Viruses used in vaccines can recombine and get virulent

Oracle

According to an article in ArsTechnica. There's also an article on The Scientist web site.

I've done a background search on the sources, looks like its well founded. Although the link in the article doesn't work, the original research is published in Science magazine. They've a podcast interview with one of the reseachers, Joanne Devlin: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6091/188/suppl/DC2

enno99

A new documentary about vaccinations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3jdIQV46es

enno99

Irish Court Rules Against Mothers Right To Refuse Vaccination

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/irish-court-rules-against-mothers-right-refuse-vaccination

Clare invoked Article 41.1.1 of the Irish Constitution in the original direct literal translation:

The State acknowledges that the family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

However, the judge refused to accept the invocation of the article 41.1.1 of constitution and refused an injunction on the previous order.

This is clearly not only a violation of Ms O’Sullivan rights as a mother, but also a violation of the Irish Constitution itself.

I dont know about law or the constitution but this seems scary that you can be compelled to inject your child against your will

shedweller

So our constitutional rights mean nothing now? :eek:

hooradiation

enno99 wrote: »

Irish Court Rules Against Mothers Right To Refuse Vaccination

Good.
Fucking moonbats.

Oracle wrote: »

According to an article in ArsTechnica. There's also an article on The Scientist web site.

I've done a background search on the sources, looks like its well founded. Although the link in the article doesn't work, the original research is published in Science magazine. They've a podcast interview with one of the reseachers, Joanne Devlin: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6091/188/suppl/DC2

That is pretty goddamn cool.
The last paragraph (in the ars technia article) is probably the most important.

The risks created by the use of related attenuated viruses are well understood both on the level of molecular biology and in terms of evolutionary principles. But the clear demonstration that the risk has become a reality makes this finding an important caution. "The findings from this study raise concerns about the use of multiple distinct attenuated herpesvirus vaccines under conditions that favor recombination," the authors conclude. "These findings have implications for the use of herpesviruses, and possibly other DNA viruses, as attenuated vaccines or vaccine vectors."

(emphasis mine)
The components of your MMR shot aren't going to have a freaky three way and come up with a supervirus or anything, In fact, I don't think there are any human herpesvirus vaccines available, but that people need to be careful with herpesvirus vaccines especially seeing as it's usually used in animals for food production (the poultry in this case).
Though in this case the worst outcome is reduced flock sizes & egg yield.

Oracle

I think the key phrase in the article is ....

Now, researchers have discovered a case where two different agricultural vaccines have recombined to create a new, virulent strain of the disease they were intended to prevent.

Of particular concern, as a result of this research, would be HPV vaccines, such as Gardasil, and Hepatitis B vaccines, these are recombinant vaccines. Quote from Wikipedia:

The HPV vaccines are based on hollow virus-like particles (VLPs) assembled from recombinant HPV coat proteins ..... Gardasil and Cervarix are designed to elicit virus-neutralizing antibody responses that prevent initial infection with the HPV types represented in the vaccine.

For example, the following could potentially happen if the research results were replicated in a human situation. The attenuated vaccine viruses from past or multiple vaccine doses could recombine to form a virulent virus. Resulting in actually getting the disease the vaccine was designed to prevent. Even more worringly, potentially a single dose of a recombinant vaccine, without any other vaccine, could result in the attenuated (weakened) virus within the vaccine recombining again to form a virulent strain.

hooradiation

Oracle wrote: »

For example, the following could potentially happen if the research results were replicated in a human situation. The attenuated vaccine viruses from past or multiple vaccine doses could recombine to form a virulent virus.

While I'm skeptical about this as a likely scenario seeing as there are environmental factors in play here that really don't exist in the human world, there are two things that you've missed, i feel.

First - to quote the article in "the scientist"

Indeed, many of the flocks that succumbed to disease outbreaks were not vaccinated due to vaccine shortages, said Devlin. Others were insufficiently vaccinated—given low doses—or may have contained unvaccinated animals due to the nature of the vaccination method: the vaccine is provided in the drinking water and thus may not reach every animal.

Which then leads onto point two.

Although vaccinated animals can get infected with such virulent recombinant strains, Devlin explained, the disease symptoms are generally much less severe. “[It is] similar to when you get the flu vaccine,” she said. “You can still get the flu but you generally don’t get as sick.”

Basically, people didn't vaccinate properly (sound familiar?) which allowed this new strain to gain a proper foothold.

Of course that doesn't mean it theoretically couldn't happen in humans - but between environmental issues, and the lack of a comparative set of inoculations (I really can't think of anything where we protect people against 3 quite similar strains of the same virus) I'm not seeing this as anything other than simply a curiosity.

And a cautionary tale against not getting vaccinated.

Oracle wrote: »

Resulting in actually getting the disease the vaccine was designed to prevent.

This can happen anyway, it's just the effects are less severe. And it tends to be limited to the ones that mutate quickly, like the flu rather than mumps and such.
Of course herd immunity and all that help with keeping this in check.

Oracle wrote: »

Even more worringly, potentially a single dose of a recombinant vaccine, without any other vaccine, could result in the attenuated (weakened) virus within the vaccine recombining again to form a virulent strain.

Mutations happen, such is life.
But the circumstances needed for vaccines to start recombining as demonstrated by this research in humans are less likely than you'd think.

Oracle

hooradiation wrote: »

.... Mutations happen, such is life.
But the circumstances needed for vaccines to start recombining as demonstrated by this research in humans are less likely than you'd think.

I'm not so sure about that. Firstly, yes random mutations happen naturally in nature, but thats a million miles away from the technology used in vaccines. Where virus derived material is deliberately manipulated and genetically altered. Also the context is completely different. This research is about attenuated vaccine viruses, recombining within a living organism, not a random rogue hybrid in the wild.

In addition, although I'm not a scientist or genetic expert, it seems to me the very nature of the Recombinant DNA, used in recombinant vaccines, would leave them prone to recombining again. As the following excerpt from Wikipedia explains .....

Recombinant DNA molecules are sometimes called chimeric DNA, because they are usually made of material from two different species, like the mythical chimera. R-DNA technology uses palindromic sequences and leads to the production of sticky and blunt ends.
The DNA sequences used in the construction of recombinant DNA molecules can originate from any species. For example, plant DNA may be joined to bacterial DNA, or human DNA may be joined with fungal DNA. In addition, DNA sequences that do not occur anywhere in nature may be created by the chemical synthesis of DNA, and incorporated into recombinant molecules. Using recombinant DNA technology and synthetic DNA, literally any DNA sequence may be created and introduced into any of a very wide range of living organisms.

enno99

Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Caused Autism

Valentino Bocca was given an MMR shot in 2004, at the age of 15 months. According to his parents, the change in his behavior was immediate. That same night he refused to eat, and he developed diarrhea during the night. It quickly went downhill from there. Within days he was no longer able to put a spoon to his mouth, and he spent nights crying in pain. His parents immediately suspected the vaccination, but were told this was "impossible." Valentino progressively regressed, and received the diagnosis of autism a year later.

In the final analysis, the Italian Health Ministry disagreed with the initial conclusion of the pediatrician, conceding that the vaccine was at fault.




http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/25/mmr-vaccine-caused-autism.aspx

enno99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40suCKnjbI

A good interview to watch
(forgot to put it in previous post)

hooradiation

enno99 wrote: »

Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Caused Autism

It is known that some vaccines can cause some brain disorders at an extremely low rate. (like 1 in a million in the case of encephalitis and the MMR vaccine). But since there are known, rare adverse reactions to vaccines in some there is usually some legal remedy for compensating those rare victims.

In short this doesn't mean what you think it means.

seamus

enno99 wrote: »

I dont know about law or the constitution but this seems scary that you can be compelled to inject your child against your will

Nice that they miss the key detail of the case.

The key detail is that this was a family dispute, not a dispute between the mother and the authorities.

The mother refused consent for the vaccines, which is not an issue. However the child's father who has legal authority to consent, did consent to the vaccines.

Unable to resolve the impasse, the father brought her to the High Court to resolve it. In these cases, the High Court first tries to get both parties to come to an agreement. This was not possible in this case. This means that the High Court then makes a ruling which takes the child's welfare primarily into account. In essence, where two parties cannot come to an agreement the high court makes the decision which both parties have to abide by.

The constitutional challenge in this case was irrelevant since the court was not overriding the family's rights. In effect, the child's family were undecided on the issue and asked the high court to make the decision for them.

If the High Court had ruled that the child should not be vaccinated, the article could just as easily read, "Irish Court Rules Against Fathers Right To Obtain Vaccination". In short, someone had to lose because both parents had equal rights but opposite viewpoints.

The mother lost, but refuses to comply with the law. Nothing scary going on here.

hooradiation

Oracle wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. Firstly, yes random mutations happen naturally in nature, but thats a million miles away from the technology used in vaccines.

well, technically, it's exactly the same. At least as far as single cell organisms go.

Oracle wrote: »

Where virus derived material is deliberately manipulated and genetically altered. Also the context is completely different. This research is about attenuated vaccine viruses, recombining within a living organism, not a random rogue hybrid in the wild.

Well, yes, exactly. The point was that farm animals are known breeding grounds for these kind of mutations for a reason. They're filthy and live in constant close proximity to each other. It's why the last two big health incidents started in poultry and pig farms, respectively.

Humans, by contrast do not tend to be placed in battery farms for the duration of their natural lives (The London underground at rush hour not withstanding)

Oracle wrote: »

In addition, although I'm not a scientist or genetic expert, it seems to me the very nature of the Recombinant DNA, used in recombinant vaccines, would leave them prone to recombining again. As the following excerpt from Wikipedia explains .....

This is getting into the ins and outs of how DNA works and hitting the limits of my understanding, but I'll do my best....

It's not the recombinant DNA that's the "problem" as such, it's the conditions described above plus the similarity in the vaccine strains.
Basically, while we can mix and match practically anything in a lab, that doesn't hold true in the real world.
In the lab we use synthetic DNA to bridge the gaps between things that normally won't play ball with each other - basically in the "wild" certain DNA strands gravitate towards others. This is why when, for example, a human is conceived the chromosomes pair up in expected ways, if anything could mix with anything we'd probably be a very short lived species.

Which brings us back to the case in hand - the reason that they were able to mutate as they did is due to their similarity (being strains of the same disease), thus making them more likely to recombine as they'd have enough in common to facilitate it.

It's not simply that these were recombinant vaccines that made this possible, there were numerous other factors in play - which is why I'm not that worried and find it to be more of a "fuck me, this is cool" rather than "fuck me, we're all gonna die!"

enno99

seamus wrote: »

Nice that they miss the key detail of the case.

The key detail is that this was a family dispute, not a dispute between the mother and the authorities.

The mother refused consent for the vaccines, which is not an issue. However the child's father who has legal authority to consent, did consent to the vaccines.

Unable to resolve the impasse, the father brought her to the High Court to resolve it. In these cases, the High Court first tries to get both parties to come to an agreement. This was not possible in this case. This means that the High Court then makes a ruling which takes the child's welfare primarily into account. In essence, where two parties cannot come to an agreement the high court makes the decision which both parties have to abide by.

The constitutional challenge in this case was irrelevant since the court was not overriding the family's rights. In effect, the child's family were undecided on the issue and asked the high court to make the decision for them.

If the High Court had ruled that the child should not be vaccinated, the article could just as easily read, "Irish Court Rules Against Fathers Right To Obtain Vaccination". In short, someone had to lose because both parents had equal rights but opposite viewpoints.

The mother lost, but refuses to comply with the law. Nothing scary going on here.

The article states this

She was there to seek an injunction on an order from her local district court taken by the father of her child

which tells you the disagreement was between both parents

Here is a statement from the mother ( it was also in the article as youtube vid)

here is the transcript


Claire's story on Youtube
Open letter to the media,

My name is Claire O' Sullivan from Waterford in Ireland. I'd like to make a statement.

I have a 5 year old son. I am currently hiding away with my son to protect him from the authorities ( HSE, Gardaí, courts etc.) because of the, illegal, unlawful, uncaring and heavy handed way I have been dealt with by the authorities, which has all stemmed from me not consenting to the school age vaccinations (MMR {measles, mumps & rubella}, & tetra vac 4in1 {polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus}). I do have genuine concerns about these vaccinations, following my own research and listening to the views of many others including medical professionals

Who have shared some of these concerns with me, for example about the possible links with autism, for which there is now credible evidence and the long term effects on children’s immune systems. A good place for most people to start, would be to ask the HSE or GP for the insert leaflet that comes with the box that the vaccination is contained with and taking the simple step of looking at the ingredients and what the medical officials call side effects, which are quite simply possible serious effects. This is just one place to start with research.

These vaccinations are NOT mandatory in the republic of Ireland. All parents are given a consent form to sign in a consent or “I do not consent section”. I chose not to consent, I feel that I am acting in the best interests of my child and my decision is to protect him. I have every right to make this decision as the primary carer, natural mother, sole custodian and legal guardian of my son. However, my son's father (who is not a custodian, but a legal guardian, (ex-partner), has consented to both vaccinations and has pushed for them to be administered. His motives for which I believe are more for argument sake with me and not for the best interests/protection of our son (which many will believe) .this may become clearer as I explain further what has happened so far.

So when the vaccinations were due to be carried out first of all, there was some communication between myself, HSE and my son's father re; me not consenting to the vaccinations. There was minimal communication between his father and I (the father's choice) as he was not willing to discuss the matter in full with me with an open mind, willing to consider all aspects surrounding the vaccinations e.g. Documents released, evidence, studies from other parties (outside of the HSE), vaccine ingredients etc. He was insisting to go ahead with it because it was what HE felt was best and because the HSE and my son's GP had recommended for the vaccines to be administered, he felt he didn't have to look into it further.

Consider this scenario:

If someone handed you a drink and said give this to your child to drink, Would you (1) give it without question, or would you want to know more about what it contains (for your child's safety) and make a decision either (2) not to give it at all (because of lack of knowledge and trust) or (3) decide to investigate the ingredients further with an open mind.

I at the time was torn between (2) and (3) because of some conflicting information I had come across and I still am. However, I also believe whole heartedly in the most natural approach possible to health care, which immediately people will recognise this as a problem for authorities (for reasons, we can go into further, if I am asked at a later stage, once my son's case has been dealt with).

So I insisted that I did not consent and my son's father insisted that he did consent, and I feel it is most unfortunate that he was unwilling to further his own research on the issue. Keep in mind that this is not mandatory, despite my attempts to press him to do so.

Some weeks later, I had received contact from my son's father asking me was I going to go ahead with the vaccinations or not. I reminded him that I did not consent and that the authorities had this on file. He replied, that I had left him with no choice, when I asked what he meant by this, he did not reply. The next contact I received about the issue was to my horror, a summons to the district court. I had adjourned the first date and there was a new date set for the 23rd of May.

When I attended on that date, (we both represented ourselves) I was refused the company of a McKenzie friend in the court (this is a basic right, everyone is entitled to be accompanied by a McKenzie friend, but I was denied this). I asked the judge to allow the issue to be dealt with outside of court and for the father to co-parent as this should be a family decision and it is wrong for the courts to be involved in it. The father argued that he had been willing to discuss but I insisted to the judge that he hadn't and that he was lying. So I requested that the judge allow us time to discuss the issue in private. The judge granted this, but we had to return to inform him what had been discussed. Outside of the court room, but still on site, I had asked the father to discuss the matter with me on mutual ground and tried to persuade him that it be best if we set a date and time or we could even leave the courts and deal with it ourselves that same day, in private. To which he would not agree, he insisted that the matter was that he wanted the vaccinations and I didn't so it was to be heard in court that we didn't need to discuss it further. I appealed to him that I had major concerns re: ingredients of the vaccinations and that I had spoken to the GP Dr. Cormac O' Nuailain and he could not answer some of my questions. I asked him did this not concern him and what questions had he asked? But he replied that he didn't care and that he was happy with the fact that the HSE were recommending it and that was all he needed to know. He insisted that we go back into the court room to have it heard.

To cut a long story short with how it was dealt with on this particular occasion, Judge David Kennedy refused to allow me have the right to hold my decision as the natural mother/guardian/custodian of my son and took the position to make a decision on my son's behalf against my will. He proceeded to sign the order; I insisted that he sign a disclaimer to at least accept responsibility for his actions to sign the order against my will. He refused to look at my disclaimer, he even laughed at me and the father laughed at me. He signed it despite me still questioning him on his decision and said it’s signed now, so you can appeal it with the circuit court.

I appealed the case with the circuit court. I served a notice of appeal on the father. The courts office informed me that there was no further date for hearing in the circuit court until the autumn (more like November). I was told I would be given sufficient notice, but that the order still stands even though a notice of appeal has been filed. So, moving forward, on the 7th of June, I had received a letter in the post, to notify me to be in court the very next day. On the 8th June. I was unprepared, no representation and had no arrangements made for childcare, work, other issues. So I had asked a solicitor to ask for an adjournment due to the severe short notice of less than 24hrs. (If I had been away, I would have missed the date, been marked as a no show, and my appeal would not have been heard). Judge faherty on this day granted the appeal to be adjourned to the 14th June, the following week. I had time to get legal representation then because of this.

On the 14th of June, my solicitor and Barrister presented the case to Judge Alice Doyle of the Circuit court in Clonmel. Extensive paperwork from the barrister was discussed between the judge and the barrister on legal acts and statutes and the constitution to prove that the courts had no jurisdiction to interfering this case. The judge expressed that she felt constrained by the law to act in what SHE felt was the best interests of the child, and decided to rise on it and look at the paperwork that the barrister had provided. What I understood from what she said was that she was taking a personal stance on the matter and not acting impartially for both parties (which is what a Judge is supposed to do). She even asked me did I know someone with Polio because she did and it’s a horrible disease. I did not know at the time, but since then I have become aware of a gentleman who is wheelchair bound from the age of 7 following his polio vaccination... but however, on this day the legal issue and constitution was what the barrister wanted to address and we felt that the judge would have allowed another hearing for another date (full day) to address the issues surrounding the vaccinations. The judge however made what appeared to be a personal judgement to affirm the order from the district court and even advised the father to get legal aid as he may need to be more prepared if we were to seek further remedy via Judicial review. On this day, I was under duress to decide and make judge and father aware of my plans to either pursue judicial review or not, to suit father. So, due to lack of options at the time and the fact that the legal team had told me that it could cost me tens of thousands to pursue, I was forced to say that I was unable to pursue, solely due to financial difficulty.

Over the weekend 16th& 17th June, I was made aware that I do have further option to represent myself and present papers for grounds of judicial review, relief sought and compiled an affidavit to accompany this to tell my side of the story of the unjust decisions that took place in both district and then circuit court. I decided to go ahead with this as my son's safety is paramount to me and I felt that I would regret it if I hadn't tried to protect him further. So on Monday 18th I presented myself to the high courts and made an application.to which I was refused and the legal acts/statutes plus article 41.1.1 from the constitution was ignored and I was turned away. I was expected to be back in Waterford from Dublin within ten minutes to carry out the order to vaccinate my son. I was completely distraught and shocked by the decision and wanted to still pursue it further and continued to receive legal/lawful advice on the matter. The courts were acting illegally and more importantly - unlawfully going by all of the advice that I had been given, my belief as a mother to the right to protect my child and I believed that the courts were violating the constitution which was a huge issue and I didn't understand why and I still don't.

I returned to Waterford to be with my son and decided it was best to take us both away from the situation and spend some time together while I was deciding how best to press the matter further. To my disbelief, I had been told that the Gardaí had instantly begun harassing my family and friends as to where my location is with Thomas, even though I had passed message on that I was overwhelmed and was just taking a few days away with my son while I was thinking of what to do further on with the courts. I did not want to give up on my fight to my right and my son's right for me as his natural mother to protect him. The police have also gained entry to my house illegally/unlawfully and not only that but they have allowed family, other associates and my ex-partner enter the house while doing so. They did not have permission to enter my home. I believed they used my families’ vulnerable emotional nature to suit themselves to gain entry to my home. Do they not realise that this behaviour has worried me even more for my son’s safety and our rights are being violated. Everyone involved is terrified.

So the position that I am in now is that I am in even more fear than before for safety of everyone involved and my family and friends are under constant harassment. This should not be happening, nobody should be put in this position of fear and have their rights violated.

I want the public to know my side of the story and the extent of the situation. We need to support each other to ensure our families are safe and hopefully I will get Justice

signed: Claire O' Sullivan

these vaccinations are NOT mandatory in the Republic of Ireland. All parents are given a consent form to sign in a consent or 'I do not consent section'. I chose not to consent, I feel that I am acting in the best interests of my child and my decision is to protect him. I have every right to make this decision as the primary carer, natural mother, sole custodian and legal guardian of my son.

You seem to know your stuff on the law and Im probably way out of my depth here

As far as I am aware there was no marriage

So what constitutes the family in this case

I guess what I mean is the father considered part of the family unit ?

Or is the mother and child the family ?

Sorry if its not that clear

hooradiation

She's a goddamn moron, and her moonbat antics are nonsense.

seamus

enno99 wrote: »

I have every right to make this decision as the primary carer, natural mother, sole custodian and legal guardian of my son.

You seem to know your stuff on the law and Im probably way out of my depth here

I know bits of law. I'm a long way from any kind of legal profession. In fact I probably occupy that position of knowing just enough to be dangerous to myself

To the best of my knowledge, "primary carer", "natural mother", "sole custodian" are all fluff words. Functionally meaningless in this case. Primary carer is really only relevant when determining things like who pays maintenance and so forth.

The only thing that's relevant here is legal guardianship. If both parents have joint legal guardianship of the child, then they both have equal rights in relation to making decisions in relation to the welfare of the child.

This basically means that neither parent can act unilaterally. So while the mother had every right to refuse consent, the father had the right to provide consent, and neither parent can override the other.

This is where the deadlock occurs. Except that this woman has decided that her opinion is of more importance than the child's father and has denied him his legal right to make decisions for his own child.

If the father defied a court order and ran away to get his child vaccinated, you can be sure as hell that she'd be screaming blue murder and demanding the government help her. Yet when the tables are turned, she refuses to have the same standards applied to herself.

In short, her right to refuse consent is not more important than the father's right to provide consent. This is what she can't see.

So what constitutes the family in this case

The child and his/her legal guardians, as far as I know. There's no reason why the father wouldn't be considered "family" if he has ongoing contact with the child, in a fathering capacity.

enno99

I think you might be right about the article in the constitution not applying


Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law", and guarantees its protection by the state. However, these rights and protections are not extended to every family unit, such as single parents, unmarried opposite-sex co-habiters, and same-sex couples


For example, in State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtála [1966] IR 567, where an unmarried father, who had become estranged from the mother of his child some months after living and caring for the same child together, was prevented from invoking the provisions of Article 41 to halt the mother’s wishes of putting the child up for adoption. The then Mr. Justice Walsh of the Supreme Court stated that "the family referred to in [Article 41 was] the family which is founded on the institution of marriage"

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

seems she got bad advice on this part

A simple goolge and wiki page would have put her straight

seems in that case above that the best interest of child was to be adopted rather than given to the natural father

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

She's a goddamn moron, and her moonbat antics are nonsense.

She has every right to protect her child, she actually took the time to investigate these vaccines and know's an awful lot more than you ever will about them.

Can you point me to a study of vaccinated V's unvaccinated sponsored by a western govt or large pharmacutical company?, you might find it hard to find one because they have been avoiding it for years, studies show unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated.

Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035466_whooping_cough_vaccines_outbreaks.html#ixzz21YkrE0mP

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/unvaccinated/parents-of-unvaccinated-children/

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children
http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.ie/2011/10/new-study-unvaccinated-children-are.html

stuar

stuar wrote: »

She has every right to protect her child, she actually took the time to investigate these vaccines and know's an awful lot more than you ever will about them.

Can you point me to a study of vaccinated V's unvaccinated sponsored by a western govt or large pharmacutical company?, you might find it hard to find one because they have been avoiding it for years, studies show unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated.

Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035466_whooping_cough_vaccines_outbreaks.html#ixzz21YkrE0mP

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/unvaccinated/parents-of-unvaccinated-children/

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children
http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.ie/2011/10/new-study-unvaccinated-children-are.html

So you totally reject any studies that you think are funded by people who profit from them, but then prove this by posting an article by people who profit from undermining confidence in medicine?

Why the double standard?

RoboClam

stuar wrote: »

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children
http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.ie/2011/10/new-study-unvaccinated-children-are.html

So it seems to me that this is a really really poor study. The direct link to it is here.

This link is the methodology used in gathering the KIGGS data, which the quoted "study" uses as their vaccinated children data. They then preformed their own survey (I could not find details of how they carried it out, I assume they just used biased anecdotes sent in by e-mail from supporters of their web site without any actual physical research) which they compared against the rigorously gathered KIGGS data.

This is just awful. No controls, no blinding, no verification of data, nothing.

EDIT: Actually I found the survey they used to generate their results here.

NOTE:The results presented here are not a formal study rather an informal piece of personal research. Nevertheless we compared our results with the results of the German study KIGGS. And although the data are not 100% comparable they show huge differences in common illnesses.

Not 100% comparable, they can say that again.

Xeyn

There has been no quality scientific research to support that vaccines cause diseases like autism. A court decision is not scientific evidence. The research quoted is an example of extremely poor research with extreme bias in the sampling.

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

She has every right to protect her child, she actually took the time to investigate these vaccines and know's an awful lot more than you ever will about them.

Given her actions this is highly fucking doubtful.

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

So you totally reject any studies that you think are funded by people who profit from them, but then prove this by posting an article by people who profit from undermining confidence in medicine?

Why the double standard?

No double standard, it's the ONLY standard, kingmob if you can show me any official survey done by a major pharmacutical company which has studied unvaccinated and vaccinated children over a number of years and published the results, I'll look at it and I'll be honest in my conclusion.

It's just there doesn't seem to be any around that I can find, and it's really in the pharmacutical industry's interest to prove all the anti-vaccination crowd wrong because it is growing globally and will eventually cost them billions more than a study would.

stuar

RoboClam wrote: »

So it seems to me that this is a really really poor study. The direct link to it is here.

This link is the methodology used in gathering the KIGGS data, which the quoted "study" uses as their vaccinated children data. They then preformed their own survey (I could not find details of how they carried it out, I assume they just used biased anecdotes sent in by e-mail from supporters of their web site without any actual physical research) which they compared against the rigorously gathered KIGGS data.

This is just awful. No controls, no blinding, no verification of data, nothing.

EDIT: Actually I found the survey they used to generate their results here.



Not 100% comparable, they can say that again.

Yea fair enough, I accept it was a poll on an anti-vaccination site, but as I asked kingmob, can you find a better one?, without repeating myself, more or less what I asked kingmob for.

stuar

Xeyn wrote: »

There has been no quality scientific research to support that vaccines cause diseases like autism. A court decision is not scientific evidence. The research quoted is an example of extremely poor research with extreme bias in the sampling.

Yes and again I say, why are the pharmacutical companies not interested in such a study, if they can show to a certain degree that vaccinated children are healthier/happier children, teens, adults, it's well in their interest to prove it.

Please show me some brilliant research that show's vaccinated children to be healthier than unvaccinated.

stuar

hooradiation wrote: »

Given her actions this is highly fucking doubtful.

How did you work that one out Einstein?, the mother brought her child into the world, she has an inbuilt need to protect that child from harm, she see's vaccinations as harmful unnessesary toxins, she decided no, as is her human right.

Now you tell me why she was wrong, also make a note of the vaccines the child should have got upto now, list the ingredients and explain what makes the toxins safe for injection, introducing the virus in an artificial way, bypassing natures route and the chain of events a virus triggers in the immune system as it comes in the natural way, and by the way NO vaccine makes the recipient IMMUNE from the virus the vaccination is supposed to prevent.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

No double standard, it's the ONLY standard, kingmob if you can show me any official survey done by a major pharmacutical company which has studied unvaccinated and vaccinated children over a number of years and published the results, I'll look at it and I'll be honest in my conclusion.

It's just there doesn't seem to be any around that I can find, and it's really in the pharmacutical industry's interest to prove all the anti-vaccination crowd wrong because it is growing globally and will eventually cost them billions more than a study would.

Here's an extensive article and list giving dozens of examples of exactly what you are looking for.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/reference/?cat=3

Here's a small selection of examples.

Peltola H, Patja A, Leinikki P, et al. No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study. Lancet, May 2 1998, 351(9112) p1327-8.

Summary: This study showed that, with over a decade’s effort to detect all severe adverse events associated with MMR vaccine, no data could be found supporting the hypothesis that it would cause pervasive developmental disorder or inflammatory bowel disease.

3 million doses of MMR between 1982-1996 in Finland
Follow-up interval = 1y4m – 15y5m (mean 10y8m)
31 children developed GI symptoms (30 after the first dose).
Time interval between MMR and symptoms = 20h – 15d
1 episode of Guillain-Barré syndrome
5 children had febrile seizures
2 children had headaches
No cases of autism were reported

Taylor B; Miller E; Farrington CP; Petropoulos MC; Favot-Mayaud I; Li J; Waight PA Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet. 1999;353:2026-9.

Summary: This population-based study investigated whether there was an association between the incidence of autism and MMR immunization in the North-East Thames region. This study confirmed that there was an increase in the prevalence of autism but this increase was not related to the introduction of MMR or to vaccine coverage. This study did not identify any association between MMR vaccine and the age of diagnosis of autism. The results of this paper do not support a causal association between MMR and autism, either in its initiation or the onset of regression.

Kaye J, del Mare Melero-Montes M, Jick H. Mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: A time trend analysis. British Medical Journal 2001 322:460-3.

Summary: Used the GP Research Database to compare MMR vaccine coverage over time with reported rates of autism. Risk of autism increased fourfold in the UK between 1988 and 1999.
Uptake of MMR more or less constant at ~ 95%The authors concluded that ‘the data provided evidence that no correlation exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the rise of autism over time.’

Halsey N A., et al. Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: Report From the New Challenges in Childhood Immunizations Conference Convened in Oak Brook, Illinois, June 12-13, 2000. Pediatrics 2001; 107: 84.

Summary: The American Academy of Pediatrics hosted a multidisciplinary international workshop to review the evidence regarding a possible association between MMR vaccine, inflammatory bowel disease and autism spectrum disorders, specifically autism with regression. It decided a considerable body of evidence did not support a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism or inflammatory bowel disease. In addition, it found no data to suggest the separate administration of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines would offer any potential benefit over the MMR vaccine. In fact, it voiced its concern that such an approach would result in many under-immunised children.

Farrington P., et al. MMR and autism: Further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine 2001; 19:3632-5.

Summary: Re-examined previous research, published in The Lancet, which examined signs of autism in children shortly after they received the combined vaccine. Following criticism that the onset of autism may not necessarily be short, the new research looked at the data from the same 357 autistic children who had taken part in the first study but used an extended timescale. The results provided further evidence against a causal association between the MMR vaccine and autism.

MMR vaccine – how effective and how safe? The independent review from Consumers’ Association. Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin April 2003, 41 (4):25-30.

Summary: This paper reviews the safety, efficacy and side effects of MMR vaccine. This paper concludes that:

- MMR is a highly effective vaccine
- There is no convincing evidence that MMR vaccine causes, or facilitates development of, either inflammatory bowel disease or autism.
-There is no good reason or scientific basis to adopt an alternative policy that allows substitution of single-antigen vaccines for the combined vaccine.
-The weight of published evidence argues overwhelmingly in favour of MMR vaccine as the most effective and safest way of protecting children from measles, mumps and rubella.

And one of my favourites:

Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M. 2005. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(6):572–79.

Summary: Population-based study of 300,000 in Yokohama, Japan looking at ASD diagnoses from 1988-1996. From 1988 to 1993 MMR vaccination rates declined, and there were no MMR vaccinations after 1993. Meanwhile, during the same period of time ASD diagnoses steadily increased. Therefore there was a significant lack of correlation between exposure to the MMR vaccine and the subsequent diagnosis of ASD.

There are plenty out there if you actually look beyond the conspiracy and anti-science sites.

Now can you provide the same level of well controlled scientific studies that shows that there is any link between vaccines and autism or any other major side effects that are already confirmed and accepted?

And again, do you agree that the owners of the sites you linked to, specifically naturalnews.com might be profiting from spreading misinformation about real medicine?

stuar

stuar wrote: »

Now you tell me why she was wrong, also make a note of the vaccines the child should have got upto now, list the ingredients and explain what makes the toxins safe for injection, introducing the virus in an artificial way, bypassing natures route and the chain of events a virus triggers in the immune system as it comes in the natural way, and by the way NO vaccine makes the recipient IMMUNE from the virus the vaccination is supposed to prevent.

This post is full of ignorance about how vaccines and the immune system works and about science in general.

Using the words "toxins" and "artificial" in that context is emotive and manipulative.
A vaccine uses exactly the same mechanism "Nature's route" does.
"Nature's route" involves a person actually getting the virus and suffering it's symptoms, which in some cases for some patients can be fatal and/or highly damaging. One particularly good example is the fact that through "nature's way" polio can leave you crippled. Vaccines use dead, inactive or weakened samples of viruses to allow your immune system to adapt to the virus as it would naturally only without causing (or at least lessening) the potentially dangerous symptoms.
Further, when you are infected by a virus normally you spread the virus, and the longer you have it the more it spreads while your body starts to adapt. But with vaccines the viruses do not spread as easily and your body adapts to it and kills it off much more quickly, therefore reducing the chances of you and others spreading the virus to people who are more vulnerable and/or aren't able to receive the vaccine for whatever reason.
And of course "nature's route" similarly does not grant you with total immunity either.

And as for your appeal to emotion about a mother's right, allow me to respond in kind.
What about the rights of the children and mothers that she violates by putting their children in danger of catching unnecessary infections because she read and swallowed anti-science propaganda from the internet?

Xeyn

stuar wrote: »

It's just there doesn't seem to be any around that I can find, and it's really in the pharmacutical industry's interest to prove all the anti-vaccination crowd wrong because it is growing globally and will eventually cost them billions more than a study would.

There is plenty around, and how about the fact that diseases like measles kill and disable people around the world in the hundred of thousands. And these are in countries where vaccination rates are very low.
The complication rate for measles is about 30%.
This is not speculation, this is documented fact.

High vaccination areas have a significantly lower morbidity and mortality from the infections they vaccinate against as apposed to low vaccination areas.

hooradiation

stuar wrote: »

How did you work that one out Einstein?, the mother brought her child into the world, she has an inbuilt need to protect that child from harm, she see's vaccinations as harmful unnessesary toxins, she decided no, as is her human right.

"As a mother," are three words that usually precede a cavalcade of nonsense.
Her opinions are not correct simple because she had a child. Stop pretending otherwise. I don't care that she is a mother, it doesn't make her right.

Arguing from that position is foolish, and she's still a moron.

stuar wrote: »

Now you tell me why she was wrong,

Because she has made a poor decision based on the same kind of, presumably willfull, lack of understanding you continue to demonstrate.

stuar wrote: »

also make a note of the vaccines the child should have got upto now, list the ingredients and explain what makes the toxins safe for injection, introducing the virus in an artificial way, bypassing natures route and the chain of events a virus triggers in the immune system as it comes in the natural way, and by the way NO vaccine makes the recipient IMMUNE from the virus the vaccination is supposed to prevent.

natural fallacy, vague nonsense about "toxins" and no idea how vaccination works?

There's the trifecta of antivaxxer stupidity right there.

stuar

For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism.

The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review." The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.


A number of independent scientists have said they've been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what she was allowed to publish. "I'm retired now," she told CBS News. "I can write what I want."
We wanted to see if the CDC wished to challenge Ratajczak's review, since many government officials and scientists have implied that theories linking vaccines to autism have been disproven, and Ratajczak states that research shows otherwise. CDC officials told us that "comprehensive review by CDC...would take quite a bit of time." In the meantime, CDC provided these links:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

Dave!

Maybe you could summarise the results she reached which show a causal relationship between vaccines and autism? Rather than quoting a biased report on a study/review.

Read:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/05/the-resident-anti-vaccine-reporter-at-cb/

stuar

stuar wrote: »

For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism.

And I have posted a long list of studies that show the exact opposite.
This one study is not enough to call it a debate even if it didn't have a plethora of red flags around it.

Xeyn

The same peer reviewed journal has also published a response to your piece. She does not actually bring any new evidence to the table. She merely does a meta analysis review of other peoples work to come to her conclusion.
She uses the same speculation and theory that has existed for years and tries to pass herself off as credible by stating she worked in the industry so therefore that automatically assigns credibility. To be fair it gives her some credibility for sure, but the way she goes about passing off her theory to people who she knows will take is as fact shows she probably has ulterior motives. Watch this space for a new book by Dr Helen Ratajczak.

So, again, no new information, no new connection to autism and vaccination.