+ Reply to Thread
Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst 1 31 41
Results 801 to 805 of 805

Thread: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

  1. Link to Post #801
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 50,877 times in 10,300 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe


    Starting at 12:00 AM Tuesday February 25th, you can stream VAXXED II directly to your TV or Device
    There are TWO OPTIONS for Streaming:

    1. ROKU - on Peeps TV

    if you own a Roku device, make sure you subscribe to Peeps TV channel. As a Peeps TV subscriber, you will be able to RENT or BUY Vaxxed II

    2. Vaxxed2.com

    if you are not a Roku subscriber, you can still stream Vaxxed II directly from our website."

    Each breath a gift...

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Houman (25th February 2020)

  3. Link to Post #802
    France Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th February 2019
    South of France
    Thanked 556 times in 84 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    That sure does sound like the truth.
    Quote Posted by James Newell (here)
    I see with little question that the release of this Coronavirus is a power grab on a world wide scale for enforced vaccinations.

    Agreed that this is what the evil controllers want.
    But can anyone explain me then why the vaccine against the corona virus is not released yet and for sale ? Or do they first wait till the pandemic is everywhere before doing that next autumn? Usually they are very greedy and in a hurry to have their dirty return on investment.
    Something does not add up, maybe it is an accidental escape. Sorry to add more speculation here.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Philippe For This Post:

    onawah (25th February 2020)

  5. Link to Post #803
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 50,877 times in 10,300 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Cochrane Founder Warns Flu Vaccine Research Is Corrupted
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    February 25, 2020

    Professor Peter Gøtzsche is a Danish physician-researcher who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre. He has been an outspoken critic of conflicts of interest and bias in research
    After Gøtzsche co-wrote a scathing review of Cochrane’s 2018 review of HPV vaccine safety, Cochrane’s governing board expelled him and, in a February 9, 2020, tweet, Gøtzsche took aim at Cochrane’s review of influenza vaccine by alleging that a “financially conflicted” individual “rearranged” vaccine trial data to make it appear as though the influenza vaccine reduces mortality, when it doesn’t
    In the 15 years prior to Gøtzsche’s expulsion, Cochrane had published several meta-reviews, showing flu vaccinations are ineffective for preventing influenza and influenza-like illness, and have no appreciable effect on hospitalizations and mortality
    March 3, 2020, Maine residents will have the opportunity to go to the polls and repeal LD 798 to reinstate religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions by voting YES on ballot referendum Question 1
    The “No on 1” ad campaign primarily financed by Big Pharma has already spent $476,000 on misleading television ads to defeat the ballot referendum that would restore vaccine exemptions in Maine. All but $56,000 for the ad campaign has been paid by vaccine manufacturers, which will profit from keeping the state’s “no exceptions” vaccine mandates (LD 798) in place
    While the drug industry is quick to claim that anyone questioning its integrity is part of a “war against science,” the evidence of industry malfeasance is simply too great and too disturbing to ignore.

    From my perspective, the drug industry itself is to blame for the public’s dwindling confidence in scientific findings. Loss of confidence is a natural result when lie after lie is unearthed, and there’s been no shortage of scientific scandals to shake public confidence in recent years.

    One researcher who has helped expose industry bias in research is professor Peter Gøtzsche, a Danish physician-researcher who in 1993 co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

    Cochrane publishes hundreds of scientific reviews each year, looking at what works and what doesn’t, and was for decades considered the gold standard for independent scientific meta-reviews.

    The organization’s reputation remained remarkably unblemished all the way up until 2018, when Gøtzsche and Cochrane-affiliated researchers Lars Jørgensen and Tom Jefferson published a scathing critique of Cochrane’s review of the HPV vaccine,1 pointing out methodological flaws and conflicts of interest.

    Gøtzsche was subsequently expelled by the Cochrane governing board (although the board insists his removal from the board was due to “repeated misuse of official letterhead to espouse personal views” and had nothing to do with his criticism of Cochrane’s HPV review2). Four board members (Gerald Gartlehner, David Hammerstein Mintz, Joerg Meerpohl and Nancy Santesso) resigned in protest of Gotzsche’s removal from the Cochrane governing board.3

    In a three-page letter4 to the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Gøtzsche addressed his expulsion and questioned the path Cochrane’s leadership has chosen in recent years, noting “the central executive team of Cochrane has failed to activate adequate safeguards … to assure sufficient policies in the fields of epistemology, ethics and morality.”

    Cochrane Founder Highlights Corrupted Flu Vaccine Research
    In a February 9, 2020, tweet, Gøtzsche wrote:5 “Cochrane corruption. A Cochrane review did not find that flu shots reduce deaths … ‘After invitation from Cochrane,’ a financially conflicted person ‘re-arranged’ the data and vaccines reduced deaths. They don’t …”

    This information, he says, is included in his new book, “Vaccines: Truth, Lies and Controversy.” Indeed, in years’ past, Cochrane has repeatedly found flu vaccinations are ineffective and have no appreciable effect on influenza-related hospitalizations and mortality. For example:

    Its 2006 systematic review6 of 51 studies involving 263,987 children, which sought to “appraise all comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in healthy children; assess vaccine efficacy (prevention of confirmed influenza) and effectiveness (prevention of influenza-like illness)” found:

    “Live vaccines showed an efficacy of 79% and an effectiveness of 33% in children older than two years compared with placebo or no intervention. Inactivated vaccines had a lower efficacy of 59% than live vaccines but similar effectiveness: 36%. In children under two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo.”

    Cochrane’s 2010 review7 of 50 influenza vaccine studies found that:

    “In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms …

    Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions … Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations … There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”

    This review also included the following notice:

    “WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size.

    Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

    Cochrane’s 2010 review8 of 75 studies of vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly concluded that:

    “Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.”

    Cochrane’s 2018 review9 of 52 clinical studies on vaccines for preventing influenza in adults, including pregnant women, found only 15% of the studies were well-designed and conducted. Based on 25 studies that looked at inactivated influenza vaccines, Cochrane concluded they have only a minor protective effect against influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI), noting:

    “Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% … 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI …

    We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% in mothers (NNV [number needed to vaccinate] 55), and 49% in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56).

    No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41%.”

    In its 2018 review10 of 41 clinical trials on live and inactivated vaccines for preventing influenza in children, they found:

    “Compared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4%, and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% …

    Seven children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 20 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one child experiencing an ILI …

    Compared with placebo or no vaccination, inactivated vaccines reduce the risk of influenza in children aged 2 to 16 years from 30% to 11%, and they probably reduce ILI from 28% to 20%.

    Five children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 12 children would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI …

    Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardized approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed.”

    Two States Rejecting Big Pharma's Vaccine Mandates
    In recent years, medical freedom has come under intense attack. In state after state, vaccine makers and their lobbyists have rammed through legislation that implements forced vaccination by eliminating vaccine exemptions. People in California, New York, Washington and Maine all lost vaccine exemptions last year, as detailed in the National Vaccine Information Center’s annual state legislation report “Vaccine Exemptions Under Attack in 2019.”

    Although 4 states lost vaccine exemptions last year, exemptions were protected from removal in 22 other states by the active participation of vaccine choice advocates who educated legislators about why it is important to have flexible medical, religious and conscience exemptions in vaccine laws.

    In New Jersey, bill S2173 was halted in the Senate, both in December 2019 and again in January 2020, due to persistent public protests against the bill proposing to eliminate the religious belief vaccine exemption.11,12,13

    The fact that New Jersey managed to thwart this broad attack on freedom is an encouraging sign. Never underestimate the power of the people! The key is numbers — you have to actually take action by contacting your legislators ahead of time to communicate your concerns about a bill you oppose (or support) and showing up at public hearings and on days when votes are taken in your state Capitol.

    Thousands of individuals gathered in hallways and outside the Capitol building in Trenton in protest of S2173 on multiple occasions, and it was undoubtedly the sheer size of the opposition that greatly helped to defeat the bill that many considered to be an attack on religious freedom.

    Another ray of light shines brightly in Maine. While the state legislature repealed the religious and philosophical belief vaccine exemptions in May 2019 by passing LD 798, residents rapidly succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures of registered voters to get an opportunity to repeal the new vaccine law, and it is now referendum Question 1 on the March 3 ballot.14

    So, March 3, 2020, residents will have the opportunity to go to the polls to repeal LD 798 and reinstate religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions by voting YES on referendum Question 1.15 As noted by RejectBigPharma.com:16

    “A YES vote is a vote to:

    Reject Big Pharma and government overreach
    Restore equal access to education for all Mainers
    Defend parental rights
    Protect religious freedom
    Preserve informed consent and medical freedom”

    Why Everyone Needs to Support Maine’s ‘Yes on 1’
    It’s important to realize that a victory in Maine would be a victory for all states, as it would set a crucial precedent. The good news is that it’s far easier to win in a state with a small population like Maine because there are fewer people to educate, which means less money is required for advertising.

    Maine has an advertising saturation point of about $3 million, meaning if you spend $3 million, you will reach a majority of residents and further advertising will not make a significant difference.

    Since Maine will be the first state to put government vaccine mandates and repeal of exemptions to a popular vote, it’s important to support Maine’s Yes On 1 campaign regardless of where in the United States you live. By helping them succeed, they will set a precedent for other states to follow.

    As of February 6, 2020, the “Yes on 1 Reject Big Pharma” campaign had raised just over $300,000.17 The campaign needs to raise at least $1 million to stand a chance against the vaccine industry’s deep pockets. Of course, if you’re a registered voter in Maine, you can cast a YES vote on March 3, 2020, to restore vaccine exemptions in your state.

    Also remember to register to become a user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal, operated by the National Vaccine Information Center, to stay up to date on vaccine-related bills that are moving in your state this year, including bills proposing to take away (or expand) your right to obtain a vaccine exemption for yourself or your child.

    The NVIC Advocacy Portal also provides access to bill analyses and talking points that you can use to educate your legislators about what the bills will mean to you and your family.

    Pharma-Led Opposition Cranks Out Misleading AdsTo win, it’s crucial we make sure Maine’s Yes on 1 campaign gets the funding it needs. Make no mistake, the opposition has no financial constraints, as it is led and supported by the drug industry itself.

    Ironically, the opposition is accusing the “Yes on 1: Reject Big Pharma” campaign of misleading voters, saying the drug industry has nothing to do with the removal of vaccine exemptions, and doesn’t make any money on vaccines.

    In reality, vaccines are a primary profit driver for the drug industry.18 Merck, which is just one of several vaccine makers, reported over $6.1 billion in sales of their childhood vaccines during the first three quarters of 2019 alone.19

    A January 2020 vaccine market report20 states the global vaccine market was worth $41.7 billion as of 2019, and is estimated to hit $58.4 billion by 2024. One of the factors attributed to this rapid growth is “the rising focus on immunization.” Anyone thinking this focus isn’t manufactured by the drug industry itself is fooling themselves.

    What’s more, as reported by Yes on 1 at a February 11, 2020, press conference, “No on 1” has already spent $476,000 on just three weeks’ worth of television ads. Yet the opposition — which claims to be a grassroots organization without any pharma funding or connections — report raising only $56,000 in donations. So, where did the rest of it magically come from? At the press conference, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 1 campaign revealed the obvious truth:

    “As reported in the Bangor Daily, Bobby Reynolds, spokesman for the ‘No’ campaign … answered this question when he announced that the massive ad buys were funded by — wait for it — vaccine manufacturers.21 Let that sink in.

    After months of denying any connection to Big Pharma, the No on 1 campaign yesterday admitted that they were funded by Big Pharma themselves — the very vaccine manufacturers whose products would be mandated under this law.”

    Eliminating Exemptions Is a Big Pharma Business Strategy
    Of course, vaccine makers have enormously deep pockets, which is how many of these laws are getting passed in the first place. One of the reasons they have so much money to spend on lobbying for the removal of vaccine exemptions is because they don’t have to pay for the damage their products cause.

    As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass in a February 11, 2020, post on CentralMaine.com, in support of referendum Question 1:22

    “Pharmaceutical companies face no lawsuits for vaccine injuries, so long as their vaccine has been added to the childhood schedule by CDC. Pharmaceutical companies don’t need to advertise required vaccines, since the government mandates them and 94% of Maine children already receive them.

    But the industry wants 100% guaranteed uptake, because it is about to roll out a number of new vaccines. The 21st Century Cures Act, passed in 2016, abbreviated the process for testing, licensing and adding vaccines to the childhood schedule. Over 200 vaccines are currently in development.

    How many of those vaccines will be required over the next few years is anybody’s guess. There is a huge financial incentive to having your vaccine placed on the childhood schedule by the CDC: no liability for injuries. The right to choose which vaccines your child receives will disappear unless referendum Question 1 passes.”

    No-Liability Industry Has No Right to Influence Policy
    At the press conference (see video above), Yes on 1 also clarified the opposition’s deceptive message that Yes on 1 would “repeal Maine’s vaccine law.” This is a wildly inaccurate statement.

    Yes on 1 simply repeals LD 798, i.e., the law that removes religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions, thus restoring Maine’s vaccine law to what it was before. In other words, certain vaccines will still be required for school attendance, but you will have the right to opt out by claiming a religious or philosophical exemption to one or more of those vaccines — just as you did before LD 798 was written into law.

    “The Yes on 1 campaign is, and always been, about speaking truth to power … The truth is that mandate laws like this one have nothing to do with public health, and everything to do with Big Pharma profit, Big Pharma control, and Big Pharma deception,” Yes on 1 says.23

    “While this law [LD 798] masquerades as a public health issue, there’s no evidence it would do anything to improve outbreaks of vaccine targeted disease in schools. Countless cases across the country have shown that these diseases occur in fully vaccinated populations …

    Why do we care about Big Pharma’s involvement? Because, a hated industry with no liability, no reason to improve the safety of its products, and an ever growing and aggressive schedule, should not be allowed to influence policy to mandate these very products.”

    Donate here: https://www.rejectbigpharma.com/donate
    - Sources and References
    1 BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine July 27, 2018; 11102
    2 STAT News September 28, 2018
    3 Cochrane.org September 15, 2018
    4 Nordic Cochrane Center September 14, 2018
    5 Twitter, Prof. Peter Goetzsche, February 9, 2020
    6 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD004879
    7 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2010 Jul 7;(7):CD001269
    8 Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 2010 Feb 17;(2):CD004876
    9 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews February 1, 2018, Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Adults
    10 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews February 1, 2018, Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children
    11 NJ S2173
    12 PJ Media December 17, 2019
    13 New York Times January 13, 2020 (Archived)
    14 Ars Technica January 14, 2020
    15 RejectBigPharma.com, What is a people’s veto?
    16 Ballotpedia.com, Maine Question 1
    17 Rejectbigpharma.com
    18 News Center Maine Updated February 6, 2020
    19 Financial Times April 24, 2016
    20, 24 Youtube, Yes on 1 Press Conference February 11, 2020
    21 Markets and Markets Research, Vaccines Market January 2020
    22 WGME.com February 10, 2020
    23 Central Maine Updated February 11, 2020
    Each breath a gift...

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (Yesterday)

  7. Link to Post #804
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 50,877 times in 10,300 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    Dogs' Rights Now Exceed Human Rights
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    February 25, 2020

    Delaware is the first state in the U.S. to pass a bill that would allow titers to be given in lieu of rabies vaccines for certain dogs, cats and ferrets
    The Delaware bill — Maggie’s Vaccine Protection Act, formally known as House Bill 214 — was initiated by Al Casapulla, a businessman who lost his shih tzu, Maggie, due to over-vaccination
    In the case of livestock, discussions are underway into whether or not to vaccinate very young calves, as many factors influence the outcome; looking into individual circumstances is encouraged
    Why can state legislators recognize the risks of applying one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates to pets, but overlook the same risks when applying vaccine schedules to humans?
    The same commonsense approaches that are sometimes afforded to animals, in terms of evaluating individual circumstances when choosing whether or not to vaccinate, are not typically given to humans
    Delaware is the first state in the U.S. to pass a bill that would allow titers to be given in lieu of rabies vaccines for certain dogs, cats and ferrets. An antibody titer measures the concentration of antibodies in the blood produced after an inflammatory response to vaccination. Measuring the number of antibodies present is used to certify that a person or animal is immune to a specific antigen or virus.

    If enough antibodies are present after recovering from the natural disease or being previously vaccinated, it can be used as “proof” of immunity to that disease. The Delaware bill — Maggie’s Vaccine Protection Act, formally known as House Bill 214 — was initiated by Al Casapulla, a businessman who lost his shih tzu, Maggie, due to over-vaccination.1

    Rabies vaccine requirements vary by state, but many require mandatory vaccinations, regardless of the health status of the pet. Although a few states, such as Illinois, Maine and New Hampshire, allow animals to be exempted from rabies vaccines if it would compromise their health, many other states have no exemptions to vaccinations.2

    Once the bill is signed into law, Delaware will become the first state to accept a rabies titer in lieu of the shot. It will allow veterinarians to complete a titer on their pet patients and decide whether or not a rabies vaccination is necessary.

    The bill reads, “This Act enables licensed veterinarians to exempt an animal from the mandated rabies vaccination, if the veterinarian determines, based on their professional judgement, that the vaccine would endanger the animal's health and a titer test may be administered to assist in determining the necessity of the vaccine.”3

    Pet Vaccine Bills Aims to Protect Dogs From Over-Vaccination
    Maggie’s Vaccine Protection Act passed the Delaware General Assembly by a unanimous vote.4 Casapulla told Coastal Point that the bill’s passing is the culmination of years of work aimed at protecting animals from the harms of over-vaccination:5

    “I have been working on this bill since she [Maggie] died … My passion to see this through was more than the passion I had when I started my business, because I knew if this gets passed we would be saving the lives of so many innocent animals and allowing vets to use their discretion on making legal, educated exemptions … Maggie will be saving lives long after I am gone.”

    The support for the bill was strong among legislators, including state Rep. Ruth Briggs King, who said pet owners and veterinarians should have the ultimate say on whether pets need vaccines, instead of them being forced into it due to the law.

    “These are responsible pet owners,” she told Coastal Point, “so we are hopeful this time it’s going to move through. This is the second session for it, on the second legislature it’s been through.”6 Similarly, Sen. Gerald Hocker stated:7

    “I feel it’s a good bill. It corrects something I wasn’t aware of. Vaccinations will be based on the health of the dog. Who better than the veterinarian to decide, depending on the health of the dog? Constituent Al Casapulla, who lost his dog, spent several hours working with vets.”

    The Irony of Granting Pets Greater Rights Than People
    The passage of Delaware’s House Bill 214 is excellent news for frequently over-vaccinated pets — something veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker writes about often — but the irony is glaring. Why can state legislators recognize the risks of applying one-size-fits-all vaccine mandates to pets, but overlook the same risks when applying vaccine schedules to people, especially infants and children?

    Today we know, for instance, that some children, like those with mitochondrial disorders, are at increased risk from vaccinations, but efforts aren’t being made to identify these children to prevent unnecessary harm. Further, an individual’s response to a vaccine is influenced by many factors.

    Gut microbes may help determine immune response to vaccines, for starters. In one study, infants who responded to the rotavirus vaccine had a higher diversity of microbes in their gut, as well as more microbes from the Proteobacteria group, than infants who did not mount the expected immune response.8,9

    Likewise, in a study by Nikolaj Orntoft and colleagues, researchers looked into changes in gene expression after diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccination in African girls to see which genes might be upregulated or downregulated (basically “turned on” or “turned off”).10 What they found is that there's really no way to predict which genes will be affected.

    So, not only will each individual have a unique response to any given vaccine based on their age, current health status and microbial makeup, but each is also epigenetically predisposed to respond differently in terms of the side effects they might develop. You can see, then, how vaccine mandates may turn out to be health disasters for some children and adults, just as they are for some pets.

    Combo Vaccines Risk Highest Reactions
    Also at odds with human medicine are discussions by veterinarians suggesting that giving pets multiple vaccines at once may be dangerous, especially for smaller animals. Dr. W. Jean Dodds, founder of Hemopet Blood Bank, told Veterinary Practice News all the way back in 2009 that the frequency of vaccinations is heavily debated, with some suggesting that giving core vaccines every three years or every year is outdated.

    “Few veterinarians are proactive about discussing the options clients have in protecting their pets against disease,” Dodds said. “The industry promotes more vaccines and veterinarians feel comfortable telling clients they’re necessary. Often, technicians have vaccines prepared before the doctor even examines the animal. Many vets don’t know how to handle titers or don’t want to bother with them.” What’s more, she noted:11

    “When vaccines are needed, they shouldn’t be given at the same site or at the same exam. Banfield Animal Health released two papers on this topic saying animals weighing less than 20 pounds and receiving combo vaccines are at the highest risk of vaccine reaction, yet few DVMs arrange separate visits as a precaution.”

    In humans, however, multiple vaccinations are regularly given at the same time to infants and children — including multiple combination vaccines in one visit.

    The fact is, all vaccines need to be carefully evaluated not only individually for long-term safety, but also for synergistic toxicity when the vaccine is given in combination with other vaccines and given repeatedly over a period of time, as well as given to people of varying ages and sizes — premature infants included.

    For instance, among unvaccinated premature infants, no link to neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) was found. However, a significant link between vaccinations and NDD was detected, regardless of whether the child was premature or full-term.

    The combination of preterm birth with vaccination was associated with a 660% increased odds of NDD,12 suggesting a synergistic effect and a need to fully research whether it’s safe to vaccinate premature infants.

    ‘Individual Situations’ Taken Into Account for Livestock
    Again in the case of livestock, discussions are underway into whether or not to vaccinate very young calves, as many factors influence the outcome.

    An article in Beef magazine, for instance, suggested that age and colostrum intake should be taken into account when deciding when to vaccinate, as calves that get colostrum may have higher levels of maternal antibodies. Chris Chase, Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, South Dakota State University, told the magazine:

    “In the 2-week old calf, there are two things you need to be concerned about. One is age, the other is colostrum intake.

    Typically, even in a calf that got no colostrum [and no maternal antibodies to interfere with building its own immunity], the response for making antibodies [when vaccinated early] is not great under 3 weeks of age. If they have higher levels of maternal antibodies than the older calves, they also may not respond [to vaccination].”13

    Chase went on to explain that when calves were vaccinated at two or three days old, then challenged with disease seven months later, 20% still got sick. But waiting to vaccinate until the calves were three to four weeks of age led to a better outcome, with less than 5% getting sick. Even then, however, age is only one factor, and he stressed the need to look into individual situations:14

    “Age at vaccination is a big factor, but it all goes back to individual situations. If someone is having trouble with summer pneumonia, we’d have to say the vaccine at a young age [several weeks old] probably doesn’t hurt them, but how much good it actually does those calves may be minimal.

    Then it goes back to colostral intake and whether it was low, and we still have the issue that they are young when you are giving the vaccine. A person can work with their own herd health veterinarian and take a look at what is going on in their particular situation, and figure out what to be most concerned about.”

    Why Are Livestock and Pets Treated Better Than People?
    Animals deserve to have their health put first when it comes to medical procedures like vaccinations, but people deserve to be able to exercise a more precautionary approach to vaccination as well. Unfortunately, these same commonsense approaches that are sometimes afforded to animals, in terms of evaluating individual risk factors when choosing whether or not to vaccinate, are not typically given to people.

    Today, many doctors are not just strongly promoting vaccination, they are threatening to deny medical care to children and adults if all vaccinations recommended by health officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not given on the federally recommended schedule.

    Children may be vaccinated when sick, for instance, or kidney patients on dialysis given vaccinations upon arrival at a hospital, even before a diagnosis had been given or a doctor had approved of the shots.

    Dr. Suzanne Humphries, author of “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” is a nephrologist who has raised similar concerns, suggesting that vaccines may not be safe for people with chronic conditions like kidney failure, or for babies, who have reduced kidney function compared to adults.

    As Humphries said in a video, "We're very careful as nephrologists when treating babies because the kidney functions of babies isn't the same as adults — it's vastly reduced. But when it comes to vaccines, this reduced kidney function in infants is always left out of the discussion."

    It’s no wonder why, in an online survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults, conducted on behalf of the American Osteopathic Association, 45% said they had doubts about vaccine safety.15 Unfortunately, vaccine exemptions are increasingly under attack.

    The ability to make informed, voluntary vaccine choices for yourself and your children must be protected, because vaccines are not a one-size-fits-all-solution, nor is the U.S. public as a whole a one-size-fits-all population. It’s time that this became widely accepted for humans, just as it’s starting to be acknowledged for pets and livestock."

    - Sources and References
    1, 4, 5, 6, 7 Coastal Point
    2 AVMA, State Rabies Laws (PDF)
    3 Delaware General Assembly, House Bill 214
    8 Scientific American May 19, 2015
    9 The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 215, Issue 1, 1 January 2017, Pages 34–41
    10 Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation 2013, Volume 73, Issue 4
    11 Veterinary Practice News April 17, 2009
    12 Journal of Translational Science April 24, 2017, DOI: 10.15761/JTS.1000187 Summary of Findings 6.6-fold
    13, 14 Beef Magazine January 26, 2017
    15 American Osteopathic Association June 24, 2019
    Each breath a gift...

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (Yesterday)

  9. Link to Post #805
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Thanked 50,877 times in 10,300 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "the Shots", it is about totalitarian tiptoe

    How can most pediatricians be wrong about vaccines?
    Jeremy R. Hammond's Newsletter

    "One popular talking point we see a lot in the mainstream media is that "anti-vaxxers" believe in "conspiracy theories" about vaccines, as though some grand conspiracy was required to explain how basically the entire medical establishment could get it wrong about vaccines.

    How could so many pediatricians, for example, be wrong when they tell parents that vaccines are "safe and effective" and necessary for their children? It's not as though all these doctors are in on some conspiracy to deceive their patients!

    This fallacious ad hominem argument against critics of public vaccine policy is a lazy and intellectually dishonest means of addressing parents' legitimate concerns.

    It's actually not hard at all to answer the question of how most doctors could be wrong. After all, it's not as though the medical establishment hasn't been proven wrong before! On the contrary, the idea that the medical establishment is somehow infallible is downright ludicrous, given its history of being wrong constantly on matters of life-or-death importance.

    Furthermore, doctors can hardly practice medicine at all these days as they see fit. They are strictly confined due to government intervention in the market in the "care" they provide to patients.

    Anecdotally, I've had my share of less-than-useless doctors who were totally ignorant about advances in medical science and just went on practicing the way they'd been taught in medical school and following "standard of care" regardless of what science actually has to say about it. Even the good doctors who are open-minded and make an effort to keep up with the science are strictly limited.

    For example, the one decent primacy care physician I've had retired because, as he told me, he could no longer practice medicine according to his own judgement. He told me about another elderly female patient of his who was on a certain medication that had been on the market a long time and had a good safety record and was effective for her. But he was being dictated to under regulatory red tape so that he could no longer prescribe that drug for her, but must instead prescribe another, newer drug that had no long-term track record of safety and which might not be as effective for her.

    There is practically no doctor-patient relationship anymore. Instead, doctors -- certainly including pediatricians -- are dictated to about how to conduct their trade. The dictats come from government as well as trade organizations like the industry-funded American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

    In early 2017, the AAP issued a press release claiming that vaccines prevent cancer, that the hypothesis that vaccines can cause autism has been scientifically disproven, and that the claim that vaccines administered according to the CDC's routine childhood schedule is contributing to the ill-health of the childhood population has been scientifically disproven.

    So I contacted the organization to request the studies upon which those claims were based.https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2017/...ut+vaccines%3F

    The AAP first tried and failed to produce any such studies, and then, when pressed further to support their bold claims with science, they refused.

    I documented my correspondence with the AAP in a 2017 article titled "American Academy of Pediatrics Refuses to Back Vaccine Claims with Science". It's among the most popular articles I've ever published on my website. If you've never read it, you'll want to be sure to do so, and if you have, it might be worth revisiting:
    Click here to learn how the AAP refuses to back its vaccine claims with science.

    P.S. -- Just to update you on where I'm at, I'm currently working on a very important collaborative project with Children's Health Defense (RFK, Jr.'s organization), which I'll certainly be sharing with you upon publication! Then, assuming nothing else comes up requiring a timely response (like my rebuttal to Dr. Peter Hotez's New York Times propaganda or my rebuttal to faux "fact-checkers" misinforming readers by claiming that the WHO's chief scientist didn't lie about vaccine safety), I'll be shifting my focus back to completing a thorough rebuttal to the most recent MMR-autism study out of Denmark, falsely hailed by the media as proving conclusively that there is no association. "

    Jeremy R. Hammond
    Independent Journalist, Author, and Writing Coach
    Publisher & Editor
    Each breath a gift...

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    mountain_jim (Today), Philippe (Today)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst 1 31 41

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts