Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
MMR Vaccinations
-
18-02-2011 12:27am#1
Comments
-
The autism thing,the figures speak for themselves.there are tragic cases but on the whole vaccinations are a good idea
now your gonna come back and show me examples of these cases and show how its ruined lives but you wont comment on how many lives its potentially saved.
Small snipet from an article about it
Maybe the "I told you so" comment was a bit off the mark but then again it seems alot of the CTers refuse to believe rational explainations for events its seems like there really just want to be right above all costs despite having very little hard evidence
Show me the death rate increase from mumps,measles or rubella since the decline in vaccinations....
0 -
-
Show me the death rate increase from mumps,measles or rubella since the decline in vaccinations....
A drop off in the up-take of vaccinations wouldn't necessarily correspond with an increase in MMR cases.
When you get enough of the population vaccinated you get a sort of herd immunity whereby when the vasy majority are immune it means the virus can't spread from one person to another, and thus you prevent outbreaks.
So a small number of people not taking the vaccine won't have a huge statistical impact on the population. However, if a large enough amount of people stopped getting vaccines, you would lose the herd immunity and thats when you'd see the big increase in cases.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Mahatma coat wrote: »What's most interestin about the Chart is that the Mortality rate had dropped to almost Zero BEFORE the vaccination.
It's not really that surprising really. Public sanitation and better diets helped more people recover from these diseases and not die. As better hygiene practices were put in place in hospitals, along with better treatments, the risk of death from infectious diseases generally dropped. This can be seen in many types of infectious diseses. Polio and smallpox are examples of diseases where vaccine had a major impact on death rates.
If you look at the levels of infection rather than death rates you get a better overall picture.
http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7574/890.full
So death is not necessarily the end result of measles, it can cause many other problems such as immune suppression, Neurological complications and blindness.0 -
On a chart that stops in 1977, long before said decline started?
That would be, I admit, quite a feat.
No not from a chart that shows mortality rates from measles from 1838-1977, sorry I'll explain a little clearer for you.
This chart I posted shows mortality rates in "england and wales" from 1838 until 1977, If you noticed a little arrow pointinting to 1968 (when the vaccine was introduced in said locations), there was already a steep decline in mortality from measles, if "no vaccine" had been introduced where would you project the chart to go?, back up to 1800 rates?
Also I said "Show me the death rate increase from mumps,measles or rubella since the decline in vaccinations"
So I dont know how you came to the conclusion I was looking for these figures from my chart which ONLY shows measles and the introduction of the "vaccine" close to the rear end of the chart.
BTW the MMR vaccine was introduced in 1985 if I remember correctly and the decline in uptake was in the 1990's, so you and your thankers maybe should re-read and try understand my post and point, point being that "one" of the mentioned illnesses was well on it's way to decline before any magic vaccination program came about.
I was asking for a different chart showing since the decline of uptake in the 90's, it's now 2011 so there should be evidence that because of the decrease in toxins being injected into children, that they are now much sicker and larger numbers of unvaccinated children are dying because of their parents negligence in not having known toxins injected into their children.
So not that much of a mean feat if these miricle vaccines actually prevent illness.
A few weeks ago 10 people or so died from h1n1 in GB, more than half had been vaccinated.
Ohh and if anybody out there can show me one vaccine that will definately make anybody "immune" from whatever the vaccine should keep them immune from I'd like to see it. 0 -
-
More than a few logical fallacies in your post Uprising.
Mortality rate is not the same as infection rate. Maybe you should look up a chart showing the amount of cases of measles rather than the deaths caused by them.
Here's an example:
From here:
http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/09/02/measles-deaths-pre-vaccine/
http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
This idea you have that because vaccines don't work 100% of the time they are therefore useless, is silly.
By the same logic seatbelts are just a useless because you can still die in a car crash even though you're wearing one.
The reality of the situation is that overall seatbelts increase the likelihood that you will survive a crash. Just as vaccines increase the likelihood that you won't get the disease. Furthermore to strain the analogy, remember those road safety ads that show the guy without the seatbelt flying around the car during the crash killing the other passengers. Same thing applies with vaccines, when the population takes them the disease has a much harder time getting around and spreading, thus protecting people who would be more susceptible to it and in greater danger, whooping cough and babies for instance.
Also the idea of "known toxins" is silly at best, misleading at worst. Everything is toxic at the right level.
The word "toxin" in the context you are using it is a madey-uppy word to sell snake oil products and services that purport to get rid of them.0 -
More than a few logical fallacies in your post Uprising.
Mortality rate is not the same as infection rate. Maybe you should look up a chart showing the amount of cases of measles rather than the deaths caused by them.
Here's an example: From here:
http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/09/02/measles-deaths-pre-vaccine/
http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
This idea you have that because vaccines don't work 100% of the time they are therefore useless, is silly.
By the same logic seatbelts are just a useless because you can still die in a car crash even though you're wearing one.
The reality of the situation is that overall seatbelts increase the likelihood that you will survive a crash. Just as vaccines increase the likelihood that you won't get the disease. Furthermore to strain the analogy, remember those road safety ads that show the guy without the seatbelt flying around the car during the crash killing the other passengers. Same thing applies with vaccines, when the population takes them the disease has a much harder time getting around and spreading, thus protecting people who would be more susceptible to it and in greater danger, whooping cough and babies for instance.
Also the idea of "known toxins" is silly at best, misleading at worst. Everything is toxic at the right level.
The word "toxin" in the context you are using it is a madey-uppy word to sell snake oil products and services that purport to get rid of them.
As with yekahs, I'll get back to this aswell when I can be bothered to put the required effort in.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I'll just post some articles I came across.
Do vaccines really work?
Is it true that these days, most people who come down with a disease for which there's a vaccine (such as measles) have been vaccinated against it?
Expert Answers
Paul Offit, infectious disease expert (has vested interests in vaccine promotion see comments below)
It is true, but that doesn't mean vaccines don't work. It just means they're not perfect. In the rare case of an outbreak, a certain number of vaccinated people will get sick. And because there are so many more vaccinated than unvaccinated people in this country, the immunized people who get sick are likely to outnumber the ones who aren't immunized.
To see how this works, imagine that measles strikes a school of 1,000 students. Of the 995 who have been vaccinated, ten become infected, while all five of the unvaccinated children in the school get sick. So although more vaccinated students got measles, the chances of coming down with the disease were much lower for people who got the vaccine (about 1 percent) than for people who didn't (100 percent).
No vaccine guarantees immunity to everyone who's vaccinated. For reasons we don't understand, some people who are vaccinated don't become immune and remain susceptible to the disease. And some people lose their immunity over time if they don't receive the recommended booster shots. But vaccination still offers the best chance of protection from infectious disease.
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in July 1999 found that during a measles outbreak, unvaccinated people were 35 times more likely to get measles than vaccinated people. Several studies have since confirmed these findings.
Member Comments
Baby Center??? I really have to question your sources. If you have done your research you would know Paul Offit your "Vaccine EXPERT" is a very controversial guy. Holding patents to such vaccines as the rotovirus and co-inventor of the vaccine he has some very questionable alliances with the CDC and the drug companies. This is not the only vaccine he has a vested interest in. With such a conflict of interest I would hardly call him the vaccine expert. He may be an expert at getting new vaccines on the CDC schedule but far from and expert on protecting our children. There are many "experts"out there with nothing to gain but to protect us. These people are not funded by the drug companies. If you want to truly give your readers something to think about rather than follow the herd mentality. Post some information from someone without a sponsor. Check out some of the vaccine articles in Mothering Magazine. They have at least given fair accounts of both sides of this issue. For those of you interested you can go to Mothering Magazine online and purchase back articles. They are very informative. I have been an avid reader of your posts since the conception of my son and he is now 2 years old. Although I appreciate your opinions and always use them as a great resource for raising our son you are way off base with this topic. I question who your sponsors are. Come on Get it together. Don't act like you are presenting two sides of the issue when you are clearly NOT. Parents whatever you choose as the right thing for your family just be sure you have educated yourself from more than one source. The decision is up to you. Not your Dr. or anyone else.
posted 10/22/2010 by lburnside007
Was this answer helpful?
13 out of 13 found this answer helpful
Thank you!
The true test of Vaccine safety is to do a study looking at vaccinated children vs. unvaccinated children. This study has never been done - but is finally being considered. One or two shots may be safe for a baby, but why hasn't anyone tested the cumulative impact of 20+ immunizations given before a baby turns one?
posted 2/26/2010 by sophiegirl07
Was this answer helpful?
10 out of 11 found this answer helpful
Thank you!
In a recent outbreak of Mumps in the NY and NJ area, 77 % of those who came down with the mumps were vaccinated, according to the CDC. In addition, no one has died from the outbreak. I would rather come down with mumps instead of having myself or children injected with known toxins or in the case of the MMR, using a vaccine that was created out of cells taken from an aborted baby.
posted 2/26/2010 by Anonymous
Was this answer helpful?
14 out of 22 found this answer helpful
Thank you!
Well. How should the Baby Center audience feel about your vaccination "information," and recommendations when your ADVERTISERS and SPONSORS are PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES? I have been a loyal Baby Center fan since becoming pregnant with our first child 26 months ago...not so sure I will continue to be one.
posted 10/22/2010 by yml22
Was this answer helpful?
6 out of 7 found this answer helpful
Thank you!
"What we forget is that millions of years of evolution have taken place on this planet, and up until the last 100 years, humans have lived in relative harmony with microbes. Yes, there have been epidemic infectious diseases in history, but they have always resolved themselves. I don’t think there is any real appreciation for what we may be doing by using so many vaccines to try to eradicate so many organisms. If we stay the present course, will mankind be free from infectious disease but crippled by chronic disease? Will eradication of feared diseases, such as AIDS, through mass vaccination be one of man’s greatest triumphs or will we live in fear of deadly mutations of microbes that have outsmarted man’s attempt to eradicate them? We may look back at the crossroads we are at today and wish we had decided to make peace with nature instead of trying to dominate it." --Richard Moscowitz, MD
posted 2/26/2010 by Anonymous
Was this answer helpful?
11 out of 17 found this answer helpful
Thank you!
sophiegirl07 that's exactly right, NO ONE has studied the effects of the combined vaccines. They only study vaccine effect on individual vaccines which is not how they are given and also, the only look at the damaging effects for the month or so after, not two years down the track after many, multiple vaccines are given. I'm in NZ and intersting thing is my doctor hasn't immunized his children!
posted 2/28/2010 by Anonymous
http://www.babycenter.com/404_do-vaccines-really-work_11444.bc
Unvaccinated children healthier
The real reason behind the drive for high vaccination levels is to make sure there are no groups of healthy unvaccinated kids around to show up vaccination. Dan Olmsted exposed that with the Amish, also Mayer Eisenstein of Homefirst Medical Services.
"The reason vaccinations are promoted with such intensity is to prevent people from realising that vaccines do not protect and also in the event of an outbreak or an epidemic the vaccinated are as much at risk of becoming infected as the unvaccinated. The truth can be kept hidden if people's vaccination status remains unknown and if everyone is vaccinated, making a comparison with unvaccinated people impossible. This is also the real reason for the relentless push to vaccinate as many children as possible."-- Dr Buchwald (The Decline of Tuberculosis despite "Protective" Vaccination by Dr. Gerhard Buchwald M.D. p101)
The Marvellous Health of Unvaccinated Children
Françoise Berthoud, MD [medical doctor, paediatrician]
June 25, 2010
http://www.imcv.info/vaccination/articles/the-marvellous-health-of-unvaccinated-children.html
Once upon a time, in April 2009 to be exact, I was invited to give a speech at a conference on vaccination. I was to talk after two of the best speakers France has to offer on the subject had their turn, journalist Sylvie Simon and biologist Michel Georget. At hearing them speak in the past, it was absolutely clear to me that the best option is to stay as far away from vaccines as possible. I just did not know what to do instead to best assure staying alive and well. As a paediatrician and homeopath qualified to speak on the subject, I decided to setup a conference called The Marvellous Health of Unvaccinated Children along with my friends, Sylvie and Michel. This work would later evolve into a book that analyses various life choices often made by families that do not vaccinate, including home birth, breastfeeding, simple therapies, good food (often vegetarian), a tranquil living environment and trust in the capacity of the body to heal itself.
In my life as a paediatrician, I had spent lots of time in dialogue with the parents who often needed to voice their fears about both disease and vaccines. We worked out together the best route for their children. Some chose not to vaccinate at all. Others held onto fear of disease, especially tetanus. In those cases, we postponed vaccination as much as possible and used a homeopathic protection and "cleansing" called nosode.
I worked in Switzerland where there is no real legal obligation to vaccinate, only great social pressure. In France, just a few kilometres from my office, there were four compulsory vaccinations at the time (BCG was fortunately removed in 2007, and three remain: Di Te Pol).
Some of the basis of my ability to speak on the marvellous health of unvaccinated children comes from my personal experience as a medical doctor, having collected years of feedback.
“My child began coughing immediately after the vaccination.”That was not enough upon which to write a book; however. As it would turn out, I found these observations were paralleled over and over again all over the world. Follow me around the planet.
“He has had constant ear aches since he was vaccinated.”
“My 16 years old daughter is completely unvaccinated. She is almost never sick. If she does get sick, it’s two days at the most.”
“The neighbour's kids followed normal vaccination guidelines. They are constantly sick and on antibiotics.”
EUROPE
In England, Michel Odent, MD showed in two studies that children having received no Pertussis vaccine had 5-6 times less asthma than those who were vaccinated for it. The first study was on 450 babies from La Leche League; the second one on 125 children in a Steiner school. (1)
Throughout Europe, a group of mostly paediatricians studied 14,893 children in Steiner schools in Austria, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Switzerland and found that children living in "anthroposophist culture" (where vaccination is largely shunned) were in better health than the controls. (2)
In Germany, one of the European Steiner schools study researchers wrote, “In the eastern part of Berlin before the fall of the wall, we saw less allergies than in the west. This population was poorer, nearer nature and less vaccinated.” Too much hygiene is not always good. As UK researcher and originator of the “hygiene hypothesis” David Strachan might say, "give us this day our daily germs".
In Spain, Xavier Uriarte, MD and J. Manuel Marín, MD published a study in 1999 on 314 children they followed between 1975 to 2000. (3) This group of children is characterized by a majority of homebirth or natural births, prolonged breastfeeding, no vaccinations, holistic health education and no allopathic medicine. There were no serious diseases, few hospitalisations (mostly for traumas), and 3.3% asthma compared to the 20% in the general population. And of course, a lot of money was spared!
USA
The rate of autism in the U.S. is now an unthinkable 1 in 100. Those who are unvaccinated boast numbers that run in shocking contrast to the nation’s statistics. As this article is directed to the American people, I will not go on at length here. Most of you know the work of your very own journalist Dan Olmsted showing the incredible absence of autism in the unvaccinated Amish communities of Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Further impressive is Chicago-based Homefirst Medical Clinic run by a group of doctors including medical director Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH. They have no known autism and super-scarce allergies in their children, many of whom were home deliveries, and most of whom have had no vaccinations. In 1985, I translated to French U.S. paediatrician Robert Mendelsohn, MD's How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor. Now I find concrete result in the marvellous health of kids whose doctors are his pupils! I like these synchronicities in my life.
AUSTRALIA
In 1942, Leslie Owen Bailey, founder of the Natural Health Society of Australia, accepted guardianship of 85 children whose mothers were unable to care for them. Among these 85 children, no vaccinations were ever given, no drugs were ever taken or used, and no operations were ever performed. The only malady that occurred was when 34 of the children developed chicken pox. They were immediately put to bed and given only pure water or fresh fruit juice. They all recovered quickly without after-effects. Investigations revealed that these children whilst at school had been swapping their healthy lunches for unhealthy conventional foods, so this outbreak was not altogether surprising.
Many of these children inherited poor health due to a history of illness and malnourishment in their mothers. Despite this, and the fact that they were never breastfed nor could enjoy the normal bonding of mother to child, they were able to grow into sturdy, self-reliant children.
NEW ZEALAND
Two studies done in New Zealand in 1992 and 1995 show that the unvaccinated children clearly have less allergies, less otitis (ear aches), less tonsillitis, less running noses, less epilepsies and less ADHD. (4)
JAPAN
An interesting period in Japan was 1975-1980, when a decision was made to begin the first vaccinations at two years of age instead of at two months. The reason was that more and more was discovered linking vaccines and cot-death (SIDS). A study was published in Pediatrics showing that from 1970 to January 1975, there were 57 cases of serious vaccine reactions, including 37 deaths. From February 1975 to August 1981 there were eight cases of serious vaccine reactions, including three deaths. Unfortunately for kids and their parents, the Japanese vaccination plan is now "normalized" again. The study shows well that the immune system is stronger at two years than at two months. How well would these kids have done had they not been vaccinated at all?
We find the same observation in a Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology study. Of 11,531 children studied at age seven, here are the results: vaccinated at two months, 13.8% are asthmatic, vaccinated between two and four months, 10.3%, vaccinated after four months, 5.9 %. Again, how well would these kids have done had they not been vaccinated at all?
THE LESSON LEARNED ON VACCINATION
As a concerned, compassionate and considerate paediatrician, I can only arrive at one conclusion. Unvaccinated children have by far the best chance of enjoying marvellous health. Any vaccination at all works to cripple the chances of this end.
www.imcv.info
Sources
1) www.birthworks.org/primalhealth
2) Allergic diseases and atopic sensitization in children related to farming and anthroposophic lifestyle - Persifal study. Allergy 2006, 61 (4) : 414-421.
3) www.vacunacionlibre.org
4) http://www.ias.org.nz
Vaccinated vs unvaccinated
In an introductory note, the editor talks about the
derth of real studies as to "Who is healthier...?" and
explains why both the medical establishment and the
pharma-industry have been dragging their feet re
conducting such studies.
Salzburger Elternstudie (Survey of / by parents) (2001-2005) Results:
Unvaccinated children -- virtually no asthma; vaccinated 1 in 10; and three to five times less Neurodermatis....http://www.impf-portal.de/aktuell/fragebo/fraboaus10.doc
Englische Kohortenstudie (1988 - 1999) Results: Vaccinated children are up to 14 times more likely to have asthma than the unvaccinated and up to nine times more like to have skin problems. http://www.impf-report.de/jahrgang/2005/02.htm#06
Langzeitstudie in Guinea-Bissau
Results
The death rate for unvaccinated children is about half that of the vaccinated. [Ungeimpfte Kinder haben im Vergleich mit geimpften Kindern ein um die Hälfte geringeres Sterberisiko] http://www.ratio2000.de/gesundheit/news/news0104.htm
Schwedische Studie an Waldorfschulen
Results
Unvaccinated kids have a lower risk of allergies...[Ungeimpfte Kinder haben im Vergleich zu geimpften Kindern ein geringeres Allergierisiko]. http://www.waldorflibrary.org/journal_articles/rb5103.pdf
WHO-Feldversuch (field trials) in Indien (1968 - 1971)
Results
Unvaccinated kids are much less likely to get sick. On the basis of this study, stopped recommending the tuberculosis vaccination
Neuseeländische Umfrage (survey) (1992)
Unvaccinated kids are five times less likely to have asthma than the vaccinated, 2.5 times less likely to have skin problems and 8 times less likely to be hyperactive. http://www.ias.org.nz/prelim_survey_results.htm
All this in the April issue of the "All-about-Vaccination Newsletter by Parents for Parents." The March issue http://www.impf-report.de/erschienen.php contains the detailed vaccination report.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/vax9991.html
US Health Officials Back Study Idea on Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children - Will Media Take Note?
It is not accurate for members of the media to report that the link between vaccines and autism has been "disproven." This is especially true in light of recent news from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee - and a series of other news items from the Federal Court of Claims, Federal health agencies, leading universities and top autism researchers around the country.
Meanwhile, there have been many news stories related to this issue coming out of the Federal Court of Claims, Federal agencies, and leading research centers. Many of these stories have not been reported in the media. They include:
FEDERAL COURT CASES:
Bailey Banks vs HHS - February 2009 - Special Master Abell found that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine caused brain damage in this child, which led to his diagnosis of Pervasive Development Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) an autism spectrum disorder. Bailey will likely receive over $3 million in compensation to cover a lifetime of autism care and treatment.
Hannah Poling vs HHS - February 2008 - Medical personnel at the Health Resources and Services Administration conceded that this girl's autism (and epilepsy) was caused by "vaccine induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves." Hannah had a mild case of mitochondrial dysfunction, and received nine vaccines in one day at age 19 months. She now has full blown autism and a very serious seizure disorder.
FEDERAL AGENCIES:
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) & US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - January 2009 - These two agencies have just launched the National Children's Study (NCS), which is now recruiting 100,000 children, among which researchers expect to find 600 to 700 with an ASD by age three. Federal officials will compare these ASD children to controls, to see what impact that vaccines (combined with genetic factors) had on the development of their illness.
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) & National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) - January 2009 - These two Federal health groups announced their desire to collaborate on research designs and methods for investigating the potential links between vaccines and autism, including the feasibility of doing a large study of vaccinated vs. vaccinated children. The move by these officials grew out the process set forth by the Combating Autism Act of 2006, whose authors, Senators Kennedy, Dodd and Enzi stated that vaccines should be included in research of the causes of autism.
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/us-health-officials-back_b_170794.html
Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated populations
A quick comparison of the health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children may pique your further interest on the topic of vaccination. We'll use autism rates as our measure.
Vaccinated:
The general population of children in the U.S.
1 in 100 diagnosed with autism. (reference)
Unvaccinated:
Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
1 in 4,875 diagnosed with autism. [Note: of the four in 19,500 children who have autism, one had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three, including one child adopted from outside the Amish community, had received their vaccines.] (reference)
Amish of northeastern Ohio
1 in 10,000 diagnosed with autism. (reference)
Homefirst Health Services, northern Illinois
0 in 35,000 diagnosed with autism. [Note: It’s not just lack of autism that stand out in this sample of 35,000 children (90% have had zero vaccines). Asthma rates are so low, insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield's systems flagged the "issue". BCBS actually contacted Homefirst inquiring on how this could be! Their patients are so healthy, a lawmaker proposed a law requiring that a study be done to determine why these unvaccinated patients are so much healthier than their vaccinated counterparts.] (reference)
Cal-Oregon Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Survey:
Vaccinated boys have a 155% greater chance of having a neurological disorder like ADHD or autism than unvaccinated boys [survey of over 9,000 boys in California and Oregon] (reference)
Forward! Wisconsin:
Fourteen "studies" have determined that a link between vaccination and autism cannot be established. Look at who conducted those studies.. Separately, do you know that vaccine efficacy (that they work) has NEVER been proven? The reason given for why double blind placebo studies can’t be done to prove vaccines work is that we cannot ethically leave some people unprotected to do a study. That argument makes little sense. We have large populations refusing all vaccines, and they would be happy to be used as control groups. Other research that has never been done despite the constant urging of those who question the efficacy and safety of vaccines is a full blown study into the health of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated... the results would be devastating to the goals of the pharma powers that be. Please don’t assume your doctor knows and understands vaccines. Make yourself the expert.
http://outrunning-autism.blogspot.com/2010/03/vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated.htmlScience journal admits that vaccinating adults against whooping cough may be a total waste of money
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031265_whooping_cough_vaccines.html#ixzz1ENUevk4N
Ok now this is where it gets outlandish to me, I've read it repeatedly, about concerned parents being afraid to let their "vaccinated" children near "unvaccinated" children for fear that the "vaccinated" children will get the diseases that they're "vaccinated AGAINST", WTF?.
Some doctors, patients fight against anti-vaccine movement
At Kids Plus Pediatrics in Greenfield, Todd Wolynn and his fellow doctors have a policy that parents must comply with all childhood vaccinations, although they give them a slight amount of leeway on timing.
He said the group decided about three years ago to adopt a standard policy on vaccinations, partly so that parents couldn't "go shopping" for the physician who would be the most lenient.
While there are some pediatricians who have adopted a "my way or the highway" stance on giving vaccinations on the official federal schedule, Kids Plus will allow parents to space out vaccinations between each standard visit, but by each deadline -- at two months, four months and so on -- they have to be caught up on their immunizations.
As part of the education process, Kids Plus doctors and nurses explain that even though the recommended schedule calls for up to 10 different vaccines in the first 18 months of life, improvements in the way vaccines are made have reduced the total number of immune-activating substances in those shots to about 4 percent of the amount that children got in 1960 from just five vaccines.
Since the Kids Plus policy went into effect, the group has lost fewer than 1 percent of its families, Dr. Wolynn said. And now, the staff can assure their remaining parents that their children won't get a disease from an unvaccinated child in their waiting rooms.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11023/1120082-114.stm#ixzz1ENX4puBr
So the medical establishment, whose main source of income and reason to actually exist is because of ill/sick people, healthy people would see stocks and shares fall and hit the ground hard, imagine that!!, things are bad enough in the financial illusion without more jobs being lost because nobody needs their ever expanding range of products.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s49xpHl3hWI
Here it is from the horses mouth, "only 1% of serious adverse effects the "official" links have vanished and should be here:
I managed to get a cached text only version, keep in mind this is from a .gov site, some idiot put it up there on the .gov site before the higher up's copped it, luckily google has a habit of caching sites that disappear.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z-Tv3IwIg5IJ:www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm106925.htm+Dr.+David+Kessler,+former+head+of+the+U.S.+FDA,+...+only+about+one+percent+of+serious+adverse+drug&hl=en&gl=ie&strip=1
David Kessler, M.D. - Medwatch Health Professionals Meeting
Remarks by
David Kessler, M.D.
Medwatch Health Professionals Meeting
May 4, 1993
Good afternoon. I'm David Kessler, Commissioner of Food and
Drugs. Let me also introduce my colleague's: Carol Scheman, Deputy
Commissioner for External Affairs and Dr.Stuart Nightingale, Associate
Commissioner for Health Affairs, who has arranged this meeting.
I'm pleased that all of you could be here today at this important
meeting. I want to talk with you about a problem that together I believe
we can begin to solve. I'm talking, of course, about postmarket
surveillance.
Postmarket surveillance is critical to our job of ensuring the safety
of drugs, devices and other FDA-regulated products. There is simply no
way that we can anticipate all possible effects of a drug or device during
the clinical trials that precede approval. A new drug application, for
example, typically includes safety data on several hundred to several
thousand patients. If an adverse event occurs in one in 5,000 or even one
in 1,000 users, it could be missed in clinical trials. But, it could pose a
serious safety problem when the drug is used by many times that number
of patients.
past February, FDA received a report from a medical center concerning a
possible link between hyperkalemia observed in two patients in the
intensive care unit and two enteral feeding products. FDA followup
revealed that some product lines of the manufacturer contained potassium
levels of 150 to 250 percent of the declared amount.
Yet even though reports from health professionals are critical to
protecting the public health, the unfortunate fact is that most practitioners
do not think to report adverse events or product problems that might be
associated with medications, devices or other products regulated by the
FDA. One survey found that barely half of physicians were even aware
that FDA had a reporting program. And according to one study, only
1 percent of serious events are reported to the Agency. Meanwhile, up to 11
percent of hospital admissions may be due to drug reactions, one review
article concluded.
Make it clear what types of reports the Agency wants -- and does not want -- to receive.
In fact, let me take a minute to talk about that right now.
First, FDA does not want reports on every adverse event. This is not
practical for the health professional, nor is it useful to FDA. We want
those reports in which a health professional suspects that an FDA-
regulated product was associated with a serious outcome. Outcomes
including death or a life-threatening condition where the patient was at
real risk of dying at the time of the event. Where hospitalization is either
required in the first place or where a hospital stay is prolonged. When a
persistent or substantial disability or incapacity results. Or a congenital
anomaly. Or when surgical or medical intervention was required to
prevent permanent impairment or damage. Our goal is to increase
reporting of these events, not to increase overall reporting.
Already, we have consolidated the separate forms used to report
adverse drug and biologic reactions, drug quality product problems, device
quality product problems and adverse reactions to medical devices.
Once again, my thanks for being here today. I look forward to
working with you to make MEDWatch a success.
(Chopped down version, full text at link above).
Secret Government Database of Vaccine-Damaged Children.
According to Dr. David Kessler, former head of the Food and Drug Administration, “Only about 1 percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported to the FDA.” Thus, it is entirely possible that millions of people are adversely affected by mandatory vaccines every year.
http://truthspace.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/secret-government-database-of-vaccine-damaged-children/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUORtLSg19E
So nobody in the pharmacutical megaworld seems to want an independant trial of "vaccinated V's UNvaccinated" children, they pay their way and get a smooth ride in return, and their magabucks can get them through minor scrapes (death's, serious lifelong illness, general bad press, etc).
I know this video has been shown time and time again, but for any new readers it shows just how much concern of your general health these pharmacutical companies have for you, for those who cannot watch the video, it's about Bayer selling products first in the USA, knowing they were infected with AIDS, so rather than burn it all, they with the approval of the US govt shipped it and sold it in Europe and Asia, infecting Millions in the process, scary but verifiably true. And surprise surprise no big american style lawsuits, only in the land of the free!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spnEaO3yumk
MSNBC video interview regarding Bayer company selling Aids tainted blood.
After they were caught, the US government allowed them to sell it over seas.
Now from a personal view, I have a toddler, never been injected with anything, NEVER!.
I have friend's with children of similar ages, I spoke with some/most about vaccines etc, most were "shocked" when they found out I wasn't planning or hadn't got my child any vaccines, these are the same people who are now finding themselves with sick children, "little jonny's on an antibiotic for blah", "little mary has an ear infection", my child has never needed a doctor, my child has had the nurse visit or been to the clinic to be weighed or mental development testing, nothing more.
I actually see/saw these visits as training exercises for my childs natural immune system, breathing in molecules of all sorts and being given the chance of nature and his/her God given ability of an immune system that works a lot better all by itself, and trains and remembers good from bad residents and steps that need to be taken to evict the bad one's, and all through the natural nasal process bypassed with injected toxins.
Without being biased and a proud father I can say in full truthfullness that my child is much more advanced than any other children of similar age even with some children 50% older. Many are surprised when they hear the age.
I have a lot to say on this matter concerning a wide range of health issues, from the instant reaction to the long term effect(s), to the unknown effects, etc.
Before I'm accused of being a snake oil salesmans wet dream, I think it's quite the opposite, my child gets nurishment and vitamins,minerals etc, sooner or later these diseases and infections will catch up, as they do with vaccinated children also by the way, my child will have the usual symptoms and recover with a better trained immune system.
Natural immunity
Natural immunity develops after you've been exposed to a certain organism. Your immune system puts into play a complex array of defenses to prevent you from getting sick again from that particular type of virus or bacterium.
Exposure to a foreign invader stimulates production of certain white blood cells in your body called B cells. These B cells produce plasma cells, which in turn produce antibodies designed specifically to fight that particular invader. These antibodies circulate in your body's fluids. The next time that invader enters your body, the antibodies will recognize it and destroy it. Once your body has produced a particular antibody, it rapidly produces more antibodies if needed.
In addition to the work of B cells, other white blood cells called macrophages confront and destroy foreign invaders. If your body encounters a germ that it has never been exposed to before, information about the germ is relayed to white blood cells called helper T cells. These cells aid production of other infection-fighting cells, including memory T cells.
Once you've been exposed to a specific virus or bacterium, the next time you encounter it, antibodies and memory T cells go to work. They immediately react to the organism, attacking it before disease can develop. Your immune system can recognize and effectively combat thousands of different organisms.
0 -
-
-
-
The autism thing,the figures speak for themselves.there are tragic cases but on the whole vaccinations are a good idea
now your gonna come back and show me examples of these cases and show how its ruined lives but you wont comment on how many lives its potentially saved.
Well no. You were speaking in general terms and so was I. I don't even have any children as far and I know though I do have their names picked out suicide, Una', shoe, Times Square and crotch.
0 -
Brian Deer, a journalist writing for Murdoch's Sunday Times, was the only person in the world to complain to a regulatory body about the work of doctors at the Royal Free Hospital in London who diagnosed children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease, which their parents suggested had occurred following MMR vaccination.
In 2003, after 10 years work, legal aid was withdrawn from over 1,000 parents claiming damages in a suit in which Wakefield was to appear as an expert witness. In 2004 Deer wrote an exposé of Wakefield that was full of concoctions, half truths and fantasies and which claimed that the children examined by the team at the Royal Free were not ill.
Deer's distorted pharma--imaginings became the basis of over 80 charges leveled against Dr Wakefield and three other doctors to be 'tried' by the General Medical Council (GMC). The hearing took place over three years between 2007 and 2010 and became one of the longest regulatory hearings ever held in Britain. Brian Deer, the centre of the whole plot, did not give evidence.
In bringing the fitness to practice case against Dr Andrew Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor John Walker-Smith, the GMC listened to journalist Brian Deer and excluded the views of hundreds of parents of vaccine damaged children. Who is Brian Deer? Vigilante for truth or front man for Big Pharma?
Selective Hearing covers Deer's part in the heartbreaking betrayal of vaccine damaged children by the medical profession, the pharmaceutical corporations and the British government.
With the full power of the government and pharmaceutical industry behind him, few people were brave enough to tackle Deer. Alan Golding, however, is a Welshman, a very independent filmmaker and a man of considerable principle.
Alan Golding gave himself completely over the three--year duration of the GMC hearing, to the cause of Wakefield and the parents of vaccine damaged children. Selective Hearing is a beautifully filmed fine mix of interviews with parents, analysis of Deer's faulted case and unique material of him holding forth for the pharmaceutical companies in a heated exchange with parents outside the GMC building. If you see this film you will want to do something about Brian Deer.
Highly recommended viewing.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »Why do you say that? It's not a particularly funny auto-bio, I'll admit. :pac:
The reason I posted from the science forum he posts on is because when a group call themselves 'World X Group' or whatever, they are lending themselves a lot of credibility, as if they are a genuine authority, whereas these guys are a small self-appointed fringe group.
Here's a link, maybe google the names and discredit them, if you can.
About
The International Medical Council on Vaccination is an association of medical doctors, registered nurses and other qualified medical professionals whose purpose is to counter the messages asserted by pharmaceutical companies, the government and medical agencies that vaccines are safe, effective and harmless. Our conclusions have been reached individually by each member of the Council, after thousands of hours of personal research, study and observation.
Principles and Findings- We are profoundly critical of the practice of vaccination. Vaccination is an unacceptable risk to every member of society, regardless of age.
- As medical professionals, Council members have observed first-hand the health of vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated. We find the latter group to be robust, healthy and drug-free compared to the former group.
- We have reviewed published studies in support of vaccines and have found them wanting in both substance and science.
- We have brought out into the open hundreds of peer-reviewed, published medical articles that document the damage and the diseases caused by vaccines.
- We find the premise of herd immunity to be a faulty theory.
- We encourage intelligent debate about vaccination.
- We expect individuals to take responsibility for their health and the health of their children by investigating the problems due to vaccination prior to subjecting their children, or themselves, to this medical procedure.
- We believe that refusing vaccination is a personal right that should be legislatively guaranteed.
Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages caused by their vaccines. The Act established an entirely new "legal" system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special "vaccine court" that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted.The Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, for instance, the "vaccine courts" can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated.
EDIT:
Some contact for Orac should anybody need expert advice on vaccines and their effect.........
Contact
When he is not busy communing with every computer in the universe or contemplating the nearest black hole, Orac can be reached at orac@scienceblogs.com. Depending upon whether or not your comment intrigues him (or whether you are a friend), Orac may or may not respond personally to your e-mail. Rest assured, however, that, supercomputer that he is, Orac does read all non-spam e-mail. Eventually.
E-mail policy:
All e-mail replies to Orac in response to material posted to Respectful Insolence are subject to being publicly reprinted on Respectful Insolence solely at the discretion of Orac. Requests not to reprint an e-mail on this blog will certainly be considered on a case-by-case basis, but Orac makes no guarantees. If the e-mail is not abusive, Orac will almost certainly honor the request. If the e-mail is obnoxious, threatening, or insulting, Orac might just consider it his duty to post the message for public ridicule.
orac@scienceblogs.com
orac@scienceblogs.com
orac@scienceblogs.com
Give him time to get back to you incase he somehow gets spam...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
First guy I checked - his PhD is in...HOMEOPATHY!!Sorry here you go, off and google..
Board of Directors
Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH http://www.linkedin.com/in/dreisenstein
Sherri Tenpenny, DO http://drtenpenny.com/default.aspx
Suzanne Humphries, MD http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/02/06/a-few-things-i-know/
Board of Advisors
Alexander Kotok, MD, PhD
Demetra Vagias, MD, ND
Harold Buttram, MD
Jayne Donegan, MBBS
Juan Manuel Martinez Mendez, MD
Kris Gaublomme, MD
Robert Davidson, MD, PhD
President
Nick Haas
I linked the first 3 for you.
http://www.homeoint.org/books4/kotok/index.htm
Another practises exclusively 'natural medicine', whatever the hell that is...
http://www.buildinghealthfromwithin.com/bios.html#vagias
She'll help you if you want some 'biomeridian testing' (???)
http://www.buildinghealthfromwithin.com/biomeridian.html
So more pseudoscience there...
http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/
Jayne Donegan is another homeopath, she was cleared of 'serious professional misconduct' by the GMC in 2007...
Harold Buttram is another who has deviated from the path of medical science...
http://www.woodmed.com/WhoIsDrB.htmIn addition to his conventional internal medicine training, Dr. Buttram has obtained extensive post doctorate training in the complementary and integrative medical sciences. This includes Nutritional Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Allergy, Chelation Therapy, Bio-Oxidative Therapies, Preventive and Functional Medicine. He was one of the first in the tri-state area to include such an integrative, multi-disciplinary approach to patient care. To this day, many new physician arrivals to this field of integrative medicine seek out Dr. Buttram for his leadership, wisdom and guidance.
Meyer Eisenstein is an interesting character:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-autism-doctor-eisenstein-may22,0,3826791.storyAutism doctor: Troubling record trails doctor treating autism In the name of safety, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein's practice embraces home births and shuns vaccines, but parents' lawsuits tell a story of harm and death.
Dr. Mayer Eisenstein comes across as a grandfatherly physician, a pat-on-the-knee practitioner who delivers babies at home and who's more likely to recommend chicken soup than an antibiotic.
Warning families that pediatricians and pharmaceutical companies are harming children with unneeded drugs and vaccines, the 63-year-old positions himself as a truth-teller who protects kids by upholding this oath, "Above all, do no harm."
Yet his suburban Chicago practice, currently known as Homefirst, garnered an alarming record: It was on the losing side of one of the largest U.S. jury verdicts -- $30 million -- ever awarded to the family of a newborn in a wrongful-death suit.
In court records dating back three decades, the families of dead and brain-damaged children repeatedly alleged that doctors who work for Eisenstein made harmful mistakes -- sometimes the same error more than once. His practice also has been dogged by accusations in court records that its offshore malpractice policy was phony.
That's all I have time to look into right now, off to bed. I tried two others - Juan Manuel Martinez Mendez and Kris Gaublomme. There was almost nothing (that I saw) about the first guy and the stuff about the second guy is in Dutch so I couldn't really follow it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »The teapot in orbit around the earth has not been disproven either.
The difference perhaps being that teapots in orbit are not being injected into folks arms for profit ....
As for authority figures and folk that know what they are talking about one must put aside the vested interests of those producing the vaccine and those injecting it and look toward the UN's WHO.
whoops forgot they are the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry all bunched up in one and proved their lack of impartiality in regard to differentiating between a massive profit take and having the worlds health first and foremost, with that swine flu pandemic scare ....
the guys from this International Vaccine Council or whatever they call themselves may not indeed be a recognised group Monty but they probably have forgotten more science than folk on here know and can rationally work their way through.0 -
I take your point about vested interests - these must always be challenged, but remember that there are an awful lot of people in the medical profession and most of them are there to ensure the health of their patients. In addition, it is in their own interests to expose any harmful medicines/vaccines - that is the type of thing that makes your career in the science world. You get no real credit for providing another tiny plank of proof for the orthodoxy, but you can become world famous and a hero if you overturn it (which is why we all remember the names of Albert Einstein or Louis Pasteur). On your point about them forgetting science - most of them seem to have done a lot of that as they practise forms of medicine have no basis in science at all.the guys from this International Vaccine Council or whatever they call themselves may not indeed be a recognised group Monty but they probably have forgotten more science than folk on here know and can rationally work their way through.
So, to summarise my ramblings:
1. I agree, watch out for vested interests (such as homeopaths coming out against non-homeopathic medicine)
2. 95% (at least) of people working in medicine DO care about the health of their patients and they would all have to be fooled in this conspiracy
3. Ambitious medical researchers will always have a very big incentive to disprove the claims of big pharma
4. The members of this fringe group seem to generally be involved in fringe 'medicine', homeopathy, pseudoscience etc. and are not by any means a serious or respected medical organisation.0 -
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »I take your point about vested interests - these must always be challenged, but remember that there are an awful lot of people in the medical profession and most of them are there to ensure the health of their patients.
remember too there are an awful lot of people and self interests in the pharmaceutical industry - all of which are there to ensure a profit return for themselves and their investors
too many of these folk are medical professionalsMonty Burnz wrote: »In addition, it is in their own interests to expose any harmful medicines/vaccines
can you point to an example of a medical researcher who upon challenging a pillar of medical science, like vaccines, went on to get credit and adulation?Monty Burnz wrote: »On your point about them forgetting science - most of them seem to have done a lot of that as they practise forms of medicine have no basis in science at all.
funny that - from the list I see all but three are medical doctors sporting MDsMonty Burnz wrote: »So, to summarise my ramblings:
1. I agree, watch out for vested interests (such as homeopaths coming out against non-homeopathic medicine)
2. 95% (at least) of people working in medicine DO care about the health of their patients and they would all have to be fooled in this conspiracy
3. Ambitious medical researchers will always have a very big incentive to disprove the claims of big pharma
4. The members of this fringe group seem to generally be involved in fringe 'medicine', homeopathy, pseudoscience etc. and are not by any means a serious or respected medical organisation.
In reply
1. They are medical doctors (some of whom also have other qualifications such as homeopathy) and so as medical doctors are entitled and qualified to state a qualified non vested opinion.
2. Agreed and not so much fooled but enticed through a profit for co-operation and a point of provision.
3. Where is this incentive? Can you point to an example?
4. Refer to Point 10 -
Um...what you prefer they were?? Solicitors?remember too there are an awful lots of people and self interests in the pharmaceutical industry - all of which are there to ensure a profit return for their investors.
too many of these folk are medical professionals
Edward Jenner. He went against the prevailing orthodoxy of his time. I'm sure there are plenty - unfortunately I know as much about the history of medicine as you docan you point to an example of a medical researcher who upon challenging a pillar of medical science, like vaccines, went on to get credit and adulation?
Just because you have a basic MD does not mean you know the first thing about scientific research, or that you are not prone to wacky beliefs. I believe Harold Shipman was a doctor too.funny that - from the list I see all but three are medical doctors sporting MDs
1. If they are practising homeopathy, they are practising pseudoscience. You may not think this harms their credibility, but I do.In reply
1. They are medical doctors (some of whom also have other qualifications such as homeopathy) and so as medical doctors are entitled and qualified to state a qualified non vested opinion.
2. Agreed and not so much fooled but enticed through a profit for co-operation and a point of provision.
3. Where is this incentive? Can you point to an example?
4. Refer to Point 1
2. So you you think that medical professionals are enticed into knowingly seriously harming their patients for a few extra bob (doctors already earn plenty)?
3. The incentive is to become a world famous scientist and to save lives. If Wakeman hadn't forged his research and proved MMR harmful, he would be famous and successful instead of infamous and discredited. I'm sure there are plenty of examples that those in the medical field could provide. I could name legends in my field that you have never heard of, and you could probably do the same.
4. And I refer you back to my point - The members of this fringe group seem to generally be involved in fringe 'medicine', homeopathy, pseudoscience etc. and are not by any means a serious or respected medical organisation.0 -
Monty Burnz wrote: »Um...what you prefer they were?? Solicitors?
researchersMonty Burnz wrote: »Edward Jenner. He went against the prevailing orthodoxy of his time. I'm sure there are plenty - unfortunately I know as much about the history of medicine as you do
perhaps a more modern example (not 18th/19th century) and one who actually went against the orthodoxy of his time would do more to prove your statement 'In addition, it is in their own interests to expose any harmful medicines/vaccines - that is the type of thing that makes your career in the science world.'Monty Burnz wrote: »Just because you have a basic MD does not mean you know the first thing about scientific research
what?Monty Burnz wrote: »1. If they are practising homeopathy, they are practising pseudoscience. You may not think this harms their credibility, but I do.
personally I don't - the fact they are open to other spectrums of science without vested interests actually makes them appear more honest.
The fact remains they have medical degrees and are medically qualified. You by your own admission are not.Monty Burnz wrote: »2. So you you think that medical professionals are enticed into knowingly seriously harming their patients for a few extra bob (doctors already earn plenty)?
Not many actually know anything of vaccines and if memory serves me right they have some of the lowest uptake of vaccinations here in IrelandMonty Burnz wrote: »I'm sure there are plenty of examples that those in the medical field could provide. I could name legends in my field that you have never heard of, and you could probably do the same.
If they were famous we would have heard of them.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_AxZ3zHAc
Advertisement