# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  The Truth About Vaccines

## donnay

https://go.thetruthaboutvaccines.com...a_bid=1501e5b8

----------


## donnay

And no, Angela, not more of the same vaccine lies.  It's clear your mind is totally close to anything outside of your world view.

Thanks for the -rep it just gives me more reason to post videos and information like this, to let people step-out-of-the-box and make their own _informed_ decisions--as it should be.

----------


## donnay

48 hour marathon.  The Truth About Vaccines.  A Must see!

https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.co...ines3_04222017

----------


## angelatc

Any time a title  claims "The Truth" it never is.

----------


## donnay

> Any time a title  claims "The Truth" it never is.


Does that statement make your denial feel better?

----------


## donnay

> *The Occult Archetype Called Vaccination*
> 
> By: Jon Rappoport
> 
> 
> 
> *In many past articles, I’ve taken apart the so-called science of vaccines and shown how deceptive it is. Here I take another approach: examining the archetypes and symbols that surround vaccination and give it occult power.*
> 
> Begun as a crude version of homeopathy (“treat like with like”), in which a mild injected version of a disease would supposedly protect against the actual disease, vaccination soon developed into a military outpost, with the commander ordering the appearance of his scouts: antibodies. “Line up men, now hunt!”
> ...


http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/occ...ed-vaccination

----------


## Firestarter

The following recent study looks almost too good to be true: http://www.rescuepost.com/files/maws...al-science.pdf
The vaccinated children were more likely to be diagnosed with: otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD...

This is from the conclusion:



> With regard to acute and chronic conditions, vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have had chickenpox and pertussis but, contrary to expectation, were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD. The vaccinated were also more likely to have used antibiotics, allergy and fever medications; to have been fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor for a health issue in the previous year, and been hospitalized.


There is only one problem with this study that is that the difference in health - where the unvaccinated are in general healthier - isn't caused by vaccines.

There is obviously a reason that some children weren't vaccinated. To me it is obvious that parents that refuse to have their children vaccinated, won't go to the doctors so quick.
There are different ways to interpret this. It could mean that people that refuse to let themselves (and their children) be mistreated by the medical doctors are healthier in general.

It could also mean that the unvaccinated children are simply not diagnosed as having a disease. In this way this study could mean that the vaccinated children are more often diagnosed as having an illness, where the unvaccinated children are just as ill without the doctor's diagnosis.

Here’s a story that uses this study as a starting point: http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-res...-who-is-sicker

----------


## AZJoe

A pilot study of 666 homeschooled six to 12-year-olds from four American states published on April 27th in the Journal of Translational Sciences, compared 261 unvaccinated children with 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, and assessed their overall health based on their mothers' reports of vaccinations and physician-diagnosed illnesses. What it found about increases in immune-mediated diseases like allergies and neurodevelopmental diseases including autism, should make all parents think twice before they ever vaccinate again:
*Vaccinated children were more than *three times as likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum (*OR 4.3)
*Vaccinated children were *30-fold* *more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever*) than non-vaccinated children
* Vaccinated children were *22-fold* *more likely to require an allergy medication* than unvaccinated children
*Vaccinated children had *more than quadruple the risk of being diagnosed with a learning disability* than unvaccinated children (OR 5.2)
*Vaccinated children were *300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder* than unvaccinated children (OR 4.3)
* Vaccinated children were *340 percent* (OR 4.4) *more likely to have been diagnosed* *with* *pneumonia* than unvaccinated children
*Vaccinated children were *300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with an ear* *infection* than unvaccinated children (OR 4.0)
*Vaccinated children were *700 percent more likely to have surgery to insert ear drainage tubes* than unvaccinated children (OR 8.01)
*** Vaccinated children were *2.5-fold more likely to be diagnosed with any chronic illness* than unvaccinated children

*MORE
*

----------


## donnay

> *Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase in Chronic Disorders*
> 
> Written By: Jefferey Jaxen
> 
> 5/9/17 UPDATE: This groundbreaking study was immediately retracted for political reasons. Read our update here.
> 
> The move towards mandatory vaccination is no longer a conspiracy theory. California Senate Bill 277 snapped families into a reality where informed consent and health freedom do not apply.
> 
> Presently, the American people are facing 173 vaccine-related bills in 40 states. The language of many of the new bills aims to increase tracking, target non-vaccinating families, force vaccine schedules, and further persecute families who choose not to accept vaccines; the private products of for-profit, legally protected pharmaceutical companies. The corporate media and medical industries have thrown their full influence behind Big Pharma’s transparent ‘safe and effective’ messaging. At the same time, both industries are simultaneously censoring discussions around the fraud, dangers, mounting injuries, and criminal behavior inherent within the vaccine industry and those pushing for mandatory vaccination. A central point of contention, and human rights violation, is the fact that historically, no true study has been conducted between vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. However, such a study has now come to fruition. 
> ...


http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vac...ential-increas

----------


## donnay

> In today's newsletter, we feature an article about two small but powerful studies. They apparently terrify the vaccine industry champions to such an extent that they will publish falsehoods to keep the studies out of the public eye. Dr. Anthony Mawson, author of “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 – 12 Year Old U.S. Children” and “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: A cross-sectional study of 6 – 12 year old vaccinated and unvaccinated children” has been the target of Retraction Watch, an online blog of the “Center for Scientific Integrity” which receives “generous” funding from The MacArthur Foundation to promote integrity in science.
> 
> This fake news blog, which we hope the foundation will disavow, has been used to target a 35-year career scientist and his research in order to derail publication of two papers that were peer reviewed and accepted on their merits. Retraction Watch falsely claimed that one of the studies had been retracted by another journal, when it had never been officially accepted. They compounded the falsehood by claiming the paper had been retracted a second time, when it had simply been temporarily removed pending a response from the author to the false allegation.
> 
> Celeste McGovern, a freelance journalist who has extensively covered the publication of these studies wrote to Retraction Watch asking for an explanation:
> 
> “The journal had neither formally accepted or retracted it. Clearly, there is a difference, as journals may decline to publish articles without finding fault in them but retraction is usually based upon some scientific mistake or misconduct in the science of the study that is measurable and objective and it is frequently a charge that has serious negative consequences on the careers of the scientists who published the study.Could you please direct me to the complaints about the study so that I can inform now my readers which now number in hundreds of thousands whether there is an honest mistake by the authors and where that is, or misconduct in reporting the truth of their data and what specifically that is?
> 
> If there is no such mistake or misconduct it would seem that reporting such would be itself a grave violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behaviour in professional scientific research and the pursuit of truth. Indeed, a mistake of this magnitude would be defined as scientific misconduct itself.”
> ...


http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/are...ldren-s-health

----------


## Zippyjuan

> In today's newsletter, we feature an article about two small but powerful studies. They apparently terrify the vaccine industry champions to such an extent that they will publish falsehoods to keep the studies out of the public eye. Dr. Anthony Mawson, author of *“Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 – 12 Year Old U.S. Children”* and “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: A cross-sectional study of 6 – 12 year old vaccinated and unvaccinated children” has been the target of Retraction Watch, an online blog of the “Center for Scientific Integrity” which receives “generous” funding from The MacArthur Foundation to promote integrity in science.
> 
> http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/are...ldren-s-health






> *Updated: Vaccine-autism study retracted — again*
> 
> For the second time, a journal has quickly retracted a study that suggested vaccines raise the risk of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
> 
> The study first raised a furor last year, prompting a Frontiers journal to quickly retract it. After it was republished in the Journal of Translational Science this month, that journal has also retracted it.
> 
> Although the* titles of the two papers changed, the abstracts were nearly identical.* Both studies surveyed the parents of 666 home-schooled children, 39% of whom where not vaccinated, and concluded that vaccination increased the risk of neurodevelopmental problems, particularly if children were born prematurely.
> 
> A representative of the Journal of Translational Science told us *“Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children” has been retracted,* and it will update us with an explanation.






> When the study appeared last year in Frontiers in Public Health, it caused a firestorm on Twitter, prompting Frontiers to release a public statement, noting that the study was only “provisionally accepted but not published.” It was retracted later that same week.
> 
> In 2011, first author Anthony Mawson at Jackson State University, filed a lawsuit against the Mississippi State Department of Health, in which he alleged that, after he advocated the need for more studies on vaccine safety, a state officer interfered with his then-position at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, resulting in his contract not getting renewed. The suit was dismissed the following year.





> This isn’t the first time an anti-vaccine study was republished after a hasty retraction — last February, Vaccine temporarily removed (then retracted) a study linking the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV) to behavioral problems in mice; in July, the paper was republished by the journal Immunologic Research, albeit with major revisions, according to one of the co-authors.


http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/0...y-republished/

----------


## Created4

> When the study appeared last year in Frontiers in Public Health, it caused a firestorm on Twitter, prompting Frontiers to release a public statement, noting that the study was only “provisionally accepted but not published.” It was retracted later that same week.


Retraction Watch is not accurate here. Frontiers in Public Health _rejected_ it. It was never fully published, so it was not "retracted."

As to the _Journal of Translational Science_, there is no public statement yet as to why it was removed. RW is using an "unnamed source" but admits they have not heard from the Journal yet.

Either way, it is highly unusual that two peer-reviewed publications would publish something, then take it down. The Journal of Translational Science would certainly have known what happened last year.

Here's the full study that was peer-reviewed and accepted.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Retraction Watch is not accurate here. Frontiers in Public Health _rejected_ it. It was never fully published, so it was not "retracted."
> 
> As to the _Journal of Translational Science_, there is no public statement yet as to why it was removed. RW is using an "unnamed source" but admits they have not heard from the Journal yet.
> 
> Either way, it is highly unusual that two peer-reviewed publications would publish something, then take it down. The Journal of Translational Science would certainly have known what happened last year.
> 
> Here's the full study that was peer-reviewed and accepted.


"Provisionally accepted".  https://twitter.com/FrontiersIn/stat...27519537258496  The never published the actual article.

"Open Access Text" or OAT who published that one is a "pay to publish" source.  If you have the money, it is pretty easy to get published there.  http://oatext.com/OpenAccess.php




> OA Text is an open-access publication, in which publication overheads are covered by an article processing charge, most often covered by funding bodies, sometimes university departments, and on rare occasions when funding is not available, fees are waivered. Publication fees are used directly to cover the cost of publishing the article.


That one too has been retracted.




> *Either way, it is highly unusual that two peer-reviewed publications would publish something, then take it down. The Journal of Translational Science would certainly have known what happened last year*.


It was a survey of people who visited a single online website devoted to home school children and data was self-reported.  That is not a representative sample of the general population and not a viable study. That is why it keeps getting pulled.  It is impossible to derive any useful data from their sample- other than to comment on visitors to that single website who replied. 

As it notes itself at your link:




> 2. As contact information on homeschool families was unavailable, there was *no defined population or sampling frame from which a randomized study could be carried out*, and from which response rates could be determined


Do a survey of members on this website.  Ask who you would like to see as President of the United States.  Would you be able to use that data to predict the outcome of the general election?  Is that data useful and applicable to the rest of the country?   Would Ron Paul win the General Election in a landslide like he would here? Poor study is still a poor study.  They tried to present it as something new by changing the title and submitting it to another pay to play publisher.  They probably submitted it to dozens if not hundreds trying to get it published.


As for the _Journal of Translational Science_,    




> The _Journal of Translational Science_ is not indexed in PubMed. It’s been over two years since the journal was first published, and it is rare for a journal to not be indexed there. Without PubMed, it is extraordinarily difficult to cites one of the articles published in JTS. Of course, there’s no reason given for it’s exclusion from PubMed, but we can speculate that possibly the science is bad.
> 
> JTS lacks an impact factor. The impact factor gives us a relative understanding of the quality of a journal – generally, the impact factor tells us approximately how many times an average article published in a journal is cited per year. A journal like Nature has an impact factor of 36, which means the average article is cited 36 times a year. Why is this important? We know that more pivotal and valuable research is cited many times and often repeated by other scientists, especially in new publications. This is how science develops solid evidence, by examining and repeating the findings of others.
> 
> The publisher of JTS, OAT, is a predatory publisher according to the definitive Beall’s List of predatory publishers. A predatory publisher is “exploitative open-access publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals.”
> 
> Low impact factor, predatory journals are generally dismissed by scientific researchers because the peer-review is weak. These journals are often abused by researchers whose data has been rejected by one or more of the respected journals, so they settle for these low quality versions. In the academic community, publications such as these often cannot be used as evidence of qualification for tenure.


http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skept...vaccine-trope/

----------


## Created4

So based on your ad hominem attack on _the Journal of Translational Science_, why would they retract this (if indeed it has been retracted - the Journal has not confirmed this yet)? 

You're reasoning lacks any logic, as usual. You state that the Journal "retracted" it because it is not a good study, and then turn around and state the Journal lacks any credibility because it publishes junk. And then you compare it to a survey to predict the outcome of an election. 

Did you ever study logic??

At any rate, people can read the study now in spite of attempts at censorship and make up their own minds.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> So based on your ad hominem attack on _the Journal of Translational Science_, why would they retract this (if indeed it has been retracted - the Journal has not confirmed this yet)? 
> 
> You're reasoning lacks any logic, as usual. You state that the Journal "retracted" it because it is not a good study, and then turn around and state the Journal lacks any credibility because it publishes junk. And then you compare it to a survey to predict the outcome of an election. 
> 
> Did you ever study logic??
> 
> At any rate, people can read the study now in spite of attempts at censorship and make up their own minds.





> And then you* compare it to a survey* to predict the outcome of an election.


Both are examples of online surveys conducted on a single website.  Neither are representative of the overall population so have no value you can draw any useful conclusions from.   

If you understand logic you would be able to easily see the flaws of the study. As they themselves noted:




> As contact information on homeschool families was unavailable, there was* no defined population or sampling frame from which a randomized study could be carried out, and from which response rates could be determined*


Bad study is bad study- not "censorship".

----------


## Created4

> If you understand logic you would be able to easily see the flaws of the study. As they themselves noted:


I didn't even comment on the study, but nice try with your illogical strawman technique. I think it is your favorite one, along with non sequitur.

The vax vs. unvaccinated has plenty of evidence, and is not dependent on this study. This study, with its limitations (not necessarily flaws) certainly does not prove your pro-vaccine position. It adds to the body of evidence that vaccines are not what they are advertised to be.

Here is our first coverage of the topic, which interviews medical doctors:

Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids – Doctors Agree

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I didn't even comment on the study, but nice try with your illogical strawman technique. I think it is your favorite one, along with non sequitur.
> 
> The vax vs. unvaccinated has plenty of evidence, *and is not dependent on this study.* This study, with its limitations (not necessarily flaws) certainly does not prove your pro-vaccine position. It adds to the body of evidence that vaccines are not what they are advertised to be.
> 
> Here is our first coverage of the topic, which interviews medical doctors:
> 
> Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids – Doctors Agree


Your article headline cites the retracted study.  The rest is anecdotal not scientific evidence.

----------


## Created4

> Your article headline cites the retracted study.  The rest is anecdotal not scientific evidence.


It is what doctors observe in clinical practice. That is scientific evidence. 

Your BIAS has already been exposed. You have an anti-science BELIEF, because you BELIEVE the science regarding vaccines is settled - a CLEAR anti-science belief.

Your opinions and beliefs are not science, and you are not credible. Everyone knows that....

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It is what doctors observe in clinical practice.* That is scientific evidence. 
> *
> Your BIAS has already been exposed. You have an anti-science BELIEF, because you BELIEVE the science regarding vaccines is settled - a CLEAR anti-science belief.
> 
> Your opinions and beliefs are not science, and you are not credible. Everyone knows that....


Share the evidence. What is the percentage of individuals who receive vaccines are harmed by them?  What sort of harm?  That study was not scientific proof because it was not a scientifically conducted study. Which is why it was retracted.

I am not anti- science.  I am asking for the science to prove your case. The study did not do so.

----------


## Created4

> What is the percentage of individuals who receive vaccines are harmed by them?


We've been down this road before. That is YOUR argument - your strawman argument. The numbers are not known, and I don't have to know them, because it is not my argument.

Vaccines harm and kill some people. That is fact, and is easily proven. The U.S. government has paid billions in vaccine injuries. This is mostly censored information, and therefore news sources like ours that are not controlled by the pharmaceutical industry are crucial to bring these facts to the public.

Doctors who view vaccine damage in their patients are reporting facts.

The science is NOT settled on anything. As more and more vaccines get pumped into society and children, more data and more studies are needed.

----------


## donnay

Published on May 5, 2017
Update the studies were pulled here are the archive copies:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...

Celeste McGovern joins Rob Dew and Owen Shroyer to discuss the first ever study comparing the health levels of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

See the studies here:
http://oatext.com/Preterm-birth,-vacc...

http://oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-s...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> .





> * The numbers are not known, and I don't have to know them*, because it is *not my argument.*





> Vaccines harm and kill some people.* That is fact, and is easily proven*.


I see.  You know it but you don't have any data. It is easily proven but you have no proof.    Thanks for trying.




> Doctors who view vaccine damage in their patients *are reporting facts*.


What are the facts they are reporting?  What percent of patients they give vaccines to are having negative side effects?  What sort of side effects?

----------


## Created4

> I see.  You know it but you don't have any data. It is easily proven but you have no proof.    Thanks for trying.


On the contrary, it has been proven many many times, and the FACT that the National Vaccine Compensation Program pays out BILLIONS to those injured and killed by vaccines is PUBLIC knowledge. It does not have to be proven to anyone. It is fact. It is simply censored information in the mainstream corporate media.




> What percent of patients they give vaccines to are having negative side effects?


Again, that is YOUR strawman argument (asking for percentages). Your mere question validates the FACT that some are harmed by vaccines.

Proving the numbers or percentages harmed is not possible by you or anyone else, because that data is not available. The CDC admittingly will not do a true vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. 

But you know all this. You have an agenda and a belief you want to promote here, which is plain to all.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> On the contrary,* it has been proven many many times, and the FACT that the National Vaccine Compensation Program pays out BILLIONS to those injured and killed by vaccines is PUBLIC knowledge.* It does not have to be proven to anyone. It is fact. It is simply censored information in the mainstream corporate media.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is YOUR strawman argument (asking for percentages). Your mere question validates the FACT that some are harmed by vaccines.
> 
> Proving the numbers or percentages harmed is not possible by you or anyone else, because that data is not available. The CDC admittingly will not do a true vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. 
> 
> But you know all this. You have an agenda and a belief you want to promote here, which is plain to all.


Let's check the data for the Vaccine Injury Compensation program you cite as proof of vaccines being harmful. 




> *How many petitions have been awarded compensation?
> *
> According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2015 over* 2.8 billion doses* of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 4,460 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those* 2,911 were compensated*. This means* for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated*.


One in a million.   https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensa...ata/index.html

and even at that it also notes:




> *Over 80 percent* of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as result of a *negotiated settlement* between the parties in which HHS has* not concluded*, based upon review of the evidence, that the *alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury*.
> 
> *What reasons might a petition result in a negotiated settlement?*
> 
> Consideration of prior U.S. Court of Federal Claims decisions, both parties decide to minimize risk of loss through settlement
> A desire to minimize the time and expense of litigating a case  
> The desire to resolve a petition quickly






> Again, that is YOUR strawman argument (asking for percentages).


Asking for facts is being a strawman?  I don't think so. Just mean you don't have any.





> On the contrary, it has *been proven many many times*, and the FACT that the National Vaccine Compensation Program pays out BILLIONS to those injured and killed by vaccines is *PUBLIC knowledge*.





> Proving the numbers or percentages harmed is not possible by you or anyone else, *because that data is not available*.


It is public knowledge and has been proven many times.  But data is unavailable.

----------


## Created4

> One in a million.


Thank you for conceding the argument. You just proved my point, even by using the CDC's data, if you trust the CDC. 

Of course even this text does not state that only one in a million are harmed by vaccines (your argument). It just states that those are the numbers that file petitions with the government in vaccine court.

The GAO has stated that most Americans do not even know that the vaccine court (National Vaccine Compensation Program) even exists. 

So what are the real numbers? 

Nobody knows.

But you conceded my point: Some people die and are harmed by vaccines. Thank you.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I conceded nothing. I asked for proof and got strawmen.  But thank you for playing.

One in a million would effect about 7,000 people on the ENTIRE PLANET.   Or 320 people in the entire United States.

----------


## Firestarter

I’m getting kind of frustrated about forum members accusing each other for being “unscientific”.
I’m also frustrated that every time I check posts I make, pictures or links have been removed from the internet (I have fixed the link in post #7).

I do intend to start my own thread on the “truth about vaccines”, but I’m afraid that this will take me a long time.

For people that want evidence that vaccines do NOT work (and plenty of it); here’s “_LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION_” by J.T. Biggs, from 1912 when “science” still meant something: http://www.whale.to/a/biggs.html

----------


## donnay

> I’m getting kind of frustrated about forum members accusing each other for being “unscientific”.
> I’m also frustrated that every time I check posts I make, pictures or links have been removed from the internet (I have fixed the link in post #7).
> 
> I do intend to start my own thread on the “truth about vaccines”, but I’m afraid that this will take me a long time.
> 
> For people that want evidence that vaccines do NOT work (and plenty of it); here’s “_LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION_” by J.T. Biggs, from 1912 when “science” still meant something: http://www.whale.to/a/biggs.html


+1   I have been saying for years the reason why the US has less and less of these diseases is because we have sanitation, clean water and better hygiene.  Of course all the pro-vax people laughed and said that was ridiculous.  It's not so ridiculous when you do the research and pay attention.

----------


## angelatc

Not studies.  Surveys.  The children were not randomly selected,  the responses were not verified.  It's a bunch of people seeing exactly what they want to see.

But that doesn't matter to the anti-vaxxers.

----------


## angelatc

> It is what doctors observe in clinical practice.
> ..



No it isn't.

----------


## Firestarter

> Not studies.  Surveys.  The children were not randomly selected,  the responses were not verified.  It's a bunch of people seeing exactly what they want to see.


The children weren't randomly selected because the group of vaccinated children isn't the same as the unvaccinated children. In our world that's upside down such an argument would mean that it is impossible to compare a group of vaccinated to unvaccinated children...
This doesn't mean that the trial was "unscientific"; we can read in the report how they did the research.

Surveys: sure it's possible that all of the people that joined the "survey" were lying. But I don't have any reason to think that these people would lie more than "scientists" paid by big pharma.

Even with this kind of reasoning the 1912 book that I've linked to in my last post is hard evidence...





> +1 I have been saying for years the reason why the US has less and less of these diseases is because we have sanitation, clean water and better hygiene. Of course all the pro-vax people laughed and said that was ridiculous. It's not so ridiculous when you do the research and pay attention.


In my opinion the most important thing in this context are vitamins; it is well known (scientifically proven) that vitamin C is essential for the immune system.
I haven't seen any evidence that vaccines have beneficial effects, while on the other hand adverse effects of vitamins are known.

The argument that it would be "unethical" to demand that big pharma actually proves that vaccines work, is mostly by accusing people like me that any fool can see this.
I was never too good at taking sheople seriously, who call me a "fool"...

----------


## donnay

> The children weren't randomly selected because the group of vaccinated children isn't the same as the unvaccinated children. In our world that's upside down such an argument would mean that it is impossible to compare a group of vaccinated to unvaccinated children...
> This doesn't mean that the trial was "unscientific"; we can read in the report how they did the research.
> 
> Surveys: sure it's possible that all of the people that joined the "survey" were lying. But I don't have any reason to think that these people would lie more than "scientists" paid by big pharma.
> 
> Even with this kind of reasoning the 1912 book that I've linked to in my last post is hard evidence...
> 
> 
> In my opinion the most important thing in this context are vitamins; it is well known (scientifically proven) that vitamin C is essential for the immune system.
> ...


I would agree that Vitamin A, C, D, E have significant roles in the health of people.  Vitamin D3 in some of the studies I read, more than half of the country is Vitamin D3 deficient.  Also mineral deficiencies like magnesium is huge too.

The Vitamin C (sodium ascorbate) in my researched have done, has done wonders for people with all kinds of chronic illnesses.  Dr. Suzanne Humphries has some great info *here*.

----------


## Zippyjuan

ALL vitamins are important.  There isn't a "magic" one.

----------


## donnay

> ALL vitamins are important.  There isn't a "magic" one.


They are all magic.  Especially since you don't have to run to the doctor if your healthy--how magic is that?

----------


## CPUd

Life is magic.

----------


## euphemia

In any case, this is a liberty forum.  Should the government seize children who are not vaccinated?  Should the government force segregation based on vaccination choices?  Should the government ever force a person to be injected with a drug or vaccine?  Should parents be fully responsible for the health care choices they make on behalf of their children?  When does that go from an informed decision to the full force of government at gunpoint?  

I wonder when the litigious nature of Americans will mean people have to sign a release from liability every time they go to a public event or go about their lives?

----------


## donnay

> *ON THE CRIME OF HERESY AGAINST THE VACCINE RELIGION*
> 
> ARJUN WALIAMAY 13, 2017
> 
> To question public vaccine policy is to commit the crime of heresy against the vaccine religion, as illustrated by how any dissent is met by its defenders.
> 
> There is something wrong when you are not allowed to question public vaccine policy without automatically being labeled as “anti-science”, a believer in “pseudoscience”, or even a “conspiracy theorist”. The subject of vaccines is a serious one, and deserves to be taken seriously. Concerned parents are asking legitimate questions, and they deserve serious answers rather than dismissals. The public discussion about vaccines is essentially non-existent. Instead, the message we are told is that there is nothing to discuss. The mainstream media, for its part, has utterly failed to properly inform the public about the subject of vaccines, and rather than engaging in respectful debate, there is a tendency to try to bully people into silence and compliance. In this endeavor, the mainstream media has useful partners in the blogosphere.
> 
> As someone who is openly critical of vaccine policy, I expect to be attacked and have such labels mindlessly flung at me. So I wasn’t surprised to discover that one of the more notorious apologists for public vaccine policy, an anonymous blogger who goes by the moniker “Skeptical Raptor“, set his sights on me recently for an article I wrote in response to a Washington Post op-ed by Dr. Daniel Summers. Dr. Summers took the usual dogmatic approach to the subject, insisting there is nothing to debate, just get your damned shots. The purpose of my rejoinder to his op-ed was to illustrate why this insistence is wrong. There is a discussion to be had about vaccines, and it’s past time we started having it.
> ...


http://www.collective-evolution.com/...cine-religion/

----------


## Firestarter

For some time I’ve been thinking that the main objective of vaccines is to reduce fertility, to reduce the population. This type of eugenics couldn’t be discovered (especially with the same elite that control big pharma, also controlling education and mainstream media).
And such a strategy would really cut both ways, because the happy couple that would be “helped” by the medical industry with artificial insemination techniques to give them a baby, would stand in awe of big pharma, which would be to blame for their misfortune in the first place…

I have finally found evidence that this is indeed happening.

The GAVI Alliance was founded in 2000 with the help of the Gates Foundation, other donors include: the Rockefeller foundation, UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), and World Bank.
GAVI has the goal of vaccinating the entire third World.
Obviously part of the plan is to reduce fertility for depopulation purposes.
The research by Jurriaan Maessen, is an important source for information on anti-fertility vaccines.
There are not only vaccines to reduce fertility, but pregnant women are forced to get vaccinated, which has caused abortions in Thailand and the Philippines: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2010/0...ion-reduction/


A 2010 study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) indicated that Philippine women were “_unwittingly vaccinated against their own children_”.
By linking hCG with tetanus antigens in a vaccine, researchers fool a woman’s immune system into producing antibodies against hCG, which makes her allergic to her own embryo.
Once her immune system is sufficiently stimulated against hCG, the pregnant woman will spontaneously abort the embryo: https://www.pop.org/bad-blood-in-the-philippines/


The following report shows that influenza vaccination causes abortions in lab animals; Ayoub & Yazbak “_Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)_” (2006): http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ayoub.pdf



The 1978 WHO task force “Evaluating the safety and efficacy of placental antigen vaccines for fertility regulation”, shows initiatives to use vaccines for reduced fertility.
It even shows that they already knew then that hCG can cause abortions.



> _Although substantial progress has been made over the last few years in the provision of family planning services to many of the World's populations, there is still an urgent need for a greater variety of safe, effective and acceptable methods of fertility regulation to meet widely differing personal, cultural and service requirements._
> _Immunization as a prophylactic measure is now so widely accepted that it has been suggested that one method of fertility regulation which might have wide appeal as well as great ease of service delivery would be an anti-fertility vaccine._
> _(…)_
> _In principle, anti-fertility vaccines may: (a) prevent sperm transport and/or fertilization; (b) prevent or disrupt implantation; and (c) prevent blastocyst development._
> _(…)_
> _Several potential complications have to be considered upon immunization of humans with immunogenic conjugates of HCG-derived antigens. Some of these hazards are related to potential disruption of the endocrinological balance and maternal-embryonal relationships; others are related to the possible autoimmunity induced with human-derived material as an autoantigen. Consideration of these potential hazards should provide guidelines for design and evaluation of animal and human studies_.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...00215-0170.pdf


The Gates Foundation is heavily involved in vaccinating the world.
In the following 29:32 video Bill Gates, in a presentation for the TED 2010 conference, explains that we need “solutions” that will make the “miracle” of zero CO2 emission happen. By 2050 we must realize an 80% reduction in CO2 emission...
Gates explains that “people” (P) are at the basis of this “problem” (4:00-4:55)
It includes the following notorious quote: “_The world today has 6.8 billion people … that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent._”




Isn’t that a great tactic - when an epidemic is already effectively finished, quickly pushing a vaccination through, to prove the efficacy of the vaccine…?



> That is true. It is also true that the mortality rate from measles had already plummeted prior to the introduction of the vaccine. This can be seen in the CDC data presented in the below graph (note that the vaccine was licensed in 1963, after the last year shown on this graph).

----------


## donnay

^^^Excellent points^^^

It's not like they haven't been caught before trying to sterilize people.  They have god-complexes.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> A 2010 study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) indicated that Philippine women were “unwittingly vaccinated against their own children”.
> By linking hCG with tetanus antigens in a vaccine, researchers fool a woman’s immune system into producing antibodies against hCG, which makes her allergic to her own embryo.
> Once her immune system is sufficiently stimulated against hCG, the pregnant woman will spontaneously abort the embryo:


Is that why the Philippine population has been declining?

----------


## donnay



----------


## Zippyjuan

Still posting that online survey conducted at one website?  Online surveys are not valid and are not reliable.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Still pushing* vaccines are children?* How much do they pay you?


Vaccines are children?

----------


## donnay

> Vaccines are on children?

----------


## Firestarter

> A 2010 study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA)  indicated that Philippine women were “unwittingly vaccinated against  their own children”.
> By linking hCG with tetanus antigens in a vaccine, researchers fool a  woman’s immune system into producing antibodies against hCG, which makes  her allergic to her own embryo.
> Once her immune system is sufficiently stimulated against hCG, the pregnant woman will spontaneously abort the embryo:
> 			
> 		
> 
> Is that why the Philippine population has been declining?


You mean that we most believe the statistrics of the US national census?
A 5 time increase of the population from 1950 to 2012 (from 20 to 100 million) - yeah right!

I must admit that a World population of 7 billion people makes me terrified…
I’m just a simple guy and all of this state propaganda is just too difficult for me to understand, while you’re so incredibly smart…
Maybe you can explain how communist China introduced a strict one-child policy at the end of the 1970s, but the population of China increased with some 40%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

According to the CBS (the Dutch bureau of statistrics) in the 1980s the Netherlands was the most densily populated country in the whole wide world (14 million at the time).
Since then a huge amount of buildings have been demolished, in the name of health care, and according to the CBS our population has grown to 17 million.

According to the state propganda the Dutch reach about the highest age in the world at over 80 years.
When I walk the streets most of these elderly have apparently gone missing.

Since September 2001, the percentage of Dutch natives has drasically dropped (especially in the "big" cities).
In parts of my home town Amsterdam I’m actually the minority (with my “white” skin).
Breaking up roads causes traffic jams, while using ultra short trains is a guarantee for everybody to believe that we are terribly overpopulated.

Maybe you’re a supporter of the “philanthropic” organisation Negative Population Growth, that is “helping” us to solve the “devastating effects of overpopulation”: http://www.npg.org/



> Negative Population Growth, Inc. (NPG) is a national nonprofit membership organization. It was founded in 1972 to educate the American public and political leaders about the devastating effects of overpopulation on our environment, resources and standard of living. We believe that our nation is already vastly overpopulated in terms of the long-range carrying capacity of its resources and environment.

----------


## AZJoe

The _Boston Herald_ editorial board thinks that any dissent, skepticism, or questioning of vaccines, such as the dangers of hyper levels of vaccination, or the injection of mercury compounds into newborns, or the efficacy of the use of rushed vaccines for non-lethal mild ailments, is a hanging offense.

----------


## donnay

> *Unvaccinated Children Have Much Lower Rates of Chronic Illness, Jackson State Study Finds*
> 
> 
> 
> By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
> 
> The first peer-reviewed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated children versus unvaccinated was recently published in the Journal of Translational Science  by epidemiologists from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University.  The study’s conclusions are likely to inflame the fierce debate over whether vaccines and a mercury-containing vaccine preservative may be culprits in the dramatic rise in certain neurodevelopmental disorders in our children, including autism.
> 
> The “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children” implicates vaccines in a host of chronic illnesses now epidemic in our nation’s children. The team of scientists, led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Mawson, the author of more than fifty published studies, concluded that “In a final adjusted model designed to test for this possibility, controlling for the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination, the following factors remained significantly associated with NDD: vaccination (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.6), nonwhite race (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.4), and male gender (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.4). Preterm birth itself, however, was not significantly associated with NDD, whereas the combination (interaction) of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5) (Table 8).” Jackson State is a leading university research center.
> ...


https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...e-study-finds/

----------


## Zippyjuan

That is the retracted online survey- not a valid, scientific study.  Re-posting it again and again doesn't make it any more legit.

----------


## euphemia

I don't care what the surveys say.  According to liberty thought, parents have the right and responsibility to determine the health care needs of their children.  I had rubella and measles when I was a baby.  Fortunately, I suffered no complications.  I had chicken pox and mumps.  Again, no complications, and none in our community.  

We did the traditional MMR and polio when our daughter was a baby, and she was updated on the tetanus. We did the HepC vaccine when it came out.  This was well over 30 years ago.  The protocol has changed and kids are being given very high doses of vaccine all at once.  I know several kids who have had complications from what I call "etreme vaccinations."  It seems like the protocol demands too much at once.

We did not do HPV.  By the time it came out, our daughter was old enough to understand the risks and complications.  She was at <1% risk for contracting the disease, so we decided together not to vaccinate.

I think we would still vaccinate, but we would do them later and space them out.  We have always lived in urban areas with a travel and tourism economy, and a lot of immigrants.  The risk of exposure is higher than if we lived out in a rural are that stayed mostly contained.

It is a parent's choice until the child is old enough to decide for him/herself.  Adults always have the choice to be vaccinated.

----------


## merkelstan

> It includes the following notorious quote: _The world today has 6.8 billion people  thats headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent._


I think his argument is that reducing child mortality and raising standards of living will lead to less children per couple and lowered population growth.  

Evil people in power deciding to kill millions based on desired genetic and cultural characteristics wouldn't be a new thing though.  Hmm Soviets....

There's no need to be on either extreme side of the Vaccination debate. Vaccines have been successful, and the logic and science behind them in principle holds-up. However there's no good reason to trust everything the industry or government wants to pump into your children.

----------


## Created4

As I mentioned previously, the Journal of Translational Science never came out and said they retracted it.

It is back up online:

http://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparat...en.php#Article

----------


## merkelstan

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/com...are_much_more/

Above link contains some more debate about the quoted study...  The points raised about self-reporting bias and cofactors  are pretty significant.  Also nobody seemed to mention that *homeschool kids have orders of magnitude less exposure to pathogens from other children....*

I'd definitely like to see more studies, but there is real power and influence from the vaccine industry that makes less than likely.

----------


## donnay

> https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/com...are_much_more/
> 
> Above link contains some more debate about the quoted study...  The points raised about self-reporting bias and cofactors  are pretty significant.  Also nobody seemed to mention that *homeschool kids have orders of magnitude less exposure to pathogens from other children....*
> 
> *I'd definitely like to see more studies, but there is real power and influence from the vaccine industry that makes less than likely*.


So would I.  However, the industry would lose if they did they would conduct a study totally independent without collusion.  They have government agencies that cover for them like CDC and FDA.

If more people read the inserts they would also think twice about jabbing their children with these toxic concoctions.

----------


## Firestarter

A couple of months ago I saw a scientific study that shows that vaccination causes Anorexia Nervosa, Compulsive Disorder, Tic Disorder and Anxiety Disorder in the following thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...d-inflammation


D.L. Leslie et al “_Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case–Control Study_” (2017): http://journal.frontiersin.org/artic...017.00003/full

This is not just a “survey” (like the report that I’ve posted in #7), but this is hard evidence that these disorders are caused by vaccines.
Probably some highly intelligent pro-vax-astroturfers can show me I’m wrong again…

The study shows that vaccines have a higher Hazard Ratio, in 3 6, and 9 months, (see Table 2):
Anorexia Nervosa (AN) - 1.80, 163, 1.47 [especially high for Flu vaccines];
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) - 1.23, 1.27, 1.23 [especially high for Flu and Hep. A vaccines];
Tic Disorder - 1.11, 1.25, 1.19 [especially high for Flu an Meningitis vaccines];
Anxiety Disorder - 1.12, 1.13, 1.14 [especially high for Flu vaccines];


Varicella is smallpox by the way…
These results are very troubling and significant (it does show a “causal role”).
To make it even more damaging, the conclusion shows that this report was written by a pro-vaxxer, who came with the ridiculous conclusion:



> *Conclusion:* This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuropsychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals. However, our findings do not demonstrate a causal role of vaccination in the pathoetiology of any of these conditions. This is especially important given the clear public health benefits of the timely administration of vaccines in preventing mortality and morbidity (38). Vaccines are among the most successful and cost-effective preventive public health interventions (39).




I have really tried to find evidence for “the clear public health benefits” of vaccines.
I think I have found it...

Edward Jenner is the legendary “scientist”, who made “evidence” for the wonderful benefits of vaccination:



> In 1796, Jenner enlisted a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes and an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to test his theory. Jenner transferred pus from Nelmes’s cowpox blisters onto incisions he’d made in Phipps’s hands. The boy came down with a slight fever, but nothing more. Later, Jenner gave Phipps a standard smallpox inoculation – which should have resulted in a full-blown, albeit mild, case of the disease. Nothing happened. Jenner tried inoculating Phipps with smallpox once more; again, nothing.


In 1798 Jenner published his results, claiming lifelong protection against smallpox using “vaccines”. Some doctors of the time challenged this myth, because they had seen smallpox follow cowpox.
In 1799, Mr. Drake vaccinated some children with cowpox matter obtained from Edward Jenner. The children were then tested by being inoculated with smallpox; all of them developed smallpox. Jenner received the report but ignored the results.

Vaccination was quickly embraced by the medical quacks. By 1801, an estimated 100,000 people had already been vaccinated in England with the belief that it would produce lifelong protection.
Early reports indicated that there were cases of people who were vaccinated, and then developed cowpox, and some still died of smallpox.

In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that after vaccinating 1,200 people, he became disappointed. He saw that, after vaccination, people could still contract and even die from smallpox.

Because arm-to-arm vaccination was used, other diseases could spread causing epidemics, including tuberculosis and syphilis.

Then in one of those great examples of science, the medical profession no longer claimed lifelong protection against smallpox from a single vaccination. Instead, revaccination had to be performed anywhere from yearly to every 10 years.

In Leicester they didn’t vaccinate, which resulted in considerably less deaths from smallpox (see the 1912 book that I’ve posted a link to in post #27).

I found this on the following (anti-vaxxer) site, it also includes some nice graphics that show that vaccines were quickly administered after the “infectious disease” was already steadily in decline: http://web.archive.org/web/201702250...-humphries-md/

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *Varicella is smallpox by the way…*


Actually it is chickenpox.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox




> In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that after vaccinating 1,200 people, he became disappointed. He saw that, after vaccination, people could still contract and even die from smallpox.
> 
> Because arm-to-arm vaccination was used, other diseases could spread causing epidemics, including tuberculosis and syphilis.


A lot has been learned since then.

Your study does note: 




> However, our findings* do not demonstrate a causal role of vaccination in the pathoetiology of any of these conditions*.

----------


## Danke

*Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over ‘Serious Health Concerns'*http://www.healthnutnews.com/sweden-...eath-concerns/

----------


## Danke

> 



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to donnay again

----------


## donnay

> *Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?*
> 
> By: Celeste McGovern
> 
> 
> 
> Originally published on CMSRI.org.
> 
> The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?
> ...


http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/has...-watch-retract

----------


## Firestarter

The following article about the cancer causing Simian Virus (SV40) in polio vaccines is excellent.
It shows that as late as the year 2000 SV40 was still found in vaccines: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article...ne-2899957.php


An excellent thread could be made about vaccines, by simply collecting the best posts on this topic on Ronpaulforums.com.
See for example the following quote about how Simian Virus (SV40) was added to polio vaccines to cause cancer: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5133787




> A screen capture of the CDC’s information sheet shown above claims “The majority of scientific evidence suggests that SV40-contaminated vaccine did not cause cancer; however, some research results are conflicting and more studies are needed.”
> 
> So only some research results? Interesting statement considering that back in 2002, a whopping 61 reports from 49 different laboratories from all over the world were detecting SV40 monkey virus strains in many different types of human cancers including mesothelioma, lymphoma, brain and bone tumors.
> 
> In fact, only three studies failed to produce similar results then. Two of these were reportedly compromised by two of the main researchers involved: Dr. Howard Strickler and Dr. Keerti Shah.
> 
> Shah was under contract by Dr. Strickler to perform SV40 studies, and it was revealed later in a deposition that Strickler gave Shah the positive controls and allowed him to adjust his methods for SV40 detection after the study had begun, thus according to Shah’s testimony, Strickler comprised what should have been a blind study.
> 
> An excerpt from the book The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher.
> ...


 
I also saw an interesting thread started by Donnay about the contamination of vaccines with all kinds of dirty stuff, “_including red cells of human or possibly animal origin and metals including lead, tungsten, gold, and chromium_” and formaldehyde: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...is-in-New-Stud
I’m not sure about this last one though, Zippyjuan made some strong posts, arguing that the concentration of the contamination was too low: “_fewer than ten particles (molecules) of each in the entire vaccine_”…

----------


## donnay

> *RFK JR RECEIVES A STANDING OVATION AT THE AUTISM ONE CONFERENCE. “LET THE SCIENCE SPEAK”*
> 
> ARJUN WALIAJUNE 2, 2017
> 
> Robert F Kennedy Jr was the keynote speaker at the recent AutismOne conference. AutismOne is a nonprofit, parent-driven organization that educates people and supports advocacy efforts for children and families touched by an autism diagnosis.
> 
> In his lecture, he explained his efforts in vaccine safety advocacy through being Chairman of the World Mercury Project.
> 
> Their goals are to:
> ...


http://www.collective-evolution.com/...zen.yandex.com

----------


## angelatc

> The children weren't randomly selected because the group of vaccinated children isn't the same as the unvaccinated children. In our world that's upside down such an argument would mean that it is impossible to compare a group of vaccinated to unvaccinated children...
> This doesn't mean that the trial was "unscientific"; we can read in the report how they did the research...


It isn't research.  It's a survey.

----------


## AZJoe



----------


## Firestarter

For some reason I think this is a good moment to revive this thread and I’ve found an interesting list to add.

A “top 10” reasons to never take a vaccine: http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...accine-top-10/
1 - Toxic Ingredients – Formaldehyde, MSG, Antibiotics, GMOs, Polysorbate, Mercury, Squalene and More
2 - Toxic Adjuvants – Aluminum
3 - Hidden Ingredients – Immunity-Destroying Nagalese
4 - Injection of Human and Animal Cells
5 - Blood Sludge, Hypoxia, Ischemia and Localized “Strokes” in Your Body
6 - The Herd Immunity Myth Busted
7 - Viral Shedding
8 - Possible Side Effects of Paralysis and Death
9 - Insufficient Legal Recourse
10 - The Vaccine-Sterilization-Depopulation Connection

I've learned that Mahatma Gandhi was an anti-vaxxer...
Pro-vaxxers wouldn't call this lies, would they?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> For some reason I think this is a good moment to revive this thread and Ive found an interesting list to add.
> 
> A top 10 reasons to never take a vaccine: http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...accine-top-10/
> 1 - Toxic Ingredients  Formaldehyde, MSG, Antibiotics, GMOs, Polysorbate, Mercury, Squalene and More
> 2 - Toxic Adjuvants  Aluminum
> 3 - Hidden Ingredients  Immunity-Destroying Nagalese
> 4 - Injection of Human and Animal Cells
> 5 - Blood Sludge, Hypoxia, Ischemia and Localized Strokes in Your Body
> 6 - The Herd Immunity Myth Busted
> ...


1) formaldehyde- a few molecules remain from cleaning equipment.  Your own cells produce formaldehyde- it isn't going to hurt you. 
MSG- not in vaccines
GMOs- not in vaccines
Antibiotics- not in vaccines
Polysorbate- also used in ice cream.  One ice cream serving (8 ounces) contains 170,000 micrograms.  It is also in the HPV vaccine- 50 micrograms which is an insignificant amount. 
Mercury- removed from vaccines intended for children.  The multi- use flu vaccine still has some but you can request a mercury free single use version if you are concerned
Squalene- that is the oil in your fingerprints.  If that is dangerous, please do not touch anything you intend to eat.  It is sold in health food stores as a beneficial supplement. 

All of these are in insignificant amounts.

----------


## angelatc

> For some reason I think this is a good moment to revive this thread and I’ve found an interesting list to add.
> 
> A “top 10” reasons to never take a vaccine: http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...accine-top-10/
> 1 - Toxic Ingredients – Formaldehyde, MSG, Antibiotics, GMOs, Polysorbate, Mercury, Squalene and More
> 2 - Toxic Adjuvants – Aluminum
> 3 - Hidden Ingredients – Immunity-Destroying Nagalese
> 4 - Injection of Human and Animal Cells
> 5 - Blood Sludge, Hypoxia, Ischemia and Localized “Strokes” in Your Body
> 6 - The Herd Immunity Myth Busted
> ...


Considering that  it's  all  pretty blatantly wrong,  yes.  This is a pretty good example of the lies that anti-vaxxers tell.  The person who created the list clearly isn't interested in facts.

Speaking of facts:




> Consider the numbers around vaccines, though. Often, something like 1 in 1,000 kids experience moderate side effects such as prolonged crying. For more severe side effects, such as seizures or that rotavirus-caused bowel blockage, the odds go down to one in tens of thousands.
> 
> Among children who contract measles, one in 1,000 get encephalitis, an acute brain infection, and one or two in 1,000 die. In 2011, among the 18,000 Americans who got whooping cough that year, more than 1 in 2,000 died, all of them babies.

----------


## Firestarter

One of the many lies the pharmaceutical industry tells us, is that there is “scientific evidence” that vaccines prevent diseases.

There has never been a proper placebo controlled study to prove the efficacy of vaccines. Ironically pro-vaxxers in turn claim that it would be “unethical” to demand a study comparing placebo to vaccines.
Also disgusting is the practice of inverting the “burden of proof”. According to the state media anti-vaxxers have the “burden of proof” to show that vaccines cause serious harm, while "scientifically" speaking the pharmaceutical industry should provide the “scientific” evidence for the efficacy of vaccines first.
See for example the following video, in which Colleen Boyle of the CDC admits to Rep. Posey, that there has not been a placebo study that compares vaccinated to unvaccinated.



Here’s more evidence that vaccines cause harm: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/07/...elated-deaths/



> Although experts are less willing to openly disclose the fact that adverse reactions can and do include death, one has only to look at reports to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to see that mortality is a possible outcome. From 1990 through 2010, for example, VAERS received 1,881 reports of infant deaths following vaccination, representing a 4.8% mortality rate.


See tables 2, 3 and 4 from the report in the last link with the hospitalisation and mortality rate as recorded in VAERS: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...60327112440111


In the 1970s and 1980s, a relatively large amount of money was paid out to the (parents of) victims of the pertussis component in vaccines, which caused permanent brain damage in rare cases (pertussis vaccine encephalopathy).
Ronald Reagan playing the role of US President for real, had the “_National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act_” passed, that effectively restricted compensation for the damage of vaccines. If I understand correctly, part of this was the VAERS database.
The state media have since claimed that the evidence that was convincing enough in the courtroom, is “junk science”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ine_Injury_Act




> Speaking of facts:


According to the state media, the vaccines didn’t cause the brain damage, because the children supposedly would have gotten this brain damage anyhow, and the vaccines only made this happen sooner. This claim by the state media sounds like “junk science” to me…
I haven’t found a good article on the effects of pertussis, which these days is still a part of DPT vaccines.

----------


## angelatc

> One of the many lies the pharmaceutical industry tells us, is that there is “scientific evidence” that vaccines prevent diseases.


There is scientific evidence that vaccines prevent diseases, because there is evidence that people who are vaccinated are less likely to contract the disease than those who aren't.  There is also evidence that when the vaccination rates within a population reach a certain level, the disease will wane. For examples - measles is pretty much eradicated in the US, with the only outbreaks being traced back to carriers who visited nations where the disease is still not contained.

As explained over and over, the "evidence" the anti vaxxers are demanding is the type of test Nazis would do. Intentionally exposing anybody, much less unprotected children, to diseases  is at the least unethical.  At worst, it's evil. As are the people who continue to insist that these tests should be run.

----------


## angelatc

> According to the state media, the vaccines didn’t cause the brain damage, because the children supposedly would have gotten this brain damage anyhow, and the vaccines only made this happen sooner. This claim by the state media sounds like “junk science” to me…
> I haven’t found a good article on the effects of pertussis, which these days is still a part of DPT vaccines.


Strawman on top of strawman.  

I suspect you've found plenty of articles on pertussis, just none that help the anti-vaxxer case.  It's hard to make a case for letting infants cough themselves to death, and why some people insist on trying just baffles me.

----------


## Firestarter

> As explained over and over, the "evidence" the anti vaxxers are demanding is the type of test Nazis would do. Intentionally exposing anybody, much less unprotected children, to diseases  is at the least unethical.  At worst, it's evil. As are the people who continue to insist that these tests should be run.


A proper placebo controlled trial of vaccines, shouldn't include exposing humans to diseases. But would involve a double-blind group in which part of the children would receive a vaccine, and others placebo.
Unfortunately the pharmaceutical industry rather uses strawman arguments to discredit the demand for proper scientific study. Now why would they?
Surely you won't mind my explanation: "they" want to hide that vaccines cause more harm than do good, while making a buck at the same time...

----------


## angelatc

> A proper placebo controlled trial of vaccines, shouldn't include exposing humans to diseases. But would involve a double-blind group in which part of the children would receive a vaccine, and others placebo.


Exactly.  They would have to intentionally make the unprotected children sick.  It's unethical.

----------


## Firestarter

I haven’t found any “good” short story on “pertussis vaccine encephalopathy”.

The following propaganda piece by Slate has some interesting information to get an idea on what the controversy is about. Obviously I don’t agree with the conclusion that there is no correlation between encephalopathy and vaccination.
A study is mentioned “_in England in the late 1970s_” that “_estimated as many as 1 in 140,000 children were affected by PVE_”.
It is further mentioned that “_at least five well-designed studies conducted between 1976 and 1994 eventually vindicated the vaccine_”.

The name of these studies aren’t mentioned, nor are the results of these studies discussed, so I’m not satisfied with the groundless conclusion that “_a disorder these children would have developed whether or not they were vaccinated. The fever from the vaccination may have “simply moved [the epilepsy] forward in time_”.
Slate concludes that the encephalopathy is “_caused by genetic disorders_” (Nazis sure love to claim that “disorders” are caused by genetics…): http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._movement.html

I’ve found a much better article, but my main problem is that it’s just too long.
It shows that there have been a number of studies that show that shortly after administering vaccines, a small percentage of the children get encephalopathy. Because these effects occur both with DPT and DT (DT without Pertussis vaccine), the causal relation between the pertussis component of DPT and infantile spasms is doubtful (pertussis is whooping cough by the way).

The article is based on a huge amount of information, and I find it difficult to read: https://www.nap.edu/read/1815/chapter/5#68

The following tables 4.2 and 4.3 present information on the amount of incidences shortly after vaccination:
_TABLE_ _4-2 Studies of Acute Neurologic Events Occurring Within 48 Hours of DPT Immunization in Defined Populations_


_TABLE 4-3_ _National Childhood Encephalopathy Study Estimated Relative Risks of Specific Acute Neurologic Conditions Following DPT Immunization Within the Previous 7 Days_



I’ve searched for “scientific” reports on this topic, but most of them aren’t freely viewable on the internet.
I did find the following 2 reports.

Strom – “_Further experience of reactions, (…): a study based on vaccinations in Sweden, 1959-1965_” (1967): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...02314-0034.pdf



> Among 516,276 triple-vaccinated children in Sweden from 1959 to 1965 neurological reactions to the vaccination occurred in 167 cases-destructive encephalopathy 3, convulsions 80, hypsarrhythmia 4, shock 54, uncontrollable screaming 24, serous meningitis 2. Serous meningitis was also found in three out of nine examined cases of convulsions, and elevated protein in cerebrospinal fluid in one out of four examined cases of shock. Apart from these objective signs of meningeal involvement in certain cases, the study shows that in conjunction with both convulsions and shock there may be no or very little rise of temperature. The convulsive symptoms therefore cannot be classified as a matter of course as simple febrile convulsions.
> 
> The incidence of neurological reactions was 1: 3,600 vaccinated children (1: 3,100 if cases of persistent uncontrollable screaming are included), a rise in relation to the figure of 1: 6,000 reported in a study from the years 1954 to 1958. The rise is probably merely apparent, however, owing to the more watchful eye that is kept on these conditions. The more severe reactions leading to permanent injury seem to have decreased.


Miller et al – “_Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children_” (1981): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...00046-0021.pdf



> CONCLUSIONS--Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine may on rare occasions be associated with the development of severe acute neurological illnesses that can have serious sequelae. Some cases may occur by chance or have other causes. The role of pertussis vaccine as a prime or concomitant factor in the aetiology of these illnesses cannot be determined in any individual case. The balance of possible risk against known benefits from pertussis immunisation supports continued use of the vaccine.


I also found the following picture, which shows that the decline in death rate had nothing to do with vaccines, including: Measles for which a vaccine was introduced in 1963, Whooping cough (Pertussis) - vaccine 1949, and Diphtheria - vaccine 1920.






> As explained over and over, the "evidence" the anti vaxxers are demanding is the type of test Nazis would do. Intentionally exposing anybody, much less unprotected children, to diseases  is at the least unethical.  At worst, it's evil. As are the people who continue to insist that these tests should be run.


It aren’t the “thoughtcriminals” like me that keep the Nazi-agenda going, but the state media keep spreading similar propaganda as during WW II…
There is even an obvious connection between big pharma and the Nazis – look no further than IG Farben. IG Farben was the notorious chemical company (including pharmaceutics) that was both an integral part of the Nazi-machine, and affiliated with Ford and Rockefeller…
IG Farben used 83,000 slave labourers from the largest German concentration camp, Auschwitz, and produced the controversial poison Zyklon-B. IG Farben conducted sick experiments in the part of Auschwitz it controlled - including vaccines.
John D. Rockefeller already financed eugenics experiments before WW II, including those of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, where “Dr” Josef Mengele already worked before his sick experiments in Auschwitz.
In 1951, IG Farben was split up. The main successor companies today are Bayer, BASF, AGFA and Sanofi: http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/P...l_industry.htm

Surely Angelatc is able to find a link between current day medical (mal)practice supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and Bayer, but I guess that she rather defends big pharma and vaccines that cause more harm than they do good…

----------


## donnay

@Firestarter I appreciate you bringing in the history, but Angela is not interested in the history, she is only interested in the propaganda that vaccines saved us!

A good read is-- "Dr, Mary's Monkey."




> *Western medicine is Rockefeller medicine – all the way.*
> 
> Western medicine has some good points, for sure, and is great in an emergency, but it’s high time people realized that today’s mainstream medicine (western medicine or allopathy), with its focus on drugs, radiation and surgery, is at its foundation a Rockefeller creation. The Rockefellers, of course, are one of the most rich and powerful families of the elite black nobility. Behind their spurious facade of philanthropy, they are power-hungry tyrants intent on owning the entire world, and depopulating it through eugenics-based programs like forced sterilization, water fluoridation, abortions and vaccinations. They have either majorly or fully created (and still dominate) the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Planned Parenthood and many, many other organizations that either rule the world or influence culture to a large extent.
> 
> Despite the dominance of western medicine nowadays, even just 100 years ago the situation was very different, so it’s worthwhile casting our minds back to how the we got to this place. How did western medicine and the giant conglomerate of multinational pharmaceutical corporations (“Big Pharma”) become the mainstream medical system in the US and other first world nations? And what alternatives are there?
> 
> *Petroleum Drugs*
> 
> Let’s go back in time to the late 1800s. John D. Rockefeller, a man quoted to have said “competition is sin”, is the head of the Rockefeller family and has just become very rich through extracting oil from the ground. Now he is looking for ways to capitalize even further with his oil, and he comes across the idea of using coal tar – a petroleum derivative – to make substances that affect the human mind, body and nervous system. These are called drugs, and they are excellent at masking or stopping symptoms, but overall do not cure the underlying cause of a disease.
> ...


http://freedom-articles.toolsforfree...ller-medicine/

----------


## angelatc

> vaccines ....cause more harm than they do good…


There's no evidence to support that contention.

And you never address a single thing I say. You just make more noise.

----------


## angelatc

> I haven’t found any “good” short story on “pertussis vaccine encephalopathy”.
> 
> The following propaganda piece by Slate has some interesting information to get an idea on what the controversy is about. Obviously I don’t agree with the conclusion that there is no correlation between encephalopathy and vaccination.[/URL]


You can disagree, but that doesn't make it false.  It doesn't even disprove the article.  

Here is a long list of articles about Pertussis vaccine encephalopathy.  The fact that you can't find anything on that that says what you want it to say should send up a big red flag that perhaps you're delusional.

It won't, but it should.

----------


## AZJoe

> ·         Anti vax polio bull$#@! has been addressed about 100 times in the past 10 years
> ·         Memes suck and this has been addressed about 1000 times.


As "eloquent" and "logical" as the above strangely sent neg rep comments are, they miss the issue entirely. The issue is one of Freedom, and Freedom is the answer. 

Who is the better decider for your health choices - government? politicians? bureaucrats? lobbyists for big pharma? or you? 

If one accepts that government can forcefully inject your body whatever it decides is best for your own good or the good of "society," then by that premise government can do whatever it wants to you "for your own good" of course. 

When it comes to vaccinations, as usual, Freedom is the Answer.

Yes, some vaccines are highly effective. Yet, all vaccines do not have the same effectiveness, nor for the same duration. Nor do all diseases have the same risk. Some diseases are more dangerous than others. Some vaccines more effective than others.

That still does not mean people must be mandatorily injected with any vaccines. All vaccinations should be voluntary. In a free world it is the consumers choice on which vaccines to take or not.

It also does not mean every vaccine is equally effective. Some are highly effective and have lifetime inoculation. Others are far less effective and for limited duration. The flu vaccine for instance is like a joke. Even the CDCs overly optimistic promotion puts its effectiveness at less than 60% (other studies at far less) for those that get the vaccine, and then for less than a year. Other studies put the effective period at three months. I can do a much better job at reducing my risk of flu simply by exercising and eating healthy foods. Yet millions of people run out every year to buy flu vaccines.

Nor does it mean every vaccine is equally important. Take smallpox and polio, considered higher danger diseases. Polio had a risk of permanent handicap of 1-2% - considered high. (BTW even for high risk polio 95% of polio infection victims recover completely in less than a week). Measles, mumps, chicken pox, most flus, and many others are very low risk, a mere inconvenience for healthy individuals.

Nor does it mean every additive to every vaccine is safe. Despite what any politicians and bureaucrats and manufacturers and their lobbyists proclaim there is plenty evidence of reason to be concerned with many additives such a mercury compounds like thimerosal, or aluminum compounds, or other metals.

Nor does the fact some vaccines are highly effective and useful mean large numbers of multiple vaccines from various manufacturers should be mass administered into infants. Nor does it negate evidence that massive loading of many vaccines poses risks to some individuals, particularly during infancy.

The bottom line is it is the individual's choice. There should be NO _mandatory_ vaccines. The government should not be involved in force vaccinating anyone. The decision to vaccinate should always be the consumers choice, not the politicians, government or the lobbyists.

Whether I choose to vaccinate or not vaccinate, it has zero bearing on whether another persons' vaccination provides immunization for them or not. 

If you as the consumer believe that every vaccine from every manufacturer for any ailment is completely safe and absolutely necessary, and want to load your body up with every possible vaccine, by all means do so. That should be your choice in the free market.

If you as a consumer merely wish to get the vaccinations against more virulent disease, but forgo vaccines for the less dangerous diseases. Or perhaps forego those vaccines in infancy, and spread out the vaccines into toddler or adolescent age or adulthood before choosing vaccines for less serious disease, by all means do so. It is YOUR choice.

If you as the consumer wish to forego any vaccines at all, by all means do so.

More:
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...tion-free-will
https://mises.org/library/pox-government-vaccines

----------


## donnay

Informed choice.

----------


## Created4

> As "eloquent" and "logical" as the above strangely sent neg rep comments are, they miss the issue entirely. The issue is one of Freedom, and Freedom is the answer. 
> 
> Who is the better decider for your health choices - government? politicians? bureaucrats? lobbyists for big pharma? or you? 
> 
> If one accepts that government can forcefully inject your body whatever it decides is best for your own good or the good of "society," then by that premise government can do whatever it wants to you "for your own good" of course. 
> 
> When it comes to vaccinations, as usual, Freedom is the Answer.
> 
> Yes, some vaccines are highly effective. Yet, all vaccines do not have the same effectiveness, nor for the same duration. Nor do all diseases have the same risk. Some diseases are more dangerous than others. Some vaccines more effective than others.
> ...


But logical or scientific reasoning is not allowed when it comes to vaccines, haven't you figured that out by now?

Belief in vaccines is a religion.

To question vaccines is to be an apostate, even if you are a medical doctor who is pro-vaccine but wants to selectively decide which vaccines are better than others, or which of your patients might be more prone to vaccine injuries.



*Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?*

----------


## angelatc

> As "eloquent" and "logical" as the above strangely sent neg rep comments are, they miss the issue entirely. The issue is one of Freedom, and Freedom is the answer.


Your meme had nothing to do with freedom.  It was smugly parroting a tired fallacy about the efficiency of vaccines that's been patiently explained  about 100 times already.  

People are free to choose.  But they're not free to pass off absolute fabrications,  like your meme,  as educated enlightenment.

----------


## AZJoe

> Your meme had nothing to do with freedom. It was smugly parroting a tired fallacy about the efficiency of vaccines that's been patiently explained about 100 times already. People are free to choose. But they're not free to pass off absolute fabrications, like your meme, as educated enlightenment.


And yet the meme is both 100% correct and is about freedom. 
An individual's choice of whether or not to be vaccinated has zero bearing on whether another person's vaccination provides them immunization or not. That is the self-evident truth simply revealed by the meme. 
The idiotic self contradiction of saying that any individual must be forcibly vaccinated with this or that pharmaceutical elixir because some statist mind hysterically fears another's lack of vaccination is directly exposed by the meme itself. 

What lacks "_educated enlightenment_" is someone failing any logical response whatsoever, but instead resorting to childish tantrums, "_Anti vax polio bull$#@!_" and "_memes suck_", mindlessly parroting pointless non-sequiturs, "_addressed about 1000 times_", and then actively hunting down random posts on unrelated threads to to apply negative reputation points.

----------


## Weston White

> Your meme had nothing to do with freedom.  It was smugly parroting a tired fallacy about the efficiency of vaccines that's been patiently explained  about 100 times already.  
> 
> People are free to choose.  But they're not free to pass off absolute fabrications,  like your meme,  as educated enlightenment.


Bollocks.  Here a few memes for you though: http://www.anhinternational.org/2017...-injury-taboo/


Vaccine Court Awards Paid (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensat...late2_1_17.pdf):
...
FY 2012  249  $163,491,998.82
FY 2013  375  $254,666,326.70 
FY 2014  365  $202,084,196.12
FY 2015  508  $204,137,880.22
FY 2016  689  $230,140,251.20

----------


## Firestarter

I hope I’m not the only one to think this is interesting, but the inventor of vaccines, Edward Jenner, joined the masonic _Royal Berkeley Lodge of Faith and Friendship_ on 30 December 1802.
Jenner even became “Worshipful Master” of this lodge in 1812 and 1813.
Edward Jenner attended his last lodge meeting on 4 July 1822, 6 months before his death.

Jenner was born in a family of freemasons. Edward’s nephew, Henry Jenner, was Master for the first 2 years of the Lodge and later Provincial Grand Master for Bristol. Edward’s son, Robert F. Jenner, was Master of the Lodge in 1827, 1828, 1847 and 1848. Another of Edward’s nephews, Rev. G.C. Jenner, was Lodge Secretary and Provincial Grand Chaplain for Bristol: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/.../jenner_e.html

Edward Jenner was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1789, for his research on the nesting habits of the cuckoo: http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/more...al-philosopher

----------


## Working Poor

> Ronald Reagan playing the role of US President for real, had the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed, that effectively restricted compensation for the damage of vaccines.


I can never forgive him for that....

----------


## donnay

> *Doctor Blows the Whistle on Vaccines: If They’re So Healthy, Why Are They Forced On Us?*
> 
> Suzanne Humphries, MD, is an accredited doctor who has been in the traditional medical system from 1989 to 2011—but now she’s come out to express her critical views on vaccines. (scroll down for full interview video).
> 
>  According to Suzanne, the vaccine industry gives the general public an extremely biased and one-sided story.
> 
> After leaving the traditional medical system to start her own holistic practice, she felt implored to inform parents about the true dangers posed by such inoculations.
> 
> The medical world is constantly pushing for the general public to believe vaccines are not only safe, but necessary for good health.
> ...


https://www.davidwolfe.com/doctor-bl...zen.yandex.com

----------


## donnay

> *Massive Medical Cover-Up Revealed After Teen Dies From Controversial Vaccine*
> 
> What greater case against vaccines do you need than the countless young women who are left incapacitated—and often dead—by the HPV inoculation?
> 
>  Apparently, these lost lives aren’t enough to fully persuade the general public, even as another teen was left dead after taking the shot, this time passing away in her sleep.
> 
> 19-year-old Jasmin Soriat was just one of many youngsters being instructed by their doctors and the medical establishment to take the HPV vaccine.
> 
>  Placing her trust in the people who claim to make health their top priority, Jasmin accepted the inoculation…
> ...


https://www.davidwolfe.com/medical-c...zen.yandex.com

----------


## Jamesiv1

The medical industry would never steer us wrong:

----------


## donnay

> The medical industry would never steer us wrong:


^^^^This cannot be said enough^^^^

----------


## Firestarter

> @Firestarter I appreciate you bringing in the history, but Angela is not interested in the history, she is only interested in the propaganda that vaccines saved us!


I have found another (historic) book on vaccines, published in 1957; Eleanor McBean - _The Poisoned Needle_ (1957): http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html
The book shows that 60 years ago the anti-vaxxer movement mostly used the same arguments as in 2017. Big pharma has never provided evidence, but has simply claimed that every “anti-vaxxer” is an unscientific quack.
I agree with most of the book, but some of the conclusions go too far for me. In particular I disagree with “fasting” for a health treatment and the section on cancer…

Other than general believe, it isn’t the freemason Edward Jenner, who bought his “Doctor” title for a mere 15 pounds, that invented vaccines.
_Dhanwantari_, the earliest known Hindu physician, who lived about 1,500 BC, is reportedly the first to practice inoculation for smallpox. It has been claimed that the ancient Hindus even employed a vaccine, by the transmission of the smallpox virus through a cow.
Even if the Hindu medical malpractices aren’t considered to be vaccines, the farmer Benjamin Jesty (I hope for Angelatc - not a pig farmer...), years before Jenner’s first inoculation, discovered cow-pox inoculation. After Jesty, came teacher Plett, and another farmer Jensen, who were experimented with cow-pox vaccination – all 4 before Jenner…

I won’t do a full summary of the book, but will present the statistics for “evidence” that vaccines don’t work.

*Chapter 1*
The following diseases increased “_in the past 70 years_” (that’s from 1887-1957).



> *Insanity increased 400%
> Cancer increased 308%
> Anemia increased 300%
> Epilepsy increased 397%*
> Bright’s Disease increased 65%
> Heart Disease increased 179%
> *Diabetes increased 1800% (In spite of or because of insulin)
> Polio increased 680%*


Most of these diseases have continued to increase in the following (past) 70 years (from 1957-2017)...


*Chapter 2*
In 1902 when vaccination was endorsed by the majority, the death-rate from smallpox was 2,121. By 1910, vaccination disasters had caused it to lose favour to such an extent that the smallpox death-rate dropped to 202.
The pharmaceutical industry worked up a nationwide vaccination campaign that raised the smallpox death-rate to 358 (1919) and 642 (1921).
When the people noticed that the vaccinated were the ones who suffered most from smallpox and flu, they lost faith and by 1927 the deaths had dropped to 138 where it has been fluctuating since.

Although in 1929 the League of Nations reported India as the greatest centre of smallpox in the world, it has improved since gaining its freedom from Britain and relaxing its vaccination enforcement program.


France had rejected immunisation after the previous disasters, but was pressured into submitting to it after German occupation. By 1941 most of the French children had been inoculated after which the diphtheria incidence rose to 13,795 by the end of that year. By 1943, diphtheria had increased to 46,750.


*Chapter 4*
From the report of Dr. William Farr, Compiler of Statistics of the Registrar-General, London:



> Smallpox attained its maximum mortality after vaccination was introduced…..The mean annual (smallpox) mortality to 10,000 population from 1850 to 1869 was at the rate of (only) 2.04, whereas (after compulsory vaccination) in 1871 the death rate was 10.24 and in 1872 the death rate was 8.33, and this after the most laudable efforts to extend vaccination by legislative enactments.


Re-vaccination experiments published by the German Vaccination Commission in 1884, showed that smallpox vaccination was unsuccessful in about 2 out of 3 cases. I believe that McBean didn’t describe this experiment accurately…
The experiments were performed on 30 boys aged 8 to 14. Five of them had had smallpox within the previous two years; 4 of them had been vaccinated. The vaccinations were repeated every 8 days.
From the (first) 30 boys, 23 (77%) were unsuccessfully vaccinated.
From the remaining 23, 14 (61%) were unsuccessful.
From the remaining 14, 9 (64%?) were unsuccessful.
From the remaining 9 (?), 6 (67%) were unsuccessful.
From the remaining 6, 2 (33%) were unsuccessfully vaccinated.




> Between 1886 and 1892, there were 25,474,370 vaccinations and re-vaccinations performed in Japan, which meant that about two-thirds of the entire Japanese population, already vaccinated by the law of 1872, were re-vaccinated. During that 7-year period (1886-1892) of thorough re-vaccination, there were reported 165,774 cases of smallpox with 28,979 deaths.


*Chapter 10*
In Australia, after several children died from smallpox vaccination, the government abolished compulsory vaccination and smallpox declined to the vanishing point. Australia had only 3 cases of smallpox in 15 years; compare this to Japan...


*Chapter 5*
In 1907, cancer was unheard of among children. But in 1957, a substantial amount of children dies from cancer.
The cancer death rate has more than doubled from 65 persons per 100,000 in 1900 to 134.8 persons per 100,000 in 1948.


*Chapter 7*
The common diseases mentioned by Morgan, more than doubled after the annual June vaccination campaign (measles more than tripled).


For more information on polio (vaccines), see the following thread (including more on polio from the McBean book):   http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6538870

----------


## Firestarter

Ive found an interesting story about the depopulation agenda in Mexico, which involves vaccines.
In 1973, the Mexican birth rate was unashamedly described as a Population Bomb in the state media.


In 1974, a group of Mexicans found out (or at least suspected) that a group disguised as inoculation teams who looked like foreigners gave shots at schools to sterilise their children. The teams were escorted by the police.
Vaccination was never done at Mexican schools, so the parents had a good reason to be suspicious.

The rumours began in the north in Nuevo Leon, and then reached Mexico City, where thousands of angry parents in slum areas stormed and barricaded schools, and removed their children from them. Some 35-40% of elementary kids were absent Wednesday of that week.
According to the National Action party: _The rare vaccine, until now never used, much less as part of a campaign which appears to cover many parts of the republic, is given to each child in three places: the umbilicis, the chest, and the spinal column_.
The government denied the rumours, claiming that sterilisation vaccines dont exist.


Coercive sterilisations under the banner of family planning were taking place all over the globe in 1974. In April 1974, it was reported that the government had sterilised some 1,204 girls and boys under the age of 21 at federally funded clinics across the country. This included a ten year old, an eleven year old, and ten 13 year olds.
The US government had funded sterilisations on: poor women, the mentally ill, deaf, blind, with Epilepsy, and others who were considered unfit to have babies. 

Jurriaan Maessen noted, that Rockefeller had already conceived sterilisation vaccines way back in the 1930s: 


> Rockefeller Foundation minion Max Mason, who acted as president in the mid-1930s, on multiple occasions expressed his masters desire for an anti-hormone that would reduce fertility worldwide. Now keep in mind, this is more than 35 years before the Foundation actually mentioned funding anti-fertility vaccines in subsequent annual reports from 1969 onward.


 http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/05/...cines-in-1974/
(archived here: http://archive.is/zxQ34)

In 1972, the United Nations, World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank collaborated on the _Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP)_ to _coordinate, promote, conduct, and evaluate research in human reproduction_.
In 1972, the WHO founded the _Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation_ to produce an hCG-laced anti-fertility vaccine.
This has continued to produce vaccines for fertility regulation, see the following report from 1991: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1874951
(archived here: http://archive.is/HG8pN)

In 1973, Stevens and Chrystle published a report on anti-fertility vaccines, which showed that hCG can be used to sterilise women.
Heres the abstract of _Effects of Immunization with Hapten-Coupled HCG on the Human Menstrual Cycle_ (1973): http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal..._HCG_on.1.aspx

In 1976 another study on hCG was published by A. Pala et al _Immunization with hapten-coupled hCG-β subunit and its effect on the menstrual cycle_ (1976), only the abstract: http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/...76)90009-3/pdf


And then theres the infamous 1974 National Security Council Document 20506: _Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests_. Written by none other than Nobel Prize winner for peace, Henry Kissinger...
They identified India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia as problematic: http://schillerinstitute.org/strategic/NSSM200.htm



> 29. While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000.
> ()
> In less developed countries growth rates average about 2.4 percent. For the People's Republic of China, with a massive, enforced birth control program, the growth rate is estimated at under 2 percent. India's is variously estimated from 2.2 percent, Brazil at 2.8 percent, Mexico at 3.4 percent, and Latin America at about 2.9 percent. African countries, with high birth as well as high death rates, average 2.6 percent; this growth rate will increase as death rates go down.
> ()
> Steady increases in the number of acceptors at family planning facilities indicate a likelihood of some fertility reduction in Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, and other countries which have family planning programs. On the other hand, there is little concrete evidence of significant fertility reduction in the populous countries of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc.1
> (...)
> concentrating on the education and indoctrination of the rising generation of children regarding the desirability of smaller family size.
> ()
> *Considerable reduction in infant and child mortality is possible through improvement in nutrition, inoculations against diseases, and other public health measures if means can be devised for extending such services to neglected LDC populations on a low-cost basis. It often makes sense to combine such activities with family planning services in integrated delivery systems in order to maximize the use of scarce LDC financial and health manpowder (sic.) resources (See Section IV). In addition, providing selected health care for both mothers and their children can enhance the acceptability of family planning by showing concern for the whole condition of the mother and her children and not just for the single factor of fertility.*
> ...

----------


## Firestarter

I’ve found another historic book that shows that vaccines are a fraud; Alfred Wallace – _VACCINATION A DELUSION_ (1898): http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/comp.html

My only problem with this book, are the graphs that are presented only at the end. It would be easier for the reader if the arguments were presented with the graphs...
The following is a summary of the most important evidence from the book.

There has never any proof that vaccinated people are more healthy than the unvaccinated.
All the evidence shows that, if the whole population of a country lived under healthy conditions - pure air, pure water, and wholesome food – all infectious disease would die out as completely as the plague and leprosy have died out.

*Falsifying the numbers*
Only 6 years after the announcement of small pox vaccination, in 1804, Dr. B. Moseley, reported many cases of properly vaccinated persons but contracted small pox anyway and even death resulting from vaccination.
In 1805, Dr. William Rowley and Dr. Squirrel published similar bad results of vaccination.
In 1809, Thomas Brown, wrote that many of his patients caught the disease 2 to 8 years after vaccination.
In 1810, William Tebb brought before the Commission a paper by Dr. Maclean, with 535 cases of small pox after vaccination, of which 97 were fatal.

In 1802, Dr. Lettsom estimated the small pox deaths of Great Britain and Ireland before vaccination at 36,000 annually; by taking 3,000 as the annual mortality in London and multiplying by 12.
In 1812, and again in 1818, it is stated that the average number of deaths by small pox in London was 2,000 annually. In the last 2 decades before vaccination_,_ there were 1,751 and 1,786 on average.
But in the Reports for 1826 and 1834, to advertise vaccination, it is stated that the London death toll (before vaccination) by small pox “_was annually about 4,000_”.
In 1836 and 1838, they further increased the London annual death toll before vaccines by small pox to “_exceeded 5,000_”, while claiming that the “_last year only 300 died of the distemper_.”
In 1839, based on these falsified numbers, the conclusion was drawn "_that 4,000 lives are saved every year in London since vaccination_”.

In 1881, Dr. W. B. Carpenter claimed that: 


> _a hundred years ago the small-pox mortality of London alone, with its then population of under a million, was often greater in a six months’ epidemic than that of the twenty millions of England & Wales now is in any whole Year._


The highest annual small pox mortality for London in the 18th century was 3,992 (in 1772), while in 1871 it was 7,912 (almost double).
In 1871, the annual small pox mortality in England and Wales was 23,000 (5.8 times 3,992).

In 1880, Ernest Hart reported that in the years 1728—1757 and 1771—1780, the average annual small pox mortality of London was about 18,000 per million living.
The actual average mortality, was a little more than  2,000 . Even when the worst periods were chosen, with the lowest population estimates, the mortality per million was lower than 3,000.

From 1803 to 1851, among 31,705 well-vaccinated boys in the Asylum, there were 39 cases and 4 deaths – an average mortality rate of 126 per million. This was reported by Balfour and John Simon as: "_most conclusive proofs of the value of vaccination_".
Because there is no comparison with other unvaccinated boys of the same age and similar living conditions, this isn’t sound evidence.
In the period of optional vaccination (1847-1853) the death rate from small pox of children from 10-15 years (similar to the ages of the boys who are admitted into the asylum) was 94 per million.
I note that this comparison by Wallace isn’t proper either, as the time period isn’t the same (from 1803 to 1853 the small pox death rate declined)...


*Graph 1 - small pox death rate London*
The lower line shows the small pox death rate.
The middle line shows the zymotics death rate.
The upper line shows the death-rate from all causes.
The left part, from 1760 to 1836, is from the "Bills of Mortality" which is less complete as the right part, from 1838 to 1896.


From 1760 to 1820, amid great fluctuations and some epidemics, a steady decline is seen - a difference of about 2,000 per million living.
The decline from 1820 is much slower.
The right part starts with the great epidemic of 1838. Until 1885 the decline is very slow; while, if we average the epidemic of 1871 with the preceding 10 years, there is no decline at all.
From 1886 to 1896, there is a rather sudden decline to a very low death-rate.
Since 1854 vaccination was compulsory and almost universal; yet from 1854 to 1884 there is almost no decline of small pox perceptible, and the severest epidemic of the century occurred in 1871.
The clearly marked decline of small pox in the 10 years from 1886 to 1896 occurred, when there was a falling off in vaccination.

From 1838 to 1870, the zymotics death rate actually rose.
From 1871 to 1875, the zymotics death rate is lower.
In that last period the vaccination rate had diminished.

The decline of the total death-rate from 1760 to 1820 is relatively great, and it continues somewhat slower to 1830.
Then from 1830 to 1870 there is hardly a perceptible decline.
From 1871 to 1896 the death rate declines.
In that last period vaccination was greatly diminished.


*Graph 4 - small pox, measles, scarlet fever (zymotics) death rate Ireland and Scotland*


Ireland obviously had a much lower death rate than Scotland.
Since 1883, small pox death has been almost absent from Ireland, Scotland, and England. In the 20 years of repeated epidemics from 1864 to 1883, we find the average small pox death-rate of Scotland to be about 139, and of Ireland 85 per million.
Of the 2 countries, Scotland is better vaccinated against small pox, while the small pox mortality in Ireland is much lower.

But even Scotland had a much lower small pox mortality than England - in the years 1871-1873 (including the epidemic):
Ireland had a death rate of 800 per million.
Scotland had a death rate of 1,450 per million.
England had a death rate of 2,000 per million.
A possible explanation for this difference in mortality rate is that: in Ireland only 11 % of the population live in towns of more than 100,000 inhabitants; in Scotland 30%; and in England and Wales 54%.


*Graph 5 - small pox and total death rate Sweden*


Vaccination was introduced in Sweden in 1801, probably first in the rural districts. Sweden was reported as a striking example of the value of vaccination.
Like in England, there was a great and sudden decrease of small pox mortality after 1801; by 1812 the whole reduction of mortality had already been completed.
Since 1823, for more than 50 years, there were epidemics every decade (with the exception of the 1840s).
In Stockholm the first vaccinations were at the end of 1810. The earlier Stockholm epidemics in 1807, before vaccination, and in 1825, were less severe than the 6 later ones, when vaccination was more common.
The 1874 epidemic of Stockholm had a much higher death rate, of more than 50%, than in Britain.
The medical establishment explained the enormous small pox mortality in Stockholm as the result of deficient vaccination; but the Swedish Board of Health states that "_the low figures for Stockholm depend more on the cases of vaccination not having been reported than on their not having been effected_".


*Graph 9 - small pox and total death rate Leicester*


Starting in 1872, after the great epidemic, Leicester vaccinated their children less and less. By 1888 almost no children were vaccinated.
There is a clear to see, strong decline in death rate since refusing vaccines.

Following are tables that compare not-vaccinated Leicester with well-vaccinated populations.
In the “great epidemic” of 1871, both Leicester and Birmingham were well-vaccinated, and both suffered severely by the epidemic.

The last column should have read “Navy”...

----------


## Zippyjuan

Vaccines (and science) have changed a lot since the 1880's.

----------


## Created4

> Vaccines (and science) have changed a lot since the 1880's.


But the science is now settled today, correct?

----------


## Firestarter

> Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
> 
> Vaccines (and science) have changed a lot since the 1880's.
> 
> 
> But the science is now settled today, correct?


Before I started criticising vaccines, I really did try to find "scientific" evidence for the value of vaccines.

According to the medical industry, we are to believe all of their claims - because they only act in our best interests.
When people openly doubt big pharma's products, the least of the attacks against them is calling them pseudoscientific quacks.

I've not only been called an "anti-vaxxer" and a "bad" scientist, I've even been accused of being a _Nazi;_ for demanding evidence on the value of vaccines, and saying that the only acceptable scientific evidence is a proper placebo-controlled trial.

----------


## donnay

> Before I started criticising vaccines, I really did try to find "scientific" evidence for the value of vaccines.
> 
> According to the medical industry, we are to believe all of their claims - because they only act in our best interests.
> When people openly doubt big pharma's products, the least of the attacks against them is calling them pseudoscientific quacks.
> 
> I've not only been called an "anti-vaxxer" and a "bad" scientist, I've even been accused of being a _Nazi;_ for demanding evidence on the value of vaccines, and saying that the only acceptable scientific evidence is a proper placebo-controlled trial.


Just like everything around us today, that is political, the accusers are the very ones who accuse others of things they are doing with impunity.

It's like a real life version of the movie, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

----------


## donnay

*CDC Whistleblower – Full transcript*
http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/c...ll-transcript/

----------


## Ender

Interesting......




> *Hawking: a victim of a vaccine-related virus?*
> 
> And it may have been a virus that confined Hawking to a wheelchair rather than that motor neuron disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS, aka Lou Gehrig’s disease) that befell him, beginning at age 21.  He lived too long (76 years) for him to have ALS, which has a 2-year survival rate.
> 
> Stephen Hawking may have been misdiagnosed and was actually a victim of polio, a US medical expert has suggested.
> 
> Christopher B Cooper, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Physiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, says the likelihood the physicist’s debilitating condition was in fact amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was “low.” Hawking’s young age at diagnosis and 55-year survival is not typical of ALS.
> 
> There is speculation that Hawking may have developed his nerve paralysis as a side effect from a genetically engineered virus which “possesses significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards,” says a published report.
> ...


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/04/...rom-a-vaccine/

----------


## Firestarter

> *CDC Whistleblower – Full transcript*
> http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/c...ll-transcript/


For more on the (censored) William Thompson study that shows that vaccines cause autism in Afro-American boys and the retracted report on the (real) findings: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6543416




> In August 2014, CDC senior vaccine safety scientist, William Thompson, blew the whistle on a study, which showed that black boys got autistic because of the MMR vaccine, a 250% increase in autism diagnoses for black boys.
> A high CDC official, Frank DeStefano, ordered Thompson and his team to destroy that data in a large garbage can and omit the damning findings from the published study. That (censored) study forms the cornerstone of the CDC's orthodoxy that vaccines don't cause autism
> 
> Staff level scientists,
> 
> 
> 
> are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right," and that, "Senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors.
> (…)
> ...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> For more on the (censored) William Thompson study that shows that vaccines cause autism in Afro-American boys and the retracted report on the (real) findings: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6543416


The African American boys were enrolled in a school for autistic children.  To be allowed into that school, they were required to be vaccinated.  They were diagnosed in many cases before their vaccines meaning that the vaccine could not have caused it if it occurred before the child was vaccinated.  Once that cohort was removed, there was no link. 

The paper was retracted:




> The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/now-ret...ry?id=25248179

----------


## donnay

> The African American boys were enrolled in a school for autistic children.  To be allowed into that school, they were required to be vaccinated.  They were diagnosed in many cases before their vaccines meaning that the vaccine could not have caused it if it occurred before the child was vaccinated.  Once that cohort was removed, there was no link. 
> 
> The paper was retracted:
> 
> 
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/now-ret...ry?id=25248179

----------


## donnay



----------


## Zippyjuan

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4639493/




> The monitoring of vaccine adverse events during the 10 days of mass vaccination campaigns and over the next 42 days following the end of the mass campaign did not reveal any safety issues [11]. The only negative vaccine-related event occurred in Gouro, Chad, in December 2013, where a small group of vaccinees developed a range of unusual symptoms after vaccination that were later identified as an instance of mass hysteria, an unusual phenomenon that has been well described in the context of mass immunization campaigns [12–14]. The episode is described in more detail in an accompanying communication article [15]. Initially, a Chadian reporter described paralysis in PsA-TT vaccine recipients. *Careful clinical examinations by physicians and a neurologist revealed that there were no cases of paralysis and that all affected individuals fully recovered over the ensuing days*.



https://www.rawstory.com/2013/01/cha...sick-children/




> *Chad officials: No link between meningitis vaccines and sick children*
> 
> Chad’s government on Tuesday said a team of international experts have *not been able to find any links between the hospitalisation of 38 children and their recent vaccinations against meningitis.*
> 
> The children fell ill in the northern village of Gouro and were admitted to hospital after being vaccinated in a government campaign against the disease between December 11 and 15.
> 
> In a statement, the country’s health ministry said tests “failed to establish a causal link between the clinical manifestations observed in the patients and the MenAfriVac vaccine.”
> 
> Health Minister Mamouth Nahor N’Gawara said tests by experts at the World Health Organisation showed there was “no manufacturing fault” in the vaccine produced by the Serum Institute of India.
> ...


500 were vaccinated in that one town alone.

----------


## Firestarter

> The African American boys were enrolled in a school for autistic children.  To be allowed into that school, they were required to be vaccinated.  They were diagnosed in many cases before their vaccines meaning that the vaccine could not have caused it if it occurred before the child was vaccinated.  Once that cohort was removed, there was no link.


 *The lies by Zippyjuan just keep coming; on 25 Oct. Zippy posted the lie:* 


> That study which found a potential link between black males and autism and the MMR vaccine was flawed which is why the data was removed. The survey asked if the boys had autism and if they had received the MMR vaccine. 
> A notable amount said yes. The problem was that they had autism BEFORE they were vaccinated. The boys were enrolled in a special school for autistic children and were vaccinated as a condition of enrollment- after they had been diagnosed as being autistic. That means it is impossible that the vaccine caused their autism since they already had it. Once that group was removed from the study data base, they found no link between the vaccine and autism.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6543491


*After I asked for evidence, there was no reply at all:* 


> Do you have a source for these claims?!?
> 
> I have read that the study was retracted over concerns of “competing interests”: https://translationalneurodegenerati...2047-9158-3-22


That the study was retracted over “competing interests” shows that Zippyjuan is lying.
I haven't found additional information on the “competing interests”...

----------


## donnay

> *HERE WE GO AGAIN: MORE VACCINE-AUTISM DENIALISM*
> WORLD MERCURY PROJECTAPRIL 2, 2018
> 
> BY DR. BRIAN S. HOOKER, PHD, PE AND THE WORLD MERCURY PROJECT TEAM
> 
> Scientists like to pretend that they are above grubby conflicts of interest, and mainstream journalists often pay lip service to their “fourth estate” watchdog role. However, some scientists and journalists are all too willing to play more of a corporate lapdog role. A particularly large amount of ink has been spilled to discredit—nay, stomp out—the inconvenient notion that vaccines might have something to do with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which now affects 1 in 36 children in the U.S. Despite extensive high-level scientific fraud at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to suppress evidence of a vaccine-autism link, the CDC has not been able to hide over 80 independent studies that connect the dots between the vaccine preservative thimerosal and autism. Other studies have pointed to additional vaccine-related culprits that may be contributing to ASD, including aluminum—used in a very high proportion of infant vaccines and recently reported in pathologically significant levels in the brains of individuals diagnosed with autism.
> 
> …the JAMA Pediatrics researchers appear content to scold beleaguered ASD families for poor compliance with the vaccine schedule.
> Nonetheless, the disingenuous denials continue to circulate. The latest example is on display in a 2018 study published in JAMA Pediatrics titled “Vaccination patterns in children after autism spectrum disorder diagnosis and in their younger siblings.” The study reports that ASD children were significantly less likely to be vaccinated after receiving their ASD diagnosis (compared to children without ASD), and “parents of children with ASD were more likely to refuse vaccinating the children’s younger siblings compared with parents of children without ASD.” The strange study design, by the lead author’s own admission, “did not look at vaccination rates before the children were diagnosed with autism” [emphasis added]. Instead, the researchers “only assessed vaccines recommended after the child’s ASD diagnosis,” enabling them to informally “infer” that the diagnosis influenced parents’ decisions to delay or refuse further vaccines. Rather than try to understand the rational basis for these decisions, or support parents’ efforts to protect their children from further vaccine injuries, the JAMA Pediatricsresearchers appear content to scold beleaguered ASD families for poor compliance with the vaccine schedule.
> ...


http://www.collective-evolution.com/...zen.yandex.com

----------


## Firestarter

> … The strange study design, by the lead author’s own admission, “did not look at vaccination rates before the children were diagnosed with autism” [emphasis added]. Instead, the researchers “only assessed vaccines recommended after the child’s ASD diagnosis,” enabling them to informally “infer” that the diagnosis influenced parents’ decisions to delay or refuse further vaccines. Rather than try to understand the rational basis for these decisions, or support parents’ efforts to protect their children from further vaccine injuries, the JAMA Pediatrics researchers appear content to scold beleaguered ASD families for poor compliance with the vaccine schedule.
> 
> Meanwhile, CNN heralded the JAMA Pediatrics study with an extremely deceptive piece—“Children with autism less likely to be fully vaccinated”—with a title that tricks the reader into thinking that the study shows “vaccines don’t cause autism.” Although CNN’s reporter digs up another study that found that almost a third of parents of ASD children became “vaccine-hesitant” after their child’s autism diagnosis and that, for most of the parents, “hesitancy” was due to the belief that “toxins in vaccines caused their child’s developmental problems,” the researchers and CNN hastily dismiss this belief as “scientifically untrue.”
> 			
> 		
> 
>  http://www.collective-evolution.com/...zen.yandex.com



What kind of big pharma supporter would use such a ridiculous study to support vaccines?
None other than one of our most “respected” members: 


> If there is a link between vaccines and autism, one would expect a higher autism rate among those with more vaccines- not the ones with fewer of them.


 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...lly-vaccinated

----------


## Firestarter

I once read about the following steps to get a vaccine approved by the CDC...
1 - They inject lab animals with either vaccine or a placebo.
2 – They inject the supposed virus into the lab animals.
3 – If the vaccinated animals have better survival rates with the injected virus than the placebo (control) group, they say the vaccine is effective.
4 – Then they test the vaccine on humans: not to see if it prevents any disease, but merely if the adverse effects aren’t too drastic.
5 – Vaccine accepted.
This doesn’t prove that the vaccines actually prevent any disease that humans (or even animals) contract naturally. But medical “science” is obviously not objective in our Brave new world...


*Vaccine induced immune deficiency*
There is also evidence that being poisoned yearly with the advised flu vaccines results in lower antibody responses - immune deficiency.
The more influenza vaccinations you get poisoned with in your lifetime, the less you immune system can fight the flu virus in subsequent seasons.

After the 2009 “flu epidemic”, the Canadian flu surveillance network reported that Canadians who had received a flu shot in late 2008 were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to suffer from an adverse reaction from an H1N1 infection that required medical attention, compared with those who didn't get a shot.

In 2016, Skowronski published a report that people, who were consecutively vaccinated in 2012, 2013 and 2014, have a higher risk of being infected with the flu.

Big pharma supporting “doctors” maintain that people should take their flu shot - especially seniors, children younger than two and people suffering from chronic medical conditions (like immune deficiency?): https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/serial...hers-1.3147903
(archived here: http://archive.is/1afvT)

A study was done to track how prior vaccination affects immune responses in 141 expectant mothers - , 91 were poisoned with a flu shot the previous year, 50 were not.
They found that women, who hadn't received a flu shot in the previous year, had better immune responses to the vaccine.

They also claim that their results “_suggest it does not meaningfully affect protection in their babies_”.
This really is an amazing conclusion. They found that the vaccines cause immune deficiency, but concluded that the babies were still protected just as well by the antibodies that they received from their mother...

According to the big pharma supporting “scientists” that published these results, there can’t be any reason to not take flu shots: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0801101718.htm


*Flu vaccine induced abortions and other adverse effects*
In 2009 and 2010, foetal deaths caused by vaccines reported in VAERS increased by 4,250%. Probably caused by the additional H1N1 vaccine that was advised.
 Despite that the CDC knew of the 4,250% rise, it published a report authored by Dr. Pedro Moro in the fall of 2010 that there were only 23 miscarriages caused by the single flu vaccine in 19 years between 1990 – 2009, an average of 1.2 miscarriages per year.

Eileen Dannemann accused the CDC of “wilful misconduct” in causing the deaths of thousands of unborn babies and deliberately misleading obstetricians and gynaecologists by advertising the flu vaccine as safe for pregnant women: 


> The CDC, aware of their own incoming stream of early vaccine adverse events reports, clearly decided to allow the obstetricians to continue, unwittingly, murdering and damaging the unborn so that the CDC’s blunder of recommending the double-dose vaccination of pregnant women could be kept under the radar.


 http://vactruth.com/2012/11/23/flu-s...s-fetal-death/

In 2017, the CDC published a report by Donaheu et al on data for the flu seasons from 2010 to 2012.
Women vaccinated with the influenza vaccine (IIV) in the 2010-2011 season had 3.7-fold greater odds of experiencing an abortion within 28 days than women not receiving the vaccine. 
From 2010 to 2012, the odds for a spontaneous abortion for vaccinated women were 2.0 times greater than for women that weren’t poisoned with the flu vaccine.
In women who also were poisoned with the H1N1 vaccine the previous year, the odds of spontaneous abortion in the 28 days after receiving a flu vaccine were even 7.7 times greater.

The 2017 study confirms the findings of a previous report by Goldman.
Using CDC’s VAERS database, Goldman showed a similar rise in the rate of miscarriages; this increased 11-fold in 2009 when the H1N1 vaccine was added to the recommended vaccine schedule (on top of the seasonal flu shot).

In a 2014 report, Giuseppe Traversa et al found that in over 86,000 pregnancies H1N1-vaccinated women had significantly higher rates of gestational diabetes and eclampsia.
Eclampsia is the development of seizures in women with severe toxaemia (high blood pressure and protein loss in the urine). Eclampsia is fatal in 2% of women and can result in long-term health problems. Foetal complications, including neurological damage and death, are also common.

In another paper published in 2017, Zerbo et al showed that the maternal flu shot in the first trimester of pregnancy, causes autism (ASD).
Between 2000 and 2010, vaccinated pregnant women were 25% more likely to give birth to a child that would later be diagnosed with ASD.

A 2014 report by Alan Brown et al of over 1.2 million pregnant women found that elevations in CRP, which is caused by flu vaccination, are associated with a 43% greater risk of having a child with autism.

In 2016, Chambers et al found an elevated risk for birth defects for children born to mothers who received one flu vaccine during the 2010-2014 flu seasons. “Scientists” working for the CDC were involved in this study.
Shortly before this report was published, the CDC issued a gag order forbidding any CDC employee from talking to the press without first getting clearance from the communications office. This could not have been coincidental, could it?

Vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that flu vaccines have not been shown to be safe for pregnant women.
Most vaccines contain 25 micrograms of mercury via thimerosal.  Health officials have warned women to avoid eating mercury-containing tuna.
Overwhelming science shows that thimerosal is neurotoxic and deadly and that it may be particularly dangerous to the foetus.

It has repeatedly been found that thimerosal exposure is associated with:
- Birth defects - Heinonen et al 1977;
 - Tics – Thompson et al;
- Speech delays – Andrews et al, Verstraeten et al: https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...uenza-vaccine/
(archived here: http://archive.is/LXxdt)

----------


## donnay

> *Dr. Suzanne Humphries reveals the stunning fraud of the CDC and vaccine propagandists*
> 
> May 21, 2018 
> by: Vicki Batts
> 
> In a new interview with Mike Adams on CounterThink, Dr. Suzanne Humphries tells-all, revealing the corrupt vaccine industry’s dirtiest secrets and more. Humphries, a medical doctor and author of Dissolving Illusions: Diseases, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, was a highly regarded nephrologist — before she switched gears and set out to expose vaccines (and the CDC) for the sham they are.
> 
> Dr. Humphries says that Dr. Sherry Tenpenny “cracked the visage in front of me,” after Tenpenny showed her that vaccines were the “backbone of the whole pharmaceutical industry.”
> 
> ...


http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/d...propagandists/

----------


## Firestarter

In this post are: 1) a 34 page paper about vaccines and 2) one of the referenced studies, showing that non-influenza disease rates more than quadrupled by a flu vaccine.




> Since passage of the 1986 Act, the number of required pediatric vaccines has grown rapidly. In 1983, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule included 11 injections of 4 vaccines.10 As of 2017, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule includes 56 injections of 30 different vaccines.11
> (…)
> 
> Unfortunately, unlike all non-vaccine drugs licensed by the FDA, vaccines are _not_ required to undergo long-term double-blind inert-placebo controlled trials to assess safety. In fact, not a single one of the clinical trials for vaccines given to babies and toddlers had a control group receiving an inert placebo. Further, most pediatric vaccines currently on the market have been approved based on studies with inadequate follow-up periods of only a few days or weeks.
> For example, there are two Hepatitis B vaccines licensed for one day old babies in the United States – one manufactured by Merck and the other by GlaxoSmithKline. Merck’s Hepatitis B vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for _only five days_ after vaccination.17 Similarly, GlaxoSmithKline’s Hepatitis B vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for _only four days_ after vaccination.18
> (…)
> 
> Similarly, the HiB vaccines man-ufactured by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline were licensed by the FDA based on trials in which adverse reactions were monitored for only three days and four days, respectively, after vaccination.19 The only stand-alone polio vaccine in the United States was licensed after a mere 48-hour follow-up period.20
> Even more amazing is that unlike every drug licensed by the FDA, the control groups in these vaccine trials did not receive an inert placebo.21 Rather, the control group was given one or more previously licensed vaccines as the “placebo.”22
> ...


ICAN – _Introduction to Vaccine Safety Science & Policy in the United States_ (2017): http://icandecide.org/white-papers/V...ber-2-2017.pdf


The best reference from this white paper is the following “scientific” report.

In this study, 115 children (6–15 years) were injected with the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo on average they were followed for some 272 days (unlike the couple of days in “normal” vaccine trials…).

There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of respiratory illness (ARI or FARI) or confirmed seasonal influenza between subjects injected with TIV and those who received placebo, but TIV recipients did have a significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on serologic evidence…

TIV recipients had an enormous increased rate of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (390) compared to the subjects that got placebo (88) - a 340% increase in the rate of non-influenza infections.


Benjamin J. Cowling et al – _Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine_ (2012): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/
(archived here: http://archive.is/xz5sb)

----------


## Firestarter

This year, a group led by psychiatrist Goldacre reported that medical trials often violate EU legal requirements for reporting within a year after completion. In the US and the EU, certain categories of trials have to be reported within 1 year of completion by law.

Of 7274 trials where results were due, only 49.5% reported results in time. While only 68% of company-sponsored trials reporting their results, universities reported only 11%.

Of the 31,818 trials investigated, the study excluded 20,287 and 3392 trials because their status was never reported as completed. It is likely that many of these trials with “missing dates” (inconsistent data) also failed to report results within time.

Ben Goldacre et al. – _Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource_ (2018): https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3218

The following site managed by Goldacre gives more details on which companies and universities don’t report in time. Note the huge amount of universities that never report in time (0%).
Also note the huge amount of studies with inconsistent data: http://eu.trialstracker.net/


After Goldacre’s report, the Telegraph reported about 3 vaccine trials conducted by/for Public Health England (PHE) for which the results have never been published (according to the EU Clinical Trials Register). This is in violation with EU law that requires publication within one year.
The EUCRT was set up after people found out that big pharma simply didn’t publish negative results on their drugs.

The largest trial involved a new meningococcal and whooping cough booster vaccine with 640 children under the age of 16; concluded in 2016.
The second PHE trial was concluded in 2010, investigated effectiveness of a meningitis C vaccine in a group of 130 one-year-olds.
The third, concluded in 2011, involved 75 adults getting a meningitis B vaccine.

Experts accused PHE of an “incomprehensible” violation of the trust of parents who gave their consent for their children participating in the tests.
Ben Goldacre said: 


> It is incomprehensible to me that Public Health England of all the trials it could leave unreported to have failed to comply with the legal requirements to report trials of vaccines. 
> When patients participate and they take a risk with their own health. We have to respect their contribution by publishing the results properly. If we don’t, that is a betrayal of trust.
> Withholding the results of a clinical trial makes a mockery of all our efforts to promote trust in medicine, and i’m particularly sad to see vaccine trials going unreported.


 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ng-impossible/


The following report suggests that only studies that show that the drugs of big pharma have no efficacy aren’t published.
Erick H. Turner et al. – _Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy_ (2008): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6684864

----------


## Firestarter

The following excellent post was made on the relation between Aluminium (Al, that’s added to vaccines) and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) in another thread.




> 2008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18392545
>  34 studies were selected, among which 68% established a relation  between Al and AD, 23.5% were inconclusive and 8.5% did not establish a  relation between Al and AD.
> 
> 2011 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21157018
> The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon  very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate  steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the  single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD.
> 
> 2011 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/
> There is growing evidence for a link between Al and AD, and between other metals and AD.
> 
> ...

----------


## Firestarter

Del Bigtree has gotten hold on some information through a FOIA request on the 8 “studies” that were done to approve the MMR vaccine by the FDA in 1978...
The vaccine trials only ran for only 42 days, most of them had no placebo group for controls. For none of the studies, placebo results have been released. The value of these studies is that they did report on a variety of illnesses. Because information has been blatantly deleted, it’s obvious that there was/is a cover-up!
I’ll only look at the first 3 studies, if I understand correctly the other 5 only compared the new MMR vaccine to the old MMR vaccine, so these results don´t have much value anyway.

First study #442, 199 children on the new MMR, 73 children reported complaints (“only” 36,7%), including – 22 Gastrointestinal illness; 23 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 13.
Data has been released on the Rubella “control” of 197 children.
On the other MR “control” group, 150-200 children, information has blatantly been deleted.

Second study #443, 102 children on the new MMR, 78 children reported complaints (76.4%), including - 43 Gastrointestinal illness; 64 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 28.

Third study #459 only 41 children on the new MMR, 34 children reported complaints (82.9%), including - 24 Gastrointestinal illness; 28 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 20.
More than 90% of the data has been blatantly deleted from the report, there were supposed to be 550 children included in this study - MMR (1) 150; MMR (2) 150; Measles 50; Mumps 50; Rubella (1) 50; Rubella (2) 50; Placebo 50.
All of the other data on adverse effects (on more than 500 children) has intentionally been left out.

Here is a link to the full set of received information (28 MB): https://icandecide.org/government/FD...ction-FOIA.pdf

In the following relatively short video (9 minutes), Del Bigtree of High Wire that filed the FOIA request, tries to explain what he received.
He makes some strong arguments, but doesn’t even realise that they fooled him by giving him a censored set, probably to hide the ugly truth!

----------


## Stratovarious

Vaccine Science is just as trustworthy as Global Warming _Séance_.

----------


## donnay

> Vaccine Science is just as trustworthy as Global Warming _Séance_.


Yep and Big pHARMa owns the media / politicians, and most of the schools so they can get away with their distortions and lies.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Yep and Big pHARMa owns the media / politicians, and most of the schools so they can get away with their distortions and lies.


Yes, and I was alerted to the fact , a few years ago, that the bulk of advertising dollars are 
coming out of that very Big Pharma 'loop' , so the MSM is never going to come out and bight
that big fat hand (out).

----------


## donnay

> Yes, and I was alerted to the fact , a few years ago, that the bulk of advertising dollars are 
> coming out of that very Big Pharma 'loop' , so the MSM is never going to come out and bight
> that big fat hand (out).


That is correct--they all have blood on their hands.  Every once in a while we have some journalists like, Sharyl Attkisson, that does the research that exposes their lies.

----------


## donnay



----------


## Firestarter

I regularly read that big pharma claims that a vaccine is “effective” based on the antibodies in the blood of the test subjects that were poisoned with vaccines.
Of course this isn´t “evidence” at all that somebody is immune...

In 2010, former employees of Merck, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, filed a False Claims Act specifically calling out Merck’s vaccine deception since the late 1990's.
They argue that test results were screwed by adding animal antibodies to mumps vaccines during the trial and then finding those antibodies in the blood to claim that the human guinea pigs are immune.

Another trick used by Merck, under Protocol 007, was to test the vaccine against a less virulent strain virus than the "real-world" mumps viruses in the wild.

Merck did this to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate" for the mumps vaccine.

A virologist in Merck's vaccine division was threatend with jail if he reported the fraud to the FDA.

After the court document of Krahling and Wlochowski vs. Merck was unsealed, Alabama-based Chatom Primary Care filed a lawsuit against Merck for substantial monetary damages: 


> Merck designed a testing methodology that evaluated its vaccine against a less virulent strain of the mumps virus. After the results failed to yield Merck's desired efficacy, Merck abandoned the methodology and concealed the study's findings.
> 
> But no amount of extra time or dosages will be enough to eliminate the disease when the vaccine does not work as represented in the labeling. It will merely allow Merck to continue to misrepresent the vaccine’s efficacy and thereby maintain its exclusive hold on the relevant market with an inadequate vaccine.


 https://www.naturalnews.com/036328_M...laims_Act.html


This is the court document from the first lawsuit (by the former employees): https://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/...Claims-Act.pdf

This is the court document from the second lawsuit (by Chatom):
https://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/...erck-Mumps.pdf


Measles wasn’t very “dangerous” in the good old 1960s (before MMR vaccines); see some clips...
The Donna Reed show.
The Flintstones.
The Brady Bunch.

----------


## Firestarter

The following study investigated if vaccinations cause obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), anorexia nervosa (AN), anxiety disorder, chronic tic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder in children aged 6–15 years, between January 2002 and December 2007.

Receipt of any vaccine in the previous 6 months was highest for children with AN (21.4%), followed by OCD (15.9%) and tic disorder (15.8%), and was lowest for children with open wounds (10.3%).

Influenza vaccinations during the prior 3, 6, and 12 months were also associated with diagnoses of AN, OCD, and anxiety disorder.
A vaccination in the previous 3 months was associated with more new diagnoses of autism (hazard ratio (HR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.21–2.68).

Several other vaccines were also asociated with HRs greater than 1.40:
Hepatitis A vaccine with OCD and AN;
Hepatitis B vaccine with AN;
Meningitis vaccine with AN and chronic tic disorder.

They used for control conditions: Broken bones and Open wounds. I don´t think that these are proper controls. If for example vaccines would cause only a temporarily confusion, vaccines could be asociated with more broken bones and open wounds...

Children also had more broken bones after a vaccination in the preceding period, although the HRs were smaller.
There was no increase in open wounds following vaccinations.
Children with major depression and bipolar disorder were _less_ likely to have had a vaccination in the preceding period.

In Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, England, and France increased incidence of narcolepsy after vaccination with AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine was observed.
Studies also found a threefold increase in the incidence of narcolepsy following the vaccination after the 2009 H1N1 “pandemic” in China.

Douglas L. Leslie et al. – _Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case–Control Study_ (2017)
http://journal.frontiersin.org/artic...017.00003/full
(archived here: http://archive.is/n603x)


A study on mice found a correlation between rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and aluminum.

Baby mice were injected with either 550 μg of aluminum hydroxide gel or saline (for placebo) in the first 2 weeks after birth. The injection schedule was intended to mimic the 2010 US pediatric vaccination schedule.

The mice were subjected to behavioral tests at 8, 17 and 29 weeks after birth.
The aluminum injected mice showed:
Diminished social interest at week 8 (p=0.016) and 17 (p =0.012).
Abnormal social novelty at week 8 (p=0.002) and week 29 (p =0.042) compared to controls: https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...cial-behavior/

----------


## Firestarter

The following scientific looking paper is interesting, but I don’t agree with the conclusion that “_The results showed a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and IVR (influenza vaccination rate) of people ≥65 years-old_”.

In reality it shows that countries with a higher “influenza vaccination rate (IVR) (%) of people aged 65 and older” on average had more “COVID-19 deaths per million inhabitants (DPMI)”.
This is more of an association between the regimes and docility of its (elder) population than about the effects of the flu vaccines…


Christian Wehenkel – “_Positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide_” (1​ October 2020): https://peerj.com/articles/10112/
(https://archive.is/3EmE8)


The following scientific looking report on vaccinating US soldiers in 2017-2018 DOES show that the flu shot increases chances of a coronavirus infection: 


> Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with *coronavirus* and human metapneumovirus


 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31607599

----------


## Firestarter

The following study concludes that “_unvaccinated children in this practice are not, overall, less healthy than the vaccinated and that indeed the vaccinated children appear to be significantly less healthy than the unvaccinated_”.

There are other hypothetical (but unlikely) explanations, because maybe parents of unhealthy children would have them vaccinated more often or possibly parents that vaccinate their children go to the doctor for every little thing, while “normal” parents wouldn’t.
.



> The visual impact of the cumulative office visit plots is striking; more so than other plots, the time element (day of life) provides an index by which to compare the accumulation of human pain and suffering from potential vaccine side effects (Figure 5). These results are worth studying closely and noticing the variation among the cumulative office visits per condition and the stark differences between the rates of billed office visits in the most and unvaccinated patients born into the practice.
> 
> 
> Figure 5. Analysis 5. Cumulative office visits in the vaccinated (orange) vs. unvaccinated (blue) patients born into the practice: the clarity of the age-specific differences in the health fates of individuals who are vaccinated (2763) compared to the 561 unvaccinated in patients born into the practice over ten years is most strikingly clear in this comparison of the cumulative numbers of diagnoses in the two patient groups. The number of office visits for the unvaccinated is adjusted by a sample size multiplier factor (4.9) to the expected value as if the number of unvaccinated in the study was the same as the number of vaccinated.
> (...)
> 
> We have found higher rates of office visits and diagnoses of common chronic ailments in the most vaccinated children in the practice compared to children who are completely unvaccinated. The data clearly show different odds of developing many of these adverse health conditions. We have demonstrated in many ways that most of the statistical associations found tend to be robust to age in cohort (days of care), vaccination range, and family history. The first of these is the contrast in the increase in fever cf. “Well Child” visit (Figure 3). The second is robustness of the results to adjustment to days of care provided and of course robustness to the age-matched design as well.
> 
> Vaccination appears to have had the largest impact on anemia and respiratory virus infection on the number of office visits in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated groups. Due to a small number of cases and corresponding low power, neurodevelopmental conditions and seizures are not well studied using the data available. Autism, at a study-wide rate of 8 per 1000, is far lower than the national rate (18.5–21 per 1000). Speech, learning, and social delays were found to have different full-cohort practice-wide incidences of 0.023, 0.003. and 0.009, respectively. Future studies with less restrictive inclusion criteria that also avoid temporal confounding by matched DOC may help us better characterize these populations in the practice.
> ...


.
James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas – _Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination_ (2020): https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674/htm
(https://archive.is/xJ6Kz)

----------


## Firestarter

The following is from one of those notorious anti-vaxxers… Peter Doshi.
This article (in the “scientific” BMJ) is more about the marketing of flu vaccines than about science…
.



> In the US, the first recommendations for annual influenza vaccination were made in 1960 (table1).⇓ Through the 1990s, the key objective of this policy was to reduce excess mortality. Because most of influenza deaths occurred in the older population, vaccines were directed at this age group. But since 2000, the concept of who is “at risk” has rapidly expanded, incrementally encompassing greater swathes of the general population (box 1).
> (...)
> 
> And in its more technical guidance document, CDC musters the evidence to support its case. The agency points to two retrospective, observational studies. One, a 1995 peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded: “many studies confirm that influenza vaccine reduces the risks for pneumonia, hospitalization, and death in elderly persons during an influenza epidemic if the vaccine strain is identical or similar to the epidemic strain.”12 They calculated a reduction of “27% to 30% for preventing deaths from all causes”—that is, a 30% lower risk of dying from any cause, not just from influenza. CDC also cites a more recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, funded by the National Vaccine Program Office and the CDC, which found an even larger relative reduction in risk of death: 48%.13
> 
> If true, these statistics indicate that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. *Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.*
> (…)
> 
> If the observational studies cannot be trusted, *what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none. Theoretically, a randomized trial might shine some light—or even settle the matter. But there has only been one randomized trial of influenza vaccines in older people—conducted two decades ago—and it showed no mortality benefit* (the trial was not powered to detect decreases in mortality or any complications of influenza). This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes. Approval is instead tied to a demonstrated ability of the vaccine to induce antibody production, without any evidence that those antibodies translate into reductions in illness.
> ...


.
Peter Doshi – _Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease_ (2013): https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj....aT&keytype=ref
(https://archive.is/Tl1u5)

----------


## DamianTV

Ive rather liked Ben Swann since he gave fair and unbiased coverage to Ron Paul, and has even posted here...

----------

