There is No Such Thing as a Safe Vaccine and there Never Will Be

[donnay]

There is No Such Thing as a Safe Vaccine and there Never Will Be

Paul Fassa
Natural Society
December 22, 2013



Making vaccines safe by removing their toxins (greening), or telling people they have a right to look at vaccine ingredients before deciding whether to vaccinate or not may be the politically correct form of vaccination resistance. It does help avoid some of the wrath from vaccination high priests. However, the very nature of our immune systems and what vaccinations do to artificially stimulate immunity makes safe vaccinating an oxymoron.

http://naturalsociety.com/never-be-safe-vaccine-never-will/

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Here is criticism of Dr. Humphries below. It is from "RationalWiki." This group describes itself as one centered around science, skepticism, and critical thinking. Their critical thinking and science of Dr. Humphries is described in their "blog."

Quotes include:

"Humphries has been involved with the International Medical Council on Vaccination, a front group for vaccine hysteria,..."

"She has also attempted to combine anti-vax sentiment with poorly-thought-out religious gobbledygook (i.e., lies purportedly based on scripture) in an effort to convince somebody that the Bible and Koran are opposed to vaccination. Pull the other leg, please."

Click here for more hilarity regarding RationalWiki's "critical thinking" and "science" on Dr. Humphries: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:About

 

[donnay]

Here is criticism of Dr. Humphries below. It is from "RationalWiki." This group describes itself as one centered around science, skepticism, and critical thinking. Their critical thinking and science of Dr. Humphries is described in their "blog."

Quotes include:

"Humphries has been involved with the International Medical Council on Vaccination, a front group for vaccine hysteria,..."

"She has also attempted to combine anti-vax sentiment with poorly-thought-out religious gobbledygook (i.e., lies purportedly based on scripture) in an effort to convince somebody that the Bible and Koran are opposed to vaccination. Pull the other leg, please."

Click here for more hilarity regarding RationalWiki's "critical thinking" and "science" on Dr. Humphries: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:About

RationalWiki (an oxymoron) motto is: "Separating the sheep from the goats since 2007."

I wonder how much Big pHARMa donates to them?

This is what they had to say about Dr. PauL:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cranks

Here's more: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Donna Y,

No need to edit those fine, scholarly "wikipedia" articles. They are their own worst enemy. Ha ha!

 

[donnay]

 

[Zippyjuan]

You have received vaccines. Are you dead, maimed, or have autism? How were you harmed by "no safe vaccines"?

 

[donnay]

You have received vaccines. Are you dead, maimed, or have autism? How were you harmed by "no safe vaccines"?

I have had no more than 10 vaccines in my life. Children now get that in one day. Common sense isn't so common, I guess.

 

[Cleaner44]

I am no expert on this subject, but I am highly sceptical of the pharma story that all is well. I know that Angela loves to shred anyone that dares question the official government/pharmaceutical story as being a nut and I find that comes off much the same as people that defend the Fed and Keynesian economics.

I do have to wonder when I see things like this:

Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf
See page 11

It looks to me like a real document from the FDA, admitting that autism is a legit risk.

I find it strange that some people work so hard to convince others that there is no risk, when the fine print says there is.

 

[dannno]

Here is criticism of Dr. Humphries below. It is from "RationalWiki." This group describes itself as one centered around science, skepticism, and critical thinking. Their critical thinking and science of Dr. Humphries is described in their "blog."

Quotes include:

"Humphries has been involved with the International Medical Council on Vaccination, a front group for vaccine hysteria,..."

"She has also attempted to combine anti-vax sentiment with poorly-thought-out religious gobbledygook (i.e., lies purportedly based on scripture) in an effort to convince somebody that the Bible and Koran are opposed to vaccination. Pull the other leg, please."

Click here for more hilarity regarding RationalWiki's "critical thinking" and "science" on Dr. Humphries: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:About

Anybody who uses gobbledygook to describe somebody else's beliefs should be questioned.

 

[Acala]

I do have to wonder when I see things like this:


It looks to me like a real document from the FDA, admitting that autism is a legit risk.

I find it strange that some people work so hard to convince others that there is no risk, when the fine print says there is.

Read it carefully. It says: "Adverse events reported during post-approval use . . ." It does NOT say those are known side effects. In fact, it goes on to say: ". . . it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine." In other words, it could be total coincidence. It is absolutely NOT saying that the vaccine causes autism.

 

[donnay]

FOIA Exposes CDC Lied Claiming Mercury in Vaccines is Safe
ttp://www.autismone.org/sites/default/files/hooker.pdf

 

[angelatc]

I am no expert on this subject, but I am highly sceptical of the pharma story that all is well. I know that Angela loves to shred anyone that dares question the official government/pharmaceutical story as being a nut and I find that comes off much the same as people that defend the Fed and Keynesian economics. .

Being a skeptic is fine. But refusing to believe that vaccines work no matter how much evidence has been presented is not being a skeptic.

 

[angelatc]

Anybody who uses gobbledygook to describe somebody else's beliefs should be questioned.

Gobbledygook is a real word. It means "[FONT=arial, sans-serif]made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]You're welcome.[/FONT]

 

[angelatc]

I am no expert on this subject, but I am highly sceptical of the pharma story that all is well. I know that Angela loves to shred anyone that dares question the official government/pharmaceutical story as being a nut and I find that comes off much the same as people that defend the Fed and Keynesian economics.

I do have to wonder when I see things like this:


It looks to me like a real document from the FDA, admitting that autism is a legit risk.

I find it strange that some people work so hard to convince others that there is no risk, when the fine print says there is.

I think it's frustrating that some people work so hard to convince themselves that people claim there's no risk to vaccines, which is a lie. The truth is that the risk of getting a side effect from a vaccine is infinitesimal, while the risks of the disease itself are far more common, and can be far worse.

ANd besides, that's not even what it says. It says those symptoms were reported, but the VAERS system takes reports from anybody. It is a system designed to provide a channel to report anecdotal evidence, which then allows the scientists to try to duplicate the results. In any given population there is a percentage of children who will develop autism. And in that population, there will be a percentage of parents who believe that the vaccine caused it, and will report it as such.

But that's just the starting point. If enough people report such a symptom, then the resarchers will investigate the possibility of a link. A double-blind study, where half get a placebo and half get the vaccine is pretty much the gold standard. If that indicated that more kids in the vaccinated population got autism than kids kids in the placebo-ed population, then there would be a link to autism.

When the study doesn't show that, the anti-vaxxers just insist that it's all a big lie. And that millions of lives aren't saved through vaccines, and that the entire medical profession is part of a plot to kill us all.

 

[Cleaner44]

Being a skeptic is fine. But refusing to believe that vaccines work no matter how much evidence has been presented is not being a skeptic.

I have no doubt that some vaccines do work. I also have no doubt that there is fraud in the pharmaceutical industry. I also suspect that the problems and solutions are exaggerated, much like they are in the military industrial complex. Do we need good defense weapons? Yes. Is the the danger to our safety exaggerated so the MIC can sell more drones? Hell yes. Can vaccines prevent illness? I sure that it can. Do we need a swine flu shot every week like the CDC wants us to believe? I doubt it.

There is no doubt in my mind that vaccine producers want to sell as much product as possible even if the benefits are negligible. Do they also cover-up risks, shave statistics and misrepresent the pros and cons? Doubtless they do.

I think the real question is, how do we tell the difference between relatively safe and effective vaccines and those that pose a serious risk or have questionable benefits?

Saying that no vaccines work is probably as foolish as saying all vaccines are safe and effective.

 

[Cleaner44]

I think it's frustrating that some people work so hard to convince themselves that people claim there's no risk to vaccines, which is a lie. The truth is that the risk of getting a side effect from a vaccine is infinitesimal, while the risks of the disease itself are far more common, and can be far worse.

ANd besides, that's not even what it says. It says those symptoms were reported, but the VAERS system takes reports from anybody. It is a system designed to provide a channel to report anecdotal evidence, which then allows the scientists to try to duplicate the results. In any given population there is a percentage of children who will develop autism. And in that population, there will be a percentage of parents who believe that the vaccine caused it, and will report it as such.

But that's just the starting point. If enough people report such a symptom, then the resarchers will investigate the possibility of a link. A double-blind study, where half get a placebo and half get the vaccine is pretty much the gold standard. If that indicated that more kids in the vaccinated population got autism than kids kids in the placebo-ed population, then there would be a link to autism.

When the study doesn't show that, the anti-vaxxers just insist that it's all a big lie. And that millions of lives aren't saved through vaccines, and that the entire medical profession is part of a plot to kill us all.

I don't disagree with much here, but I also think we shouldn't dismiss that there is fraud going on, especially when millions or billions of dollars are at stake.

Are all stocks a rip off? No

Is there a ton of fraud on Wall St? Yes.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I am no expert on this subject, but I am highly sceptical of the pharma story that all is well. I know that Angela loves to shred anyone that dares question the official government/pharmaceutical story as being a nut and I find that comes off much the same as people that defend the Fed and Keynesian economics.

I do have to wonder when I see things like this:


It looks to me like a real document from the FDA, admitting that autism is a legit risk.

I find it strange that some people work so hard to convince others that there is no risk, when the fine print says there is.

From that brief bit:

Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.

These effects were voluntarily reported as side effects but have not been confirmed as actualy having been casued by the vaccine. Anybody can report a claimed side effect- they don't have to be doctors either.

http://vaers.hhs.gov/about/faqs

Who reports to VAERS?

Anyone can file a VAERS report, including health care providers, manufacturers, and vaccine recipients. The majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (37%) and health care providers (36%). The remaining reports are obtained from state immunization programs (10%), vaccine recipients (or their parent/guardians, 7%) and other sources (10%). Vaccine recipients or their parents or guardians are encouraged to seek the help of their health care professional in filling out the VAERS form. Each report provides valuable information that is added to the VAERS database. Accurate and complete reporting of post-vaccination events supplies the information needed for evaluation of vaccine safety. The CDC and FDA use VAERS information to ensure the safest strategies of vaccine use and to further reduce the rare risks associated with vaccines.

What can be reported to VAERS?

VAERS seeks reports of any clinically significant medical event that occurs after vaccination, even if the reporter cannot be certain that the event was caused by the vaccine. CDC/ISO and FDA review adverse reports; VAERS has identified important signals that after further research resulted in changes to vaccine recommendations. VAERS encourages the reporting of any clinically significant adverse event that occurs after the administration of any vaccine licensed in the United States. You should report adverse events even if you are unsure whether a vaccine caused the event.

 

[angelatc]

I don't disagree with much here, but I also think we shouldn't dismiss that there is fraud going on, especially when millions or billions of dollars are at stake.

Of course not, but there is absolutely no evidence that vaccines are not overwhelmingly safe, even if we use the inflated numbers of people who claim they were hurt by vaccines. Compared to the number of people who used to get sick and die from diseases we do not even see any more, there's just no sane argument to be had. There simply is no debate - vaccines work, vaccines are safe and vaccines are effective. Anybody who tells you otherwise is just an attention seeking idiot.

That's just another way the anti-vax logic works. Because one-out of-a-billion shipments of vaccines went out contaminated does not mean all vaccines are contaminated. Just because Celebrex was no better than a placebo does not mean all medicines are no better than placebos. And even if every single medical professional was getting a million dollars a year in bribe money to administer vaccines (which they aren't), it would not change the fact that the vaccines are effective.

There is no evidence that vaccines are not amazingly effective. There is 100+ years of evidence that vaccines save millions of lives, most of them belonging to children.

There isn't even that much money in the standard childhood vaccines. That's just yet another big fat lie the anti-vaxxers put out to muddy the issue.

 

[angelatc]

I

Saying that no vaccines work is probably as foolish as saying all vaccines are safe and effective.

Nobody is here making the case for the TB vaccine. DonnaY is hellbent on trying brainwash people into believing that the standard childhood vaccines will kill children, but the diseases they prevent will not.

It's just a huge lie, being fed to the most gullible people imaginable in order to make money selling books and vitamin supplements.

 

[donnay]

Nobody is here making the case for the TB vaccine. DonnaY is hellbent on trying brainwash people into believing that the standard childhood vaccines will kill children, but the diseases they prevent will not.

It's just a huge lie, being fed to the most gullible people imaginable in order to make money selling books and vitamin supplements.

How ironic...the medical monopoly has done a great job with brainwashing you. The gullible people watch their commercials, read their ads and believe their BS and buy their products.