Note: this link originally took you to the front page of BoiseWeekly.com where a link to this article was found by clicking "More..." under "Most Commented On" section.
December 14, 2011 Features
Idaho's Epidemic of Fear: Vaccination Liberation Movement Takes a Shot at Public Health
The war over vaccinations heats up in North Idaho
A reprint from the BoiseWeekly...
by George Prentice
C O M M E N T S - - - 101-150
[Note: the report section "x of y people like this" is not accurate as the numbers simply reflect the number who liked the comment at the time the comment was copied from the BoiseWeekly web site.]
Comments 1-50 |
Some comments on this thread have made false claims about Andrew Wakefield, who was permanently banned from medicine in May 2010 after more than three dozen charges - including four counts of dishonesty - were found proven, against a criminal standard of sureness, by a statutory tribunal of the UK General Medical Council. He called no witnesses and did not appeal, after his legal team advised his funders that he would not succeed. Here is the sentencing statement:
One contributor here, oddly, claims that Wakefield's research was not about MMR. Here is the (retracted) research paper from the Lancet of 1998:
You may wish to note the "interpretation" section, which was retracted by the authors in 2004, and the full paper was retracted by the journal in 2010. If you are in further doubt about the project, here is administrative correspondence which shows what it was about and gives information about funding and the involvement of lawyers:
Another contributor here says: "Dr. Wakefield was vindicated in Nature magazine in November, and even Brian Deer now says he doesn't believe Wakefield committed fraud." Wakefield was not vidicated in Nature, or anywhere else, and I do not say what is alleged. If you are in any doubt about my findings regarding Wakefield, you may wish to read my summary, titled "Exposed: Andrew Wakefield and the MMR-autism fraud":
With regard to my reports in the BMJ of last year, neither I nor the editors are aware of any error (save a two-letter spelling mistake in one online footnote - which is not bad for an 18,000-word series). I would wish the reports had been even longer, and I'd had more space to explore the cases further.
The comments made were uninformed and somewhat foolish, but I understand from where the writers get information. If they have a genuine interest in what they say, maybe they could use this opportunity to check their facts, even contacting the sources, to find out whether what they say has any basis. I'd hope they would want to do that because then they might learn something about the people who spread this misinformation, and that can only help.
Sadly, discussion of the causes of autism is contaminated by a group blog by a former journalist for the Moonies. He has done everything he can to mislead decent people on behalf of the charlatan Wakefield. Recently, he embarked on what he calls a "series", which is the most sustained deceit with regard to this issue that I have ever seen. When people wrote posts querying aspects of his allegations, they were deleted in what he called a "glitch". Is he edited by anyone? Peer reviewed? Checked by lawyers? Liable for his claims? Nah. But I am.
It's sad to see people so misinformed, but I do draw some comfort from the enormous number of parents who have written to me, expressing support for my investigation. For example, the parent of one of the children in Wakefield's research, who wrote from California:
"If my son really is Patient 11, then the Lancet article is simply an outright fabrication."
report 4 likes, 16 dislikes.
Posted by Brian Deer on December 27, 2011 at 1:44 AM
I read over the above study you cite as 'proof' that "there is no difference in neurological outcomes when you compare those who receive the recommended vaccination schedule and those who either don't receive vaccination or receive it late." ["On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect
Neuropsychological Outcomes" by Michael J. Smith and Charles R. Woods] This study does not conclusively prove what they purport it does in my mind at all. The Vaccine Safety Datalink used contained 1074 subjects with only 9 subjects not receiving the vaccines recommended for the first 7 months of life. The authors admit that the subjects whose vaccines were delayed were more likely to come from single-parent households and mother not having a college degree. Low income status is presumed and certainly has an impact on health, including neurological outcomes. This study should not reassure today's parents since the study involved children subjected to the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule for 1993- 1997. The current schedule includes pneumococcal, influenza and rotavirus vaccines, and injected polio vaccine instead of oral polio vaccine (oral form of polio vaccine given 1993-1997). Subjects in the study received 9 injections, 2 oral doses of polio vaccine, 22 antigens total for the first year of life. Today infants receive 16 injections, 3 oral doses of rotavirus vaccine, 87 antigens total for the first year of life.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules… and compare to
As for the epidemic of severe allergies in children today:
"We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction, the organism suffers and becomes resistant.This resistance lies in increased sensitivity, a sort of revolt against the second parenteral injection which would be fatal. At the first injection, the organism is taken by surprise and does not resist. At the second injection, the organism mans its defences and answers by the anaphylactic shock... Phylaxis...stands in the Greek for protection.... Anaphylaxis, from its Greek etymological source, therefore means that state of the organism in which it is rendered hypersensitive, instead of being protected.... Seen in these terms, anaphylaxis is is a universal defense mechanism against penetration of heterogenous substances in the blood, whence they cannot be eliminated." ~ Charles Robert Richet, winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize in medicine.
To put this in very simple terms, Richet that vaccines carry to our blood alien proteins -- by effraction (a burglary of our bodies through breaking the skin and depositing foreign proteins with no way of organism getting rid of the offending, 'undigested' protein.)
Although people tend to focus quite a bit on thimerosal and aluminum hydroxide as adjuvants in vaccines, we really need to take a closer look at the new oil-based adjuvants, such as MPL being used in Cerverix, GSK's HPV vaccine.
I certainly agree with many parents in Idaho today who are refusing to endanger their children's lives by complying with the unscientific annual increase in the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule. Until pediatricians are willing to accept medical liability for the "rare" adverse effects of the vaccines they administer, more and more parents will seek alternatives to vaccines as a means of immunization.
report 18 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by ImmunizeWizely on December 27, 2011 at 2:30 AM
A single study wont conclusively prove a hypothesis - but, it can add to the weight of evidence supporting the hypothesis.
I'm not sure whether you missed this section of the methodology:
"These analyses were controlled for potential confounders, including age, gender, birth weight, poverty status, maternal IQ, maternal education, study site, cumulative ethyl mercury exposure during the first 7 months of life, and Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment score (an objective assessment of stimulation and emotional support in the home environment, which has been associated with developmental outcomes). Additional confounders examined included day care versus home care, language (English only versus multiple languages), duration fo breast feeding, Apgar scores, maternal age, and others. Both univariate (one variable at a time) and multivariate (correcting for multiple comparisons) were performed."
Regarding the difference with the current vaccination schedule, that was also addressed in the paper:
"Because the children in this study were born between 1993 and 1997, these results may not be generalizable to the current infant immunization schedule, which now includes 3 doses of heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 3 doses of oral rotavirus vaccine, and 1 or 2 doses of influenza vaccine in the first year of life (earliest eligibility at 6 months of age). This limitation is presently unavoidable in any vaccine safety study with long-term follow-up. However, most of the children in this study received DTP rather than DTaP, so the total antigenic burden to which children in this study cohort were exposed was actually higher than that encountered by children today."
This paper also supports the findings of this paper from the New England Journal of Medicine which looked at thimerosal exposure:
Anaphylaxis is a well recognised phenomena - and a rare complication of vaccination:
Mark Crislip addresses the disparity between the vaccine schedule and all the antigens to which a child will be exposed here:
So... a baby can manage tens of thousands of enviromental challenges (some ingested, some inhaled and innoculated through scrapes and scratches) every day... including those 'alien' substances... hopefully that should put the question of multiple vaccines into some kind of context.
report 2 likes, 19 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 27, 2011 at 4:05 AM
Are Vaccines Magical?
It is magical thinking that there are virtually no injuries caused by vaccines and the vaccination process. The safety factors promoted are completely unrealistic and could not be achieved by a placebo. Why? Because virtually all vaccines are injected, and the injection process itself, separate and distinct from the vaccine is by definition an invasive medical procedure with multiple known risk factor rates greater than current vaccine safety claims.
Ask a responsible medical professional if it is possible to perform 1,000,000 insulin, Vitamin B12, or even saline injections without an injury. Medical errors happen all the time.
From the National Academy of Science
Medication Errors Injure 1.5 Million People and Cost Billions of Dollars Annually
This PowerPoint illustrates multiple common errors, see slide 2
Here a technician was using improper injection techniques for flu shots
But they must be the only ones… Nope, sorry. It turns out that this is a continuing problem across the entire health care industry.
“3 Myths About Safe Injection Practices”- better hope your HCP is not one of these
....Premier survey conducted in May and June last year, indicating that of 5,446 provider respondents, the following engage in unsafe injection practices:
•6% sometimes or always use single-dose/single-use vials for more than one patient
•9% sometimes or always reuse a syringe but change the needle for a second patient
•15.1% reuse a syringe to enter a multidose vial
•6.5% save that vial for use on another patient.
Are vaccines and vaccination magical?
What about manufacturing errors?
Just before the earthquake Japan halted vaccinating with a couple of vaccines due to contamination
Merck was recently cited for delivering vaccines containing pieces of charred shrink-wrap and other problems.
You cannot even guarantee sterility using proper procedures, as illustrated by the recent recall of contaminated Triad alcohol wipes, which the FDA didn’t correct for several years. So you could have a properly manufactured, etc. shot and still get a sick patient.
Imagine every potential failure point- manufacturing, packaging, labeling, shipping, storage, reconstitution and preparation for injection, correct injection method, proper sanitary procedures followed, patient mix-ups, etc. Project that out over the several hundred million vaccine injections given annually.
Is it really reasonable to claim that every dose of the 100’s of millions a year used in the US is manufactured, labeled, etc. and administered perfectly?
The World Health Organization doesn’t think so, that’s why they have a manual for investigating the expected, inevitable Adverse Events Following Immunization, or AEFI. They expect a certain number of adverse events and use that baseline as an indicator for troubleshooting vaccine campaign problems.
Part of the communication problem is that for vaccinators “rare” and “very rare” adverse events have a numerical value assigned to them by the Brighton Collaboration that greatly exceeds the general public’s value. For a vaccinator an adverse event is very common (>1/10); common (>1/100); uncommon (>1/1000); rare (>1/10 000); very rare (<1/10 000), or not previously reported. The average parent does not consider an event that occurs more frequently than 1/10,000 to be rare, or up to 9/100,000 to be very rare.
Injury reporting in the US is hobbled by the patchwork method healthcare is delivered- one facility for routine care, another for urgent, and yet a third for emergencies. Like most things health care related Canada does a better job than we do. Public Health Canada records that serious adverse events, defined as birth defect, extended hospitalization, permanent disability, or death, occur at a rate of 1/100,000 doses.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76573887/PHC-Adverse-Events. What is more likely, that Canada has an inferior administration system or that the US has an inferior injury tracking system?
While this is a very low individual risk, a 1/100,000 or 10/million rate projected out over the 350+ million or so doses annually administered in the US is 3,500+ injuries or deaths. This is why the safety question will never go away. These are people who have suffered legitimate injury and have family and friends who also know that the injuries occurred. Say that each injured person has a circle of 10 others and now 35,000 know that the risk is real. Calculate that over 20 years and you will understand where the pool of refusers is coming from.
Does a healthy child have a 1/100k risk of serious injury or death from the Mumps or Chicken Pox? Those were never even reportable diseases prior to the development of vaccines for them. Was there a public outcry demanding these?
I have heard of vaccines being compared to seatbelts, (and therefore not vaccinating is equated to not using a seatbelt), but that analogy would only hold true if 1/100,000 times someone were wearing a seatbelt it malfunctioned and choked the wearer to the point of serious injury, brain damage or death.
In the real world all kinds of failures occur. Vaccines are some of the most complex pharmaceutical products manufactured, using live and attenuated biologics, that require very specific handling- some have to be frozen, some refrigerated. Many have to be reconstituted with a “diluent”. It is a common mistake to mix the incorrect diluent, or even inadvertently use another medicine. Medical mistakes are made all the time- why would vaccines be different? Are vaccines and vaccination magical?
Dennis Quaid’s children were almost killed by a medication error at Cedars-Sinai, and we are assigning perfect safety records to vaccine administrators at Rite Aids and Walgreens?
How many conventional medical mistakes are being masked by the near hysterical defense of vaccine safety? Since we know that vaccines are incapable of causing harm, any and all temporally associated events following an injection labeled “vaccine” are coincidental?
How many “vaccine” injuries are really undiagnosed medication errors?
Symptoms that would normally warrant a medical emergency are often dismissed when they occur following a vaccination.
In a “non-vaccine” medication error investigation the first thing confirmed would be what was actually injected into the patient? Did the patient receive the correct medication? Maybe the patient was injected with a syringe intended for a person in another treatment room, as can happen when the injections are prepared in a central area. (It is not a good idea to accept any injection that you do not witness the preparation of.) Was the vial mislabeled? Next, was it manufactured properly? Contaminated or adulterated in some way? Was it properly prepared with mixing and dosage ratios? Was it used within the recommended timeframe, as some products have a limited window for administration. A toxicology
report could be performed to see if any common medical office medications were improperly administered.
The bottom line is that because of the foregoing, for some people the scenario, “My child was fine before the shot, and then was injured or killed”, is a true statement. And perhaps not because of what the WHO classifies as a “vaccine reaction”, but from a “programme error”. Not everyone who claims vaccine injury is mistaken or lying. Vaccines are not magically exempt from the normal natural laws of statistics and errors.
From the “Arizona Immunization Conference” April 28, 2011, Powerpoint-
Reporting Vaccine Administration Errors
CDC currently has no mechanism for reporting vaccine administration errors
If an adverse event occurs it should be reported to VAERS
(*My Note- The only organization tasked with tracking injuries and apparently structured in such a way that its information is disregarded by proponents as inaccurate.)
Discussions are underway to develop a reporting mechanism
“Rights” of Medical Patients (*My note- short list of potential errors)
Right vaccine or diluent
Includes administering at correct age, correct interval, and before vaccine/diluent expiration
Right route, needle length and technique
All medical procedures involve risk. A parent must have the ultimate right in accepting that risk for their child.
report 18 likes, 4 dislikes.
Posted by Vaccine Information on December 27, 2011 at 5:42 AM
I admire the caution of the parents in this case. We should not be so quick to dismiss their fears. The truth is that they currently have little recourse against the manufacturers of vaccines, should the vaccine do something horrible to their child. As the dissenting opinion in the recent Supreme Court case put it, there is a "regulatory vacuum" that has yet to be addressed. For more information on the recent decision, a link to an informative Discover Magazine article (and subsequent links to Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal) is provided below. Epidemiologically, an child injured by a vaccine may be a tiny data point in a sea of data where most of the population does just fine. It is still the parents' child, and maybe their only one. Any harm that (for instance) adjuvants in the manufactures’' formulations may cause the recipient of their vaccines is just too bad. This arguably leaves the door open for large pharmaceutical companies to pursue "cheap and fast" over "quality and caution" when producing their vaccines. If anybody has failed to notice, they are producing a lot of vaccines. Producing vaccines has become big, big business, not nearly as risky to the pharmaceutical companies as the manufacture of drugs.
The principle behind vaccinations is sound. It is the same principle behind the natural system that builds the immune system up in the first place and allows it to fight off disease. It's the same principle behind the notion of mothers exposing their children to Chicken Pox early, so their children are not hit with it as adults, which typically is much more serious. A vaccine is supposed to expose somebody to just enough of of a virus, made as harmless as possible (ideally dead), to allow the body to react in advance and develop antibodies against the possibility of real future exposure. There is nothing wrong with this notion, and it allows entire populations to up their resistance enough to reduce the risk of epidemic or at least its impact in the population at large.
The motives of the CDC and other health authorities and the vaccine manufacturers are different (although one could argue massive lobbying by "Big Pharma" muddies this water quite a bit). Regardless of the validity of the idea behind vaccinations, there is nothing altruistic in a company's profit motive and nothing magical about the Pharmaceutical industry that makes it any less prone to market forces and shareholder demands. A simple look through the companies’ investor information and annual reports reveal how big (or small) a role the manufacture of vaccines plays in their strategy for profit and growth. As long as a small enough percentage of the population suffers adverse outcomes, the formulations will continue to be deemed effective and safe. Those responsible for the health of the population at large will also continue to push vaccines because as I said the principle is sound, and their job is to keep the population reasonably healthy and disease-free. These two sets of motives should never be confused with each other in the context of an intelligent discussion around quality and safety in the manufacture of vaccines, the effectiveness of vaccines, and need to keep entire populations safe from epidemic even when it means the cure will be worse than the disease for some percentage of recipients.
Parents want that percentage to exclude their child, or to be able to take their chances with the risk of disease (which they deem lower) rather than risk from the vaccine. If they didn't, that would make them poor parents indeed.
report 18 likes, 1 dislike.
Posted by Chris London on December 27, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Did BMJ have financial ties to Merck during publication of articles on Dr. Wakefield?
The Point Man for the Conspiracy Against Wakefield and Walker-Smith
Brian Deer is a self professed independent investigative journalist. He is not independent, according to Age of Autism He has over a decade's history of working for different vaccine industry front groups, both in America and Great Britain. And he doesn't really investigate. It appears he fabricates.
Sources for this article and your perusal include:
The full Brian Deer vs. Wakefield 12 parents documentary "Selective Hearing" http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=21C9E
Recent Daily Mail
report on findings similar to Wakefield's
Exposing the Murdoch Empire's crimes and vaccine industry investments
Natural News Mike Adams on what Wakefield actually did at Royal Free Hospital
Mike Adams on documents proving BMJ and Deer's lies against Wakefield's innocence http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_D...
Merck hit list memo http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033516_BMJ_fina…
report 17 likes, 4 dislikes.
Posted by ChristyAnn on December 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM
For sure, ChristyAnn should be aware that correlation doesn't equal causation.
ChristyAnn should also be aware that--making correlation equal to causation--is, according to the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, precisely the mistake made by the vaccination advocates.
In his great book, "How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of Your Doctor," he has an entire chapter, "Immunization Against Disease: A Medical Time Bomb?" in which he notes:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass innoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease....If immunizations were responsible for the disappearance of these diseases in the United States, one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunizations did not take place."
Dr. Mendelsohn was one of a large group of doctors, too, who think that AIDS was introduced via vaccination.
The real issue here is a human rights issue. As Ron Paul has been quoted as saying: "When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies.
It is despicable for vaccination tyrants to think that they can force their Vaccine Religion--and cannibalistic at that!!--on others against their will.
report 17 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Idaho Spud on December 27, 2011 at 1:35 PM
If parents were caught lacing Halloween candy with the same amount of ethyl mercury that the Vaccination zealots consider safe, those parents would likely be strung-up at the nearest tree. But when the medical community does it, they are not responsible, they are not liable. Only on this planet.
The medical community can believe that injecting mercury into children makes them healthy probably is the best example why more and more parents no longer find the medical community and public health officials credible or trustworthy, and certainly not scientific.
report 21 likes, 4 dislikes.
Posted by mikies on December 27, 2011 at 8:41 PM
Just wanted to poke my head in and say that I live in Southern Idaho and I do not vaccinate...no wallowing in ignorance here! But I do believe what is said about southern Idaho...most people around here do vaccinate and think I'm insane for not doing it.
report 18 likes, 3 dislikes.
Posted by Jennifer W. on December 27, 2011 at 9:58 PM
I am not through rewind comments, but to those who consider vaccines perfect and infallible, why have they banned a flu vaccine in Australia? Why do you so strongly uppity something that causes the body to shed a disease, which could spread to others, including the infants, elderly, and those who just haven't been vaccinated recently enough?
You ask for studies showing how bad vaccines are. However, the researches you want to see the studies from simply haven't done those studies. The studies that could show the results you want haven't been done, for various reasons. Many simply because these medications have not been out long enough.
Do you honestly think it's ok to test new medications on children, people who aren't even old enough to have a say?
As far as fear mongering, that's exactly what pro vaccinators do. Bill Gates has neither a degree nor first hand experience. The play boy at least has experience with her son. Would you, say, want Bill Gates representing you in court? Vaccines are not his area of expertise. His opinion, which has no factual basis, should not hold any weight anywhere.
For the argument that those anti vaccination simply don't know the effects of the diseases or viruses, my grandfather had polio. My father remembers it well. He strongly supports us not vaccinating our daughter though. I've done research on many of the diseases. If vaccines didn't contain toxic chemicals or were at least effective my daughter would have every vaccine. But why inject her with poison that doesn't even have a guarantee of a benefit?
report 19 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Rosebud on December 27, 2011 at 10:30 PM
More on Dr. Wakefield and Brian Deer. Interesting and seemingly unbiased.
report 16 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by ChristyAnn on December 27, 2011 at 11:02 PM
If vaccines worked then no one would be sick..... If vaccines worked then billions wouldn't be paid put to families every year. If vaccines worked then children would not suffer or die from a vaccine induced illness/death. Its simple really vaccines DONT work nor will they ever. I would put my child against any vaccinated child and I guarantee you that she is smarter, and healthier then a vaccinated child. But here is the latest pay out that was given to a child that was Vaccine injured. So the question is do you know where your child stands, do you want to risk something happening to your baby that you made the choice to give. Do you even realize that almost all of these so called deadly illnesses are anything but deadly with the proper nutrition and care.... Or do you just listen to what anyone says cause you think they know your child better then you do............
report 16 likes, 4 dislikes.
Posted by Alishia Maria Klynstra on December 27, 2011 at 11:13 PM
It is crazy to blindly trust a lab-coated psychopath sticking a needle full of "God knows what" into you. Sounds pretty stupid or, at the very least, naively trusting of authority figures. If you were to ask the person administering the shot any questions, it's a sure bet they could not answer them. Which begs the question, does anyone really know what's in them? Without an independent lab analysis on each vaccine, we'll never know what is really in them. One pharma rep even admitted to me that the package insert was several years old and that they hadn't had a chance to update them! The food labeling laws do not even work, with all kinds of unwanted ingredients in our food such as GMOs, fluoride and neotame that are not required to be listed in the ingredient list of packaged food items. So our society presumes that God made a mistake when He created us, so that we cannot possibly be healthy unless we have increasing numbers of injections of some magic potions. The logical portion of my God-given brain doesn't think so...
report 17 likes, 4 dislikes.
Posted by Free Idaho on December 27, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Once again I note that, having failed to challenge the evidence ranged against Wakefield, some commentators have instead attacked Brian Deer and the BMJ.
No evidence has been offered to refute the GMC's findings which led to Wakefield being struck off the medical register. No evidence has been offered to refute the findings in the BMJ articles.
Moreover, the comments have now turned full circle:
It is still a fallacy to suggest that vaccination is 100% effective or safe (but, that does not make vaccination 100% ineffective or 0% safe).
Likewise it is a fallacy to suggest that vaccine-preventable diseases are mild or 'safe'.
Looking at all the evidence, it is clear that the risks associated with vaccination are far less than those of vaccine-preventable disease (evidence to this effect has already been presented).
To put this into context, this article looks at the impact of measles on an unvaccinated population:
The issue of thimerosal in vaccines is discussed in detail here:
No evidence of harm from the use of Thimerosal (as a preservative in vaccines) except local hypersensitivity reactions.
Dehumanising ones opponents by calling them 'psychopaths' does not advance your argument.
report 3 likes, 15 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 28, 2011 at 4:05 AM
I don't believe I have confused an opinion with a fact.
I understand it wouldn't be prudent for you to believe Cynthia's infant was vaccine injured, given your obvious position on the vaccine issue.
The 'pharma shill gambit' seems to strike a nerve with you. At least I didn't use 'Pharma blogger'.
I have not missed any of the points you are trying to make.
You cannot convince me, (no matter how many sites on conjecture, you pass around as true, science based evidence), there is any benefit, whatsoever, to vaccinating.
Dr. Harold Buttram may be able to help you better understand the effects of vaccines on the immune system.
You can remind me, "correlation doesn't equal causation" til the cows come home. But have you considered that could also explain how, vaccines don't/can't cause immunity?
I believe it's erroneous and irresponsible to dismiss the adverse events and deaths as 'coincidence', although it does make a great disclaimer.
report 17 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by ChristyAnn on December 28, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Your post to me could be considered quite entertaining.....to others who share your mentality.
It might behoove you to know, your emotional outbursts likely will not influence others to your point of view. You alluded to your limited eloquence, and I agree with you. It's good that you have Mr. Gavin to mop up the messes you leave behind.
You claimed to have a headache, due to the 'lack of logic'.
You are aware, I'm sure, that if you surrendered yourself to the flu vaccine, (headaches) is listed as one of the many common side effects.
report 17 likes, 3 dislikes.
Posted by ChristyAnn on December 28, 2011 at 1:59 PM
I appreciate that I'm not going to convince you that vaccination is an effective public health measure. My aim is counter the misunderstandings and misinformation being presented here.
But, perhaps you could explain what you would need to see in order to feel that I was providing 'science-based evidence' (at present it would appear to mean anything you disagree with - but I'm sure it is more nuanced than that).
Part of my confusion is that you reference the non-peer-reviewed title, Medical Veritas as though it was a source of science-based evidence - it isn't.
Harold Buttram raises many of the same points I have already refuted - (as well as some others, such as the 'autism epidemic', which have been debunked in the past). His paper is at odds with the current scientific consensus (as evidenced by the links provided already).
Distinguishing between association and causation isn't a simple matter. But one structure used are Bradford Hill's criteria:
1.Strength of association (relative risk, odds ratio)
4.Temporal relationship (temporality) - not heuristic; factually necessary for cause to precede consequence
5.Biological gradient (dose-response relationship)
6.Plausibility (biological plausibility)
9.Analogy (consideration of alternate explanations)
Trials will attempt to control for confounding factors in order to avoid false positives. These trials will then be independently replicated and eventually a weight of evidence will build up to the point that a consensus is formed.
The weight of evidence shows that vaccines can and indeed do work. It shows that they are safer than the diseases they protect against and that benefits outweigh the risks associated with vaccination.
report 2 likes, 13 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 28, 2011 at 3:08 PM
Just a comment regarding the term "dehumanizing" used on Dec. 28:
When parts of innocent babies are used for medical research and medical "treatment," this is certainly DEHUMANIZING. It is completely evil and reprehensible.
report 17 likes, 3 dislikes.
Posted by Idaho Spud on December 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM
As the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) point out in their position statement:
"Descendent cells are the medium in which these vaccines are prepared. The cell lines under consideration were begun using cells taken from one or more fetuses aborted almost 40 years ago. Since that time the cell lines have grown independently. It is important to note that descendent cells are not the cells of the aborted child. They never, themselves, formed a part of the victim's body."
They advise that:
"We should always ask our physician whether the product he proposes for our use has an historical association with abortion. We should use an alternative vaccine if one is available."
If there isn't an alternative vaccine they state:
"One is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion. The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine. This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them."
report 2 likes, 14 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 29, 2011 at 1:29 AM
It may just be that "science" is on the road to recovery. More Medical Doctors (MD's) are beginning to question the immediate safety and potential for long term adverse effects from many (if not ALL) of the vaccinations being given to not only children but the elderly and disabled (obviously most of their immune systems have already been compromised) community as well. To me, these doctors show the integrity of what the health industry should base its products and services. I would have to call these M.D.s, Insider Doctors. Doctors that take into account the oath they took to provide help for others, not harm. Remember there was for 1,000's of years that short pledge in the Hippocratic Oath, "First Do No Harm".
"In a just-published shocking study virology researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands have demonstrated that a regular flu vaccine in children actually worsens a key aspect of their flu-fighting immune system. This research was not conducted by vaccine-disliking scientists. Rather, it was conducted by pro-vaccine researchers who have spent their careers trying to develop better vaccines. Lead author Rogier Bodewes delivered the sobering message as he explained that flu vaccines “have potential drawbacks that have previously been under appreciated and that are also a matter of debate.”
While the study group is rather small, it involves highly advanced scientific evaluation of the immune system. The researchers collected blood from 27 healthy, unvaccinated children with an average age of 6 years old, and 14 children with cystic fibrosis who received an annual flu shot. The unvaccinated children were found to have a superior immune response, giving them broader protection against what they might face in an actual flu season, including pandemic strains.
The researchers found that the CD4 T helper cell response to the flu influenza A was present in both the unvaccinated and vaccinated children. On the one hand this means that in healthy children a vaccine was not needed to elicit a T helper cell response to the flu. Such helper cells coordinate the higher-powered adaptive immune response so that antibodies can destroy the virus. On the other hand it means that the T helper cell response in children with respiratory disease was comparable to the healthy children, potentially offering them some protection against whatever viral strains happened to be in the flu vaccine.
It is important to understand that children need to develop a healthy immune system, like going to school and getting an education. Another aspect of the flu-fighting immune system is the CD8 T cells, also called cytotoxic T cells, which destroy virally-infected cells as well as cancer cells. This is also a vital part of a robust anti-viral immune response.
In the healthy unvaccinated children a rise in these cytotoxic T cells was seen as the children got older – giving them important broad based-protection against any type of flu strain as well as a healthier immune response for knocking out any mutant cancer cells. In the unvaccinated children their immune systems were learning to become more effective as they grew older.
In contrast, the gradually increasing CD8 cytotoxic T cell response that was present in unvaccinated children was absent in the regularly vaccinated children with cystic fibrosis. Regular flu vaccines appeared to interfere with the healthy development of the immune response in a way that left a child more vulnerable to flu and potentially cancer (which was not part of this study). This means children getting flu vaccines would get some protection against whatever is in the vaccine that year but would have reduced protection against anything that wasn’t, a problem that would get worse as the child grew older. It is common that vaccines don’t cover all the viruses in any given season, especially a suddenly-emerging pandemic strain. It is also typical that viruses mutate rapidly in any given flu season, making vaccines a limited tool of effectiveness.
While this is only one angle of the vaccine issue, it is a dramatic finding. I don’t expect public health officials to discourage people from getting flu vaccines. However, I cannot understand why public health officials fail to take the most basic steps to ensure children have a robust and healthy immune response, such as promoting the vital importance of vitamin D adequacy for the anti-viral flu response. It is well known that 70% of children in the United States lack optimal vitamin D. It is obvious that public health in the United States is more about protecting vested interests and antiquated paradigms of health than truly protecting the public health."
A big help here right now would be to have a copy of that study from the virology researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. This may be something Mr. Gavin could actually help us with since he appears to have an account with the Medical Journals that charge for these studies and findings and he is such an avid researcher and may even know the doctors on the research team personally. What I am saying is that the study should be reviewed if at all possible by those that do not have a vested interest in the outcome.
My concern with many of the links to studies that Mr. Gavin and his cohorts have provided here are simply links to the very root of the problem. I do thank Mr. Gavin and his team for the time provided here, I know many of us have expanded our knowledge base on this ever increasing debate as to whether the effectiveness of vaccinations out-weigh the potential risks.
One does have to wonder why so much of this comment board has been directed at a one Dr. Wakefield's study. ("I've learned to not make a potential life-saving decision based on one man.") There happened to be two other medical doctors prior to the Dr. Wakefield's study and report. They seem to have already concluded some amazing findings with the same group, but have not been mentioned here.
Documents reveal that fourteen months before Dr Wakefield's paper was published, two other researchers -- Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Amar Dhillon -- independently documented the same problems in these children, including symptoms of autism.
Here are the notes on the seven children, as presented in 1996, 14 months BEFORE Dr Wakefield published his paper in The Lancet:
Child 1. Immediate reaction to MMR with fever at 1 [corrected, illegible]
Rapid deterioration in behaviour - autism
Histology active chronic inflammation in caecum
INDETERMINATE COLITIS** (1)
Child 2. MMR at 15 months - head banging 2 weeks later.
Hyperactive from 18 months.
Endoscopy - aphthoid ulcer at hepatic flexure
Caecum: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia with erythematous rim and pale swollen core.
Histology, Ileum mild inflammation, colon moderate inflammation
Acute and chronic inflammation.
Treated CT3211 [a dietary treatment]
INDETERMINATE COLITIS** ? CROHN’S DISEASE
Child 3. ? dysmorphism - chromosomes and normal development
MMR at 5 months [sic]
Measles at 2.5 years* - 1 month later change in behavior
Hyperactive with food
Colonoscopy - granular rectum, normal colon and lymphoid nodular
Histopathology: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia.
Increased eosinophils 5/5 mild increase in inflammatory cells (Dhillon)
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
[* correction: he received measles vaccine first at approximately 15 months of
age and MMR at 2.5. years]
Child 4 (2). Reacted to triple vaccine 4 months - screaming and near cot death
MMR at 15 months - behaviour changed after 1 week.
“measles rash” week before
Endoscopy - minor abnormalities of vascular pattern
Histology - non-specific proctocolitis**
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
Child 5 (3). MMR at 14 months.
Second day after, fever and rash, bangs head and behaviour abnormal
Endoscopy - Lymphoid nodular hyperplasia
Histopathology: Marked increase in IEL’s [intraepithelial lymphocytes] in ileum
with chronic inflammatory cells in reactive follicles. Increase in inflammatory cells in colon and IELs increased.
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
Child 6 (7). MMR - 16 months - no obvious reaction
2 years behavioral change - 2.5 years
Screaming attacks - / food related
Endoscopy - Lymphoid nodular hyperplasia terminal ileum
Histology - Prominent lymphoid follicles
Dhillon: moderate to marked increase in IEL’s, increase in chronic inflammatory
cells throughout the colon - superficial macrophages not quite granuloma
Child 78. MMR 14 months
16 months “growling voice”
18 months - behavioural changes - autism diagnosed at 3 years
Barium [follow through X ray] 5 cm tight stricture [proximal] to insertion of
Endoscopy- prominent lymphoid follicle in ileum
Mild proctitis with granular mucosa
Ileum - reactive follicles
Colon - bifid forms, increased IEL’s
Slight increase in inflammatory cells
? CROHN’S DISEASE
(1) Inflammation that is not diagnostic of either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis
(2) Child 6 in The Lancet paper. The chronological order was corrected for the final Lancet paper.
(3) Child 3 in The Lancet paper
I do appreciate that more M.D.s are waking up to the facts and are taking the initiative to do what is right. Doctors have little time to research the researchers and only administer their treatments based on the curriculum used in their education programming and the marketing campaigns provided them after.
I am however all for education. In fact, history seems to be one of the best teachers. Where did it all begin? That is where we find the answers.
report 13 likes, 3 dislikes.
Posted by Vickie Barker on December 29, 2011 at 12:46 PM
"Vaccinated children with [cystic fibrosis] will develop lower cross-reactive virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses than unvaccinated children"
In the discussion, the author states:
'The research points up potentially conflicting policy outcomes. Annual flu vaccines are effective against seasonal flu, but could leave people more vulnerable to novel pandemics, says Bodewes, as induction of virus-specific killer T cells caused by childhood flu infection may reduce morbidity and mortality rates from pandemic influenza viruses. Referring to the paper, he says that the findings "highlight the need for the development and use of universal influenza A virus vaccines for children, especially in light of the pandemic threat of avian influenza A/H5N1."'
It's an interesting small scale study that builds upon the researcher's previous animal experiments. It was carried out using properly controlled patient populations and has suggested a significant difference in the a biomarker for immunology that might offer protection in the longer term.
Presumably the team will continue to monitor this cohort to see if this difference offers any real protection again influenze subtypes.
As to Wakefield:
Given that both Professor Walker-Smith (who was also found guilty of professional misconduct and removed from the medical register) and Dr Dhillon were both authors of the retracted Lancet paper, I'm not sure how they could be considered independent.
The issue of pathology has been addressed here:
report 2 likes, 11 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 29, 2011 at 4:36 PM
Regarding the comments on the Catholic position, made earlier today:
The Vatican left it up to parents to decide. They stated it was "right to abstain if it could be done without significant risk." They noted that the duty to avoid remote material cooperation was not obligatory; but they also noted that parents should make a conscientious objection, put pressure on the pharmaceutical industry, government officials, etc. to obtain moral alternatives.
As for the "descendent cells" part--that is laughable at best. The vaccines contain residual DNA, cells and proteins--and that DNA is 100 percent intact from the original aborted baby. Were that not true, the cells could NOT be used from a safety standpoint. So that is a cop-out and a way of trying to distance the end user of the vaccines from the original abortion. Like it or not, anyone getting the aborted fetal vaccines are getting the DNA of dead babies injected into them.
I applaud parents and the growing number of physicians who oppose these cannibalistic vaccines. Nothing good will ever come from their use. Why are they being used when--for those who believe in the vaccination paradigm--there are, in most cases, non-cannibalistic vaccines that could be used?
report 13 likes, 3 dislikes.
Posted by Idaho Spud on December 29, 2011 at 6:04 PM
Go to ChildrenofGodforLife and Vactruth for the information you don't get from your doctor or the mainstream media.
report 1 like, 3 dislikes.
Posted by Pat Schwarz on December 29, 2011 at 9:31 PM
Repeating a false statement does not make it true:
As referenced previously (including in the statement you quoted) vaccines do not contain cells:
"The cell lines WI-38 and MRC-5 are derived from tissue from aborted fetuses. Any product grown in the WI-38 and MRC-5 cell lines, therefore, has a distant association with abortion. The cells in these lines have gone through multiple divisions before they are used in vaccine manufacture. After manufacture, the vaccines are removed from the cell lines and purified. One cannot accurately say that the vaccines contain any of the cells from the original abortion."
Likewise, the vaccines do not contain 100% intact fetal DNA, at most they contain residual fragments of DNA (the safety of which is referenced here):
report 2 likes, 12 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 30, 2011 at 1:17 AM
I didn't say autism rates were increasing among the unvaccinated Amish, I said the reverse, that there was no autism among the unvaccinated Amish. Rates are increasing among the vaccinated Amish. There's one Amish boy who is autistic, probably because he lives near the fumes of a mercury-producing electrical plant. There are some Amish children who have an autism-like syndrome that is genetic in origin, but it's not the classical autism we think of when we say someone has autism. These children are unusually short, with distinctive facial features. There are no unvaccinated Amish (unexposed to mercury) who have Kanner's autism.
report 12 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Cynthia Parker on December 30, 2011 at 9:36 AM
It is customary, when making a claim, that one backs it up with references. I wonder if you could link to your source regarding your claims that no unvaccinated Amish have classical autism (or that the rates of autism among the vaccinated are rising)?
For example, this study suggests a prevalence of autism of approximately 1 in 271
While this looked at vaccination rates in an Amish community:
84% reported all their kids had received vaccinations. Only 4% reported that none of their kids had received vaccinations.
Among all respondents who knew their own vaccination status, 90% reported that they had received vaccinations as children.
report 3 likes, 12 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 30, 2011 at 11:41 AM
Do any of you responders here, pro or con, have any information about Baxter International--in particular about Baxter International and a contaminated flu vaccine?
report 10 likes, 1 dislike.
Posted by Idaho Spud on December 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM
Regarding the statement made earlier today that "Repeating a false statement does not make it true":
And no matter how much those using cannibalistic vaccines want the "cannibalism" part not to be true, facts are facts.
Straight from the manufacturer's package insert: "Each 0.5 mL dose contains....residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein...." Read it on Merck's own literature!
Read Dr. Theresa Deisher, world renowned adult stem cell scientist studies, www.soundchoice.org. There is a ton of information if one cares to take the time to research it.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
report 16 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Idaho Spud on December 30, 2011 at 5:55 PM
I note that you are no longer claiming vaccines contain cells and 100% intact DNA.
The issue of residual proteins and DNA fragments has already been addressed:
With regards your repeated use of the term, "cannabilism", the NCBC's statement here is particularly helpful:
"Descendent cells are the medium in which these vaccines are prepared. The cell lines under consideration were begun using cells taken from one or more fetuses aborted almost 40 years ago. Since that time the cell lines have grown independently. It is important to note that descendent cells are not the cells of the aborted child. They never, themselves, formed a part of the victim's body."
Lastly, it is perhaps somewhat disingenuous to refer to Dr. Deisher as a "world renowned adult stem cell scientist"
report 1 like, 13 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 31, 2011 at 9:05 AM
It is amazing that so many doctors absolutely close their minds to the fact of how the human body works. I suppose it is that many doctors simply do not WANT to think on their own but would rather spend their time in the "treatment" of disease rather than understanding the "cause" of the disease. All is not lost however as more doctors are waking up and truly do want to provide in the best interest of people and humanity itself. As Denis Burkitt, MD (the Discoverer of Burkitt's Lymphoma)states: “The concept that Western diseases are lifestyle-related and therefore potentially preventable and reversible is the most important medical discovery of the 20th century.”
Like I've mentioned, I walk among them. I see the families with vaccine damaged children, I sit in the living rooms with those that have lost a child to a horrible death from some of the adverse reactions to vaccines, sometimes I cry with them. I spend a great deal of time with those that were diagnosed with Diabetes, Cancer, Asthma, Alzeimers, Steven's Johnson Syndrome etc. Many have actually reversed their conditions by simply educating themselves and making different choices in life. Those are the studies I'd like to see in the journals. Try control groups of REAL PEOPLE, leave the ferrets and rats to the ferrets and rats. Their would be no need to use animals when doing the studies, actual humans could be used for the studies because what risk would there be?
Introduce good nutrition, good hydration, good breathing at the cellular level and hygiene. Would there be much risk if any at all? Think about it, humans could actually study the human body instead of monkeys, rats and the like. If we were to do studies without chemicals there would be no risk. Think of the billions of dollars that could be saved. One has to ask why is there no studies in these medical and science journals that address the natural approach? Odd isn't it?
"For anyone to sit in a position of power over others, to profit from that power, to make decisions for another, to advise them to do anything to cause potential harm to themselves or their children is VERY saddening." I would think even Mr. Gavin would have to agree on this.
We do live in a new time, a time of awareness and families are beginning to see the value in discerning information that has been shared with them. Here is a video of a Merck vaccine scientist who admits the presence of SV40 and AIDS in vaccines, in fact he is one of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry. Listen to his words "carefully". Do not become distracted by the other voices and laughter in the background. Listen to the words of Dr. Maurice Hilleman.
Dr. Maurice Hilleman openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses.
This isn't some conspiracy theory -- these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely reviewed across the internet (which didn't even exist when he made this recording). He probably thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn't get out to the press, he replied "Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community."
In other words, vaccine scientists cover for vaccine scientists. They keep all their dirty secrets within their own circle of silence and don't reveal the truth about the contamination of their vaccines.
History is an amazing tool for discovery and education. Here is just a short chapter explaining "The Drug Story" written by Morris Beale in 1949, I think many of you will be amazed as I was to learn the history of the Pharmaceutical Industry.
For those of you with vaccine injured children or if you are suffering with any of the so-called "degenerative diseases" I want to post a link here to a group of doctors that are looking into approaches that will enhance the body's own abilities and are not only relying on the chemical medications and the manufactured scientific studies in their practice. You may find one close to your area from this website:
report 15 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Vickie Barker on December 31, 2011 at 3:22 PM
"It is amazing that so many doctors absolutely close their minds to the fact of how the human body works. I suppose it is that many doctors simply do not WANT to think on their own but would rather spend their time in the "treatment" of disease rather than understanding the "cause" of the disease."
It *is* amazing -- that Vickie is arrogant enough to put herself on-the-level with MD's who spend YEARS in rigorous and difficult training learning not only the root causes of diseases but different diagnosis and treatment techniques. Ya'know, based on science and not hocus-pokus.
"All is not lost however as more doctors are waking up and truly do want to provide in the best interest of people and humanity itself."
The idea that you believe this has not essentially always been the case ... kinda speaks for itself, at least for the two or three of us paying attention to this thread who are in touch with reality.
But wait, she's not done yet:
"As Denis Burkitt, MD (the Discoverer of Burkitt's Lymphoma)states: “The concept that Western diseases are lifestyle-related and therefore potentially preventable and reversible is the most important medical discovery of the 20th century.”"
The problem with this (obviously cherrypicked) quote is that he is either:
A) referring to diseases not caused by specific viral or microbial infections (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, various others), or
B) (in the unlikely event that A is not true,) medically incompetent.
There's more (sigh):
"Those are the studies I'd like to see in the journals. Try control groups of REAL PEOPLE, leave the ferrets and rats to the ferrets and rats."
The studies (which you refuse to acknowledge) on REAL PEOPLE, of significant sample sizes, reveal PLAINLY that there are *not* children "dying of vaccine damage", and that (as has been pointed out with mind-numbing frequency in this thread alone) vaccine injuries are rare, mostly mild, and almost always a side-effect similar to the effects of the disease they treat. However, you will simply continue talking about ferrets and rats, and healthy lifestyles, apparently ignorant of the fact that a viral disease does not typically care *how* healthy someone's lifestyle is, infection percentages are fairly consistent among the unvaccinated.
More cherrypicking and burial-of-heads-in-sand by the antivaxxers; not surprised. For anyone thinking of taking these fools seriously, I beg you to read every word they say with a grain of salt.
report 2 likes, 14 dislikes.
Posted by Mike Schmitt on December 31, 2011 at 5:32 PM
The gross misrepresentation of Dr. Hilleman's interview has already been discussed on this thread:
Claiming that serious, life-threatening illnesses can be cured through nothing more than good hygiene, nutrition and hydration does require you provide some evidence in support (I'd be particularly interested to see the research showing that this can cure cancer and alzheimers).
Remember that personal experience (though no doubt convincing) is not a substitute for large-scale scientific trials.
Lifestyle factors are important when it comes to general health, but these factors did not eradicate either smallpox or rinderpest.
report 1 like, 13 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on December 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM
Your last comment is not true and we don't need a controlled experiment to debate with you on this issue since our personal experience is certainly enough. Having taught classes in herbology for many years and helping my students have faith in natural healing methods, I have much experience with 'infectious' diseases that are simply not an issue in healthy people AND animals. Regarding rinderpest and other diseases in cattle: Good nutrition can prevent disease and good nutrition can cure disease. Richard J. Holliday, DMV, noted: "My work animals were most carefully selected and everything was done to provide them with suitable housing and with fresh green fodder, silage, and grain, all produced from fertile land. I was naturally intensely interested in watching the reaction of these well-chosen and well-fed oxen to diseases like rinderpest, septicaemia, and foot-and-mouth disease which frequently devastated the countryside. None of my animals were segregated; none were inoculated; they frequently came in contact with diseased stock. As my small farm-yard at Pusa was only separated by a low hedge from one of the large cattle-sheds on the Pusa estate, in which outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease often occurred, I have several times seen my oxen rubbing noses with foot-and-mouth cases. Nothing happened. The healthy well-fed animals reacted to this disease exactly as suitable varieties of crops, when properly grown, did to insect and fungus pest -- no infection took place."
I also have 'treated' dogs and cats naturally for diseases caused by over-vaccinating and improper feeding.
In 1988 we were in Tonasket, Washington and had several people in this small town tell us about a family on welfare who had contracted smallpox. Although the public health dept. confirmed the cases with the state and the CDC, it was kept quiet. This small rural community with a food coop offered the family herbs and ascorbates to minimize the pocking and the single mother and her children all recovered without incident.
So how did they get smallpox? Cimex Lectularius (the common bed bug) is the carrier of smallpox just as mosquitos are the carrier for malaria. This family was living in a cabin in the woods and sleeping on straw stuffed mattresses. To read more about the bed bug connection to smallpox, read Cash Asher's book, Bacteria, Inc. (1949) here :
Idaho Spud was wondering if anyone had more information about Baxter International Inc.'s contaminated 2009 seasonal flu vaccine. Many reports connect patents that Baxter filed in 2007 for a bioengineered bird flu virus, contracts with WHO and govt.s to manufacturer a pandemic vaccine, and the contamination of 'vaccine material' with H5N1 (discovered in February 2009.) See
Not sure if she was fishing around or not since Dr. James Gavin was the director of Baxter International Inc. since 2003. Should there be any wonder why James Gavin hasn't wanted to address this issue? Many of us have also wondered what happened to the WHO investigation into this incident....I am sure James Gavin knows ALL about it.
What is amazing to many of us who advocate a healthy lifestyle and use natural healing methods is the incredible desperation of the WHO and PTB to have the swine flu pandemic pan out -- with lots of people getting vaccinated and getting swine flu. Well, many people did get sick but since these diseases are not as infectious as advertised, there are many of us left to tell the tale of the 2009 swine flu scare, and the criminals -including Baxter's executives- who got away with it.
Happy New Year!!!
report 14 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by ImmunizeWizely on January 1, 2012 at 1:21 AM
There are numerous reasons why personal experience cannot be used as a substitute for properly constructed clinical trials.
Confounding factors can create the illusion that an ineffective treatment is actually effective. These factors include:
The Placebo Effect
The Re-interpretation Effect
Natural Course of the Illness
Regression to the Mean
The Study Effect
Controlled trials attempt to minimise these factors, while anecdotes and testimonials don't.
You may not feel that you need controlled experiments to debate the subject, but without them you are merely making assertions based on anecdote and that is not a convincing argument (for all the reasons laid out above).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - and to suggest that healthy individuals are immune to infectious disease certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
While it is true that relatively few microorganisms cause disease in otherwise healthy individuals, it is patently false to suggest that disease cannot occur in otherwise healthy individuals (our immune systems are not 100% efficient either).
Likewise, unless you can provide some substantive evidence to support your claim of a smallpox outbreak in 1988, you are offering no more than hearsay about an alleged conspiracy.
Perhaps you missed the post where I pointed out that I wasn't Dr James Gavin?
report 2 likes, 13 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on January 1, 2012 at 2:55 AM
@ Idaho Spud. Yes, here is more on the story of Baxter and that contaminated vaccine:
It was back in 2009 that Czech newspapers were questioning if the shocking discovery of vaccines contaminated with the deadly avian flu virus which were distributed to 18 countries by the American company Baxter were part of a conspiracy to provoke a pandemic.
The claim holds weight because, according to the very laboratory protocols that are routine for vaccine makers, mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible.
“The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses,” reports the Canadian Press.
Baxter flu vaccines contaminated with H5N1 – otherwise known as the human form of avian flu, one of the most deadly biological weapons on earth with a 60% kill rate – were received by labs in the Czech Republic, Germany, and Slovenia.
Initially, Baxter attempted to stonewall questions by invoking “trade secrets” and refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1. After increased pressure they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident. This was seemingly an attempt to quickly change the story and hide the fact that the accidental contamination of a vaccine with a deadly biological agent like avian flu is virtually impossible and the only way it could have happened was by willful gross criminal negligence.
But was this just a criminal negligence or it was an attempt to provoke pandemia using vaccination against flu to spread the disease - as happened with the anti-B hepatitis vaccination with vaccines containing the HIV virus in US? - and then cash for the vaccines against H5N1 which Baxter develops? How could on Earth a virus as H5N1 come to the ordinary flu vaccines? Don't they follow even basic precautions in the american pharma companies? - As they didn't in this case here and even after they learned their medicals are contaminated with HIV, they sold them to Europe and East. Am I just paranoid or (what was it? arrogant? as Mr. Schmitt presumes) or are the "conspiracy theorists" really on to something here?
Can we TRUST that this "mistake" could never happen again?
report 13 likes, 1 dislike.
Posted by Vickie Barker on January 1, 2012 at 4:58 AM
Perhaps the highest scientific authority saying vaccines are contaminated is Garth Nicolson. He is a cell biologist and editor of the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Metastasis, and the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. He is one of the most cited scientists in the world, having published over 600 medical and scientific peer-reviewed papers, edited over 14 books, and served on the editorial boards of 28 medical and scientific journals. He is not just saying that vaccines are contaminated with mycoplasma but is warning the US that they are. Nicolson goes further and says that we are all being damaged by them and contracting chronic degenerative diseases.
Then of course we have the pharmaceutical companies such as Baxter which develops a great many of the vaccines being used today. Their track record is one that proves itself to be questionable to say the least.
in 1971 Baxter became a member of the Fortune 500. Vernon Loucks became president and CEO in 1980; throughout the 1980s and 1990s the company expanded to deliver a wider variety of products and services (including vaccines, a greater variety of blood products) through acquisitions of various companies. Sales and production facilities also expanded throughout the world. In 1993 the company pled guilty to a felony in relation to an anti-boycott law in the United States and in 1996, the company entered into a four-way, $640 million settlement with haemophiliacs 1999 in relation to blood clotting concentrates that were infected with HIV. Under pressure from shareholders due to poor performance and an unsuccessful merger, Loucks was forced to resign and was replaced by Harry Kraemer, who was replaced by Robert Parkinson in 2004.
On August 15, 2001, two elderly patients in Spain died within hours of receiving dialysis from Baxter products. Eventually 51 more patients would die; though the cause was unclear, the company issued a worldwide recall of two lines of filters, the sole common link between all the equipment used by the patients.
In 2008, the quality of blood thinning products produced by Baxter was brought into question when they were linked to 19 deaths in the United States. Upon inspection one of the raw ingredients used by Baxter were found to be contaminated - between 5 and 20 percent - with a substance that was similar, but not identical, to the ingredient itself. The company initiated a voluntary recall, temporarily suspended the manufacture of heparin, and launched an investigation.
n early 2009, samples of viral material supplied by Baxter International to a series of European laboratories were found to be contaminated with live Avian flu virus (Influenza A virus subtype H5N1). Samples of the less harmful seasonal flu virus (subtype H3N2) were found to be mixed with the deadly H5N1 strain after a vaccine made from the material killed test animals in a lab in the Czech Republic.
On July 2, 2009, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway announced a settlement between the state and Baxter Healthcare Corporation, a subsidiary of Baxter International, worth $2 million. The company had been inflating the cost of the intravenous drugs sold to Kentucky Medicaid, at times as much as 1300%.
In 2010, a jury in Las Vegas, Nevada ordered Baxter to pay $144 million to patients who had been infected with Hepatitis C after doctors wrongly reused dirty medical supplies to administer propofol to patients.
In December 2011, the non-partisan organization Public Campaign criticized Baxter for spending $10.45 million on lobbying and not paying any taxes during 2008-2010, instead getting $66 million in tax rebates, despite making a profit of $926 million.
James R. Gavin III, M.D., Ph.D. has served as a Director of Baxter since 2003.
(With respect for the Creative Commons Deed
report 15 likes, 1 dislike.
Posted by Vickie Barker on January 1, 2012 at 5:07 AM
Looking at Prof. Nicolson's work:
G Nicolson put forward the idea that intentional contamination of anthrax vaccine with 'weaponised' mycoplasma fermentas was the cause of 'Gulf War Illness' - his findings have not been independently replicated:
He has also postulated mycoplasma as a cause for a variety of other illnesses (including ALS and CFS).
These suggestions have not been verified independently either:
report 1 like, 14 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on January 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM
All we need to make heads-or-tails of Vickie's latest barkings is her footnote:
"Can we TRUST that this "mistake" could never happen again?
It's taken me a few minutes to compose a proper response here. It's hard to type while fully involved in fits of giggling that anyone would cite these two websites as sources without realizing their self-parody. For anyone unfamiliar I'll explain:
Vickie seems to be getting some of her antivax info from Prison Planet and 9/11 blogger, known panderers of misinformation and pseudoscience usually geared at 9/11 truth (and in prison planet's case, more broadly focusing on conspiracy nuttiness in general, just think of conspiracy theories regarding water fluoridation, "contrails", JFK stuff... and they maintain suspicious unambiguous ties to known holocaust deniers, such as holocaust-denial authors featured on the talk radio show of radio host and site-owner Alex Jones). Plenty of antivaxxers will lap this stuff up as if it's the milk from heaven, but any discerning reader should be able to tell with only a glance that these sources base their "evidence" on nothing more substantial than pure fantasy and hearsay.
Is it possible that some of the anti-vax-leaning readers here are still rational enough to recognize true craziness? I'm figuring this may be a possible good side-effect -- that, seeing such zany claims made here by Vickie (with links to such outrageous "sources"), they may hopefully be swayed back towards the viewpoint of reality and sanity when they realize what sort of propaganda the crazier ones are willing to stoop to. Should I dare hope?
report 2 likes, 15 dislikes.
Posted by Mike Schmitt on January 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM
As long as you can laugh you are doing great Mr. Schmitt, laughter is good medicine after all. ;)
You certainly aren't claiming that because the reference made to the
report on the contaminated vaccines wasn't true. Are you? It just happened that these 2 particular websites that you claim to be less than reputable, seemed to have the most coverage of the story that is backed up by:
The Times of India
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.co… and the
The Canadian Press
There are several articles in the Czech newspapers online, but I don't read the language and didn't think many here could either, however, there are translation programs online to help with that and a quick search on the net for "Baxter flu virus contaminated EU" and it will pull them up.
I do agree with you that it is a shame that anyone would have to rely on only a few websites to get this sort of information. It amazingly enough wasn't on mainstream , CBS, FOX, ABC etc. That is a bit peculiar isn't it? Does make on begin to wonder.
Could it be that this is one of those stories that was not to be told over mainstream broadcasting, the nightly news, etc.? I remember another broadcast that I would have liked to seen years before I saw it finally. It is a story on "What is in your milk?" It is an eye-opening documentary on the hazards of milk containing rBGH which includes footage from a news series prepared for a Florida Fox TV station canceled after they received a letter from Monsanto’s attorney threatening “dire consequences. (the video clip can be accessed at the following website.
Others visitors here may be interested in knowing that milk with rBGH is still being sold but there are brands now marked "No rBGH".
This has been an enlightening discussion and I do thank Boise Weekly for the opportunity to witness first hand some of the reports and studies that the pro-vaccine medical community base their decisions on.
Wishing a Happy New Year to ALL!
report 15 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Vickie Barker on January 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM
Happy New Year, Everybody, from Spudland, USA!!
Hopefully there will be progress this year toward tolerance and human rights. This vaccine controversy is actually a human rights issue and a battle against the extreme intolerance and bigotry of those who want to force their Vaccine Religion on others against their will.
report 14 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Idaho Spud on January 1, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Thanks for all your info, Vickie.
I have another question:
Does anybody (pro-vax or anti-vax) know where former President Bush, II, got his information when he stated in his speech justifying funding for embryonic stem cell research, "There is a precedent. The only licensed live chickenpox vaccine used in the United States was developed, in part, from cells derived from research involving human embryos." (New York Times, August 12, 2001)
Did he receive faulty information from the CDC or the FDA?
report 12 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Idaho Spud on January 1, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Can't believe you asked that, just today I was reading some of the reference links on this comment board and filed so much away for later use. In the midst of it all, as one answer seems to lead to the next question I did in fact read more on human embryos stem cell for the chicken pox vaccine. I don't think it was making reference to the speech by the Pres, but will see if we can find the source.
Have to run out for the evening so if anyone has easy access to the info for Idaho Spud, don't wait for me. :) Post it....(I found some great research reports on diabetes being linked to vaccines today, will share when I get back. That was my primary question here and it seems there are others having the same question and hopefully they will have some answers for us too)
report 6 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Vickie Barker on January 1, 2012 at 8:31 PM
I understood it was fetuses, not embryos.
report 2 likes, 1 dislike.
Posted by Idaho Spud on January 1, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Mr. Schmitt, I am not so sure about your continued use of "conspiracy theory" maybe there is a bit of phobia there, but in your statement below "just think of conspiracy theories regarding water fluoridation, "contrails","
I do have concern over fluoridation, but "contrails" are just a natural exhaust from aircraft. What you must have intended to say was "chemtrails" right? I seem to lean more in using the terms GeoEngineering and Aerosol Spraying that is being done for weather modification purposes among other things. Following is a
report on that very thing and it may serve you well to read the
report and maybe contact some of the FEDERAL EXECUTIVE TEAM members.
U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3
Director, Climate Change Science Program: ...William J. Brennan
Director, Climate Change Science Program Office: ... Peter A. Schultz
Lead Agency Principal Representative to CCSP,
Associate Director for Research, Earth Science Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: ...Jack Kaye
Lead Agency Point of Contact, Earth Science Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: ...Hal Maring
Product Lead, Laboratory for Atmospheres,
Earth Science Division, Goddard Space Flight Center,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: ... Mian Chin
Chair, Synthesis and Assessment Product Advisory Group
Associate Director, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: ...Michael W. Slimak
Synthesis and Assessment Product Coordinator,
Climate Change Science Program Office:... Fabien J.G. Laurier
Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts
report itself was put together by the Editors from NASA, Mian Chin and Ralph A. Kahn with help from Stephen E. Schwartz from the DOE
To catch you up to date with the aerosol spraying Mr. Schmitt, I'm sure if you contact any of those mentioned above they will be more than happy to share additional information with you.
What I find interesting but more so, frightening, is that on the subcommitte although there was one Allen Dearry representing the Department of Health and Human Services, the
report does not in fact address the impact on health of humans, animals or even plants. In this entire
report "health" is only mentioned once on page 12 in chapter 1.2 where it states:
"The Climate Effects of Aerosols -
Aerosols exert a variety of impacts on the
environment. Aerosols (sometimes referred to
particulate matter or “PM,” especially in air
quality applications), when concentrated near
the surface, have long been recognized as affecting
pulmonary function and other aspects
of human health. Sulfate and nitrate aerosols
play a role in acidifying the surface downwind
of gaseous sulfur and odd nitrogen sources.".
If you happen to be Michael P. Schmitt, the Principal Investigator for Biomarkers of Vaccine Safety and Efficiency who works for the FDA I would hope consideration is given to the amount of additional aluminum, sulpher, barium, strontium etc which is already being absorbed, ingested and inhaled by these small bodies from the aerosol projects in thei r specific areas. Again I say, for safety sake, that when it comes to vaccines, one size could not possibly fit all. Aluminum for one, as you must know as a biochemist is a very hard element to remove from the body.
Here in the area where I am living in California for instance, there is a great amount of these elements falling out of the sky in the air, into our water and our soil.
There is plenty of information available for families that would like to better understand how the external environment is changing. Living in an ever changing external environment most definitely effects our internal environments. The following video explains this VERY well.
Even the famous Louis Pasteur said: "The terrain is everything".
report 11 likes, 1 dislike.
Posted by Vickie Barker on January 2, 2012 at 7:24 AM
An explanation from the USAF: the theory is a hoax which "has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications".
From the UK, DEFRA: "Chemtrails are not a scientifically recognised phenomena"
Also from the UK:
report 1 like, 10 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on January 2, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Mr. Gavin you are not getting caught up in Mr. Schmitt's "conspiracy theories" and have not indeed reviewed the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3
report from 2009?
It would be sad to say that this much money is going in to what is called a "hoax" as you would like to call it. The following agencies have been funded for the work they do, Climate Change Science Program, Director for Research, Earth Science Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Laboratory for Atmospheres, Goddard Space Flight Center,Synthesis and Assessment Product Advisory Group, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NASA and the DOE. What basically are you saying here? These committees did not work on this project? Have these people actually lied about what they are doing? Where did the money go then?
Mr. Gavin the links you provided are out-dated. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides from 2005, The Science and the Issues Surrounding Contrails provides info only to 2003 and even the references in the little Air Force presentation has nothing more current that 2000. Please, there is not even any information as to who published the articles with all the great pictures. To be perfectly honest, these pages appear to be done by children or at least someone that is just learning how to build a webpage.
Wake up and look up, you live in this world too under the same skies. Can't be that hard to figure out especially when we have so many educated (and well funded) people working on the weatherization program. A lot of progress can be made in 7 years Mr. Gavin.
report 11 likes, 2 dislikes.
Posted by Vickie Barker on January 2, 2012 at 9:35 AM
I have indeed read the CCSP SAP 2.3 report:
Perhaps you could highlight the areas of this
report that you believe support the idea of 'chemtrails'?
[Unfortunately your link appears to be broken and the term 'chemtrails' isn't used anywhere in the document itself].
In the meantime, to expand upon the three sources already quoted, there is a very detailed explanation of 'chemtrails' here:
tl:dr - there is ample evidence that debunks the idea that governments are secretly spraying dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere.
report 1 like, 11 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on January 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM
At the Clinic for Special Children in Lancaster Co., Pennsylvania, Dr. Kevin Strauss and Dr. Frank Noonan said that they see a number of Amish children with "syndromic" autism, which is associated with chromosomal abnormalities, fragile X syndrome, short stature, unusual facial features, and mental retardation. They see no children with "idiopathic" autism, who have a normal appearance and often normal or close to normal intelligence, but with the language, social, and behavioral deficits we associate with autism. Dr. Heng Wang of the Clinic for Special Needs Children in Ohio concurs in this, and says he has only seen a rate of autism among the unvaccinated Amish of one in 15,000. The vanishingly few classically autistic Amish have invariably received at least one vaccination, or live near a mercury-producing, coal-burning electrical plant.
report 1 like, 11 dislikes.
Posted by Cynthia Parker on January 2, 2012 at 10:53 AM
May I redirect your attention to the paper I posted?
This cites a prevalence of 1 in 271.
Perhaps you have a similar paper that supports a prevalence of 1 in 15,000?
report 1 like, 11 dislikes.
Posted by James Gavin on January 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM
"but "contrails" are just a natural exhaust from aircraft. What you must have intended to say was "chemtrails" right?"
Yes, though I have seen conspiracy theories that use these terms referrentially to each other (or interchangeably), and not being crazy myself, I have a hard time keeping up with the theories to be quite honest, so I will beg your pardon for my mix-up in terminology.
"If you happen to be Michael P. Schmitt, the Principal Investigator for Biomarkers of Vaccine Safety and Efficiency who works for the FDA"
This is an interesting presumption, which I see you have no issue jumping to as conclusive fact despite the fact that on Facebook alone I know of at least 4 other men with my name (and the same surname spelling) with no mention of middle initial. I don't want to say what mine is, but it is not "P" (of course, you will continue to ignore this, just as you have continued to ignore James Gavin's comments that he is not the "Dr. James Gavin" you keep referring to him as).
I do know that you are "Vickie Barker", a member of "ask insider doctors"...
...a group that sells questionable "supplements" at outrageous prices...
...and seems to have shady ties to various conspiracy theories *including* 9/11 truth to some extent (note the title of this article and the accompanying youtube video)...
...but I'm curious, presuming this was you, what was the "contraband" you pled guilty of "promoting" in 3 separate counts in 2007?
(Since of course in this thread if someone's first and last name match, the presumption is as good as fact that they are the same person, right?)
Anyway, as you're clearly a member of a group with ties to 9/11 truth and various other conpiracy theories which only remain plausible when one maintains an intentional level of willful ignorance of science and evidence, I think we can pretty much sum up your opinions of "chemtrails" and anti-vax "science". But don't let me get in the way of your fancy expensive "supplement" sales, with such selections as "No Fool 1" available for $39/bottle, and "Cesium Carbonate" for a measly $82/bottle.
P.S. back to your presumption that I'm an important biochemist:
"Again I say, for safety sake, that when it comes to vaccines, one size could not possibly fit all. Aluminum for one, as you must know as a biochemist is a very hard element to remove from the body."
I'm not a biochemist, but I know simply from paying attention to valid sources that aluminum adjuvants are miniscule in quantity and comprise aluminum salts that are not particularly dangerous nor held in the body for long. I could go on, but of course this is a topic for which James has already posted numerous authoritative and conclusive links, at reputable sources, and if you haven't noticed previously, I'm not going to waste any more of my breath trying to tell you something you obviously won't read.
report 2 likes, 13 dislikes.
Posted by Mike Schmitt on January 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Comments 1-50 |