned he is much a part of a, very flawed, medical establishment as those who criticise him.
I just happen to believe that in this case they are right and he is wrong and that his overall behaviour, his arrogance, his egotism and his clear understanding that what he did in 1998 was, if followed, bound to lead to suffering and death needlessly, and I believe that is precisely what happened.
He allowed his ego, over a disagreement within his area of research, to take precedence over the dangers of his clarion call. That was unforgivable.

computergeek
January 19th, 2011, 11:35 PM
But this is all about choices around cost/benefit and even if MMR were to be proven to have a possible side-effect causing Autism to some, a comparison would need to be made between the numbers of deaths and serious long term disabilities caused by not using it MMR, and the incidence of Autism.

Two things I will observe here:



We are talking in the abstract. If your child is one that is stricken with some life-altering condition, you are unlikely to accept that the risk was worth the cost. I actually agree with you in the case of MMR, namely that the cost of protection against it still seems worth the risk, but I am not in the position of being forced to make that decision or deal with the consequences of an adverse reaction. I do worry that the "group versus individual" nature of the debate comes into play for HIV/AIDS.
Humans are terrible at risk evaluation. People are afraid of things that have low risk and ignore things that have high risk. I enjoy the analysis in the book SuperFreakonomics (http://www.superfreakonomicsbook.com/)in a number of these areas (for example, the observation that, for children over age 2, car seats do not appear to save lives (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10FREAK.html?_r=1&ref=freakonomics).)

I am willing to consider any evidence on the various sides of an issue, particularly when it is one that concerns me, and realize that in many cases I will be asked to make a decision with (at best) flawed data. That happens rather often in real life, and we do the best we can with the data that we have at the time.

UKSteve
January 20th, 2011, 12:49 AM
Two things I will observe here:



We are talking in the abstract. If your child is one that is stricken with some life-altering condition, you are unlikely to accept that the risk was worth the cost. I actually agree with you in the case of MMR, namely that the cost of protection against it still seems worth the risk, but I am not in the position of being forced to make that decision or deal with the consequences of an adverse reaction. I do worry that the "group versus individual" nature of the debate comes into play for HIV/AIDS.
Humans are terrible at risk evaluation. People are afraid of things that have low risk and ignore things that have high risk. I enjoy the analysis in the book SuperFreakonomics (http://www.superfreakonomicsbook.com/)in a number of these areas (for example, the observation that, for children over age 2, car seats do not appear to save lives (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10FREAK.html?_r=1&ref=freakonomics).)

I am willing to consider any evidence on the various sides of an issue, particularly when it is one that concerns me, and realize that in many cases I will be asked to make a decision with (at best) flawed data. That happens rather often in real life, and we do the best we can with the data that have at the time.

I agree that parents are in a very difficult position making those judgements - here in the UK we have had the very same, but opposite argument waged by some parents in opposition to the government policy on NHS-funded free seasonal flu vaccination this winter, based on their Medical Advice Panel having made a judgement (and reiterated twice in December and January) that only children under 5 with underlying health problems should be included in the 'at risk' groups that would qualify for the free trivalent seasonal flu vaccine (H1N1, A and B). Because a couple of children without those underlying problems have died from H1N1, their parents have led a chorus of disapproval.
My point about MMR and Wakefield, is that prior to his 1998 press conference there was no problem with 90%+ of parents accepting the overwhelming facts about the overwhelming serious risk to *their* children if communal vaccine rates fell below 80% and those risks turned into actual occurences of serious illness, long term disabilities and deaths. In *most* areas of the UK that risk, through high vaccination rates, is receding and illness/harm/death rates are once again declining.

I recognise it is possible to see a corelation between that debate and HIV/AIDS dogma but I don't believe that stands up to scientific scrutiny. Despite the lies and distortion of the HIV Industry, and patent attempts to cover up, we know that neither suggested 'transmission' rates of 'HIV' nor projected cases of 'AIDS' have ever come true, and that deaths from ARVs have spiralled.

computergeek
January 20th, 2011, 01:23 AM
At the risk of diverting an off-topic thread back to HIV/AIDS, I'll play devil's advocate here for a moment with your last statement and argue that there are quite a few studies which conclude that ARVs have, in fact, saved lives:

Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus
(http://www.virushunters.net/showabstract.php?pmid=9516219)
Mortality and morbidity of HIV infected patients receiving HAART: a cohort study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18473789)

Treatment as Prevention: HAART Expansion – A Powerful Strategy to Reduce AIDS Morbidity and Mortality and HIV Incidence (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.aspx?did=3332) (this one is the basis of the Canadian "Test and Treat" policy direction.)

HAART Decreases Risk of Death Even in People with CD4 Counts above 350 Cells/mm3 (http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/2008icr/croi/docs/022208_a.html)

My point here (to drag this back to the original point) is that it is quite often the case that we can find conflicting evidence. It's surprisingly difficult to analyze it all (especially in the HIV/AIDS field where the sheer volume is overwhelming,) but of course my concern becomes similar - if there are 100 published articles in favour of vaccination, how do I know that the 3 article published against it aren't valid?

I suppose one point is that the issue in the general area of vaccination is certainly not this biased (not focusing on MMR here, for example.)

computergeek
January 25th, 2011, 04:59 AM
Here's another intriguing bit on vaccination, specifically with respect to autism.

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/756/9/



On Nov. 17, 2007 Elias' illnesses became too much for him. The little seven year old boy died. If the right people bothered to study the medical details of the case, they might learn something about why Elias got so sick from his vaccines, and how to identify ahead of time what babies might have the same problem. The former head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernardine Healy, has said such study would actually protect the integrity of the vaccine program, rather than threaten it (as she says many government officials fear). So far, though, no takers. Elias' case becomes quietly filed away in vaccine court archives with nearly 1,300 other vaccine brain injuries-none of them apparently being pooled for study. An undetermined number of them, like Elias', involving autism diagnoses.

cdm
January 25th, 2011, 07:44 AM
Here's another intriguing bit on vaccination, specifically with respect to autism.

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/756/9/

The preference for the use of the term "encephalopathy" rather than autism is correct not only in trials, but also in scientific approach. The damage of the nervous system is the most crucial, but we must not also forget and other possible and more often damages that are syrpassed with easiness, because they have become usual.
I have a friend, a paediatrician, who, although always in the side of conventional medical education, she admitted that she found extremely curious the fact of the changes in the incidence of allergic asthma in the course of her carreer. When she had begun her practice 20 years ago, she used to find one case out of 20 in her daily appointments needing inhalers. These last years the daily occurence changed to nearly 15 to 20 cases which need inhalers. I argued with her saying that the number of vaccines has increased since then. Of course the inertia of her mind, being brainwashed in so many seminars and congresses, would resist to my concerns, but finally when we met a few days ago, surprisingly admitted in front of friends that she tended towards my opinion. I was satisfied enough.

I want to comment on this brainwash especially by rewriting something I have written in an old thread.


What has the cartel done?
It has created an educational system, called “scientific”, which permits only “knowledge”, or rather “guide-lines” that are helpful for its causes. All other educational systems and schools of thoughts are considered “alternative” “magic”, “pagan” etc . In this way its apostles in all the world try continually to dominate the mind of people, lay, governmental and professional, and dictate what should be done in every occasion. The cartel has managed since more than 100 years to be considered as the official source of knowledge.
....
Encyclopedias were bought and were employed to change the people's view on critical issues, like vaccinations. This was the case of Britannica bought by Rockfeller and JP Morgan.


It is true I suppose that the "objectiveness" of Britannica was hired by these economic giants in order to change the mind of the people. After the purchase of the encyclopaedia they changed the articles about vaccination in a more useful to their interests -of selling vaccines- way. They simply omitted all the information creating scepticism about it.

cdm
January 25th, 2011, 08:14 AM
We have not addressed enough the historical facts of science that had made the idea of vaccines to prevail and finally dominate these last 150 years. If we search the facts, we may easily find that their real effectiveness has not been substantiated, especially in their early years of development. Not one is discussing the fact that in the early years of development of the flu vaccine, for example, the flu virus had not been "isolated" yet. How could then be produced a vaccine? It is crazy enough but nobody addressed this issue. We are approaching the era of World War I, when the petrochemical/drug cartel "cared" about the health of the population of soldiers

John Bleau
January 27th, 2011, 04:44 PM
This article (http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal .html) is worth reading.

UKSteve
January 28th, 2011, 01:16 AM
It is interesting only that it appears now. Let's see whether it gets any real credibility by achieving traction in more serious publications.
Either way it has no bearing on Wakefield's removal from the Medical Register and disbarment from practising in the UK.
He was found guilty of multiple charges of serious and gross misconduct.
The BMJ is a publication with no statutory basis - it can accuse the disbarred Wakefield of anything it like and he can defend himself as best he can.
And let us try and remember it was *not* simply about Wakefield's suggestion (in a very public way with a massive audience) that he had 'proven' a link between MMR and Autism, which he had not proven and which his co-signatories (including another disbarred at the same time) did not concur with.
It was many other actions of fraud, lies, illegal and unethical invasive medical procedures among others.

cdm
January 28th, 2011, 11:19 PM
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/bmj_timeline.htm
http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7569/621.3.extract

We know what is the role of BMJ. They have at hand always a lawyer for the libels of the drug cartel's satans, accusing independent scientists, like Dr Rath. The case of Wakefield is not very far from Rath's case.

positivenegative
February 4th, 2011, 08:10 AM
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger interviews Dr Humphries about vaccines, including:

* Why she became concerned about vaccines after noticing kidney failure in patients who recently received vaccines.

* Why vaccines are often contaminated with unknown viral strains, and why the vaccine industry has covered up known vaccine contamination (and knowingly sold contaminated vaccines to be used on the public).

* Why the entire vaccine industry needs to be questioned, and why a new effort is needed to scientifically assess whether vaccines are really safe or effective.

* Why the fairy tale that "vaccines eradicated polio" is a false mythology -- here's what really happened.

* Why the "smallpox" vaccine has never been proven to be effective against smallpox at all.

* Why vaccine industry research is extremely flimsy and ignores rigorous standards of scientific evidence. (Using improper placebos designed to minimize the appearance of side effects, for example.)

* Why the vaccine industry won't test vaccines versus unvaccinated children (they're terrified of the results).

* Why children caught up in outbreaks of measles are often the very same children who were vaccinated against measles!

* Why vaccines may actually suppress the immune system and cause increased vulnerability to future infections.

* Why many childhood infections such as chicken pox are perfectly natural, normal and even HEALTHY.

* Why the outlandish and unscientific behavior of the vaccine industry is causing an erosion of credibility across all "science."

It's a long but it's good. It gets better along the way.


XUORtLSg19E

Gos
February 4th, 2011, 08:25 AM
...let us try and remember it was *not* simply about Wakefield's suggestion (in a very public way with a massive audience) that he had 'proven' a link between MMR and Autism, which he had not proven and which his co-signatories (including another disbarred at the same time) did not concur with.
It was many other actions of fraud, lies, illegal and unethical invasive medical procedures among others.


What other actions of fraud, lies, illegal and unethical invasive medical procedures? Alleged by whom? Proven by what evidence?

Are these allegations at least as legitimate as the allegation that he fabricated his findings in the 7 children documented in his 1998 Lancet article?


----

John Bleau
February 5th, 2011, 07:10 PM
Anyone interested in this issue should pay attention to Mike Adams' series these days on vaccination. He's had a number of articles out on them with recorded interviews. They're very informative.

Here's one link:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F6323813CFAFB8338173FB11D429

UKSteve
February 5th, 2011, 07:50 PM
What other actions of fraud, lies, illegal and unethical invasive medical procedures? Alleged by whom? Proven by what evidence?

Are these allegations at least as legitimate as the allegation that he fabricated his findings in the 7 children documented in his 1998 Lancet article?


----

All the allegations and all the evidence were aired publicly, and reported in media all over the world, at the longest ever tribunal in history held by the General Medical Council. It is all in the public domain.

John Bleau
February 5th, 2011, 11:21 PM
Gary Null has a very long and extremely informative and interesting radio program you can hear here (http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=2969467AE82B11FA08943967096BFDA0). Though it is mainly about vaccination and Wakefield, it talks about the wider issue.

Most dissidents here know about Montagnier's break with the orthodoxy and have heard him interviewed on House of Numbers. Well, what he says at about 1:50 or shortly after, will blow you away.

The whole program is extremely important, not just with regard to vaccination - it has to do with the damage control and attack mechanisms that are triggered whenever the interests of the pharma-corrupted ivory tower are threatened.

UKSteve
February 6th, 2011, 12:29 AM
Most dissidents here know about Montagnier's break with the orthodoxy and have heard him interviewed on House of Numbers. Well, what he says at about 1:50 or shortly after, will blow you away.


Montagnier's interview on House of Numbers was simply replayed. So there was a degree of hyperbole in Gary Null's suggestion it was 'new' and that, forthwith, Montagnier would be subject to a massive multi-pronged attack. Well, Montagnier's view on oxidative stress is not new and he alluded to it two decades ago and it is fairly widely known now.
Null suggests a link to how he suggests Montagnier will now suffer and that this (yet to be evidenced) attack is or will be the same as that suffered by Wakefield. Now that is a pretty long stretch phrophecy, and we will see if Montagnier does suffer such a massive multi-pronged attack on him, and it is an even longer stretch in the imagination to suggest it is the same as the position of Wakefield.
As to all these documents that Deer has (that proves Wakefield's innocence), then why has Wakefield and his colleagues not launched a case for a Judicial Review of the General Medical Council's decisions?
Where are the copies (or originals) that would be held by the Royal Free Hospital and allegedly not been seen by the GMC? Why were they not subpoenaed by Wakefield and Walker-Smith?
If they do exist and they are genuine and they do exonerate them, then a Judicial Review needs to be launched, and those of us who believed the results of the GMC hearings would be happy to accept any subsequent exoneration.

UKSteve
February 6th, 2011, 12:59 AM
But to come to Wakefield's skill of omission, see this video (from the same wakefield-supporting site):
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186

Wakefield makes much of his Lancet article having made *no* suggestion of any causal association between the 8 children subjects health issues and the MMR.
What this man doesn't tell you, is that both *before* publication of the Lancet article and after, he *DID* use significant media coverage to suggest the causal association he now says was not found, *and* publicly called for the MMR jab to be withdrawn which is what resulted in massive decline in UK MMR take up and a 1000% increase in Measles in children, massive numbers of serious ICU hospitalisation of children and deaths.
All because he made a verbal suggestion of causal relationship between MMR and Autism that neither the Lancet paper nor his own co-authors made (which was why 11 of them publicly disassociated themselves from that scientifically unfounded 'conclusion'), and a suggestion he has never retracted, or nowdays even admits to.

UKSteve
February 6th, 2011, 03:38 AM
Here are another few simple, straight-forward and hardly earth-shattering questions for those who are seemingly so happy to accept that Wakefield is a 'victim':

1. What is the difference between Robert Gallo getting the US Health Secretary to announce that he, Gallo, had 'discovered' a 'virus' that 'caused AIDS' *before* he had published any articles, let alone peer-reviewed articles

and

Wakefield holding a Press Conference to announce he had found a causal link between MMR and Autism *before* the Lancet Paper was published?

2. What is the difference between what Gallo did above - in allowing it to be said he had found the 'cause of AIDS' when his subsequent papers only suggested it was a 'probable' cause

and

Wakefield announcing a causal relationship between MMR and Autism - and calling for a BAN on MMR use - when his paper said the 8 of 12 patients in the Lancet paper only suggested the need for further research to ascertain the 'POSSIBILITY' of a link between MMR and Autism?

3. What is the difference between the now established fact of Gallo's falsifications of data - including pressurising his own assistants to keep quiet about them - and his personal massive grant-fund benefit and patent financial benefit from that corruption

and

Wakefield's own proven falsification of data and proven intended financial benefit from intent of patenting health remedies for patients with bowel problems allegedly developed post MMR vaccination?

In fact, there is no difference and it would not surprise me if Wakefield used Gallo as his example of a successful way of massive financial corruption.

Why do those who champion the arrogant liar Wakefield, set a bar of required scientific evidence so low, so weak as opposed to the level set for the 'HIV' industry, it simply does not add up?

The sad thing is, and it goes to the very *heart* of the purpose of the thread 'Scientific 'Dissidence' is not always a good thing', which is to highlight the risk inherent in 'evangelical' but blind 'dissidence' that seeks far less scientific evidence, clarity and honesty from people like Wakefield, simply because they are seen as 'anti-establishment'.

That's what leads some 'dissidents' down a blind alley of supporting quacks, nutters, self-publicists, egotists and scientific liars, money-grabbers and falsifiers who just happen not to be a part of their idea of the 'establishment'.

Frankly, it makes them crocodile tears over deaths from AZT and HAART, when deaths and serious illnesses from proven effects of low MMR uptake elicit barely a passing consideration.

I don't respect that case of the worst kind of double standards.

When Wakefield supporters subject him to the same kind of scientific standards they expect from 'HIV' industry medics and researchers (and there is a 1000 times more scientific evidence to show a possible relationship between what is called 'HIV' and a high percentage of people who have become ill with 'Aids illnesses', than there is between MMR and Autism) those of us who don't buy Wakefield's 'victim hood' might take their case more seriously.

Until then, they need to start being a little more honest and a little more consistent.

cdm
February 6th, 2011, 10:47 AM
I think the difference between Gallo and Wakefield is very simple.
Gallo was backed by the cartel-propelled US government in his announcement. Margaret Heckler was by his side and addressed him to speak. Wakefield, I suppose, he was alone (I have not seen him announcing his discovery and as far as I know the Blair administration backed the promotion of MMR).
Gallo was hailed from the beginning as a discoverer and a benefactor of humanity, while Wakefield was attacked from the beginning.

UKSteve
February 6th, 2011, 02:21 PM
CDM

That is far from accurate.

There are of course massive differences between 'AIDS' in the early 80s, and MMR in the late 1990s.

Wakefield was an 'aspiring' member of the establishment and hoped his gross exaggeration of his Lancet paper would see him climb that ladder.
He didn't care about the fear he caused among many 1000s of parents, and he didn't care about the very clear consequences of a significant drop in MMR uptake.

You are right in that the UK government Health Department sought to allay parents fears based on *facts* and scientific evidence - that the dangers to their children of non-uptake of MMR outweighed by a gargantuan degree all known possible side effects of MMR.

But you still don't address the LIE that Wakefield made in his pre and post publication press conferences. They were the same as Gallo.

This ridiculous association of Wakefield with some crusading 'anti-Big Pharma', 'anti-cartel' champion would be laughable if it were not so serious as to have caused death and suffering.

Gos
February 11th, 2011, 05:12 PM
All the allegations and all the evidence were aired publicly, and reported in media all over the world, at the longest ever tribunal in history held by the General Medical Council. It is all in the public domain.


Sort of like the "overwhelming" evidence that HIV causes AIDS is in the public domain?

You're pretty long on citing nebulous bodies of vaporous "evidence", and quite short on specifics and concrete evidence.

UKSteve
February 11th, 2011, 05:16 PM
LOL

If you persist in believing that everything you disagree with is an example of a 'HIV/AIDS'-like conspiracy, then you just become a total irrelevance because people at large will just see you as a crackpot.

Plus of course you make blatantly dishonest allegations and factually unverifiable assertions. In that you share the same characteristics as the HIV industry. Opposite sides of the same coin.


Well, seeing as I never said one word of the quote above, or any combination of words that equates to it, or anything approaching what Gos implied as being my view (especially as to the complete contrary, I singled out the New York Times for praise, making the suggestion of what is my view illogical) - and that that false suggestion has not been retracted, nor the very clear suggestion that MediaLens is probably being secretly funded, I see no point in debating with views so lacking in integrity.


Try and hunt around for the tiniest bit of integrity Gos - I'm convinced you have some somewhere.

positivenegative
February 16th, 2011, 05:23 PM
Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the British Medical Journal, science and vaccines. In this video interview, Dr Wakefield says that BMJ is factually incorrect in accusing Wakefield of falsifying the study data in his 1998 paper published in The Lancet.

"[The data] were faithfully reproduced in the Lancet paper, and they were made in the most scrupulous, meticulous way. Those are the facts. Brian Deer knew those facts. When he made his allegations to the BMJ, he knew those facts. Did he disclose them to the BMJ? More importantly, did the BMJ, as a peer reviewed scientific journal, did they check the facts? Because the facts were fully available to them in the book Callous Disregard."

Dr Wakefield also explains how this desperate move by the BMJ to attack Dr Wakefield has eroded the credibility of the publication:

"They have been hijacked by a freelance journalist who is not expert in any of these fields. They have handed over their journal to this man and allowed him to publish knowingly false allegations, and they have gone along with it. In my opinion, they [the BMJ] have blown their scientific credibility. In their desperation... their fundamental belief that vaccines must be safe, [they say] please don't tell me this terrible disease has been caused by the physician, don't tell me that. Tell me anything but that, and we will take any information, even information from Brian Deer, that will convince us it's safe, and we will publish that, because that conforms with our belief system. That makes us feel more comfortable. That makes us feel that we, as a profession, are not culpable in this extraordinary disorder."

In this interview, Dr Wakefield also discusses the motivation for the BMJ to grasp at any effort to discredit those who question the safety of vaccines:

"They are so keen to prove me wrong, to prove the parents wrong, and to exonerate the medical profession, their political friends, their pharmaceutical friends, whoever it is, that they have gone ahead in this reckless way and done this. And now, based upon the clear, unambiguous, historical factual records, then I can come out and talk to you like this and say this without any fear of retribution from the BMJ because they've got themselves into this mess. The facts are the facts."

He goes on to say about the BMJ, "An investigation will be forced upon them."


wcBSuxBuVNk

cdm
February 16th, 2011, 06:55 PM
My mother always said to me that through eye contact you may understand a man what is he. Wakefield passed that criterion well enough.

Another curious question I had from the beginning was this:
How on earth a surgeon may change the analysis of a pathologist? In my country it is impossible. They- the surgeons- never come to the lab of pathologists.

It seems BMJ another time showed its servitude to the drug cartel.

UKSteve
February 17th, 2011, 02:34 AM
Good for you CDM - I'll have to listen to your Mother, and maybe even get a few lessons from her on interpreting 'eye contact', and then I don't have to worry anymore about what judgments to make about HIV/AIDS, Climate Change, Vaccines, Prime Minister Cameron when he says he'll help more of the 20% of 18-25 year olds out of work to get a job with much less less money than Government spent last year (in complete contradiction to the views of his own professional advisers, economists statisticians and fiscal studies experts) - because I'll just look into the eyes of all these people and I'll know the truth!
Ummmmmmm..... well just like all the people that looked into the eyes of Clinton, Blair, Thatcher, Reagan and whole bunch of other people who hoodwinked rather a lot of them into believing they were 'sincere'.

Frankly, if you meant that even half-seriously, then I would probably end up not believing a single word you said on any subject unless I had significant third-party evidence that it might be remotely true, and not based simply on some eye-gazing at someone who sold you a pup.
Quackery.
And you say 'HIV/AIDS' supporters were trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

Wakefield was found guilty after a hearing that sat for 217 days over almost three years, with dozens of live witnesses and tons of papers.
It wasn't the BMJ in an article six months later that found him guilty - they merely made a judgment about his *motivations*, after he had *already* been given the chance to be judged.
He chose not to attend.

He knew he would be found guilty - it was virtually impossible for it have to gone any other way because facts proved it.

Young and vulnerable children were subjected, in the interests of research, to invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures which they did not need and the ethics committee of the Royal Free hospital in north London, where Wakefield was based, had not approved.

Wakefield did not have paediatric qualifications and had not worked as a clinical doctor for several years when he ordered the tests.

He drew blood from the arms of children at his son's birthday party, paying them £5 each, then joking about it afterwards.

He was also guilty of attempting to cover up his receipt of over £50,000.00 from the Legal Aid Board - to assist parents who were seeking legal advice as to whether or not they had a claim relating to vaccine damage.

It was an irresponsible and unethical conflict of interest.

He was also found guilty of serious professional misconduct by making claims for his research paper - both before and after its publication - that were simply NOT in the paper, and which were not supported by any of its co-signatories before or after publication.

That is irresponsible and unethical.

As someone held in high esteem by parents said:

Michael Fitzpatrick, GP and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need To Know, said: "My thoughts are with the families of autistic children who were dragged into futile litigation (more than 1,000 in the UK, more than 5,000 in the US) on the basis of Wakefield's speculative link between MMR and autism.

"Wakefield's greatest offence was his failure – over 12 years – either to substantiate a hypothesis with major consequences for child health or to withdraw it."

Or as another in the field said:

Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at University of Bristol medical school, said society tended to admire those who stick to their opinions. But in science, "the real heroes are those who acknowledge the supremacy of evidence and retain an open mind and those who admit, with good grace, when they are wrong ... I remain disappointed that Dr Wakefield still does not acknowledge all the evidence that now exists that shows MMR is safe and supports its use."


Wakefield *WANTED* to be a part of the establishment but sadly he tried to use the wrong area, in the wrong way and came a massive, well-earned cropper.

I doubt many reasonable people in the UK (or most other places) would buy a used car off him now, let alone let him anywhere near their children.

This 'comment' article in the Guardian (and the interesting reader comments that follow it) 11 years later, in the aftermath of the 1998 Wakefield press conferences, fear and ensuing UK measles epidemic and deaths, is salutary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2009/feb/10/mmr-vaccination-measles

positivenegative
February 17th, 2011, 06:58 AM
decided to not waste my time.

jonathan barnett
February 17th, 2011, 03:20 PM
This off-topic thread seems to be as controversial as 'AIDS'! I'm a bit reluctant to join the fray, but I do think this is an important issue, especially for parents of small children. I also see similarities between how Wakefield is being dismissed and how the system discredits researchers and doctors who buck the system regarding 'AIDS', a connection that the OP also alluded to.

Personally, I grow more ambivalent about vaccines as I age, and I've chosen to avoid them personally for years now. I suspect there is some middle ground, meaning it might be a good idea for people working with animals in the wild to have rabies vaccinations, or a carpenter to have a tetanus vaccination, for example, but the current practice of giving all infants and children a large number of vaccinations simultaneously, or over a short period of time, is surely asking for trouble.

I also wonder why the MMR vaccine is considered so critical. Michael and I were discussing this last night. Both of us had mumps and measles as kids. It was unpleasant, but we were sick for a week or ten days, then back to school. A lot of other kids got these illnesses, too; it was a rite of passage. We don't recall ever knowing of, or hearing of anyone dying of either diseases.

It seems reasonable to me that these kinds of childhood experiences are good for our immune systems. It's like practicing or exercises... we just get stronger and better at warding off things that want to attack us.

The debate in this thread, however, has now moved to the question of whether or not Wakefield is a fraud. There is a lot that has been written against him, so here's some recent news from the point of view of his supporters. (http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal .html)

@UKSteve: You wrote that "Wakefield was found guilty after a hearing that sat for 217 days over almost three years, with dozens of live witnesses and tons of papers." That statement threw up all kinds of red flags for me. What "cut and dried" case requires three years to hear?! It sounds like the case was very complex, confusing and susceptible to all kinds of influences, maneuverings and manipulation in a contest between David and Goliath.

That observation doesn't prove Wakefield innocent by any means, but maybe it should cause us to pause before accepting the trial outcome without question.

Even if Wakefield is completely discredited and dismissed, that is not proof that vaccines, or more specifically, over-vaccination, does no harm.

Based on other sources I've read, including Janine Roberts' Fear of the Invisible, I don't think the jury has returned a verdict on the issue of vaccines yet, even if it has on one of the messengers.

UKSteve
February 17th, 2011, 04:04 PM
Jonathan

I think there is a middle ground.

I don't personally support the use of the sheer number of childhood vaccinations that is the case in the USA.

It is significantly less in the UK.

I'm afraid as much as anyone over the pond doesn't like it, that is a result of an evidence-based, tax-payer funded, financially much more disciplined system that - while not even remotely perfect - does have the not insignificant benefit of offering fewer vaccines.

I also don't support the use of influenza vaccines for the sheer numbers of people they are offered to, either in the USA or the UK. Though once again, the UK limits the categories far more than the USA.

I believe the evidence does support the use of the UK existing programme of childhood vaccines, and indeed in terms of MMR illnesses themselves, the 'oh i had them as a child and it was fine' is so ridiculously hollow when compared to deaths and disabilities in children *before* MMR vaccine as to make my blood boil.

It flies in the face of facts and evidence and is simply perverse and, in my considered opinion, irresponsible if communicated to vulnerable and trusting parents.

MMR in less developed countries would result in several hundred thousands of fewer deaths and disabilities - and that is worth achieving *even if hundreds of those saved children developed autism* but luckily there is not a shred of real evidence that would be the case.

What exactly will it take before those who can't analyse paper-based facts get it?

Should we line up 1000s of healthy teenagers in various locations who were MMR vaccinated and have no ill effects, and then mount montages of the DEAD children, and line up the disabled children in areas where MMR is either not available, or where herd immunity was not achieved due to scurrilous nonsense causing vaccination rates to decline?

UKSteve
February 17th, 2011, 04:16 PM
decided to not waste my time.
Last edited by positivenegative; Today at 06:35 AM. Reason: removed response to uksteve because it won't matter anyway.


I doubt it would matter to any reasonable person, especially when you blithely throw accusations of 'racism' around, and think a contribution is to simply re-post a link to a youtube video already linked to, and just type in some of the transcript.
It is less about whether it matters, more a question that it adds nothing to the discussion.
Your many examples of astonishingly negative comments and barbs - frequently involving personal attack of the most vile kind, just goes to prove that, for some people, some therapies and meditational past times have no discernible positive effect.
Perhaps 'NegativePositive' is more apt.

cdm
February 17th, 2011, 08:44 PM
Good for you CDM - I'll have to listen to your Mother, and maybe even get a few lessons from her on interpreting 'eye contact', and then I don't have to worry anymore about what judgments to make about HIV/AIDS, Climate Change, Vaccines, Prime Minister Cameron when he says he'll help more of the 20% of 18-25 year olds out of work to get a job with much less less money than Government spent last year (in complete contradiction to the views of his own professional advisers, economists statisticians and fiscal studies experts) - because I'll just look into the eyes of all these people and I'll know the truth!
Ummmmmmm..... well just like all the people that looked into the eyes of Clinton, Blair, Thatcher, Reagan and whole bunch of other people who hoodwinked rather a lot of them into believing they were 'sincere'.

UKsteve thank you for your respect for my mother. I think you know that Greeks are very sensitive in insulting their mothers and you put the blame on me. That was very wise indeed of yours.



Frankly, if you meant that even half-seriously, then I would probably end up not believing a single word you said on any subject unless I had significant third-party evidence that it might be remotely true, and not based simply on some eye-gazing at someone who sold you a pup.
Quackery.
And you say 'HIV/AIDS' supporters were trying to pull the wool over our eyes?


This seems like blackmail. :)
Anyway you raise a very significant matter. How can a person, public or non-public, become believable by others? This is a concern I had, since I was a failure in girls' hearts:D

Of course a quote of yours is the right thing. We must believe in evidence and not in personalities. But how on earth we may believe anyone if there is no evidence at all?
Especially politicians speak about the future or lovers confess their sincerity of their love and feelings. No evidence yet at all. How can anyone ignore the lies and believe in truth?
Sometimes it is our resonance of our heart that makes us believe what we see in the eyes or we hear in words. If it is only a very good - looking guy playing a trompet then we may be right. Perhaps if he knows to play with his trompet nice jazz music then we may believe that he would never start an unjust war, say in Jugoslavia, because of a blowjob with a nasty face. But if this war finally happens, then either the blowjob was a fixed game, or the war was just.

positivenegative
February 17th, 2011, 11:26 PM
Avoid vexatious people.

UKSteve
February 17th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Avoid vexatious people.

That is exactly the same as this:


decided to not waste my time.

Supremely infantile.

jonathan barnett
February 18th, 2011, 12:02 AM
OK, guys. I really, really REALLY do not want to moderate or delete posts in the Off Topic forum, for chrissake!

Please stop the baiting posts and ignore them when you see one.

jonathan barnett
February 18th, 2011, 12:44 PM
I believe the evidence does support the use of the UK existing programme of childhood vaccines, and indeed in terms of MMR illnesses themselves, the 'oh i had them as a child and it was fine' is so ridiculously hollow when compared to deaths and disabilities in children *before* MMR vaccine as to make my blood boil.

It flies in the face of facts and evidence and is simply perverse and, in my considered opinion, irresponsible if communicated to vulnerable and trusting parents.

I admit that part of my comment was completely anectdotal. This is not a pressing issue for me, and I don't claim to be as well versed as you seem to be. While I don't mind a certain amount of perversion in my life (:D), I sure don't want to be irresponsible. So if it's not too much trouble, I'd like to see a link to some of the evidence that kids in Western countries were dying and disabled in significant numbers from measles and mumps prior to the availability of the MMR vaccine, when no one I've talked to from my generation can recall a single such incident.

I don't doubt that these and other childhood diseases may have been more lethal in underdeveloped parts of the world. Widespread poverty and malnutrition makes all diseases more lethal. Vaccination campaigns may have helped to reduce the rate of such illnesses, but campaigns to improve the food and clean water supply might have accomplished much the same thing. Who can know for sure?

UKSteve
February 18th, 2011, 03:58 PM
Here are some links to information from official statistics and confirmed medical conditions arising from Measles and the proportions of measles sufferers who experience those illnesses:
UK:
http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/mmr.html

Diarrhoea (1 in 6)
Ear infection - usually no permanent hearing loss (1 in 20)
Pneumonia (1 in 25)
Convulsions (1 in 200)
Meningitis/encephalitis (1 in 1,000)
Death (1 in 2,500-5,000)

US:
"The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3931045

Re: Wakefield's claims:
"Following the initial claims in 1998, multiple large epidemiological studies were undertaken. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[7] the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences,[8] the UK National Health Service,[9] and the Cochrane Library[10] all found no link between the vaccine and autism. While the Cochrane review expressed a need for improved design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, it concluded that the evidence of the safety and effectiveness of MMR in the prevention of diseases that still carry a heavy burden of morbidity and mortality justifies its global use, and that the lack of confidence in the vaccine has damaged public health.

1. http://web.archive.org/web/20080407015528/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm

"Other larger studies have found no relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. For example, researchers in the UK studied the records of 498 children with autism born between 1979 and 1998. They found:

The percentage of children with autism who received MMR vaccine was the same as the percentage of unaffected children in the region who received MMR vaccine.

There was no difference in the age of diagnosis of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The onset of "regressive" symptoms of autism did not occur within 2, 4, or 6 months of receiving the MMR vaccine."

2. http://web.archive.org/web/20070623134938/http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx
3.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004407/frame.html
http://www2.cochrane.org/press/MMR_final.pdf
"There was no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccination. This is the conclusion drawn by the Cochrane Review Authors, an international team of researchers, after carefully drawing together all of the evidence found in 31 high quality studies from around the world. They also highlight that the policy of encouraging mass use of MMR has eliminated the scourge of measles, mumps and rubella from many countries.
“In particular we conclude that all the major unintended events, such as triggering Crohn’s disease or autism, were suspected on the basis of unreliable evidence,” says lead author Dr Vittorio Demicheli who works at Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy."


.. in underdeveloped parts of the world. Widespread poverty and malnutrition makes all diseases more lethal. Vaccination campaigns may have helped to reduce the rate of such illnesses, but campaigns to improve the food and clean water supply might have accomplished much the same thing. Who can know for sure?

I agreed with you 100% - where ever we look in history, whether the richest nations or the poorest, access to clean water, good wholesome food and clean, dry, warm, safe housing has a far greater beneficial impact on health outcomes than anything else - even more so than consistent access to primary health care. And conversely, when pre-existing access to those things are interrupted, disrupted or breakdown for large numbers of people - for example in the period following the fall of the ex-Soviet Union or Zimbabwe - the consequences for illness, deaths and mortality rates are devastating. And this is of course added to by the blatant and simply inhumane actions when a super-rich nation like the USA expends, directly, over $1.5 TRILLION on an illegal invasion, war and occupation of a country such as Iraq - causing the deaths of over 1 million people and creating 4.5 million refugees - in addition to the 25,000 deaths PER DAY in the poorest parts of the world, that could have been avoided by the use of significantly *less* than one fifth of that expenditure to provide access to clean water to all.
None of that though changes the risks of preventable childhood illnesses and 200,000 measles-related deaths annually in the less developed world that would be avoided if a tiny amount of money were devoted to providing MMR there.
Just because I, and as far as I recall all my seven siblings, had measles and mumps as children and didn't suffer added complications is not relevant to this question, and indeed it is medically illiterate to even suggest any relevance - just as saying 'Flu? well it's not serious, I've had it and so has everyone I know and none of them have died!'
250,000 - 500,000 people die from conventional (non-swine) flu every year, mostly older, frail people with age-related impaired immune systems for whom the seasonal flu vaccine actually does prevent a very large number of deaths - look at the statistics and you will find among the oldest, frailest victims of flu death and you will find it co-relates almost exactly to those who did *not* get the vaccine.

UKSteve
February 18th, 2011, 06:50 PM
Looking at the most recent evidence relating to Vaccines, let us examine just deaths from Flu so far (as at 27 Jan 2011) in the United Kingdom:

1. 338 deaths since September 2010

2. 92% of cases, where strain identified, related to infection with the H1N1 (swine flu)

3. 75% were within a classified risk group meaning they had an underlying pre-existing health risk*, and were therefore entitled to the free trivalent seasonal flu vaccine

*AND*

4. 75% of those deaths occurred in people who had *not* had the vaccine

If that does not make such a vaccine worthwhile then I'd like to know why.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/27/flu-disease-cases-falling-uk

*The UK Health Protection Agency only recommends the flu vaccine to very specific groups of people under the age of 65 (unlike the USA where their Health Services Agency recommended it to 100% of the population and therefore claimable under all insurances) and therefore only provided it free to those specific groups. Anyone else needed to pay, and most high street pharmacies were not licensed to administer it to under 18 year olds at all. This clearly avoided the 'mass vaccination' policy that is simply overkill.

jonathan barnett
February 18th, 2011, 07:16 PM
Just because I, and as far as I recall all my seven siblings, had measles and mumps as children and didn't suffer added complications is not relevant to this question, and indeed it is medically illiterate to even suggest any relevance - just as saying 'Flu? well it's not serious, I've had it and so has everyone I know and none of them have died!' (emphasis added)

Not relevant? I disagree. It may not be conclusive proof of anything, but personal experience is extremely relevant to lay people. You want everyone to think like a scientist, but few of us do. Hell, as best I can tell, quite a few scientists fail that test.

I admit I'm medically illiterate, but I'm willing to learn. I haven't yet read the links and sources you cited, but will try to do so later today. Meanwhile, as a personal observation, can I just share with you that how you make a point is often as important as the substance of your argument?

When you make assertions that dismiss another person's point of view out of hand, you risk losing their attention altogether. You are not just passionate about your position, you are often adamant. That strikes me as dogmatic, though I don't doubt you would disagree, but I don't find the tone of your arguments compelling me to reconsider my own point of view.

It seems to me that we agree more than we disagree, other than perhaps your insistence that the widespread condemnation of Wakefield somehow vindicates the safety of vaccines. I know there are studies and reports that find no correlation between MMR and autism. I am also aware that there are people who can produce studies that do, even if you exclude Wakefield altogether. I believe that may make him a red herring in this debate.

Since we're sharing links, here's one to an analysis of the MMR campaign by another UK writer, Janine Roberts: Trouble with MMR (http://fearoftheinvisible.com/trouble-with-mmr), the first chapter of her book Fear of the Invisible. There are some other excerpts there related to vaccines that have influenced me.

This conflict between "scientific beliefs" is increasingly a very familiar situation, and I see it playing out over and over lately re: climate change, monetary policies, genetic engineering, AIDS, and nearly every other part of my world. I've come to distrust those who claim to "know" something is so, or to have an exclusive on "the truth". I also tend to discount the evidence generated by the side that is supported by big money from corporate interests and government. That may not be fair, I know, but it's the only way I can try to weight the argument against the undue influence of money.

You would be far more compelling to me if you framed your case as "most likely", or "probable", or even just your own conclusion, reached after painstaking research, rather than insisting others either agree with you, or be considered wrong. I'm not convinced that there are many absolutes when it comes to "facts" and "truth".

I admit that I do not know whether vaccines can cause autism. Nor am I convinced that they do not. Just as I do not know if HIV exists, or if it can cause AIDS. I'm just not convinced that it is a sexually infectious pathogen that inevitably causes disease.

UKSteve
February 18th, 2011, 08:01 PM
Hi Jonathan

Thanks for your considered and calm reply.

You are right and I do apologise for crafting aspects of my posts in a manner that can be interpreted as dismissive.

I believe it is a reflection of frustration with abstract anecdotal references that I believe tell us nothing.

Let me give you an example.

I have a very large extended family. Every one of my seven siblings, like me, were vaccinated as children (and for TB as teenagers) according to UK vaccination guidelines. Every one of the children and grandchildren of my six siblings who have them (30 + 1 just born not yet vaccinated) has been vaccinated, and for 19 of whom included MMR.

None of them to my knowledge have experienced any serious side effects, in fact not even 'mild' symptoms sufficient to raise serious comment.

Should I use that as anecdotal evidence that MMR is safe?

I don't think so.

Autism and MMR?

Japan removed MMR from use, and indeed has low uptake of the single vaccinations for rubella and mumps too.

Result?

Japan has the single highest per capita outbreaks for Measles in the entire developed world, has year on year substantial death numbers from Measles unlike anywhere else in the developed world - indeed virtually every country with 85%+ MMR vaccination rates has ZERO deaths
.
Indeed Japan has the potential for being a dangerous 'exporter' of Measles.

And Autism in Japan?

It is no different to anywhere else in the developed world for the manner in which it diagnoses Autism, and..........has seen no *DROP* in cases of Autism - they continue to increase in line with the rest of the developed world.

If we want to be 'anecdotal' then it needs to be like for like and not cherry picked.

I believe much of the debate over the *principle* of vaccination is overloaded with irrational emotion and, frankly, attracts a lot of attention from people who have a very fixed view - unconnected with the principle of vaccination, and holding no real concern for those who do suffer vaccine side-effects, and even less for those who suffer and die for the want of vaccine protection.

There are some people who will wave anti-vaccine banners even if there was clear and incontrovertible evidence that only 1 in a million people vaccinated suffered any side-effect.

Why don't they also oppose car seat belts, since there is a real and actual risk of serious injury from wearing one?

Ooops yes! There are people who oppose that too!

cdm
February 19th, 2011, 12:10 AM
The most serious fact for the credibility of vaccine promotion is who is the promoter and their reasoning.

The promotion and the relative fear campaign of H1N1 vaccine has been decided and scheduled in Athens in May 2009, in a meeting of Buildenbergers. There is a relative thread in our forum. The sums of money for the promotion of a filled with mercury or aluminium vaccine are incredible. Check promotion media that have a separate column about the "H1N1 grippe". ... There is no new grippe. There is only tons of nanoparticles of aluminum sprayed in the air that changes the seasonal grippe into a nasty experience, for a lot of people. There is also tons of brainwash propagated by the media cartel.
If anyone is interested in injecting mercury and aluminum in his/her brain let him do it. But nobody has the right to impell it on others.
The PCR test also for detection of "H1N1" is also a crap of shit. I have expressed myself elsewhere. I don't like to reiterate myself

UKSteve
February 19th, 2011, 12:35 AM
Forgive me if I don't understand you correctly CDM, but the flu virus is voluntary.
No one is 'impelling' it on anyone.

When offered to people in clear and well-understood risk groups, in a country like the UK, it is proven to save lives.

It is not like seat-belts - it works but is not compulsory.

I fully understand the petro-chemical-pharma complex and exactly how corrupt and corrupting it is - but there are plenty of people who play no part in that who argue for and support efficacious vaccine programmes.

I just believe that your musings are sometimes just one conspiracy too much.

positivenegative
February 19th, 2011, 02:04 AM
Here's an interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the structure of scientific revolutions. Here's some of what he says in this interview:

I've grown to have a huge respect for [infectious bacteria and viruses] over the years. We are here on the Earth now because of infection. Not in spite of it, because of it. Our immune system has been fashioned, shaped, designed over millions of years, since we first emerged from the primordial soup as single-celled organisms to evolve a hugely complex immune system that is a result of its interaction, its education with infectious agents. They are the prime factor in developing our immune responsiveness.

The following video is 37 minutes.


8PEhN14XzyM

jonathan barnett
February 19th, 2011, 03:28 AM
Here's an interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the structure of scientific revolutions.

I was glad to see that video the first time you posted it a couple of days ago, PN (post #91). I first saw it and even shared it on my Facebook page.

It's hard to imagine that Wakefield is the villain he's purported to be by so many when you see him defending himself personally. I find his thinking and reasoning to be remarkable. It just sort of "fits" with my own world view.

It's hard to imagine what he could gain by being a lying, cheating crook. Could he really be so good at it to carry on this charade? I guess it's possible, because I'm pretty sure Gallo has done that, but I'm still not convinced that Wakefield is a similar fraud.

John Bleau
February 19th, 2011, 03:31 AM
Yep Jonathan, Wakefield stands tall vs the character assassination.

UKSteve: do you know of any long-term double-blind placebo-controlled prospective study on any vaccine?

positivenegative
February 19th, 2011, 04:10 AM
I was glad to see that video the first time you posted it a couple of days ago, PN (post #91). I first saw it and even shared it on my Facebook page.



The video I posted today is part two in a series.

jonathan barnett
February 19th, 2011, 04:25 AM
I've grown to have a huge respect for [infectious bacteria and viruses] over the years. We are here on the Earth now because of infection. Not in spite of it, because of it. Our immune system has been fashioned, shaped, designed over millions of years, since we first emerged from the primordial soup as single-celled organisms to evolve a hugely complex immune system that is a result of its interaction, its education with infectious agents. They are the prime factor in developing our immune responsiveness.

Steve:

For the sake of argument, and because I don't want to do the research to refute, I'll grant the point that vaccines—at least in some settings—reduce the existence of certain diseases and save lives.

Given that, what do we know of the long term effects of such tampering with the natural world? It's too late for us to cease tampering... that must be the reason we humans were created (or evolved)... to tamper.

My recollection of high school biology taught me that our immune system gets some of its ability from our mothers prior to our birth, and then it acquires additional abilities and defenses by interacting with the microbes and pathogens it encounters. No encounters, no immunity develops.

Knowing how simplistic that understanding was, I have to wonder if we really know what we're doing by trying to manipulate the immune system with vaccines. Sure, it seems to work much of the time, but are there other unforeseen consequences? Are we disrupting yet another piece of a delicately balanced world's immune system?

Which reminds me of something I read many years ago and have not been able to find again since. I'm quite sure it was written by "Seth", the spirit channeled by Jane Roberts (not to be confused with Janine Roberts). I can't imagine that I can do the original justice from memory, but I'll never forget it.

Seth answered that 'AIDS' and other epidemics were actually an immune response by the planet, whose rivers might be likened to our bloodstream; atmosphere is like our lungs; and land can be compared to our bodies. Earth is a living being and humans are a damaging, if not lethal pathogen. Earth's immune system will root out this infection if feels its existence is sufficiently threatened by us. 'AIDS' is part of that immune response. Seth claimed that the disease would be more active in overpopulated parts of the world... areas where demand on natural resources was greatest, such as Africa, China and India.

Dramatic, isn't it? I think that when Seth spoke this, it was assumed by more than a few people that 'AIDS' would overwhelm the human race. Does anyone else remember those early days?

Sorry for that psychical distraction, but I didn't think it warranted a new post, and now it's out of my system and into the interwebs. Maybe it will show up on my next Google search trying to find the original text! :)

You also make compelling arguments, Steve, that there is no association between vaccination schedules and autism, so perhaps you are right and we must look elsewhere for the cause of the increase in autism. Or maybe someone else will feel like continuing the debate with you.

I'm not going to invest more time in this discussion, at least for now, but I leave it as yet unconvinced that there is no risk to massive, universal vaccination campaigns, or even that the benefits outweighs any risks.

Nor can I imagine I would ever consent to having a therapeutic 'HIV' vaccine given to me, if one were ever developed, or any other vaccine. I've just lost too much faith and trust in the orthodox, profit-based medical systems. At this stage in my life, I'll take my chances.

It has been stimulating to have this conversation, though, so thanks for that. I think where we differ the most is in how much we trust science for proof and such. I believe there is a larger field of knowledge and awareness at work and play in the world. As a species, we just aren't as smart (or relevant) as we think we are.

computergeek
February 19th, 2011, 04:26 AM
Vaccine studies are usually done via cohorts, ideally of similar populations in which one population does not have the vaccine and the other does and then comparing mortality/morbidity between the two. This is likely more effective because of the "social control" aspect of vaccines (in which significant vaccination of the population is sufficient to prevent the spread of the specific disease.)

On the other hand, it can be difficult to extrapolate the results of vaccine studies. For example http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2897%2900149-6/abstract concludes that general purpose vaccination against pneumonia for elderly patients was not indicated, but they did conclude that it was worthwhile for high risk elderly patients.

Does this mean that we can extrapolate these results to HIV positive patients (all of whom are "high risk?") That is exactly what is done (there's a chart on the wall at the clinic here tracking the vaccination rate - for pneumovax - with a clear goal of at least 95% adherence.)

I used to be a stronger proponent of vaccination than I am now. These days, I find myself questioning whether or not it really is generally indicated. With the H1N1 vaccine (for example) the published data made me seriously question its value - from it's 30% efficacy rate, potential side-effects as well as the fact that the only people I knew personally getting sick were those that received the H1N1 vaccination (I realize this doesn't prove anything, but it was something I noticed.)

Would I vaccinate my children against MMR and DPT? Most likely I would, because I do believe there is a greater benefit than risk - but there is clearly risk as well.

Then again, I was also vaccinated against smallpox as a kid, and that's not even an option these days....

UKSteve
February 19th, 2011, 05:31 PM
I agree with everything posted about mass vaccination programmes that are clearly not targeted at specific risk groups, for protection against real health threats.

Influenza is a good case in point.

The 2009 swine flu outbreak led to a wildly over the top reaction and all and sundry were made to feel that should get vaccinated, and anyone who had symptoms of a possible swine flu infection were encouraged to take doses of Tamiflu, for the most part without any real benefit.

In 2010, in the USA, it led to a recommendation for the entire population to be vaccinated! Pure craziness.

Here in the UK, despite intense public pressure, the government's health advisory panel stood firm and refused to buckle. They maintained the advice that only those with very specific underlying health problems, and people without health problems but at *proven very serious risk* (eg pregnant women), should be advised to have the trivalent seasonal flu vaccine.
And there is ample proof from the serious illness and deaths among those at most risk who did not, in the end have the vaccine, to support that stance.
That doesn't of course end the feelings of some that we should have gone down the US route, since a handful of otherwise perfectly healthy people did actually die, and that included a few children.

Of course, that didn't prevent anyone in the UK choosing to pay the £10-£20 cost of having the vaccine, for themselves or their children, if they chose.

As far as the 'HIV+' being placed in one of the 'risk' groups for seasonal flu vaccine and the Pneumococcal Vaccination, I agree that it is neither well-indicated for asymptomatic healthy individuals, nor should be a point of pressure, and I see no evidence of that being the case here in the UK.
In fact, apart from being told by my HIV Clinic Doctor that both were recommended, I was subjected to no further pressure and I can see no reason why I would have been treated any different to any other 'HIV+' person. Maybe that is because there is no financial incentive to clinics here to ensure uptake.
In the event, I spent some two weeks including the entire Christmas and New Year break with several family members (children and adults) who went down with all kinds flu-like symptoms, vomiting, diarrhoea, inflamed sore throats, ear infections and the like. I was one of just two people (myself and my sister) who had no symptoms of anything at all.
I have to say, I can't deny feeling a little nervous during that time but since we are now two months down the line I am happy I didn't succumb to being vaccinated, and as my immune system must have had to deal with anything those people had it has probably been beneficially strengthened.

As far as MMR is concerned, it is no different to any other vaccine. It is about cost/benefit analysis, and people being offered it should be given all the information to make a considered judgment, and I feel it is an obligation on public health authorities to make a very firm and clear case for its uptake when the evidence supports it.

Notwithstanding my belief that it is a good vaccine, and that the serious side-effect profile is extremely minimal in comparison to its protective benefit, and that there is simply *no* credible evidence at all of any causal link to Autism, I do not believe it should be 'forced' on parents by refusing to enrol unvaccinated children in school, as is the case in the USA but not here in the UK.

I believe sufficient parents would be persuaded of the benefits to MMR by simply pointing out what happens in developed countries like Japan, and a greater and clearer explanation of the evidence that rises in Autism has arisen to a very large degree at least through better diagnostics.

What I do not accept as reasonable or justifiable is the patently dishonest manner in which Wakefield simply *lied* about the conclusions of his report.

There is no doubt he did do that and in fact he went further, he publicly called for the 'ban' on MMR use and the immediate use of the single vaccinations, but didn't also tell people about the serious dangers of single vaccine use and what has transpired in Japan.

And while we are at it, clearly Wakefield felt there *was* a case for vaccinations against M, M and R!

He is no anti-vaccine champion.

It remains the same - Wakefield wanted to become *part* of the establishment. He used lies and unethical tricks to impose seriously invasive and painful medical procedures on children that were not medically indicated.
He sought to hide information about massive financial receipts that placed him in a position of clear, unarguable conflict of interest.
He hoodwinked vulnerable parents.
There is not one single shred of difference, qualitatively, between what he did with his public pronouncements on his research prior and post publication and what the criminal Gallo did.
The differences are as follows:
Gallo's lies, distortion and corruption have led to far greater significant avoidable deaths and illnesses, much much greater financial gain and avoidance of being prosecuted and held to account either by courts of law or the US Congress.
Wakefield was found out and held to account.

Gos
February 19th, 2011, 05:37 PM
Steve,

This is not the first time that a Swine Flu scare has prompted a drive for mass vaccination in the US, and the previous time (1976) the consequences were dire.

Here's more info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak).



-----

UKSteve
February 19th, 2011, 05:41 PM
I agree with you Gos.

And I do not believe that mass vaccinations are a substitute for access to clean water, good nutrition through access to cheap wholesome food, primary health care and and clean, dry, safe housing, whether it be in the developed or less developed world.

On that specific example, I do believe it says more about the political culture of the USA than it does about anything else. Instilling artificial, unfounded 'fear' into people is a core element in post-second world war politics in the west and is about 'control', and has its roots and is given a lead by the US establishment. It straddles most areas of life.
The entirely phoney 'threats' of 'Communism', 'Terrorism' and 'dangerous illnesses' - combine that with meddling in the politics of the middle east, latin american and asia and they become (as we have seen) self-fulfilling prophecies.

Gos
February 19th, 2011, 06:28 PM
...a greater and clearer explanation of the evidence that rises in Autism has arisen to a very large degree at least through better diagnostics.


Steve,

I will not disagree with the above statement outright, as I simply don't know enough to say that you're wrong. However, I would like to present for your consideration an alternative explanation.

It may be that the rise in autism diagnoses are not due to better diagnostics, but rather less specific diagnostic criteria.

In the 1990s, (right about the same time that autism diagnoses began to increase dramatically,) I remember that there was a controversy over the recently-adopted diagnosis of "Autism Spectrum Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum)" or ASD.

Professionals, of course, hailed it as a breakthrough advance in diagnosis, while critics pointed out the danger of pathologizing ordinary behavior in children.

Regardless of which side you might have taken in that controversy, there is no denying that after the adoption of the ASD classification, suddenly any child who was socially awkward, who didn't share his peers' interests, who was gifted/talented, and/or who had repetitive nervous habits (such as drumming fingers or tapping toes,) might be diagnosed as autistic. Nerds, in particular, seemed to be targeted for diagnosis, since the characteristics of ASD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum#Characteristics) are essentially a description of your average run-of-the-mill nerd.

We've seen a similar phenomenon in AIDS diagnoses. Every year the definition of AIDS becomes broader and broader, until we've reached the current state of absurdity where literally everything is said to be caused by HIV, from heart attacks and strokes to cancers to liver failure to allergies, dementia, lipodystrophy -- you name it, HIV causes it.

This broadening of the definition of a disease naturally means that diagnoses will increase regardless of whether the incidence of the disease is actually increasing. When you cast a wider net, you'll catch more fish -- that doesn't mean that the number of fish in the sea has increased.

So it may not be at all that the rise in autism rates is due to better diagnostics; it may well be that the rise in autism rates is due to worse diagnostics.


----

UKSteve
February 19th, 2011, 07:16 PM
I think you make some very interesting points that clearly deserve a lot of consideration.

I freely admit I don't have enough knowledge through reading and research to come to a view.

What I do agree with though, is the prevalence and dangers of abstract pathologising of behaviour as some kind of shortcut to a real understanding of its roots.

Mental health is of course an area where that is legion. And forcing people on to toxic, life changing drugs for many of whom it is simply not addressing the underlying causes, compares to HIV/AIDS but has harmed far greater numbers over a much longer period of time. There are plenty of 'Robert Gallos' in the Psychiatric world even now.

'Attention Deficit Disorder' and 'Hyper-Activity Attention Deficit Disorder' are also areas that have resulted in massive drug-therapy for children, much of which is both dangerous and open to serious question.

I feel it is probably another reason why the MMR-Autism link is a smokescreen.

So much about all these strands - vaccines and pharma industry, 'mental health' diagnoses and control, pathologising behaviour, opening or restricting access to the basics for well being such as clean water, nutritious whole food, safe housing, education, jobs, nurturing family life - are underpinned by the nature of society and its politics.

My bedrock of belief is that these issues will always exist - and indeed actually become worse - so long as capitalism exists as the dominant force.

It cannot, in my opinion, be any other way however much in a local or disparate and 'single-issue' manner some progress is made.

One of Lenin's most famous quotes was that for humanity the choice was between 'Socialism and Barbarism'. I happen to believe in that choice.

But it is very difficult, in my view, whether one believes in 'socialism' or not, to disagree with the notion that Capitalism is simply barbaric, and indeed it becomes more so with every passing decade, because every ill in society flows from it.

cdm
February 20th, 2011, 06:28 PM
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19747



. We report an increase in the incidence of measles in a population with consistently high and improving immunisation coverage in Ferrara province, northern Italy. During the first six months of 2010, 19 cases were confirmed, 10 of which were hospitalised. General practitioners, paediatricians and local healthcare authorities were alerted about the outbreak and asked to notify all suspected cases. We need to further increase immunisation coverage and to maintain and implement the monitoring system.

Although they improve the coverage the measles incidence increased in Ferrara. I wonder what they would achieve if they extend the coverage

Gos
February 20th, 2011, 06:49 PM
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19747

Although they improve the coverage the measles incidence increased in Ferrara. I wonder what they would achieve if they extend the coverage


This also raises the question of the extent to which cherry-picking data has become the norm. If vaccination rates in Ferrara had declined just prior to the increase in incidence, make no mistake that the pro-vaccine mouthpieces would be shouting it from the rooftops with bullhorns. What, I wonder, will we hear them say about Ferrara? I suspect that if it weren't for the crickets, you'd be able to hear a pin drop.

Completely off the subject, I wonder what would happen if they isolated the virus that causes autism and vaccinated children against it?


Sometimes I have evil thoughts...

UKSteve
February 20th, 2011, 06:50 PM
CDM

Eight out of the nine hospitalized cases - among the 19 confirmed cases - were *adults*. Measles is generally potentially more severe in adults, and *none* of them were vaccinated.

I can't see what this excellent, detailed surveillance report proves that supports an anti-vaccination case.

Try and post details of the mountain of *deaths* in Japan (no MMR and very low uptake of Andrew Wakefield's preference of single vaccinations - YES CDM your hero *supports* vaccines), as opposed to this handful of cases with no real complications.:rolleyes:

cdm
February 20th, 2011, 11:28 PM
CDM

Eight out of the nine hospitalized cases - among the 19 confirmed cases - were *adults*. Measles is generally potentially more severe in adults, and *none* of them were vaccinated.
You must not forget the underreporting as you may see in the following article http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19754
Generally we know that as we move eastwards the underreporting is more severe. (No citation to this except of experience)
In 2010 not only in Ferrara, but also in south France there was an outbreak despite the relatively high vaccination coverage of some regions. You may also see, from previous quotings, the translocation of the infection age to a more adult range is a consequence of measles vaccinations, in which age the rate of severe complications - like pneumonia- is higher. Of course the scientists target the non-coverage of Roma etc as a cause, but to me this is not enough explanation.


I can't see what this excellent, detailed surveillance report proves that supports an anti-vaccination case.
I did not say that this supports an anti-vaccination case. It was my, perhaps fragmental, interpretation of the data. The writers of this "excellent, detailed surveillance" are paid to forget the underreporting of cases, which especially in eastern europe is more grave, I would rather say not even mentioned, as you may see from their article.


Try and post details of the mountain of *deaths* in Japan (no MMR and very low uptake of Andrew Wakefield's preference of single vaccinations - YES CDM your hero *supports* vaccines), as opposed to this handful of cases with no real complications.:rolleyes:

It seems to me that Wakefield is a mainstream scientist. He does not seem to speak generally against vaccinations. The preference of single shots is a sub-school of thought in the vaccination school. I have already posted a relative link, in post #1. They say that single shots are easier to handle. Of course I am with neither of the 2 schools, because I don't know the result of the separate shots.
But for the Japan experience I don't know if you remember my earlier post (#30-31) explaining that there was no real control. The children not taking MMR were treated with other shots. This is no control group.

UKSteve
February 20th, 2011, 11:34 PM
Wakefield is a mainstream scientist.

Exactly, and pro-vaccinations.

That just leaves us to decide whether his fraud, lies and straight-forward corruption of ethics was motivated by anything 'anti-establishment' that has made him such a 'pin-up' figure for people with their own motives - a status that Wakefield simply loves.

John Bleau
February 21st, 2011, 12:01 AM
This is no control group.
That does seem to be the general case with vaccinations.

positivenegative
February 24th, 2011, 08:43 AM
This is an 8-minute excerpt from the film "Selective Hearing" produced by Alan Golding. The full film will be posted on NaturalNews.TV very soon, with permission from Alan.

It's the drama between Wakefield and Deer. :rolleyes:

More information is better than no information. One thing for sure is this Brian Deer guy can't compose himself very well. He sure makes a lot of noise. I really look forward to when the full movie comes out. :)


1BZsWQaeJi4

Gos
February 24th, 2011, 08:56 AM
He reminds me of a Monty Python character -- and not just because he's British.


----

Gos
February 24th, 2011, 09:08 AM
He reminds me of a Monty Python character -- and not just because he's British.


----


Actually, I take that back. It's not that Deer reminds me of a Monty Python character, it's that the whole exchange is reminiscent of a Monty Python sketch. I could so easily see Cleese or Palin delivering the line, "Well, if you want to look at the evidence since 1998, that's a different issue, then, isn't it?"


----

UKSteve
February 24th, 2011, 01:49 PM
Brian Deer was far more composed under intense questioning, and significant shouting all around him, than many would be. So that's simply a contrived and amazingly subjective comment that has no merit.
Similarly, this big 'Ahhhh! So Deer is not interested in findings since 1998! We've caught the lying bugger!'
I almost pissed my pants laughing it was so lame. That those with Autism are seen to have greater GI problems doesn't mean that MMR caused them, and that implied suggestion is also without merit.
The very emotional responses of the parent of one child are certainly understandable but going on to suggest that because her one child has an illness, it was therefore right for Wakefield to simply lie about his paper's conclusions is also without merit, and taken further it is simply selfish in the extreme to put fear into the minds of millions of people over an unproven link. Even worse, that that suggestion by Wakefield led to illness and death due to lower take up rates of MMR is unforgivable.
Indeed, to take it one step further the rate of side effects from MMR are far outweighed by the proven benefits.
Since MMR is totally voluntary - and there are no plans for and nor would there be any support for *any* form of compulsion in the UK - there is simply no merit in the rantings of a tiny number of, sadly emotional and unhappy, parents.

Gos
February 24th, 2011, 03:38 PM
Brian Deer was far more composed under intense questioning, and significant shouting all around him, than many would be. So that's simply a contrived and amazingly subjective comment that has no merit.
Similarly, this big 'Ahhhh! So Deer is not interested in findings since 1998! We've caught the lying bugger!'
I almost pissed my pants laughing it was so lame. That those with Autism are seen to have greater GI problems doesn't mean that MMR caused them, and that implied suggestion is also without merit.

Steve,

Perhaps you should have gone to the bathroom and relieved yourself, and then watched the entire video.

At about 5:50, you'll find the following quote:



Find something that I've published, that says that MMR does or doesn't cause autism.
Perhaps a more appropriate question is, can Brian or anyone else find anything published by Wakefield, Walker-Smith, or Murch, that says MMR does or does not cause autism.









The very emotional responses of the parent of one child are certainly understandable but going on to suggest that because her one child has an illness, it was therefore right for Wakefield to simply lie about his paper's conclusions is also without merit, and taken further it is simply selfish in the extreme to put fear into the minds of millions of people over an unproven link.

No one is suggesting that this mother's account and what you call her "emotional response" somehow justifies the lies that you allege Wakefield told about his paper's conclusions.

This mother's account is presented strictly in response to Brian Deer's challenge to "Ask Mrs. Thomas whether her two children have got regressive autism. Ask her whether they've got inflammatory bowel disease." Apparently she answered those questions in an interview that was filmed, and the relevant footage from that interview is presented.

Your attempt to distract from the facts that she presents by dismissing her account as the "emotional response" of only one parent is not only extremely insensitive, it's also disingenuous.

If you'd actually listened to Mrs. Thompson's account, rather than spending the whole time dismissing her as merely one emotionally overwrought parent, you might have heard her say plainly that her children do not have autism; what they have is an infection with live virus that has migrated into the bowel and has caused debilitating symptoms.





Since MMR is totally voluntary - and there are no plans for and nor would there be any support for *any* form of compulsion in the UK - there is simply no merit in the rantings of a tiny number of, sadly emotional and unhappy, parents.

There you go again, dismissing the stories of people with real tragedies in their lives as "the rantings of a tiny number of, sadly emotional and unhappy, parents."

But before you pick up the phone to call the Lost-and-Found to see if anyone has turned in your humanity, I want to educate you about something that you probably aren't aware of:

MMR is not "totally voluntary" everywhere.

It may be voluntary in the UK, but in the United States, it is mandatory.

...And all this time I thought it was just us Americans who thought the world ended at our national borders...


-----

UKSteve
February 25th, 2011, 03:34 AM
Well if an edited version of an apparently longer video is presented, then please don't carp on about a view on that edited version as being inappropriate to that which was not presented.

The simple, unalterable and verifiable fact that Andrew Wakefield did lie about the conclusions of a paper he co-authored is in the public domain.
I don't intend wasting my time raking over that again.

No it is simply *NOT* a question of 'find something that a bunch of discredited, struck off physicians wrote saying MMR caused autism'.
Wakefield stated in two public press conferences, that received worldwide coverage, that there was sufficient enough evidence of a causal link between MMR and Autism for it to justify an immediate ban on the use of MMR.
Walker-Smith and Murch were the only co-authors whose actions fell short of making clear that was *not* a conclusion contained in the report, and who were responsible jointly with Wakefield in other actions that were unethical.

This debate is almost verging on a waste of time.

A few people here are intent on making a case that MMR causes Autism that is little different to HAART advocates denying its severe toxic side effects.

You are supporting exactly the same kind of scientific nonsense that they do for no better reason than *you* (but very few others) identify Wakefield as some kind of anti-establishment hero.

Some people, of a similar mindset, used to hold up Gadafy as an 'anti-West' hero, and the Saddam Hussein Ba'athist Party as an 'anti-Western block'.

Be careful who you choose as your bed fellows.

positivenegative
February 25th, 2011, 05:09 AM
That just leaves us to decide whether his fraud, lies and straight-forward corruption of ethics was motivated by anything 'anti-establishment' that has made him such a 'pin-up' figure for people with their own motives - a status that Wakefield simply loves.

Deer UKSteve,

Anti-establishment on one hand and anti-establishment on the other?

I realize you despise my contributions regarding Wakefield while you have also acknowledged in a positive light my personal experience regarding hiv/aids but I beg you to consider that your adamant disagreement with my point of view, borders strangely in the face of the hiv/aids paradigm given you really don't sound any different in theory than those who oppose hiv/aids denialists but somehow you've managed yourself on the right side of the hiv/aids conundrum but hold vaccines in the light of good sense despite interesting correlations to even the slightest possibility of unfavorable outcomes?

As you well know one of the first things that happens for newly hiv positives is vaccine inoculation as a matter of protocol so it surprises me because you seem to be in a strange position because you eschew the conventional wisdom of hiv/aids but embrace vaccinations that are very much indeed part of the front line protocol of hiv/aids. How do you reconcile this and does Wakefield have any chance for redemption in your eyes and if so what would he have to do or say to prove otherwise? Is there anything Wakefield has to offer?

Gos
February 25th, 2011, 06:29 AM
Is there anything Wakefield has to offer?


I think Steve has already been clear about his answer to that question.

In my own mind, there is one sharp difference between Wakefield and UKSteve that has formed over the course of this discussion:

The more I hear Wakefield argue his case, the more inclined I am to believe him.

...I'm having a very different response to UKSteve.


-----

John Bleau
February 25th, 2011, 06:36 AM
How about testing a statement made by Wakefield that can be simply put, can be unequivocally attributed to him (for example in a YouTube video), that UKSteve thinks is a lie and that the other side thinks is the truth, and that can be factually tested?

As I understand it, Wakefield saw some association between MMR and autism and said that further testing was needed. Maybe he made a stronger statement at some point, but what I remember him saying hardly merited any excoriation.

UKSteve
February 25th, 2011, 05:17 PM
the first things that happens for newly hiv positives is vaccine inoculation as a matter of protocol

Not in the UK.

I have not been offered *any* vaccinations (other than being informed in a very cursory way that I am on the list of groups for whom the seasonal flu vaccine is free), and neither have I been questioned on, or had my vaccine history investigated. And I can say that is the same for both my HIV clinic and my General Practitioner physician.

Other than a handful of 'HIV+' people here in the UK that I know, who similarly have been advised about seasonal flu vaccine but not pressured into having it, I can't say that people aren't advised to have them but I am confident they are under no real pressure to have them, and it is not used as a 'condition' of treatment.

Neither are *any* vaccines compelled upon anyone in the UK, even at childhood and no bureaucratic measures are taken as back door compulsion either.

In that sense I support any campaigns against the kind of vaccine compulsion and pressure that takes place in the US, especially around school entry bars for non-vaccinated children and 'HIV+' people being bullied into having them.

In that, we are very much of the same mind.

On a general note about this whole debate around vaccines, and the particular one around Wakefield, I respect those who choose to see Wakefield as some kind of Knight in shining armour, charging on his horse, sword aloft cutting through the evil hordes of drug-toting corrupt 'quacks' trying to end civilisation as we know it.

I simply disagree on the evidence as I see it and interpret it and no matter what implied motives around a lack of honesty or ulterior motive, I'm fucked if I'll take any lessons from some people who seem to apply the same process to this debate as some do on poz/aidsmeds and the body forums.

computergeek
February 25th, 2011, 06:44 PM
In the US, it is generally a requirement of enrollment in the educational system that one have documentation that one has received all the relevant vaccinations. Here are the California requirements (http://www2.sduhsd.net/tp/immunization.html) and here is a CDC article (http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/law.htm) about the subject of vaccination in the context of obligations of citizenship.

The clinic here in BC pressures everyone to have Hepatitis A & B, Pneumovax, and Influenza vaccinations. Each time I visit, I am "strongly advised" to get them. Since I haven't required any specific treatment, I have not been in a position in which they could withhold treatment pending vaccination. Others I know that attend the clinic report similar pressure to accept the vaccinations.

I'm not entirely anti-vaccination, but I must admit I am uncomfortable with pneumovax and influenza vaccinations based upon my interpretation of what I have read on the subject.

UKSteve
February 25th, 2011, 08:46 PM
The clinic here in BC pressures everyone to have Hepatitis A & B, Pneumovax, and Influenza vaccinations. Each time I visit, I am "strongly advised" to get them. Since I haven't required any specific treatment, I have not been in a position in which they could withhold treatment pending vaccination. Others I know that attend the clinic report similar pressure to accept the vaccinations.

I think that is unwarranted, not strictly evidence based and I would always strongly oppose a refusal having any bearing on treatment.

Personally, I feel the Hep B vaccination is entirely efficacious and well worth considering for anyone who is sexually active.
It has a fairly good take up here where information about it is fully provided. I support campaigns here that encourage take up to most people that present at a GU Clinic.


I'm not entirely anti-vaccination, but I must admit I am uncomfortable with pneumovax and influenza vaccinations based upon my interpretation of what I have read on the subject.

I agree when it comes to the 'HIV+' - I do not believe that the evidence supports there automatic use but I would not refuse them to those who wanted vaccination.
Generally though, the 'risk groups' for them are much more narrowly defined here in the UK.
In that respect, though I appreciate it is a sore point for some, I suspect the UK policy on, and the more limited number of, vaccinations generally, and risk groups applied to them is more strictly evidenced based and preferable to guidelines over the pond.

positivenegative
February 26th, 2011, 02:02 AM
Personally, I feel the Hep B vaccination is entirely efficacious and well worth considering for anyone who is sexually active.
It has a fairly good take up here where information about it is fully provided. I support campaigns here that encourage take up to most people that present at a GU Clinic.


I'm speaking from my experience but before I had Hep B vaccination I rarely ever suffered from any illness whatsoever and for years I was encourage to do the Hep vaccination and I always refused and not with any reason but I just had a notion in my mind that I was fine without it.

My health was so good that there were times I was concerned why I never got sick especially when so many people seemed to be suffering from some kind of malady but not me. I was all over the place and many different environments, eating all sorts of different public foods, and fooling around a lot for almost 20+ years and I would suffer nothing.

But when I considered traveling in a third world country I thought perhaps getting a hep b vaccination would probably be a good thing. I was also ok with not doing it either but when I went to a gay pride event I noticed that the health department was giving hep b rounds free of charge so I thought why not but mostly because I wouldn't have to pay for it since gays often get a free ride in matters of sexual health initiatives.

Over the next 6 months strange but mild weakness began to occur until I was fully incapacitated for the last three months. I was so tired I couldn't move. It was like having a flu that never ended. I never went to a doctor. I waited it out and ate only the best of soup and grains and papaya. I would also lay under the sun for brief times which I believe helped me to keep a normal weight as I lost very little weight during this time surprisingly.

Of course I thought perhaps I was hiv positive but I kept getting checked and it kept coming back negative but intuitively I knew I unlocked something when I got that hep b vaccination. I could feel it in my bones from the beginning and after I had gotten the first shots my intuition racked my mind saying oops shouldn't have done that but I kept doing it for another two rounds.

Then two years later I test positive under very questionable circumstances because I went to a series of different clinics and the results would go from positive to negative to positive and then indeterminate including t-cell and viral load counts that made no sense at all.

Given the so called science of it all it didn't take me a PhD to realize something was a miss for sure and I've stayed away from the establishment ever since but all in all I believe my slow decline in health and so called positive status began with the hep b vaccinations.

Call me wrong or whatever but I'll always be hard to convince otherwise because the science of it all doesn't make any sense whatsoever but if I was just your average indoctrinated fag I would have become a believer but that was never going to happen.

But my health issues interestingly faded away and ironically my health has gotten better since my so call "positive" result.

How dare an expert question my experience, and worse, discount it as inconsequential. It's such a blow to intelligence but I sure understand most of all the psychological difficulties of interfacing one's intelligence with the so called intelligencia of hiv/aids. Ugh! I will always have a low opinion of those people who masqueraded in their oblivious but well intentioned obedience to the rank and file of the medical industrial complex.

UKSteve
February 26th, 2011, 02:38 PM
I've read your personal experience with Hep B here and I sympathise with you.

Anecdotally, I've known personally simply dozens of gay men who have had the Hep B vaccination without problem.

Other than you possibly having a bad reaction to HBV, which I believe is pretty rare, I don't personally believe it proves anything other than how bad 'HIV' tests are. And that, in particular, they should never be carried out even remotely close to a time when vaccinations were administered, being infected with STIs or going through a period of common or garden daily ill-health.

UKSteve
March 3rd, 2011, 12:36 AM
This is an 8-minute excerpt from the film "Selective Hearing" produced by Alan Golding. The full film will be posted on NaturalNews.TV very soon, with permission from Alan.

It's the drama between Wakefield and Deer. :rolleyes:

More information is better than no information. One thing for sure is this Brian Deer guy can't compose himself very well. He sure makes a lot of noise. I really look forward to when the full movie comes out. :)



Re Brian Deer.

I have just discovered he has something of a good pedigree around 'HIV/AIDS' because, like a ferret, he went on the attack against HIV doctors for their use of AZT in general, and their dishonesty in not informing 'HIV+' patients enrolled on the famous 'Concorde Trials' back in the late 1980s of the nasty side effects.

"After recounting yet another horror story (a patient who, persuaded by Mann to stop his AZT, "went on to get Aids"), Campbell and Townson shift gears in order to attack Brian Deer, a Sunday Times journalist who had criticized AZT in print. (Deer had no connection with Positively Healthy, but then consistency is not a strong point of the article.) Deer is accused of hurting the feelings of Dr. Ian Weller, who is administering the Concorde trial of AZT treatment for "asymptomatic" HIV-positives. And then Stuart Marshall of PH is accused of having flown to Canada, allegedly for the sole purpose of harassing Dr. Karen Gelmon, joint coordinator with Weller of the Concorde trial. And then Brian Deer is attacked again, this time for having written an article claiming that participants in the Concorde trial were not fully informed about "potentially fatal side effects" of AZT treatment. (Campbell and Townson are highly indignant, but Brian Deer was right. Unless participants in the Concorde trial were told that cancer is an expected consequence of AZT therapy, they were not fully informed as to the "potentially fatal side effects" of AZT treatment.)

"Brian Deer of the Sunday Times, to my knowledge the only major journalist in England to have criticized AZT"

Aids Dissident John Lauritsen's full article is here:
http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Dunky_the_Journalist

Seems like Deer has far greater dissident pedigree than some people here realised. And he suffered personally in his career because of it.

NB: His name never really popped up in my mind even though I was around at some of the Act Up and Outrage meetings at about the time Pink Paper were fighting Campbell in early-mid 1990.

cdm
March 6th, 2011, 11:49 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1971874

We have not addressed enough the subject of the HepB vaccine. It seems that in this Lancet article, unfortunately not seen in the net, (I personally saw it elsewhere referenced) that the "viral" particle engaged in the vaccine is not addmittedly infectious. Although this would mean too much about its safety, nevertheless the problem is what is this non infectious material exactly? Problems of isolation again I suppose.

For anyone sparing the time, this is also a relative article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909707/pdf/halms422971.pdf?tool=pmcentrez


Unfortunately, despite in vitro production of virions using HBV DNA transfection of Huh-7 or HepG2 cells (Yaginuma et al., 1987; Sureau et al., 1986) or HBV infection of the recently developed HepaRG cell line (Gripon et al.,
2002), HBV morphogenesis remains highly difficult to observe by electron microscopy(EM). This may be due to the low rate of HBV production approaching 1 to 10 viruses per hepatocyte per day in vivo (Nowak et al., 1996). Thus, the models of HBV and its subviral envelope particles morphogenesis are based on biochemical approaches (Huovila et al.,1992) and lack ultrastructural data that may be helpful for a more complete understanding ofthese mechanisms, as for other viral models (Roingeard, 2008).

This means problems of isolation and direct observation lead to tricks of indirect evaluation, some of which may be not so honest, regarding the money involved.

John Bleau
March 8th, 2011, 07:01 PM
Here's another article from Natural News:

http://www.naturalnews.com/031616_vaccines_Japan.html

UKSteve
March 8th, 2011, 07:41 PM
I distrust much of the output from NaturalNews.

You have to hunt high and low to find the actual circumstances, type of vaccine - ie the FACTS - that underly the headline, which then generally devalues the headline itself.

What we do know - in the case of Flu - is that there is a wealth of difference between the protocols in one country and another.

The UK does not routinely vaccinate anyone for Flu that is not in a very specific 'risk' group (and leaving aside 'HIV+' people though many of them for non-HIV related reasons may well be in a risk group) and it does not vaccinate children for it routinely.
But children have and do *die* from H1N1, that happens to be a circumstantial fact.

As far as 'multiple' type vaccines, well Japan did away with MMR a long time ago, has a low take up of single M, M and R vaccines, and it made no difference to the rise in 'Autism' diagnosis but has been followed (coincidence? fate? mystical?) by a massive increase in cases of Measles and serious illness and death from it. Far more than any numbers of *all* side effects from MMR use.

I simply do not buy the case that a journalist like Brian Deer - who both put his career on the line *and* suffered significant personal damage from investigating AZT trials and 'HIV+' people being lied to about AZT toxicities or having them hidden from them - is the kind of bogeyman people in this thread have portrayed him as.
Unless they can provide evidence that Brian Deer has gone from being a courageous exposer of medical fraud in the field of HIV/AIDS that people here would salute, to morphing into a 'bigpharma' friend, then people who criticise him should simply shut the fuck up.

Who has been *proven* to have lied about and covered up significant
financial receipts in a clear case of conflict of interest?
Andrew Wakefield

Who hasn't been shown to have done that or in any way benefited at all from BigPharma, either now or in 1988-92 re AZT?
Brian Deer

Which national newspaper in Britain has *any* pedigree in challenging the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis?
The one Brian Deer worked for!

John Bleau
March 8th, 2011, 09:20 PM
The article doesn't mention Brian Deer.

UKSteve
March 8th, 2011, 09:32 PM
Indeed it doesn't John but all it's links to MMR vaccine stories do, so it is not only strictly relevant to the underlying issue, it is even more relevant to HIV/AIDS since Deer has a credible history of influential 'dissident' action that many 'dissidents' themselves don't even have.
I am merely pointing out the age-old problems of short-sightedness, one-sidedness, convenient ignorance of pertinent facts and blatant hypocrisy that can sometimes affect even the most supposedly 'moral' or 'noble' cause, and the anti-vaccination, and specifically 'pro-Wakefield' 'anti-Deer' campaigns, wallow in quite breathtaking moral unctuousness.

John Bleau
March 9th, 2011, 05:34 AM
I am merely pointing out the age-old problems of short-sightedness, one-sidedness, convenient ignorance of pertinent facts and blatant hypocrisy that can sometimes affect even the most supposedly 'moral' or 'noble' cause, and the anti-vaccination, and specifically 'pro-Wakefield' 'anti-Deer' campaigns, wallow in quite breathtaking moral unctuousness.

Your value-judgement-riddled sentence is the pot categorically calling the kettle black.

In fact, I've often been lectured about herd immunity, making myself into a vector, putting innocent people at risk, and have seen mothers being called negligent if they refuse to have mercury injected into their children. From what I've seen, the establishment side almost has a lock on the moralizing.

Recently, I got into a discussion with a woman who was aghast at my skepticism of the H1N1 furor. When, after getting vaccinated against it yet getting that flu to the point that she felt she was near death, she credited the vaccine for saving her life. Such is the unshakable belief in the vaccines.


I distrust much of the output from NaturalNews.

I trust it more than the regulatory agencies. But here, then: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/08/japan.vaccines/index.html?hpt=Sbin


You have to hunt high and low to find the actual circumstances, type of vaccine - ie the FACTS - that underly the headline, which then generally devalues the headline itself.

Yes, that's a bit of a problem with the mainstream media. Generally extremely shallow, often blatant advertising.

UKSteve
March 9th, 2011, 06:20 AM
John

Let's look back at who introduced a lot of windbag contrived nonsense about Brian Deer in the specific vaccine case of MMR and Andrew Wakefield.

Just go back and read the bollocks posted about a video of how someone who responded to loud and aggressive questioning on pavement steps, with quite audible 'screaming' from the 'rent a mob' in tow, was described as lacking in composure and loud. It was such a blatantly fictitious description of the scene, that I stand amazed that you could imagine for one second it deserves any respect.

There have been many other comments of a similar kind - ignoring facts and making quite ludicrous statements without any foundation.

I don't disagree with you about H1N1 and the gross overreaction to it, as I have already posted, so I'm not going to waste my time on an irrelevancy like that where there is *no* disagreement among anyone here on that.

So really I don't see the point of your reply. But then I don't see the point of you posting that barely useful 'natural news' article anyway.

It added nothing to the debate about MMR and reactions to it - but it was a piece of disgustingly partial journalism that simply deserves no credit.

Natural News just seeks to smear someone like Brian Deer based on no evidence - that misguided people here should join in with that, especially given Deer's role in HIV/AIDS dissent around ARVs, at a time when some of his critics here probably didn't give a shit about HIV/AIDS, let alone the fact that Wakefield can't disprove anything Deer has written, is simply a sad reflection on how out of touch much of the 'dissident' community is with wider life issues, and something that makes it infinitely harder to get more people to question HIV/AIDS.

It really is a form of schizophrenia for some 'dissidents' to face both ways by suggesting how 'careful' we must be about not creating 'danger' by saying anything 'absolutist' about HIV/AIDS, yet at the same time become totally loopy around issues like vaccines and climate change, and for all I know also seeing shadows of the CIA operatives laying mines in the bowels of the World Trade Centre in the wee hours of September 10/11 2001.

In that sense, I find myself far more comfortable and respecting of those who manage to achieve intellectual honesty and consistency - you certainly can't fault CDM and a few others for that, and I suspect a few more here would benefit from finding that themselves.

Gos
March 13th, 2011, 12:20 PM
In this conversation, I keep hearing the argument that any media outlet that expresses anything but condemnation for Wakefield is corrupted by money.

I have yet to see any proof of this, however.

Which renders extremely interesting the recent admission (http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/03/bmj-admits-competing-commercial-interests-in-wakefield-attacks-warranted-disclosure.html) by BMJ that they had undeclared financial interest in publishing Brian Deer's denunciations of Wakefield, in the form of advertising accounts with Merck and Glaxo-Smith-Kline.

Of course, UKSteve will point out that AgeOfAutism supports Andrew Wakefield (http://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/), so let's get the scoop directly from the horse's mouth (http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470).


----

John Bleau
April 21st, 2011, 06:01 PM
Here is a series of graphs (http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html) that I had found a long time ago and could only re-locate today.

I'll post a several here for discussion purposes:

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/images/whoopingcough.gif

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/images/measles.gif

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/images/scarletfever.gif

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/images/polio.gif

Mike_Stewart
April 23rd, 2011, 08:28 PM
I don't buy the vaccination arguement either.

John's posting of those graphs provides a good arguement for that point.

During basic training we were given a good dozen injections which put half our platoon down for a full day. There were several recruits who had bad reactions and one had a full seizure. Later, during state service, I only had one required shot (tetanus) to take. I refused the others, and have not had any problems. I heard similar stories from other veterans as well.

I agree with Jonathan that humans are the real pathogens. We attempt to engineer nature and you simply can't fuck with that.

I counsel my clients NOT to get a flu shot / flu vaccine because your body (whether by design or evolution) is perfectly equipped to fight influenza ... and win. The more flu bugs you get, the better your body is at defending itself against the next strain.

Two years ago while on vacation with my partner in San Antonio, I came down with an *incredibly bad case of pneumonia.* My partner was going to take me to the ER, but I declined and, pulling myself into the hotel shower, I sat under the showerhead for seven hours with hot water blasting away, bringing my temp back to normal. It took two days to conquer, but I did it, with no medication ... not even an aspirin.

I understand the arguement against vaccination, but I also see a potential SC case over the horizon about forced vaccination.

alpha
July 18th, 2011, 05:22 PM
rsslwm:

Yes ! The Nicolson's could quite easily be pushing-uP daisies right now, beyond any doubt.

I don't even think that you actually even know just how correct you really are about a number of things you have made mention of here so far.
Many people tend to get married to one persons or groups hypothesis regarding not only what A.I.D.S. is, but also as to what H.I.V. actually is, or isn't.
Unfortunately, for some people that may be a grave mistake.
There is no test avalible in the mainstream thats capable of letting a person know what they really need know. (FOR MIGHTY GOOD REASONS)
Anyway...
The New York & more Hep-B vaccine trials of the mid-late 70's what do you know about that tiny little issue rsslwm ? I'm interested in seeing what you may be able to come-uP with on it.
Are you aware that there are two separate vaccines for Hep-B, one for gays & one for straights ? Did you know that ?
If so, do you know why that is ?

positivenegative
July 18th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Are you aware that there are two separate vaccines for Hep-B, one for gays & one for straights ? Did you know that ?

I suspected this is true and this is the first time I've heard someone say this. Can you please provide more information on this subject.

I had been planning a trip overseas and thought it best I get a HEP vaccine and was going to go the regular route but when it was offered for free at gay pride event I thought I could save some money. I took my trip and over the next six months I had all sorts of weird ailments that I knew were connected to that vaccine. Within a year I tested "positive" for hiv.

Please say more about this subject regarding hep vaccines for straights and gays. Thanks.

LonerUK
July 18th, 2011, 09:14 PM
Are you aware that there are two separate vaccines for Hep-B, one for gays & one for straights ? Did you know that ?
If so, do you know why that is ?

This interests me greatly as I had the Hep B vaccine in Autumn 2005 then actually developed Hep B in early 2006. I recovered in 6 weeks and now have natural immunity to Hep B. I took the vaccine at a gay men's clinic.
In August 2007 I tested Hiv+ which I suspect was a false positive possibly caused by the Hep B vaccine.
Alpha, some thoughts that keep buzzing round my brain: is the Hep B vaccine for gay men designed to make them test Hiv+?
And regarding the mycoplasma issue, is mycoplasma igcognitus inside a retroviral envelope that has the proteins for Hiv on it?

Gos
July 18th, 2011, 10:57 PM
Alpha, some thoughts that keep buzzing round my brain: is the Hep B vaccine for gay men designed to make them test Hiv+?

I don't know whether I'd postulate that it's by design, per se.

But along those lines, I have a rather interesting story to add to the discussion:

When I first tested poz (5 bands on WB), one of the first things my doctor advised (and I concurred at the time) was that I should get vaccinated for everything under the sun while my immune system was still capable of mounting a good response. Thus, she said, when my immune system finally collapsed, I'd be more likely to benefit from the immunity conferred by residual antibodies.

Ever since getting vaccinated, I have consistently lit up all 10 bands of the WB like a freakin' Christmas tree.

I have to wonder whether such vaccinations of early-diagnosed patients don't serve the purpose, whether unintentionally or by design, of "locking in" false-poz results in such a way as to foster an illusion that the antibodies in question are associated with an actual (and progressive) viral infection.

-----

HansSelyeWasCorrect
July 19th, 2011, 07:17 AM
I posted this on another thread, where the discussion turned to the Hep B vaccine, but it may be even more appropriate here (just read it today):


The teams of Doctor Christophe Desmet and Professor Fabrice Bureau, of the Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Physiology within the University of Liège's GIGA-Research centre, and of Professor Ken Ishii at the University of Osaka in Japan have just discovered an unexpected mode of action for the vaccine adjuvant alum. When a vaccine containing alum is injected, contact with alum apparently pushes certain cells of the body to release their own DNA.

The presence of this DNA outside the cells, a place where it is not to be found in normal conditions, thus acts as a stimulant of the immune system and strongly boosts the response to the vaccine.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110717204910.htm

cdm
July 19th, 2011, 07:15 PM
When I first tested poz (5 bands on WB), one of the first things my doctor advised (and I concurred at the time) was that I should get vaccinated for everything under the sun while my immune system was still capable of mounting a good response. Thus, she said, when my immune system finally collapsed, I'd be more likely to benefit from the immunity conferred by residual antibodies.

Ever since getting vaccinated, I have consistently lit up all 10 bands of the WB like a freakin' Christmas tree.

-----

Your history is a summation of all "HIV" antibodies production. Gay activity is not far from a multi - vaccination panel. The sperm igniting the sensitive epithelia that are lining the gut and the relative lymphocytes of the Peyer patches and the ingredients of the vaccines do exactly the job. They all provoke the adaptive immunity till a burst of it, creating permanently antibodies to a lot of antigens, that no plasmapheresis might reduce. Because as much plasma as we might get from the bearer of Gallo antibodies, his lymphocytes are stimumated to produce more.

The ramifications of the advance of scheduled vaccinations for all people, either children, gay or special groups in risk, in the development of the HIV=AIDs construct are rather untraced yet.
They were designed surely.
We must not forget that in the last decade the number of vaccinations, the infants ought to get, was more than quadrupled. Surely they expected to multiply the Gallo antibody bearers. But I don't know if they have succeeded in. How do children over-vaccinated do not switch permanently to Th2?. We have far lot of auto-immune disorders and allergies but not a lot of permanent hypergammaglobulinemias with an array of antibodies making the "christmas tree" to shine ..
The experiment is keeping going on yet. So this is the reason they have mandated every voice saying there is no HIV to be silenced by any means.

So everybody seeking his/her safety should say "there is a HIV"

rsslwm
July 19th, 2011, 11:12 PM
So everybody seeking his/her safety should say "there is a HIV"

I would add.

If there is an "HIV" what does it have to do with AIDS". Does "HIV" have NOTHING with the CAUSE(S) of AIDS?

G Man
July 19th, 2011, 11:26 PM
Gay activity is not far from a multi - vaccination panel.

I guess that explains why I have such a healthy immune system :eek:

rsslwm
July 20th, 2011, 12:15 AM
We must not forget that in the last decade the number of vaccinations, the infants ought to get, was more than quadrupled. ... How do children over-vaccinated do not switch permanently to Th2?. We have far lot of auto-immune disorders and allergies ...

"Vaccination" has created the weakest, immunologically, cohort of young children we have had probably ever had in the USA. Yes our kids do not get the largely immunobeneficial childhood "diseases" but their immune systems are bordering on disastrous.

One in about 68 of our young VACCINATED boys is AUTISTIC. Less than one fully UNvaccinated boy in 30,000 is autistic.

One VACCINATED child in 38 has Autism Spectrum Disease, ADD, ADHD ect. Less than one fully UNvaccinated child in 20,000 has ASD.

One VACCINATED child in 10,000 in JAPAN has autism. Japan does not often vaccinate babies and has taken a somewhat rational approach to the barbaric practice of "vaccination". Japan banned the deadly MMR "vaccine" wisely in 1992.

One VACCINATED child in 10 has Asthma. Less than one fully UNvaccinated child in 500 has asthma.

One VACCINATED child in 6 has a Neurodegenerative disease. Less than one fully UNvaccinated child in 200 has a neurodegenerative disease.

Per capita for every TWO VACCINATED children that DIE one fully UNvaccinated child dies.

About every three years the RATE of autism DOUBLES. Autism is in some ways worse than AIDS. In an honest rational world this developing monster of autism would prompt a medical response far greater than that of the medical response to AIDS.

Yet just as with AIDS we see.

o Research, research and research
o Test, test and, test
o Wait, wait and wait

Folks some problems are not intended to be solved.

AIDS and Autism are two of these "problems". There are MANY more.

With AIDS we all KNOW your problem is the Medical Industry's bread and butter. But for both AIDS and Autism as well as MANY other medical "problems" it is deeper and darker than this.

Far deeper, far DARKER.

alpha
July 25th, 2011, 04:57 PM
positivenegative:

Sorry for taking so long on getting back with you.

The reason the vaccines are different is becuase the hep-B virus is different.
The epitopes (SUFACE MOLECULES or DETERMINANT) of Hep-B (ANTIGENS) is different in gays than it is in straights.
This came about because there is very minimal exchange between the two groups.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/epitope

I never even thought about people being issued vaccine at "Gay Pride" events?

What sorts of "weird ailments" did you actually experience after recieving the vaccine ?

alpha
July 25th, 2011, 05:02 PM
LonerUK:

Please just keep an eye on my posts and your question will be answered.

positivenegative
July 25th, 2011, 05:13 PM
I suspected this is true and this is the first time I've heard someone say this. Can you please provide more information on this subject.

I had been planning a trip overseas and thought it best I get a HEP vaccine and was going to go the regular route but when it was offered for free at gay pride event I thought I could save some money. I took my trip and over the next six months I had all sorts of weird ailments that I knew were connected to that vaccine. Within a year I tested "positive" for hiv.

Please say more about this subject regarding hep vaccines for straights and gays. Thanks.

Can you please provide more information on this subject.

John Bleau
July 25th, 2011, 05:46 PM
In my recent reply to BuffaloBoy, I neglected to mention that before trips to the East, one typically takes several vaccinations. It seems that this can cause positivity.

Also related to vaccination, but on a different matter, check out this link (http://www.naturalnews.com/033119_vaccinations_gunpoint.html).

alpha
July 25th, 2011, 07:33 PM
positivenegative:

As far as more information goes, other than the reason for it in the first place, I don't know what more I can say on that specific topic ?

At any rate, what were the "weird ailments" you experienced after you recieved the vaccine ?

Were they anything like whats described in the link below ?

http://menshealth.about.com/od/conditions/a/HIV_signs.htm

alpha
July 25th, 2011, 07:44 PM
please take a quick look at the hep-b "structure" section in the below link and please feel free to voice anything odd that you should happen to notice. "IT'S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, MANY PEOPLE COMPLETELY MISSED THE BOAT ON THIS ONE".

Thanks !

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

alpha
July 25th, 2011, 08:14 PM
John Bleau:

You edited my post, but made no comment regarding the question I presented ? Were you already aware of what I'm poiting out there in the link ?

positivenegative
July 25th, 2011, 08:17 PM
please take a quick look at the hep-b "structure" section in the below link and please feel free to voice anything odd that you should happen to notice. "IT'S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, MANY PEOPLE COMPLETELY MISSED THE BOAT ON THIS ONE".

Thanks !

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

On "this one?" Huh huh...oh thanks. What one now are you talking about?

alpha: what are your reasons for being here at QA?

Anybody: Has alpha made a difference for you? How?

alpha
July 25th, 2011, 08:43 PM
positivenegative:

Whats your problem ? Your remark was indeed positively negative.

I answered your question the best I could, you didn't answer mine ?
You just went and asked the same question again ?

REVERSE TRANSCIPTASE ? EVER HEARD OF IT ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase
THATS WHAT I'M POINTING OUT IN THE ABOVE LINK REGARDING HEP-B.

I can tell you everything, but unfortunately, I can't make you believe anything.

My reasons for being here will soon become quite obvious, why exactly are you here ?

positivenegative
July 25th, 2011, 10:07 PM
There is no test avalible in the mainstream thats capable of letting a person know what they really need know. (FOR MIGHTY GOOD REASONS)
Anyway...

Are you aware that there are two separate vaccines for Hep-B, one for gays & one for straights ? Did you know that ?
If so, do you know why that is ?

Why? Why? For mighty good reasons? What reason?

What does a wikipedia reference have anything do with a Hep B vaccination for gays and straights?

When I asked this question before I wanted to know what backs up your statement? I thought I asked a very simple question but as usual you answer questions that are not clear. It's frustrating and then on top of all that you've been toying for months and months about the great reveal....come on...it really come across to me your playing games.

I'm here to question and try to support others by answering questions to the best of my ability. I'm also here to get support which in the beginning was more important than it is now and still important nonetheless.

jonathan barnett
July 26th, 2011, 09:02 AM
You have been saying this and making other promises for months, Alpha. As long as you continue to be vague and elusive, you should not expect to be taken seriously.



My reasons for being here will soon become quite obvious, why exactly are you here ?

Gos
July 26th, 2011, 10:12 AM
please take a quick look at the hep-b "structure" section in the below link and please feel free to voice anything odd that you should happen to notice. "IT'S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, MANY PEOPLE COMPLETELY MISSED THE BOAT ON THIS ONE".

Thanks !

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


REVERSE TRANSCIPTASE ? EVER HEARD OF IT ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase)
THATS WHAT I'M POINTING OUT IN THE ABOVE LINK REGARDING HEP-B.


OK -- yes, I know what RT is.

Now for the $69,000 question: What's your point?


----

alpha
July 26th, 2011, 07:59 PM
I only use "wikipedia" because it doesn't contain so much of the scientific Chinese speak that many people may have a hard time understanding, and most importantly only when I consider it actually to be correct.

I have NEVER once ever ran into any non-scientist who actually knew about Hep-B containing the reverse transcriptase enzyme, upon finding out that wonderful information though, most were pretty quick with their adding. People in the gay community are far more concerned about Hep-B than they are on the opposite side of the coin.
Straight people would in most cases contract it 10x over before they actually went and got vaccinated against it, no joke.

When people think reverse transcriptase they usually just don’t just think “retrovirus”, they think the BiG KahunA” of retroviruses = H.I.V.
Did I mention all those false positives in A.I.D.S. testing, along with what a big concern Hep-B is with many gay men ?
It just recently was brought to my attention that they are actually tilling out Hep-B vaccine at gay pride events these days, Imagine that ?

You asked me why the vaccines are different and I told you why they are.
(THE BEST I COULD)
I don't exactly know where it is located in the scientific literature that thats spoken.
Now... is there some strange odd reason that you can't pursue it further yourself if you feel my answer wasn't up to your standards ?

The things I say may actually require people to actually do a little math here from time to time (2+2+2), so shoot me.

I say something on one thread that ties into another topic
(2+2+2) and then it gets moved to another thread because it's deemed "OFF TOPIC" for the thread. :rolleyes:

The "GREAT REVEAL" your refering to has actually been directly under the nose of everyone for two years shy of four decades already, even when I show it I'm sure someone will say "Yeah ! So what ! Who gives a toss ! What does that got to do with anything ?" :confused:
I can now see that coming from a mile away.
I will just about be leaving a set of encyclopedia's here on the subject for everyone to mull over after I'm gone.
However, there will still be some adding left to do for everyone that takes the time to read it due to the fact that it doesn't come with any signed admission of guilt, of which, I'm sure some people will actually require due to the fact that their calculator hasn't worked in years.
I guess those individuals will just have to go and rub a lamp, because there is no such admission.
Where not dealing with some al-Qaeda type organization here you understand, who's all gung ho to go and leave their calling card right out in plain view for everyone to see and take credit for it all or something.
But it actually is damn close !

The whole thing does deeper than the Mariana Trench, once you know the players the game becomes far more obvious.

cdm
July 31st, 2011, 11:55 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560766

... HIV-infected subjects show a low rate of response to standard HBV vaccination (23%-56%), in contrast to rates >90% found in the general population, and the underlying causes (particularly cellular and molecular causes) are still unknown.

Here is some food for thought and further questioning . Why is this happening? My first thought is this. Why should positive people, ie their immune functions switched on TH2 reaction, not be able to achieve another specific Th2 response like that of the Hep B vaccination?
An answer I have developed is this: Specific reactions are inversely related to hypergammaglobulinemia, ie to multi-antigen antibody production. A scientist in Athens has noticed this discrepancy since antibody titer to streptolysin (a specific Th2 reaction) does not correlate with globulin fraction of proteins - ie a polyspecific and general marker of production of antibodies.
The Perth group has long ago suggested the antibodies in hypergammaglobulinemia are dysfunctional, due to damage of their sulphydryl groups... A damage that is counter-balanced by cysteine - like compounds

causationnation
August 2nd, 2011, 03:14 AM
http://imgur.com/g9ylS

Shingles vaccination? Sound so mind boggling bogus to me... called my parents to let them know to avoid this like the plague... vaccine made by merck... anyone got any science on this... when did shingles become a problem?

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/infectious-diseases/articles/2008/05/16/its-official-get-your-shingles-vaccination

computergeek
August 2nd, 2011, 05:26 PM
And now another reason to use HPV on boys as well as girls!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/20/boys-human-papilloma-virus-jabs

computergeek
November 30th, 2011, 10:46 PM
Wakefield and another colleague were found guilty of lying, and falsification of scientific data.

I thought it interesting that this debate hasn't gone away.

http://www.omsj.org/blogs/more-questions-about-brian-deer-wakefield-investigation

I've never found this to be as cut-and-dried as it was presented. While I know UKSteve is no longer participating in our forum, I thought I'd add this note to the record for future readers.

positivenegative
December 1st, 2011, 08:35 AM
I thought it interesting that this debate hasn't gone away.

http://www.omsj.org/blogs/more-questions-about-brian-deer-wakefield-investigation



Thank you computergeek for the compelling update.

JeremyB37
December 1st, 2011, 04:43 PM
I thought it interesting that this debate hasn't gone away.

http://www.omsj.org/blogs/more-questions-about-brian-deer-wakefield-investigation

I've never found this to be as cut-and-dried as it was presented. While I know UKSteve is no longer participating in our forum, I thought I'd add this note to the record for future readers.

Of course, the 'Nature' article reads quite differently to the rather 'cut and dried' impression given by the OMSJ link. And apart from that, the BMJ charge laid in January 2011 has no bearing or consequence on the charges against Wakefield (and others) found proven by the GMC.
There are plenty of cases of 'bad science', dishonesty and quite deliberate intention to back up a faulty conclusion by many 'doctors' like Wakefield. The fact that he happens not to have been part of a ruling elite in medicine doesn't make him any less guilty.
Just as we insist that 'HIV' specialists look at the detailed scientific flaws in 'HIV' and all the flawed clinical judgements that flow from that, Wakefield has the same responsibility and his actions and methodology require the same discipline. From my reading of all the public data it is obvious that people who defend Wakefield have totally failed to do that

John Bleau
March 13th, 2012, 06:18 PM
The scientific community has been historically successful in vaccination efforts against numerous infectious agents. (Post 62 in this thread. (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=7923))

I have unsuccessfully sought orthodox sources substantiating such comments. If anyone can provide randomized double blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies to back up such confident statements, I'd appreciate it. Also useful would be prevalence, incidence and mortality curves for the various diseases for which there have been extensive vaccination, footnoted with dates and details on when, where and how extensively the vaccination programs have been applied, along with any changes in diagnostic protocols.

jonathan barnett
March 13th, 2012, 09:48 PM
Maybe you should re-post this in the thread of origin, John. Seems that Supa isn't noticing it here.


(Post 62 in this thread. (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=7923))

I have unsuccessfully sought orthodox sources substantiating such comments. If anyone can provide randomized double blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies to back up such confident statements, I'd appreciate it. Also useful would be prevalence, incidence and mortality curves for the various diseases for which there have been extensive vaccination, footnoted with dates and details on when, where and how extensively the vaccination programs have been applied, along with any changes in diagnostic protocols.

John Bleau
March 13th, 2012, 10:48 PM
Ok, will do. I didn't want to derail it.

positivenegative
December 3rd, 2012, 07:43 AM
Do vaccines cause autism? Rep. Carolyn Maloney grills the CDC over the practice of injecting babies and infants with multiple vaccines all at once.

FACT: The CDC openly admits that vaccines contain mercury, aluminum, MSG and formaldehyde. All of these are neurotoxic chemicals or metals. Read more at:

http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.h tml


Yzy5oFwA1ik

John Bleau
January 28th, 2013, 06:04 PM
This article is important:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

You have to be aware that the vaccine court and the vaccine compensation program are there to protect the vaccine makers, so the deck is stacked against suing parents. Note, for example, the secrecy in these US Federal programs: documents under seal, cases “unpublished” (access to medical records and other exhibits is blocked). Note also that MMR is implicated. In fact, such decisions should be screamed from the rooftops, not kept under wraps; the fact that they are immediately implies a cover up.

cdm
January 28th, 2013, 07:14 PM
Although most studies are pro-vaccinations, from time to time some study manages to escape and find the way to publication, like this one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hernan%20MA%2C%20Jick%20SS%2C%20Olek%2 0MJ%2C%20Jick%20H.%20Recombinant%20hepatitis%20B%2 0vaccine%20and%20the%20risk%20of%20multiple%20scle rosis%3A%20a%20prospective%20study.%20Neurology%20 2004%3B%2063%3A838-42)
(I mean they do not let the contrary studies to be published)
The odds for getting multiple sclerosis from hep B vaccination is 3 to 1.

cdm
January 28th, 2013, 07:22 PM
And this (http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/14/federal-court-admits-hepatitis-b-vaccine-caused-fatal-auto-immune-disorder/) is an important piece of information, although causing grief for the death of a child


The United States Court of Federal Claims sided with the estate of Tambra Harris, who died as a result of an auto-immune disease called systemic lupose erythematosus (SLE).

The court awarded $475,000 following her death after finding the hepatitis vaccine caused her injury in the form of SLE. But this near-admittance of a cause-effect relationship between the vaccine and the illness and subsequent death isn’t enough. No, we still give the shot to babies.

John Bleau
January 28th, 2013, 07:28 PM
Thanks for the link, cdm, but OR means odds ratio. The study claims an odds ratio of 3.1, meaning that someone vaccinated against Hep B is 3.1 times more likely to develop MS than an unvaccinated person. This does not mean 3:1 odds! The actual risk is not given in the abstract.

If the odds for an unvaccinated person are 10 in a billion, then for Hep B-vaccinated people, they'd be 31 in a billion, which are still very small odds.

However, if it was 1/1000 vs. 31/1000, the odds (3.1%, 2.1% presumably being from the vaccine) are quite a bit more significant.

cdm
January 28th, 2013, 08:21 PM
The study claims an odds ratio of 3.1, meaning that someone vaccinated against Hep B is 3.1 times more likely to develop MS than an unvaccinated person. This does not mean 3:1 odds! The actual risk is not given in the abstract.

If the odds for an unvaccinated person are 10 in a billion, then for Hep B-vaccinated people, they'd be 31 in a billion, which are still very small odds.

However, if it was 1/1000 vs. 31/1000, the odds (3.1%, 2.1% presumably being from the vaccine) are quite a bit more significant.

Thanks for the elucidation John
I understand what OR implies, although my wording was not perfect.
In actual numbers 14 new cases are recorded each year in every 10.000 persons (incidence in USA (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18606967)). The OR=3.1 implies that 4 persons became sick of MS due to non-vaccination with HepB and the other 11 due to it. This does not mean there are no other reasons converging to this result. (Be careful that 100.000 is persons-years that means you have to divide 100.000 persons per each year of the 41 years from 1966 to 2007) Or am I wrong? you are the mathematician !!

cdm
January 28th, 2013, 08:29 PM
One might argue there was no hepB vaccination in 1966 till the mid nineties. It would be useful to see the incidence each separate year and relate it with the hepB vaccination. Yet MS is not attributed solely to HepB vaccination. It is not widely known that variola vaccination was also responsible

John Bleau
January 28th, 2013, 10:02 PM
My reading of the abstract would be that there are 3.6 new cases per year per 100,000 women and 2 per 100,000 men in the USA. (Actually a little less than that, given that some of these die during the year and thus account for a little less than 100,000 person-years.)

Again, how this translates to incidence with and without the Hep B vaccine depends on the vaccine's prevalence (makes the vaccine sound like a disease!).

cdm
January 28th, 2013, 10:20 PM
No.
When we read 100.000 persons-years, this means we have a product of persons by years. This means from 100000/41 = 2439 women, 3.6 new cases per year appeared and from 100000/41 =2439 men, 2 new cases appeared each year. This is a mean value of course of all 41 years from 1966 t0 2007. The best would be to have each year separately (I suspect it is deliberate in order not to see the difference in incidence and see when the influence of hepB vaccination began)
This is my reading

John Bleau
January 28th, 2013, 10:41 PM
That is an important point and you're right - the average is over many years and may not be applicable today.

cdm
January 29th, 2013, 12:16 AM
Here is another study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444137/) explicitly showing the various aspects and parameters of vaccine monitoring for safety reasons.
It calculates the expected range of various diseases per person-years in order to monitor side effects of vaccination. But in my opinion it is elusive since it uses observations from 1980 to 2009 that included events due to vaccinations. So it is a base of events that probably includes the side effects of vaccinations. We would need a base of events without any kind of vaccination in order to compare it with future use of vaccines

positivenegative
February 3rd, 2013, 05:44 AM
This is a great update interview with Andrew Wakefield. It looks like Brian Deer may be coming to USA. I hope so.

In the last few days on the road of daily errands I have met several parents with kids with autism. It's so sad and I have broached conversations with these dear heart parents and I'm happy to say that it isn't just tin foil hat conspiracy theorists that are arguing against vaccinations but that doctors and nurses are being fired because they themselves are refusing vaccinations as public authorities.

Bonus: Check out 25:00 for "Oppositional Defiant Disorder in the new DSM-IV manual; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Guilty as charged! :D


eJuymj0pHH0

Kreosol
February 3rd, 2013, 08:14 PM
Vaccine efe
When a viable connection between vaccinations and "AIDS" is made, we can reconsider whether it should be moved back.

The connection is the antibody tests and the associated cross reactions we all know about.

Vaccine effectiveness is never proven in clinical trials, but simply assumed through antibody surrogate marker: the injected subjects developing "specific" antibodies. Just like in AIDS, specificity is claimed if a reaction is observed between the patient's serum and some antigens from the "bug" (neutralization test).

It was observed is that vaccines containing antigen alone were incapable of inducing antibodies, so the bulk of vaccine research today goes into immunoactive "adjuvants" that increase antibody production.

The adjuvant-loaded vaccine causes a condition called hypergammaglobulinemia (increased levels of inespecific immunoglobulins in the blood serum). Of course, the sera of these hypergammaglobulinemic patients will be very likely to cross reactions with the "bug" antigen, so the neutralization tests are positive and the vaccine declared to be "effective" (by proxy).

Actually, what the industry is doing is bypassing the scientific method (controlled clinical trials) and selling the antibodies to the adjuvants as if they were "protective" antibodies to the bug.

cdm
February 4th, 2013, 02:51 PM
..Just like in AIDS, specificity is claimed if a reaction is observed between the patient's serum and some antigens from the "bug" (neutralization test).

It was observed is that vaccines containing antigen alone were incapable of inducing antibodies, so the bulk of vaccine research today goes into immunoactive "adjuvants" that increase antibody production...

I can't say how much I am satisfied with this contention. I would rather say this is the absolute truth, if the Absoulte exists in our relatice world.


The adjuvant-loaded vaccine causes a condition called hypergammaglobulinemia (increased levels of inespecific immunoglobulins in the blood serum). Of course, the sera of these hypergammaglobulinemic patients will be very likely to cross reactions with the "bug" antigen, so the neutralization tests are positive and the vaccine declared to be "effective" (by proxy).

Some people due to multiple vaccinations (plus other reasons, not well defined at the moment) will become Gallo positive... because non-specific hypergammaglobulinemia is the cause of Gallo reactivity.

John Bleau
February 4th, 2013, 03:06 PM
Yes, Kreosol's post is very informative.

Kreosol
February 4th, 2013, 04:13 PM
non-specific hypergammaglobulinemia is the cause of Gallo reactivity.

Hypergammaglobulinemia is one of the causes, but not necessary the most common. A test that contains 10 different antigens is open to a high degree of randomness.

As many as 32% of the "low risk" population has at least one antibody to "HIV" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2230270), so the chances of being Western-Blot-positive without any associated condition - by sheer bad luck alone - are relatively high. Using the data in the paper, the probability is around 1 in 1300.

Kreosol
February 4th, 2013, 04:39 PM
The ability of vaccines to induce non-specific antibodies (heterophilic) is well documented in the medical literature. For example:


What are the limits of adjuvanticity? (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X01002882)

“…It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection. In addition, very little is known on parameters of cell-mediated immunity which could be considered as surrogates of protection….”

The study goes on acknowledging total ignorance of what constitutes a measure of vaccine efficacy:

“… immunological correlates of protection are largely unknown for many infectious diseases… the immunological mechanisms of vaccine-induced protection remain unknown… whenever correlates of protection have been proposed, they only refer to serum antibody titers… there is complete lack of any parameter of cellular-mediated immunity known to correlate with protection… it is crucial to extend studies in the attempt to define correlates of protection for the most important vaccine targets… “

----

False Hyperthyrotropinemia Induced by Heterophilic Antibodies against Rabbit Serum (http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/53/1/200.abstract?ijkey=7fb4f0ef89291213aa95c413924c320 1f185f240&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

“… Some vaccines against viral or bacterial diseases contain animal serum capable of inducing heterophilic antibodies in man…”

----

Human Anti-Animal Antibody Interferences in Immunological Assays (http://www.clinchem.org/content/45/7/942.full)

“…Vaccination against infectious diseases is another route by which animal protein antigens may be inadvertently presented to the immune system and trigger antibody formation. In the US, chick embryo or egg cultures are frequently used in vaccine production, and residual chicken protein may be present in vaccines, whereas in Europe, some vaccines contain rabbit serum, e.g., rubella vaccine in France…”

----

Measuring immunoglobulin G concentrations in sera obtained from vaccine clinical trials (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539118/)

"...The immunogenicity of PNEUMOVAX 23 in early clinical trials was determined using a radioimmunoassay measuring antibodies to the Pn polysaccharides (PnPs) ... the first-generation ELISA showed a poor correlation of antibody concentration with the efficacy of the vaccines ... this second-generation ELISA was found to have insufficient specificity when sera from unimmunized adults were investigated..."

positivenegative
February 19th, 2013, 06:16 AM
Yes, Kreosol's post is very informative.

Thank you Kreosol! Excellent posts!

Evidently there's also issues with vaccines contaminated with mycoplasma as well as inundating the the bodily system with too many vaccines at once with regards to Gulf War Syndrome and contamination of vaccines in the military.


bptNj4zPF_Y

cdm
September 16th, 2013, 04:39 PM
Time to revive this old thread due to newer evidence coming forth?

Flue vaccination increases the risk of Rheumatoid arthritis, a known autoimmune disorder. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21763385)

A study from sweden (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccinated+unvaccinated+children+rheumatoid+ arthritis)shows incidence of inflammatory bowel disease -ie crohn disease plus ulcerative colitis- a chronic and debilitating disease, increased due to vaccination by pandermix, the alleged vaccine against H1N1.

Partially vaccinated adults exhibit measles encephalitis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23967232)

Kreosol
September 17th, 2013, 11:01 AM
7. Vaccination trials are not reliable (it is good to find this article- unfortunately pubmed ignored to give a summary of it)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18338432?ordinalpos=39&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

That article is titled "More bad news on vaccine trials" and refers to the failure of HIV vaccines to prevent "infection". It does NOT talk about (ub)reliability of vaccine trials.

Here's the full text (page 890): Antiviral briefs (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/apc.2007.9967)

cdm
September 17th, 2013, 09:03 PM
Kreosol
thank you for this information
You are as always in time and accurate.