+ Reply to Thread
Page 24 of 25 FirstFirst 1 14 24 25 LastLast
Results 461 to 480 of 495

Thread: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

  1. Link to Post #461
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    8th May 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Age
    48
    Posts
    3,930
    Thanks
    27,040
    Thanked 20,896 times in 3,646 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Fecal transplants yield MASSIVE breakthrough for child autism, 50% reduction in severity

    RT
    Wed, 10 Apr 2019 15:24 UTC


    The study involved 18 autistic children © Pixabay

    Scientists are celebrating a "world-first discovery" which shows the "highest improvement" in child autism patients, using fecal transplants to massively curtail symptoms and greatly reduce suffering.

    The results of the initial study involving 18 children show great promise: 83 percent of the children had "severe" autism symptoms, but just two years later, only 17 percent had "moderate" symptoms, while 44 percent fell below the threshold for "mild" autism.

    The team recorded a roughly 45-percent drop in language, social, and behavioral issues in the children over the course of the study.

    The initial success of the microbiota or 'fecal transfer' therapy adds further weight to the theory this, and many other, neurological conditions may be strongly connected to the gut rather than the brain.

    "We are finding a very strong connection between the microbes that live in our intestines and signals that travel to the brain," Dr. Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown, a microbiologist at Arizona State University who jointly led the study, said, adding that,

    "Two years later, the children are doing even better, which is amazing."
    In the US, one in every 59 children is diagnosed with some form of autism, which is a spectrum disorder, a vast increase in diagnosis from just one in every 150 in 2000. This means that half a million people on the autism spectrum will become adults in the next decade, "a swelling tide for which the country is unprepared," according to the researchers.


    © Shireen Dooling / Arizona State University

    In children with autism, gastrointestinal symptoms such as constipation and diarrhea can cause irritability, decreased attention span, and negatively impact behavior, exacerbating other symptoms and making treatment and condition management far more difficult.

    The regimen consists of pre-treatment with a bowel cleanse, administering a stomach acid suppressant and fecal transplants for between seven and eight weeks. The 'donation' of more diverse gut bacteria greatly boosts overall health and wellbeing in the patients.

    Much larger trials are required before the treatment is officially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

    The treatment was originally pioneered by Dr. Thomas Borody, an Australian gastroenterologist, who has hailed the results as a significant breakthrough.

    "This is a world-first discovery... I would call it the highest improvement in a cohort that anyone has achieved for autism symptoms," he said.


    Related:
    Dude I'm reading this and having to re read it. Fecal transplant? You can't make this **** up.
    They can't find a better way to introduce gut Flora than this? I mean I understand a fro yo isn't going to cut it but undergoing a procedure where someone else's poop is placed inside you. I could just see myself in front of the doc pleading for any other way. "No I'm sorry young man, but I'm going to have to put someone else's poop inside of you, your poop just isn't cutting it you see".
    I'm all for it if this actually works, but who would have thunk it.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DNA For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), BMJ (27th April 2019), Constance (12th April 2019), Delight (27th April 2019), Valerie Villars (11th April 2019)

  3. Link to Post #462
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    The little fascists of California

    by Jon Rappoport Apr 12, 2019

    First, in 2015, there was SB277, a bill that was passed into law by the CA state legislature and signed by California Governor Jerry Brown—fascists all. Under the guise of protecting children’s health, the law canceled all vaccine exemptions except one issued by a medical doctor. But “the note from the doctor” was just a temporary stopgap and diversion away from the bottom-line agenda: vaccinate all kids and put the practice of vaccination into the hands of the State—not individual doctors. Making this into law is the job of SB276, a new CA bill now up for consideration.

    If it passes, all attempts to win exemptions from vaccination will be henceforth submitted by a doctor, on a single standard form, to a State Public Health Officer, who will decide whether to approve or deny them. A doctor’s word will no longer be sufficient. The State will rule.

    State scrutiny of doctors, already at an all-time high in California, will escalate. Applying for a vaccine exemption will itself constitute evidence of professional malpractice.

    This is how fascism works in a “modern democracy.” All repressive edicts and laws are undertaken “for the good of the people,” “for the children,” etc.—as rights and freedoms are sucked away by elected and appointed officials.

    When necessary, science is bent and twisted and reversed, to give credence to “new progressive laws.”

    In California, when SB276 passes, a whole new bureau of State Health will be created. Little corrupt officials will be on the hunt for “law-breaking doctors.”

    Picture this:
    little Jimmy’s mother, who has educated herself on the truth about toxic vaccines, finally finds an MD who is willing to submit a standard form seeking an exemption for her son. The reason? Generalized lowered immunity. A State officer turns it down. Jimmy’s mother talks to her husband about moving out of California. He has a decent job. He tells her his prospects in another state would be dim. After much discussion, they decide to stay where they are. On the occasion of Jimmy’s sixth vaccination, he suffers brain damage. He will never be the same again. The diagnosis is autism.
    This is life in the fascist state of California.

    Jon Rappoport
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (13th April 2019), Bill Ryan (10th May 2019), BMJ (27th April 2019), Delight (2nd May 2019), Deux Corbeaux (15th April 2019), Houman (13th April 2019), onawah (27th April 2019), Paul (13th April 2019), seko (14th April 2019)

  5. Link to Post #463
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    13,880
    Thanks
    31,709
    Thanked 62,480 times in 12,390 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    New Treatment Slashes Autism Symptoms
    https://anh-usa.org/new-treatment-sl...tism-symptoms/
    BY ANH-USA Alliance for Natural Health
    APRIL 25, 2019
    STOP CRONY HEALTHCARE
    "A promising treatment has shown remarkable success in treating autism—but will the FDA turn it into a Big Pharma blockbuster? Action Alert!
    Take action here: https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site...Action&id=3352

    Recently we reported on the advancements in research regarding fecal microbiota transplants (FMT), which harness the power of the gut microbiome to treat illness. A recent study has found that FMT reduced autism symptoms by 50%. This is a stunning finding that provides further evidence of the incredible potential of FMT, but the FDA is on the verge of turning this affordable treatment into an expensive drug and thus potentially putting the treatment out of reach for many patients.

    Part of what makes these findings so remarkable is the lasting effect of FMT. The improvement in gut health and autism symptoms persisted long after FMT was administered—up to two years later in the study. Similar effectiveness was found when FMT was used to treat an antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection that kills 30,000 Americans a year—most patients required just a single dose of FMT to fully recover. It is a testament to the power of the gut microbiome.

    There is sound logic behind using FMT to treat autistic patients. Many autistic children have gastrointestinal (GI) problems. These children tend to have the worst autism-related symptoms: chronic GI discomfort can cause irritability and negatively impact behavior. Relieving GI discomfort through FMT can thus go a long way in improving autism symptoms.

    Autism is one of the potential applications of FMT, but there are many more. It is being studied for a wide variety of indications, including ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s Disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, childhood regressive autism, metabolic disorders, diabetes, and others. FMT could lead to the next generation of medicines that utilize the trillions of microbes living within us to heal.

    Currently, the pioneers behind FMT have a non-profit stool bank, OpenBiome that supplies most of the fecal matter for transplants in the US. Why, after all, should human feces carry an exorbitant price tag?

    Yet apparently that is exactly what the FDA thinks should happen. As we reported previously, the agency is on the verge of deciding the future of FMT. The agency is deciding whether to regulate FMT like a new drug, or more along the model of donated organs, tissues, and blood products that are transferred from a healthy donor to a sick one. (Read our previous coverage for a more detailed discussion of the distinction between these two models.)

    The drug model would of course allow Big Pharma to create monopoly drugs and charge a fortune for them, so we believe that is exactly what the FDA will do. It is what the agency has already done to a number of natural supplements such as CBD oil, L-glutamine, and the pyridoxamine form of vitamin B6.

    It’s unfortunate that the FDA seems more committed to guaranteeing Big Pharma profits than looking out for public health. The decisions the agency is making are driving up the costs of healthcare for Americans. The benefits of FMT should be available to everyone, not just those who can afford to pay Big Pharma’s monopoly prices.

    Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FDA, urging the agency NOT to regulate FMT like a drug. Please send your message immediately."
    https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site...Action&id=3352
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (27th April 2019), Bill Ryan (10th May 2019), BMJ (27th April 2019), Delight (27th April 2019), Franny (11th May 2019), Hervé (27th April 2019)

  7. Link to Post #464
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    A case study of how Pharma is killing science

    Celeste McGovern World Mercury Project
    Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:32 UTC


    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Note:
    Even the editors of the leading medical and scientific journals admit that Pharmaceutical companies have taken control of the medical publication industry so completely that most peer-reviewed articles about pharmaceutical products are the product of manipulation and fraud.

    In 2003, Dr. Richard Horton, the editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, the world's most prestigious medical journal acknowledged that peer-reviewed journals have
    "devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.
    "Science, he added

    "has taken a turn toward darkness."
    The BMJ (British Medical Journal) editor Dr Peter Doshi concurred, adding that data cited in many articles "is insufficient to the point of being misleading." Former New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) editor, Marcia Angel observes that: "It is no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians...I take no pleasure in this conclusion which I reached reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."

    Medical journals are today utterly dependent on pharmaceutical industry advertising which can account for up to 99% of revenues. Journal editors routinely accept kickbacks from Pharma. This power has given Pharma the capacity to plant fraudulent studies about vaccine safety and to kill or force retraction of peer-reviewed studies that raise questions about vaccine safety and efficacy. The latest casualty in Pharma's war against truth is an alarming 2019 study showing grotesque behavioral abnormalities in sheep injected with aluminum adjuvants similar to those found in Merck's Gardasil and Hepatitis B vaccines.
    Elsevier's "withdrawal" of a small veterinary study breaks all the rules of scientific publishing. The biggest name in scientific literature has produced fake medical journals for Merck's advertisers before, so yanking a study that doesn't pass the vaccine industry's sniff test would be nothing. Celeste McGovern looks at a case study of how Pharma is killing science.

    It's not often that veterinary research is so controversial that it falls into the jaws of censorship zealots. That is exactly what happened recently, however, when editors at a science journal suddenly turned on a small Spanish sheep study which they had already peer-reviewed and published and stamped it: "WITHDRAWN" - the equivalent of a scarlet letter "A" in the science publishing world. This was not about shoddy science or ethical breaches; an editor tried to soothe the outraged veterinary professor at the head of the research. But the focus was "delicate" and "controversial" and someone - some anonymous letter-writer - had wanted the study removed, and the journal acquiesced.

    [...]


    Full article: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1288785
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (27th April 2019), Bill Ryan (10th May 2019), BMJ (27th April 2019), Delight (2nd May 2019), Franny (11th May 2019), onawah (28th April 2019), Tintin (20th May 2020)

  9. Link to Post #465
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    The evisceration of Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Vicious attacks against doctor who dared question the safety of vaccines

    Iain Davis In This Together
    Tue, 07 May 2019 00:00 UTC


    We are told that to question vaccines makes you a baby killer. Quite often this baseless alarmism pumped out by the MSM is littered with disinformation. For example in the recent Mirror article published by the anonymous FleetStreetFox (Susie Boniface) she, or her editors, provided us with this distressing image.


    The article calls for any who refuse to vaccinate their child to be imprisoned for 'child abuse' and decries 'the spread of anti-vax propaganda.' Which is ironic because the headline image, chosen to drive this critical message into your consciousness, is pure propaganda of the very silliest and sickest kind.


    If you question which way the photo-shopping went consider if it is likely a medical professional would handle an infectious baby without gloves.

    Elsewhere we read about the 'disgraced' Dr Andrew Wakefield who made 'bogus claims' about the measles vaccine in 1995. Other than the fact that FleetStreetFox has got both the year and the type of vaccine wrong, she is right about the disgraced part. Though, given her inability to report even basic facts accurately, and her apparent reliance upon photo-shopped images to support her serious analysis, we might question the veracity of some other statements in her diatribe.

    I've explored some of the evidence which does raise questions about both the efficacy and safety of some vaccines. As a person who is not medically qualified I am certainly not advising anyone to avoid vaccination. Presumably 'FleetStreetFox' isn't a doctor either, yet she is seemingly content to dish out medical advice.

    Everyone deserves an opportunity to be informed. So we will look at the evisceration of Dr Wakefield, not particularly for the evidence he highlighted, which has been more thoroughly explored by others, but because it reveals the reason why the vaccine debate has become little more than an adversarial 'slanging match.'

    Whenever you mention any concerns about possible vaccine safety the Wakefield case is immediately thrown in your face as 'proof' that such apprehensions are baseless. For millions, the story of Dr Wakefield is about as far as their knowledge goes on vaccines. This is understandable as it is constantly reinforced by the mainstream media (MSM.) For most people it is the episode which defines the stupidity of the 'anti-vaxxers.'

    I recommend that everyone looks at his case in detail. Because, if you do, Wakefield's professional assassination actually demonstrates one of the main reasons why we should perhaps be more sceptical about vaccines.


    The eradication of measles due to vaccines is a common claim. However, that is not what the data necessarily demonstrates.

    We are currently in a situation where the state is rapidly moving towards compulsory vaccination virtually unchallenged. It enjoys the overwhelming support of the population it intends to forcibly inject, because they think the Wakefield debacle tells them everything they need to know about the 'anti-vaxxers' who are imploring them to wake up. The science is beyond question. All vaccines are all equally brilliant and anyone who questions the certain science is an idiot. Pointing out that certainty is the antithesis of the scientific method just shows what a dingbat 'anti-vaxxer' you are. Consequently, the projected corporate profit growth is mind bending.

    Understanding how Dr Wakefield was publicly humiliated and destroyed should raise significant questions for any capable of critical thought. In 1998 Dr Andrew Wakefield, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, was one of three leaders of a case series study which was published in the British medical journal the Lancet. Case series studies are called for when it is suspected a group of patients had a near uniform but unexpected response to treatment. They are a specific type of study and do not require control groups nor a double blind approach to research, prior to publication.

    In this case series the question was why, following an MMR vaccination, did these children all show symptoms of severe gastrointestinal problems and thereafter developmental delays. The study indicated that the children had severe digestive system damage and possible mitochondrial dysfunction.

    Of the twelve children studied, all of whom had been diagnosed with either Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD,) encephalitis or full Autism, eight first exhibited bowel symptoms within two weeks of receiving the MMR vaccine, with three showing an almost instant reaction. Of the other four, three developed symptoms within two months. All had demonstrated normal development prior to receiving the vaccine. Two of the children experienced other medical problems, causing some developmental delays, which were corrected before both resumed normal development, prior to vaccination.


    The ‘anti-vaxxer’ is nothing knew. Following the 1867 Vaccination Act the people of Leicester rioted after the smallpox death rate went up following compulsory vaccination.

    Dr Wakefield's and his team were looking specifically at the children's gastrointestinal symptoms. They found what they suspected was a previously unknown disorder which they hypothesised, could be linked to ASD and Autism. Given the reason for the case series study, it would have been nonsensical for Dr Wakefield to have reported the results without mentioning the MMR vaccine. Some of the children's parents were angered when Dr Wakefield concluded there was no proof of a link and further investigation was required. He stated:
    "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue."
    Dr Wakefield did not claim that ASD, encephalitis or Autism were caused by the MMR vaccine. Quite the opposite, he stated the study did not prove any link. However, as part of his previous research, Dr Wakefield made a detailed review of the MMR safety studies. He concluded they were inadequate, especially in comparison to the safety studies carried out for the individual measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. Therefore, in light of both the Lancet case series study and his separate review of the medical literature, Dr Wakefield stated the following:
    "We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."
    Something rarely mentioned, and certainly never by the MSM, about Dr Wakefield's findings in relation to his separate review of the MMR vaccine safety studies is that they were fully corroborated by the leading systemic scientific review journal the Cochrane Review who stated:
    "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre‐ and post‐marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."
    When Dr Wakefield released the Lancet study, in February 1998, parents could choose to opt for the individual or 'monovalent' vaccines in preference of the combined MMR. This had become an increasingly popular choice since 1992 when the previous MMR vaccine Pluserix was withdrawn after it was found it could cause aseptic meningitis. In 1998 Dr Wakefield recommended only that parents continued to be offered the choice. He had made this abundantly clear to the then UK Health Minister, Tessa Jowell and the UK Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, in a private meeting in October 1997.

    Never, at any stage, did he recommend parents avoid vaccinating their child. Many took his suggested preferable alternative of the monovalent vaccine and their children were vaccinated, as normal, just not with the MMR.

    It therefore seemed odd to many why, in September 1998, as MSM driven fears rose, the UK Government decided to withhold the import license for the monovalent vaccines. MMR vaccine rates were already in decline prior to the release of Dr Wakefield's findings but overall coverage remained quite high, as parents opted for the single vaccines. However, when the UK State withheld the monovalent licenses, denying parental choice, not only did MMR uptake decrease more sharply it ended any possibility of children receiving the alternative.

    SmithKline Beecham's (SKB) new MMR vaccine Priorix coincidentally came on to the market in 1998. SKB became GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) two years later.


    Consequently overall infant measles vaccination rates dropped from nearly 92% in 1996/7 to its lowest level of 79% in 2003/4. If the UK state had any concern at all for the welfare of British children they would not have withdrawn the monovalent licenses. Their decision was obviously not based upon any consideration for child infection rates. The sharp decrease in overall measles protection for British children started only after the government decided not to offer the monovalent option. Many parents were never going to opt for the MMR, because the Urabe strain variant had already been proven to give children brain damage, but they were content to use the monovalent, seemingly safer alternatives.

    Wakefield was simply the patsy, blamed for the decline, while the population were forcibly transitioned onto accepting the new MMR vaccine. The fact that he never, at any stage, said there was a proven link between MMR and Autism was ignored completely.

    The obliteration of Dr Andrew Wakefield's reputation and career is an object lesson in how this feudalistic system actually works. Almost immediately the MSM started making false statements. 'Fake news' in other words. In February 1998 the BBC made the following claim "Child Vaccine Linked To Autism" The Independent wrote " Doctors Link Autism To MMR Vaccination." Virtually the entire MSM wrote and broadcast similar headlines, declaring a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. A link which Dr Wakefield specifically stated was unproven.

    He acted with honesty and integrity throughout. His destruction largely, but certainly not exclusively, came from the 'award winning' investigative journalism of Brian Deer. Deer apparently used the private investigative firm Medico Legal Investigations to uncover the 'evidence' to expose Dr Wakefield. Medico Legal Investigations are almost exclusively funded by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). ABPI is an immensely wealthy lobby group for Big Pharma.

    Deer has strenuously denied this but there seems little doubt. In their own publication MLI stated:
    "The extraordinary tale of the problems found in the paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield (as published in the Lancet) concerning MMR and autism were shared with MLI in strict confidence whilst Brian Deer's fine piece of investigative journalism was underway. We were asked to advise on matters that were clearly quite alarming."

    Brian Deer – Award winning investigative journalist.

    Deer worked for Rupert Murdoch's News International empire. His 'freelance' work has allowed some to claim he was not associated with News International. So presumably he wasn't paid for his work which was almost exclusively published by the Sunday Times managed by James Murdoch. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in vaccine development. They run the Murdoch Children's Research Institute which receives considerable funding from GSK, of which they are major shareholders.

    In 2009 James Murdoch became a non-executive director on the Board of GSK who manufactured and profited from the Priorix MMR vaccine. Deer not only 'uncovered' the evidence to destroy Wakefield, he brought the case against him to the General Medical Council and then reported his interpretation of those proceeding to the British public and the rest of the world. This clear conflict of interest in Deer's so called 'journalism' was never questioned throughout his long running, single minded destruction of Dr Wakefield.

    I reference the Andrew Wakefield Wikipedia page here because it more or less describes the narrative we have all been told to unquestioningly accept. It reads as follows:
    "He [Dr Wakefield] was a gastroenterologist until he was struck off the UK medical register for unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty for authoring a fraudulent research paper that claimed a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism and bowel disease."
    So firstly we note the lie that Dr Wakefield claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. He did no such thing. He merely recommended further research and the continued use of the monovalent vaccine, in the meantime, while further study could be undertaken into the possible MMR risks. Which wouldn't have been the first time such risks had emerged.

    It is true that he was struck off for unethical behaviour in 2010 by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC.) Claims that he was unfit to practice all originated from Brian Deer, who, at the time, was working for the GSK's board member who had the specific remit for 'corporate responsibility.'

    The allegation of unethical behaviour, which Deer 'uncovered' and reported to the GMC, alleged that Wakefield didn't disclose the fact that he had been paid by the legal team representing some of the children's families in a group action law suit against the vaccine manufacturer. Specifically Deer alleged that this undermined the Lancet study, because it was a clear conflict of interest which Wakefield didn't disclose to the Lancet before they published. This was all absurd tripe that Deer seemingly 'made up' while he fastidiously didn't disclose his own enormous conflict of interest.

    The slight problem with Deer's fantasy was that he appeared to be conflating two distinctly separate studies. In 1996 Wakefield met with and agreed to be an expert witness for a class action lawsuit brought by some of the parents legal team. We might indeed question if medical experts should be paid by law firms as expert witnesses. Does this represent a clear conflict of interest, perhaps so?

    However, it is extremely common practice and the pharmaceutical industry pay whole teams of such 'medical expert witnesses' vast sums to 'represent' them in court. For example another harsh critic of Dr Wakefield's was Dr Paul Offit, who even wrote a book (of sorts) vilifying his fellow professional researcher. Not only has Offit been paid by Merck, and others, to represent them in court he is actually a patent holder for the Merck licensed rotavirus vaccine Rotateq. That he sat on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory panel during their oversight of the clinical trials of his own vaccine and then inaccurately and incorrectly criticised Wakefield for doing something far less contentious is stomach churning. Of course, Rotateq was approved by the CDC, with Offit's advice, and entered onto the U.S vaccine Schedule without any question at all.

    The questionable activities of people like Offit are rarely, if ever, questioned by the MSM who destroyed Dr Wakefield. Clearly it wasn't because he was acting as an expert witness but rather that he was acting as an expert witness for the wrong side.

    The notion that the Lancet study was funded by law firms was total bilge. The study was awarded £55,000 from the Legal Aid Board. This did raise concerns at the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust because the directors were concerned that a study, which could potentially lead to legal action against the NHS, was funded by Legal Aid. In response Dr Wakefield sent an email to the Chief Executive which stated:
    "There are no preconditions to our grant. Furthermore, there is no intention whatsoever on behalf of the Legal Aid Board or its agent to take action against the National Health Service; it is against the manufacturers of vaccine that any future action will be taken if and when our studies indicate that is a valid strategy."
    The allegation, made by Deer and others, that Dr Wakefield was being deliberately evasive or 'hiding' a financial conflict of interest was either the result of shoddy journalism or a lie. While Dr Wakefield was paid as an expert witness at other times, the clinical protocols for the entirely separate Lancet study had been written and created by Wakefield's colleague Professor John Walker-Smith. It had been he, not Wakefield, who had selected the children for the case series study. Wakefield's role in the Lancet study was to collate and finalise the research for publication, he was not the clinical director.


    Prof. Walker-Smith [Clinical Director]

    Professor Walker-Smith, a renowned paediatric gastroenterologist and an esteemed scientific researcher, had "blanket ethical clearance" to conduct research. As the clinical director of the Lancet study ethical clearance was largely assured. The colonoscopies, lumbar punctures, MRI scans, and other invasive procedures were all ethically considered to be appropriate clinical indicators by Professor Walker-Smith. Dr Wakefield wanted further ethical clearance to carry out additional blood work and Professor Walker-Smith requested and received this additional clearance from the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free School of Medicine in January 1997.

    The Wikipedia entry, based mainly on Deer's evidence free accusations, states:
    ".....children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures ....... Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board."
    This is a wholly inaccurate statement and is wrong in every single respect. Wakefield did not need ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board because he wasn't the clinical director. Professor Walker-Smith had ultimate ethical oversight of the Lancet study which he devolved to others, including Wakefield, as necessary. However, Walker-Smith did have ethical approval, so the claim was false on that basis too.

    Deer wasn't the only one, involved in Dr Wakefield's destruction, with unexplained memory lapses when it came to disclosing conflicts of interests. For example The British Medical Journal, often referenced as authoritative by many who accuse 'anti-vaxxers' of child abuse, also suffered financial amnesia. If we look at the Wikipedia page on Dr Wakefield we learn:
    "In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ described Wakefield's work as an elaborate fraud."
    The British Medical Journal were syndicating articles, written by an employee of one of GSK's board members, without bothering to mention that relationship. Similarly they didn't mention that they were themselves financial partners of Merck who, like GSK, as manufacturers of the MMR vaccine 'MMRII,' had a lucrative incentive to discredit Dr Wakefield's published study.

    In response to the complete and utter failure to disclose this vital and highly relevant conflict of interest, the BMJ's Editor in Chief Fiona Godlee said:
    "We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so."
    If Dr Wakefield had unethical conflicts of interest, which he didn't, I wonder if saying "oh well, I forgot," would have worked for him. Somehow I doubt it.

    Much has also been made of the Lancet's retraction of the 1998 study. Perhaps this was based upon their evaluation of the 'da science' but they too just couldn't remember who paid them. The Lancet received payment from the Merck subsidiary Univadis who proudly announced:
    "Through a unique global medical literature service called Just Published, clinical specialists regiseterd on Univadis will receive free access to the full texts of recently published articles from the Lancet. This new service will be available on [the Univadis website].
    We also learn from the Wikipedia page:
    "In April 2010, Deer expanded on laboratory aspects of his findings in a report in the BMJ, recounting how normal clinical histopathology results (obtained from the Royal Free hospital) had been subjected to wholesale changes, from normal to abnormal, in the medical school and published in The Lancet."
    At the risk of repeating myself this wasn't true either. Deer made these allegations after his previous unsubstantiated allegations had seen Dr Wakefield struck off the medical register by the GMC. Possibly emboldened by his success, he really went for it by trotting out more nonsense.

    His claim that Dr Wakefield had made 'wholesale changes' were examined by microbiologist David Lewis. Dr Wakefield didn't even complete the histopathology reports. They were submitted by his pathologist colleagues Amar Dhillon and Andrew Anthony. Upon reviewing these original reports David Lewis concluded:
    "I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets..... they suggest that he diagnosed "colitis" in a number of the children........The grading sheets and other evidence in Wakefield's files clearly show that it is unreasonable to conclude, based on a comparison of the histological records, that Andrew Wakefield 'faked' a link between the MMR vaccine and autism."
    Wikipedia also informs us:
    "other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism."
    Remarkably this information is actually accurate, though misleading. Many of the Big Pharma funded follow up studies were 'unable' to find evidence of a possible link. Many others did.

    For example in 2006 (before Wakefield's GMC hearing) U.S researchers found that bowel inflammation was possibly associated with children who went on to develop Autism. Again, like Wakefield, they stressed this did not prove MMR was associated to ASD, but they did corroborate the potential link between ASD and gastrointestinal problems, which was the core finding of the Lancet study. Similarly the American Society for Microbiology stated:
    "Many children with autism have gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances that can complicate clinical management and contribute to behavioral problems.....Here we describe an association between high levels of intestinal, mucoepithelial-associated Sutterella species and GI disturbances in children with autism."
    There are many more, which I discuss elsewhere, broadly supporting The Lancet study findings. The Wikipedia contributors must have just forgotten to mention them.

    The other main allegation made by Deer, which the evidence roundly rebuts, was that Wakefield was intending to cash in on his own vaccine alternative to the MMR. The obvious point that this rather contradicts his prevailing narrative that Wakefield is an 'anti-vaxxer' appears to have eluded him. However, seeing as Wakefield was actually working on a vaccine follow up medication, the patent for which was held by the Royal Free Hospital, not Dr. Wakefield, this doesn't really matter because that claim wasn't true either.

    However it did matter to the unfortunate Dr. Wakefield. It was Deer who launched the original complaint with the GMC that lead to him losing his medical license. Deer has flatly denied this, claiming it is all part of a smear campaign by loony 'anti-vaxxers.' You can view a copy of his original submission the GMC here.

    Prior to Deer making the formal complaint, not a single person associated with the Lancet study had felt the need to report Dr Wakefield, or anyone else, to the GMC. No one at the Royal Free, none of the parents nor any of his colleagues, even the Lancet found both his study and conduct perfectly acceptable. They didn't retract the study until after the GMC hearing decision. Only Deer, a journalist who worked for a GSK board member in cooperation with Big Pharma's private investigators, backed by their own industry lobby group, thought Wakefield needed to be made an example of.

    Given how woeful his evidence was, it seems astounding that the GMC accepted his complaint, even more so that they thought it sufficient to strip Wakefield of his licence. However, perhaps the apparent fact that the Chairman of the GMC Fitness to Practice Panel, Dr. Surendra Kumar, was a GSK shareholder may have helped. Dr Kumar is also a prominent supporter of compulsory vaccination. It could boost his dividend no end.


    The anti-vaxxer is, quite literally, insane. It’s like a proper disorder. Massive financial corruption does not exist. It will all be fine.

    The anti-vaxxer is, quite literally, insane. It's like a proper disorder. Massive financial corruption does not exist. It will all be fine.

    Of all the disinformation and deception in the Wikipedia record of the official narrative, that everyone, other than stupid 'anti-vaxxers,' seemingly accepts without reservation, one stands head and shoulder above the rest.
    "A British Administrative Court Justice noted in a related decision-There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr. Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked".
    Ignoring the fact the 'administrative court justice' was basing his opinion only on the science he did know about, the cringing duplicity in this Wikipedia misinformation would make Smeagle baulk. That 'justice' was Sir John Edward Mitting and the 'administrative court' was the High Court of Justice In England. The High Court of Appeal overruled only by the Supreme Court. What this stunning propaganda piece in Wikipedia desperately doesn't mention is the vast bulk of his ruling. He completely exonerated the clinical director of the Lancet study Professor Walker-Smith.

    In what can only be described as one of the worst GMC decisions in history, one clearly riven with highly questionable conflicts of interest, a strong whiff of corporate corruption and borderline criminality, GSK shareholder Surendra Kumar had also led the decision to strike off Professor Walker Smith. That was a mistake. Had he not, perhaps some could still legitimately claim reason to question Dr. Wakefield today. Given, Sir John Mitting's ruling they absolutely cannot.

    He ruled that the GMC's decision demonstrated "inadequate and superficial reasoning," they reached the "wrong conclusions" and added:
    "The panel's determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it."
    The clinical director of the Lancet study, for which Dr Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license, was not guilty of any scientific malpractice at all. As the lead of that study, it stands.

    Therefore, the idea that Dr Andrew Wakefield was struck off for "unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty for authoring a fraudulent research paper that claimed a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine," is quite simply false.

    His behaviour was provably ethical, he was neither dishonest nor engaged in any misconduct. The paper he published was not fraudulent and it made no claim that there was a proven link between ASD and the MMR. He was quite clearly 'struck off' because he had the bravery and ethical fortitude to question Big Pharma. It is clear that his colleagues urged caution and, in hindsight, rightly warned him not to even suggest the need for further research. Unlike Dr Wakefield, they had not reviewed the MMR vaccine safety studies to the same extent. So Dr Wakefield, genuinely concerned for the welfare of children, spoke out, urged caution and called for further research.

    Of course Dr Wakefield was denied legal aid and was not represented at the High Court. Had he been, given all the other evidence we have explored here, it is practically beyond reasonable doubt that he too would have been exonerated.

    But that was never going to be allowed. He is the sacrificial lamb and a stark warning to any scientist, medical practitioner or researcher who dares to challenge the corporate dictatorship. The MSM's annihilation of Dr. Wakefield served two purposes. Firstly to convince a misinformed public that any who suggest vaccines may not all be wonder drugs are 'evil' and also to put the fear of God into the scientific community.

    Any doctor, researcher or scientists has to think long and hard before they ever consider going against the edicts of the pharmaceutical corporations. If they decide to rock the boat they do so knowing they will be publicly demolished by the court of the MSM. The state will then use that MSM created narrative and Big Pharma's bought and paid for research, to destroy their careers, reputations and livelihoods in court. The scientific evidence is irrelevant. They now know this because they stood by helpless and witnessed the destruction of some of their most respected and esteemed colleagues based upon nothing but smears and false allegations.

    Any research department that stands up against Big Pharma risks financial ruin. Funding for independent research is miniscule compared to the billions invested by Big Pharma in academia. Corporations now invest more in biological and pharmaceutical R&D than governments. Traditionally major drug research has been funded via the state and philanthropic foundations. Especially in the early stages of development.

    Many of these foundations, such as the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, are operated by individuals with major shareholdings in the pharmaceutical corporations. State funding too, often comes from surprising sources. For example the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have been major investors in pharmaceutical research, including vaccines.

    Thanks to the ubiquitous promotion of the utterly incoherent Wakefield narrative, scientific researchers and medical professionals are well aware of the threat. Both to themselves and their employers.

    Merck were forced to withdraw their arthritis control drug Vioxx after it was found to cause heart attacks. They settled a $4.85 billion law suit in the U.S and were being pursued by victims' families around the world. Emails were entered into evidence in the Australian Federal Court which revealed their corporate policy for dealing with medical professionals, or scientists, who dared to question their authority, threaten their profit margins or undermine 'public trust.' Merck created hit lists of professionals to be 'discredited' or 'neutralised.' For example one Merck executive wrote:
    "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live."
    This is why it is now impossible to have a sensible discussion about vaccine safety. The nexus between the pharmaceutical corporations (Big Pharma,) the mainstream media (MSM) and the state is designed to ensure the corporate hegemony of all health care. It is this corporate control mechanism which pollutes objective science, obfuscating and destroying any that threatens its business model. While science still produces the evidence, which brings some vaccines into question, this is not reported by the MSM and is ignored by the state, who have a symbiotic relationship with Big Pharma.

    The vast majority of people who are certain that all vaccines are safe have absolutely no idea at all about how this system works. They are predominantly the hapless victims of state run MSM disinformation. More concerned with the footy or the latest celebrity 'news,' they live in a cozy bubble where the state wraps its loving arms around them. They actually appear to believe that the state, which is an amalgam of profiteering corporations, corrupt officials, puppet politicians and a compromised judiciary, has their best interests at heart and would never knowingly harm them or their children. The naiveté in this puerile faith is staggering.

    As Mark Twain allegedly observed, "it is easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled." Consequently anyone who questions vaccine efficacy or safety has to accept the inevitable backlash. The state don't care and aren't really interested, they intend to compulsory vaccinate everyone no matter what. If it harms people, that's none of their concern.

    The tragedy is that people, who rely solely on what they are told by their nanny state and its MSM propagandists, have been so easily convinced to accuse their fellow citizens, who are merely trying to alert them to a potential risk, of being 'child abusers.'

    It seems the psychological risk is too great for many of these individuals to ever contemplate any suggestion that all is not as they have been indoctrinated to believe. Despite blatant corporate corruption at the very highest level, doing so could presumably shatter their fragile delusions, leaving them lost and bewildered in a frightening world they cannot face. This is called cognitive dissonance.

    On the back of their ignorance, intolerance and refusal to even look at the mountain of evidence that justifies some skepticism, it appears the rest of us may very well face compulsory injection at the hands of ruthless multinational corporations based upon research partly funded by the military industrial complex.

    I, for one, am opposed.

    Related: ===============================================

    Quote "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live."
    ... the "irritating obstructionists" kind...
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  10. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th May 2019), Constance (11th May 2019), Delight (11th May 2019), onawah (10th May 2019), Paul (11th May 2019), Sierra (14th May 2019), T Smith (5th September 2019), Tintin (20th May 2020)

  11. Link to Post #466
    Croatia Administrator Franny's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    Island Time
    Posts
    1,535
    Thanks
    26,781
    Thanked 8,840 times in 1,387 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    It looks like President Trump has decided that measles vaccines are necessary. Please see the first 15 seconds or so of this video.


  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Franny For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Constance (14th May 2019), Delight (13th May 2019), Hervé (11th May 2019), onawah (11th May 2019), Paul (12th May 2019)

  13. Link to Post #467
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Forrest Maready‏ @forrestmaready

    17) It should strike anyone as remarkable that the two countries which launched nationwide diphtheria immunization campaigns in the 1930s using a new aluminum-containing shot were the very two countries where autism was first noticed & documented.



    10:27 AM - 3 May 2019
    8 replies 172 retweets 253 likes


    Forrest Maready‏ @forrestmaready

    1) One of the most jaw-dropping discoveries I made while researching “The Autism Vaccine” took place in Austria. I was initially intrigued by the autism story when I realized that the first time aluminum had been used in a U.S. pediatric vaccine was 1932.




    9:49 AM - 3 May 2019
    35 replies 444 retweets 567 likes



    Forrest Maready‏ @forrestmaready

    The year was 1932. Vaccines got a new ingredient. Two countries. Two children. Two doctors. Within years, a new disorder appeared—something they'd never seen before. Both countries. Both doctors. Both children. "The Autism Vaccine" now available. http://www.theautismvaccine.com



    5:50 AM - 1 May 2019
    51 replies 228 retweets 357 likes


    Forrest Maready‏ @forrestmaready

    People are getting censored/banned for seemingly anything these days and I won't be surprised if I'm one of them. Sign up here so we can keep in touch: http://www.forrestmaready.com (at the bottom) Or DM me your email if you're as lazy as me!

    12:56 PM - 13 May 2019
    0 replies 9 retweets 26 likes
    Last edited by Hervé; 13th May 2019 at 23:14.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Constance (26th May 2019), Delight (13th May 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), onawah (29th May 2019), Pam (30th May 2019), Paul (14th May 2019), Sierra (14th May 2019)

  15. Link to Post #468
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    a followup to post # 465:


    Merck made a "hit list" of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors' names with the labels "neutralise," "neutralised" or "discredit" next to them.


    According to The Australian, Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said:
    "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live ..."
    The plaintiffs' lawyer gave this assessment:
    It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and thought leaders ... if (they) say things you don't like to hear, you have to neutralise them ... It does suggest a certain culture within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who disagree with you.
    The Australian:
    The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.
    "Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation," he wrote, ...

    "This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators ... I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or written on these issues."
    The allegations come on the heels of revelations that Merck created a fake medical journal -- the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine -- in which to publish studies about Vioxx; had pop songs commissioned about Vioxx to inspire its staff, and paid ghostwriters to draft articles about the drug.


    Related:
    New Merck Allegations: A Fake Journal; Ghostwritten Studies; Vioxx Pop Songs; PR Execs Harass Reporters
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Constance (26th May 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), onawah (29th May 2019), Pam (30th May 2019)

  17. Link to Post #469
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    ...

    From Jim Stone:

    I have noticed an ABRUPT shift in Mexico - to kids NOT getting vaccine damaged

    I do not know if this is observable in the United States, but it was VERY observable here:

    Suddenly, (at least in my area) autism vanished and there are practically no kids with obvious signs of vaccine damage.

    Even three years ago, every time you went to Wal Mart there would be enormous numbers of totally vax-whacked kids in shopping carts, drooling, moaning, spinning, vacant and delirious, totally screwed up kids, at least 3 or 4 every time at Wal Mart.

    That all faded away about a year ago, and now you do not see even one, across multiple trips to Wal Mart, I have not seen a single one in the last six months. I think the eugenicists knew they were cornered and figured it would be best to at least temporarily back off on Mexico, or at least temporarily reduce the amount of damage they figured the vaccines ought to do. And I think that for the later shots, for kids aged 3 and up, they actually put the cure to autism that I have spoken about on this forum in the shots, to clear it up.

    In case you are new to this, let me explain:

    Autism-like symptoms were inflicted intentionally by shots that were called "vaccines" but were not.

    One thing I'll throw in here is that doctors in Mex started noticing the "vaccinated" kids got the illnesses the vaccines were supposed to prevent as much as the kids who were never vaxxed. There's no question the shots were fraudulent.
    And now I will once again explain the MOA behind how the shots that were called vaccines (but were not vaccines at all) worked, because some readers may have missed this.

    The phony vaccines that were really a eugenics type of tool, rather than trigger immune responses against the diseases they were supposed to prevent, triggered immune responses against the body itself, primarily the nervous system.

    This was accomplished several ways, a big one was by using squalene - which is a key component of the nervous system - as a so called "adjuvant" in the "vaccine". Only, you can't use squalene as an adjuvant unless you intend to do direct harm to the recipient of a shot that has it.

    Squalene is used by the body in many different ways but the key use - the "vaccines" targeted - was in the myelin sheaths in the nerve endings of the nervous system. A properly "vaxxed" white boy would be enormously knocked back - there was talk about how the vaccines affected the black population but it hit the whites 10X worse, and filled the shopping carts at Wal Mart with bumbling drooling zombies, which if capable of walking ran around moaning and dropping to the floor spinning. You have all seen this, EVERYONE has seen this, and it was not by accident that it happened.

    Many people have pointed towards aluminum and mercury in the shots, but compared to squalene those are NOTHING.

    An additional way the shots were formulated to destroy the kids was by growing them in human tissue cultures which should never be done (it should be grown in animal tissue, and subsequently at worst trigger an allergy towards whatever animal tissue it was grown in.)

    The vaccines that are cultured in GMO yeast get no free ride away from accountability either, because once you go GMO the yeast could be 50 percent human. When vaccines are grown in the wrong tissue culture they can easily trigger auto immune disorders, including autism, despite manufacturer's claims they "got all of it out". They never get it all, and they never intended to.

    Here is how they had to have fixed the autism problem in Mexico, before they got finally busted and had their asses fried:

    You can program the immune system to do practically anything with the right shot, including re-programming it to not remove squalene, or whatever proteins or whatever else the damaging shots told the immune system to do, and I am CERTAIN, BEYOND-A-DOUBT CERTAIN that in Mex they integrated the antidote shots into the medical system to un-do the effect the original shots purposefully had, during the next round of scheduled childhood vaccines.

    They did it because too many families noticed the kids were F***ED UP after vaccinations and with high suspicions already circulating, it was not difficult at all to spot when it happened. Subsequent mommy freakouts were too hard to stifle due to the quantity of occurrence, though I am sure they'd have murdered every single mommy that noticed just to silence her if they could have. But obviously that was a step too far, so they backed off and covered their tracks by silently switching the vaccine formulations to reverse and subdue the damage.

    FACT: THERE HAS TO BE A REASON WHY ALL THE FOUR YEAR OLDS AND UP, WOKE UP AT LEAST PARTIALLY, AND [.?.] ENOUGH TO ELIMINATE THE YOWLING MOANING WAL MART SPINNERS.

    THAT DID NOT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. THE SHOTS ARE STILL DAMAGING THE BABIES TO SOME DEGREE BUT IT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT IT WAS. THAT "IMPROVEMENT" DID NOT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT EITHER.

    And my final statement: To the people running the vaccine eugenics plot: Even if you start dishing out the perfect fixer formulations, that un-do all the damage totally, you will never be forgiven. I know what you intended and I know what you will do all over again the second the storm has cleared. I KNOW WHO YOU ARE. You can't hide. You definitely backed off in Mexico, but I doubt you backed off in the United States.

    I SAW IT HAPPEN, I SAW THE TRANSFORMATION WITH MY OWN EYES TO KIDS TURNING NORMAL AGAIN AND KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT WAS DONE TO SCREW THEM TO BEGIN WITH. And there will be vengeance.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Constance (29th May 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), East Sun (21st May 2020), Hym (30th May 2019), onawah (29th May 2019), Paul (29th May 2019), T Smith (6th September 2019)

  19. Link to Post #470
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    1,383
    Thanks
    600
    Thanked 5,861 times in 1,228 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Anything can contribute to autism. The MMR vaccine, by interfering with the digestive system, has been shown to be very effective in contributing to autism. Andrew Wakefield was never against vaccines. Just the MMR. They took the standalone measles vaccine, which Wakefield approves of, off the market to force children to get the MMR. It's not about disease control, it's some other, bigger, agenda.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), Hervé (30th May 2019), Hym (30th May 2019), onawah (31st May 2019)

  21. Link to Post #471
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    3,607
    Thanks
    6,186
    Thanked 18,502 times in 3,264 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    you have to register to read the rest

    Quote Autism-spectrum disorder
    More evidence that autism is linked to gut bacteria
    Understanding that link may be crucial to treatment
    May 30th 2019 | PHOENIX, ARIZONA


    Paradigm shift is an overused term. Properly, it refers to a radical change of perspective on a topic, such as the move from the physics of Newton to the physics of Einstein, or the introduction of plate tectonics into geology. Such things are rare. Something which history may come to regard as a true paradigm shift does, however, seem to be going on at the moment in medicine. This is a recognition that the zillions of apparently non-pathogenic bacteria on and in human bodies, hitherto largely ignored, are actually important for people’s health. They may even help to explain the development of some mysterious conditions.

    One such condition is autism—these days often called autism-spectrum disorder (asd). asd is characterised by repetitive, stereotypical and often restricted behaviour such as head-nodding, and by the difficulties those with it have in reading the emotions of, and communicating with, other people. These symptoms are noticeable in children from the age of two onwards. Currently, in America, about one child in 59 is diagnosed with asd.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Constance (31st May 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), Hervé (31st May 2019), Hym (31st May 2019), onawah (31st May 2019)

  23. Link to Post #472
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th December 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    9,560
    Thanks
    37,831
    Thanked 52,835 times in 8,860 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Quote Posted by Delight (here)
    you have to register to read the rest

    Quote Autism-spectrum disorder
    More evidence that autism is linked to gut bacteria
    Understanding that link may be crucial to treatment
    May 30th 2019 | PHOENIX, ARIZONA


    Paradigm shift is an overused term. Properly, it refers to a radical change of perspective on a topic, such as the move from the physics of Newton to the physics of Einstein, or the introduction of plate tectonics into geology. Such things are rare. Something which history may come to regard as a true paradigm shift does, however, seem to be going on at the moment in medicine. This is a recognition that the zillions of apparently non-pathogenic bacteria on and in human bodies, hitherto largely ignored, are actually important for people’s health. They may even help to explain the development of some mysterious conditions.

    One such condition is autism—these days often called autism-spectrum disorder (asd). asd is characterised by repetitive, stereotypical and often restricted behaviour such as head-nodding, and by the difficulties those with it have in reading the emotions of, and communicating with, other people. These symptoms are noticeable in children from the age of two onwards. Currently, in America, about one child in 59 is diagnosed with asd.
    My guess for many years have been, after studying neurological disorder in children including autism for the last 17 years, that autism is created by the impact of adjuvant (to boost the immune system) in the vaccines on one hand, destroying the immune system, and the pesticides/herbicides found in our food, destroying the guts bacteria, plus some GMO (few are not that bad, but those improving resistance to pesticides - 90% of GMO's - are terrible for the gut bacteria).

    Diabetis is also related to pesticide/herbicide in our foods, killing the guts bacteria. IMO

    This toxic soup is killing us and our children. The most sensitive are the canary in the mine. We should take the increase in neurological problems in children extremely seriously.

    So, we should not vaccinate as long as there is this toxic combination in the environment and as long as we do not find non damaging ways to boost the immune system. My opinion.

    Edit: I was aware of Dutch studies linking autism with guts bacteria and correcting 30% of autism cases with fecal transplant more than 10 years ago.

  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Delight (31st May 2019), Hervé (31st May 2019), onawah (31st May 2019), Paul (31st May 2019)

  25. Link to Post #473
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    13,880
    Thanks
    31,709
    Thanked 62,480 times in 12,390 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Dr. Rebecca Carley developed a lot of effective homeopathic protocols for healing autistic kids, and got her career destroyed for her efforts.
    But her work can still be found online if you look for it, sandwiched in between all the libel.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Delight (31st May 2019), Flash (1st June 2019), Hervé (31st May 2019), Paul (31st May 2019)

  27. Link to Post #474
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    ...


    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), justntime2learn (18th June 2019), RunningDeer (18th June 2019)

  29. Link to Post #475
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    From Jim Stone:

    New York just shut down the TENTH Jewish Orthodox school over vaccine refusal

    Yes, not a rumor. A while ago DeBlasio ordered all New Yorkers, including Jews, to get the MMR shot. But the orthodox community has REFUSED, and has chosen to instead accept getting their schools shut down. This story developed a LOT under the radar.

    OK THEN:

    QUESTION:

    WHY IS THE ORTHODOX COMMUNITY REFUSING "VACCINES" FOR THEIR KIDS? . . . . . . .

    ANSWER: Because they know what the shots really are, and what is really in them. Howcome they get to know, and CNN won't tell the rest of us?

    A great comment on this issue: "Surprise surprise. While you are "vaccinating" your children giving them autism retard shots "they" are not "vaccinating"

    GET IT?

    The MMR shot was likely, without any question whatsoever, developed in Dimona and THEY KNOW IT. They are not going to get shot with their own weapon. The mayor is a DUFUS for not just shutting the hell up, he blew their cover BIG TIME. .

    ANNOUNCEMENT: THE ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK JUST ADMITTED JEWS DON'T GET THE SAME SHOTS WE ALL KNOW ARE DESTROYING OUR KIDS, DEBLASIO THE MORON FORCED THE ISSUE UNTIL IT LIT UP LIKE THE HINDENBERG.



    .
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Akasha (13th June 2019), avid (13th June 2019), Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), justntime2learn (18th June 2019)

  31. Link to Post #476
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    3,607
    Thanks
    6,186
    Thanked 18,502 times in 3,264 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    From Jim Stone:

    New York just shut down the TENTH Jewish Orthodox school over vaccine refusal

    Yes, not a rumor. A while ago DeBlasio ordered all New Yorkers, including Jews, to get the MMR shot. But the orthodox community has REFUSED, and has chosen to instead accept getting their schools shut down. This story developed a LOT under the radar.

    OK THEN:

    QUESTION:

    WHY IS THE ORTHODOX COMMUNITY REFUSING "VACCINES" FOR THEIR KIDS? . . . . . . .

    ANSWER: Because they know what the shots really are, and what is really in them. How come they get to know, and CNN won't tell the rest of us?
    I am not sure that the Orthodox community is unanimous in refusing to vaccinate. I also think there is an insinuation here that is less than humane concerning the people who have chosen to cling to the religion they follow. I am concerned that for many many reasons, the scapegoating of those who follow their religion continues. In Israel, orthodox and religious jews are a segment of a secular state. It is IMO a sign of a low brow to continue to scapegoat the jewish people.

    I think I understand the fear and the focus on increasing their numbers to resist genocide behind this ultra conservative closed community. As a woman, I would be expected to be a mother and subjugated by a patriarchal structure. If I were an artist or free thinker, even if male, I would be outcast. I would leave the community if I had been born into it. That said, they have a right to their path. Fear is generational and unfortunately people form barriers that do imprison THEM. From all walks of life people in fear are ready to hate the "other" ones.

    I am appalled that from every angle, the present mode of many is to blame others, select them for scapegoating as a way to deal with personal fear and try to gather others for a "lynch mob" (not necessarily physical but intellectual and emotional). I agree that Jim Stone has a right to speak but I also HOPE that people will develop a clear mind and not fall into the kind of angry paranoia that he has demonstrated in his views.
    Last edited by Delight; 14th June 2019 at 01:17.

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Deux Corbeaux (5th September 2019), loungelizard (6th September 2019), T Smith (5th September 2019)

  33. Link to Post #477
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    1,383
    Thanks
    600
    Thanked 5,861 times in 1,228 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    The MMR shot was likely, without any question whatsoever, developed in Dimona and THEY KNOW IT. They are not going to get shot with their own weapon. The mayor is a DUFUS for not just shutting the hell up, he blew their cover BIG TIME. .
    You're saying that the Jews developed the MMR as a bioweapon to use against non-Jews and now they have accidentally been forced into a position of refusing it?
    Wouldn't it be smarter for them to develop a bioweapon based on DNA?
    No answer needed, it's all bigoted fantasy...

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Hervé (5th September 2019), loungelizard (6th September 2019)

  35. Link to Post #478
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,764
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,353 times in 15,478 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Dr. Suzanne Humphries: How a $10 Billion Investment by Bill Gates Changed Vaccination Policy Worldwide



    Health Impact News
    September 5, 2019

    Dr. Suzanne Humphries gave a lecture in Denmark in 2015 titled: Manufactured Consent.

    She explains how “informed consent” today regarding vaccines is really “manufactured consent” as a unified voice presenting only what they want the public to know regarding vaccines was crafted in 2010 when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested 10 billion dollars in global vaccination initiatives through the World Health Organization.

    From Dr. Humphries:
    I spent a couple of years creating this video series. The corruption, mythology, and medical theory are broken down step-by-step in this series. It’s a very important video for today and it was anticipating the current climate that we are now living in. Please watch it carefully and share it.

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  36. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th September 2019), Delight (5th September 2019), Deux Corbeaux (5th September 2019), Franny (6th September 2019), JRS (6th September 2019), T Smith (5th September 2019)

  37. Link to Post #479
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    851
    Thanks
    4,211
    Thanked 6,089 times in 837 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    Forgotten moments from the history of vaccines; yes, history matters

    by Jon Rappoport
    May 19, 2020

    Scientific propaganda about vaccines has reached dizzying heights, as officials point the uninformed public toward the Day of Liberation, when a COVID shot, otherwise known as God, will rescue Earth.

    Here, from a chapter in my 1988 book, AIDS INC., is an excerpt exposing some of the infamous moments in vaccination history—hidden by the press, or simply forgotten.

    For those denialists who cling to the notion that vaccines are remarkably safe and effective, this article is a pill you can swallow, bitter to be sure, but immunizing against the effects of bald lies from the bent medical establishment.

    Understand: this is only a partial history of disasters and revelations, and it stops at 1988.

    “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

    “In a recent British outbreak of whooping cough, for example, even fully immunized children contracted the disease in fairly large numbers; and the rates of serious complications and death were reduced only slightly. In another recent outbreak of pertussis, 46 of the 85 fully immunized children studied eventually contracted the disease.”

    “In 1977, 34 new cases of measles were reported on the campus of UCLA, in a population that was supposedly 91% immune, according to careful serological testing. Another 20 cases of measles were reported in the Pecos, New Mexico, area within a period of a few months in 1981, and 75% of them had been fully immunized, some of them quite recently. A survey of sixth-graders in a well-immunized urban community revealed that about 15% of this age group are still susceptible to rubella, a figure essentially identical with that of the pre-vaccine era.”

    “Finally, although the overall incidence of typical acute measles in the U.S. has dropped sharply from about 400,000 cases annually in the early 1960s to about 30,000 cases by 1974-76, the death rate remained exactly the same; and, with the peak incidence now occurring in adolescents and young adults, the risk of pneumonia and demonstrable liver abnormalities has actually increased substantially, according to one recent study, to well over 3% and 2%, respectively.” Richard Moskowitz, MD, The Case Against Immunizations, 1983, American Institute of Homeopathy.

    “Of all reported whooping cough cases between 1979 and 1984 in children over 7 months of age – that is, old enough to have received the primary course of the DPT shots (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) – 41% occurred in children who had received three or more shots and 22% in children who had one or two immunizations.”

    “Among children under 7 months of age who had whooping cough, 34% had been immunized between one and three times…”

    “… Based on the only U.S. findings on adverse DPT reactions, an FDA-financed study at the University of California, Los Angeles, one out of every 350 children will have a convulsion; one in 180 children will experience high-pitched screaming [can indicate brain damage]; and one in 66 will have a fever of 105 degrees or more.” Jennifer Hyman, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, special supplement on DPT, dated April, 1987.

    “A study undertaken in 1979 at the University of California, Los Angeles, under the sponsorship of the Food and Drug Administration, and which has been confirmed by other studies, indicates that in the U.S.A. approximately 1,000 infants die annually as a direct result of DPT vaccinations, and these are classified as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) deaths. These represent about 10 to 15% of the total number of SIDS deaths occurring annually in the U.S.A. (between 8,000 and 10,000 depending on which statistics are used).” Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, CW Daniel Company Limited, Saffron Walden, Essex, England, 1987.

    “Assistant Secretary of Health Edward Brandt, Jr., MD, testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, rounded… figures off to 9,000 cases of convulsions, 9,000 cases of collapse, and 17,000 cases of high-pitched screaming for a total of 35,000 acute neurological reactions occurring within forty-eight hours of a DPT shot among America’s children every year.” DPT: A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fischer, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    “While 70-80% of British children were immunized against pertussis in 1970-71, the rate is now 39%. The committee predicts that the next pertussis epidemic will probably turn out to be more severe than the one in 1974/75. However, they do not explain why, in 1970/71, there were more than 33,000 cases of pertussis with 41 fatal cases among the very well immunized British child population; whereas in 1974/75, with a declining rate of vaccination, a pertussis epidemic caused only 25,000 cases with 25 fatalities.” Wolfgang Ehrengut, Lancet, Feb. 18, 1978, p. 370.

    “… Barker and Pichichero, in a prospective study of 1232 children in Denver, Colorado, found after DTP that only 7% of those vaccinated were free from untoward reactions, which included pyrexia (53%), acute behavioral changes (82%), prolonged screaming (13%), and listlessness, anorexia and vomiting. 71% of those receiving second injections of DTP experienced two or more of the reactions monitored.” Lancet, May 28, 1983, p. 1217

    “Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.

    “Pertussis (whooping cough) immunization is controversial, as the side effects have received a great deal of publicity. The counter claim is that the effectiveness and protection offered by the procedure far outweigh the possible ill effects… annual deaths, per million children, from this disease over the period from 1900 to the mid-nineteen seventies, shows that from a high point of just under 900 deaths per million children (under age 15) in 1905, the decline has been consistent and dramatic. There had been a lowering of mortality rates of approximately 80% by the time immunization was introduced on a mass scale, in the mid-nineteen fifties. The decline has continued, albeit at a slower rate, ever since. No credit can be given to vaccination for the major part of the decline since it was not in use.” Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 63.

    “… the swine-flu vaccination program was one of its (CDC) greatest blunders. It all began in 1976 when CDC scientists saw that a virus involved in a flu attack outbreak at Fort Dix, N.J., was similar to the swine-flu virus that killed 500,000 Americans in 1918. Health officials immediately launched a 100-million dollar program to immunize every American. But the expected epidemic never materialized, and the vaccine led to partial paralysis in 532 people. There were 32 deaths.” U.S. News and World Report, Joseph Carey, October 14, 1985, p. 70, “How Medical Sleuths Track Killer Diseases.”

    “Despite (cases) in which (smallpox) vaccination plainly failed to protect the population, and despite the rampant side-effects of the methods, the proponents of vaccination continued their attempts to justify the methods by claims that the disease had declined in Europe as a whole during the period of its compulsory use. If the decline could be correlated with the use of the vaccination, then all else could be set aside, and the advantage between its current low incidence could be shown to outweigh the periodic failures of the method, and to favour the continued use of vaccination. However, the credit for the decline in the incidence of smallpox could not be given to vaccination. The fact is that its incidence declined in all parts of Europe, whether or not vaccination was employed.” Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, pp. 6-7.

    “Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination).” W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898.

    “In this incident (Kyoto, Japan, 1948) – the most serious of its kind – a toxic batch of alum-precipitated toxoid (APT) was responsible for illness in over 600 infants and for no fewer than 68 deaths.”

    “On 20 and 22 October, 1948, a large number of babies and children in the city of Kyoto received their first injection of APT. On the 4th and 5th of November, 15,561 babies and children aged some months to 13 years received their second dose. One to two days later, 606 of those who had been injected fell ill. Of these, 9 died of acute diphtheritic paralysis in seven to fourteen days, and 59 of late paralysis mainly in four to seven weeks.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization, Athone Press, University of London, 1967.

    “Accidents may, however, follow the use of this so-called killed (rabies) vaccine owing to inadequate processing. A very serious occurrence of this sort occurred at Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, in 1960. No fewer than 18 out of 66 persons vaccinated with Fermi’s carbolized (rabies ) vaccine suffered from encephalomyelitis and every one of the eighteen died.” Sir Graham Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.

    “At a press conference in Washington on 24 July, 1942, the Secretary of War reported that 28,585 cases of jaundice had been observed in the (American) Army between 1 January and 4 July after yellow fever vaccination, and of these 62 proved fatal.” Wilson, Hazards of Immunization.

    “The world’s biggest trial (conducted in south India) to assess the value of BCG tuberculosis vaccine has made the startling revelation that the vaccine ‘does not give any protection against bacillary forms of tuberculosis.’ The study said to be ‘most exhaustive and meticulous,’ was launched in 1968 by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) with assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia.”

    “The incidence of new cases among the BCG vaccinated group was slightly (but statistically insignificantly) higher than in the control group, a finding that led to the conclusion that BCG’s protective effect ‘was zero.'” New Scientist, November 15, 1979, as quoted by Hans Ruesch in Naked Empress, Civis Publishers, Switzerland, 1982.

    “Between 10 December 1929 and 30 April 1930, 251 of 412 infants born in Lubeck received three doses of BCG vaccine by the mouth during the first ten days of life. Of these 251, 72 died of tuberculosis, most of them in two to five months and all but one before the end of the first year. In addition, 135 suffered from clinical tuberculosis but eventually recovered; and 44 became tuberculin-positive but remained well. None of the 161 unvaccinated infants born at the time was affected in this way and none of these died of tuberculosis within the following three years.” Hazards of Immunization, Wilson.

    “We conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to test the efficacy of the 14-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine in 2295 high-risk patients… Seventy-one episodes of proved or probable pneumococcal pneumonia or bronchitis occurred among 63 of the patients (27 placebo recipients and 36 vaccine recipients)… We were unable to demonstrate any efficacy of the pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia or bronchitis in this population.” New England Journal of Medicine, November 20, 1986, p. 1318, Michael Simberkoff et al.

    “But already before Salk developed his vaccine, polio had been constantly regressing; the 39 cases out of every 100,000 inhabitants registered in 1942 had gradually diminished from year to year until they were reduced to only 15 cases in 1952… according to M. Beddow Baylay, the English surgeon and medical historian.” Slaughter of the Innocent, Hans Reusch, Civitas Publish ers, Switzerland, and Swain, New York, 1983.

    “Many published stories and reports have stated, implied and otherwise led professional people and the public to believe that the sharp reduction of cases (and of deaths) from poliomyelitis in 1955 as compared to 1954 is attributable to the Salk vaccine…That it is a misconception follows from these considerations. The number of children inoculated has been too small to account for the decrease. The sharp decrease was apparent before the inoculations began or could take effect and was of the same order as the decrease following the immediate post-inoculation period.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, vol. 20, no. 1, 1987.

    “So far it is hardly possible to gain insight into the extent of the immunization catastrophe of 1955 in the United States. It may be considered certain that the officially ascertained 200 cases (of polio) which were caused directly or indirectly by the (polio) vaccination constitute minimum figures… It can hardly be estimated how many of the 1359 (polio) cases among vaccinated persons must be regarded as failures of the vaccine and how many of them were infected by the vaccine. A careful study of the epidemiologic course of polio in the United States yields indications of grave significance. In numerous states of the U.S.A., typical early epidemics developed with the immunizations in the spring of 1955…The vaccination incidents of the year 1955 cannot be exclusively traced back to the failure of one manufacturing firm.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980, vol. 19, no. 4, “Story of the Salk Vaccine (Part 2).”

    “Suffice it to say that most of the large (polio) epidemics that have occurred in this country since the introduction of the Salk vaccine have followed the wide-scale use of the vaccine and have been characterized by an uncommon early seasonal onset. To name a few, there is the Massachusetts epidemic of 1955; the Chicago epidemic of 1956; and the Des Moines epidemic of 1959.” Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family, 1980 vol. 19, no. 4.

    “The live (Sabin) poliovirus vaccine has been the predominant cause of domestically arising cases of paralytic poliomyelitis in the United States since 1972. To avoid the occurrence of such cases, it would be necessary to discontinue the routine use of live poliovirus vaccine.” Jonas Salk, Science, March 4, 1977, p. 845.

    “By the (U.S.) government’s own admission, there has been a 41% failure rate in persons who were previously vaccinated against the (measles) virus.” Dr. Anthony Morris, John Chriss, BG Young, “Occurrence of Measles in Previously Vaccinated Individuals,” 1979; presented at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology at Fort Detrick, Maryland, April 27, 1979.

    “Prior to the time doctors began giving rubella vaccinations, an estimated 85% of adults were naturally immune to the disease (for life). Because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity (or lifetime protection).” Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, Let’s Live, December 1983, as quoted by Carolyn Reuben in the LA WEEKLY, June 28, 1985.

    “Adminstration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such falsely protected children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules… ”

    The above quotes reflect only a mere fraction of an available literature.

    It is criminally deceiving to say, “Vaccines are simple; they stimulate the immune system and confer immunity against specific germ agents.”

    Official reports on vaccine reactions are often at odds with unofficial estimates because of the method of analysis used. If adverse vaccine-reaction is defined as a small set of possible effects experienced within 72 hours of an inoculation, then figures will be smaller. But doctors like G.T. Stewart, of the University of Glasgow, have found through meticulous investigation, including visits to hospitals and interviews with parents of children vaccinated, that reactions as severe as brain-damage (e.g., from the DPT vaccine) can be overlooked, go unreported and can be assumed to have come from other causes.

    —Well, that was my finding, in 1988, when I looked beneath the surface of the vaccine question.

    Now we are in very deep waters. COVID-19 hysteria has been tuned up to the NEED for a vaccine.

    WE need to slough off this promoted bad dream and stand firm against the little gods who traffic their vials in every doctor’s office, hospital, school, drug store, and tented parking lot—making them into shooting galleries.

    We already have natural immune systems. They work.


    Jon Rappoport

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th June 2020), greybeard (20th May 2020), Tintin (20th May 2020)

  39. Link to Post #480
    UK Moderator/Librarian/Administrator Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,571
    Thanks
    25,555
    Thanked 18,080 times in 2,542 posts

    Default Re: Do vaccines contribute to autism? Should we vaccinate?

    The following article may need to be cross posted to another thread, perhaps the Bill Gates one, but, I'll ponder that all in good time.

    For a future look at vaccination methods, which kind of answers the OP questions by dint of its content, the following from MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology published back in December 2019:

    By selectively loading microparticles into microneedles, the patches deliver a pattern in the skin that is invisible to the naked eye but can be scanned with a smartphone that has the infrared filter removed. The patch can be customized to imprint different patterns that correspond to the type of vaccine delivered.


    Source: https://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-va...tory-skin-1218



    Storing medical information below the skin’s surface
    Specialized dye, delivered along with a vaccine, could enable “on-patient” storage of vaccination history.

    Anne Trafton | MIT News Office
    December 18, 2019


    Every year, a lack of vaccination leads to about 1.5 million preventable deaths, primarily in developing nations. One factor that makes vaccination campaigns in those nations more difficult is that there is little infrastructure for storing medical records, so there’s often no easy way to determine who needs a particular vaccine.

    MIT researchers have now developed a novel way to record a patient’s vaccination history: storing the data in a pattern of dye, invisible to the naked eye, that is delivered under the skin at the same time as the vaccine.

    “In areas where paper vaccination cards are often lost or do not exist at all, and electronic databases are unheard of, this technology could enable the rapid and anonymous detection of patient vaccination history to ensure that every child is vaccinated,” says Kevin McHugh, a former MIT postdoc who is now an assistant professor of bioengineering at Rice University.

    The researchers showed that their new dye, which consists of nanocrystals called quantum dots, can remain for at least five years under the skin, where it emits near-infrared light that can be detected by a specially equipped smartphone.

    McHugh and former visiting scientist Lihong Jing are the lead authors of the study, which appears today in Science Translational Medicine. Ana Jaklenec, a research scientist at MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, and Robert Langer, the David H. Koch Institute Professor at MIT, are the senior authors of the paper.

    An invisible record

    Several years ago, the MIT team set out to devise a method for recording vaccination information in a way that doesn’t require a centralized database or other infrastructure. Many vaccines, such as the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), require multiple doses spaced out at certain intervals; without accurate records, children may not receive all of the necessary doses.

    “In order to be protected against most pathogens, one needs multiple vaccinations,” Jaklenec says. “In some areas in the developing world, it can be very challenging to do this, as there is a lack of data about who has been vaccinated and whether they need additional shots or not.”

    To create an “on-patient,” decentralized medical record, the researchers developed a new type of copper-based quantum dots, which emit light in the near-infrared spectrum. The dots are only about 4 nanometers in diameter, but they are encapsulated in biocompatible microparticles that form spheres about 20 microns in diameter. This encapsulation allows the dye to remain in place, under the skin, after being injected.

    The researchers designed their dye to be delivered by a microneedle patch rather than a traditional syringe and needle. Such patches are now being developed to deliver vaccines for measles, rubella, and other diseases, and the researchers showed that their dye could be easily incorporated into these patches.

    The microneedles used in this study are made from a mixture of dissolvable sugar and a polymer called PVA, as well as the quantum-dot dye and the vaccine. When the patch is applied to the skin, the microneedles, which are 1.5 millimeters long, partially dissolve, releasing their payload within about two minutes.

    By selectively loading microparticles into microneedles, the patches deliver a pattern in the skin that is invisible to the naked eye but can be scanned with a smartphone that has the infrared filter removed. The patch can be customized to imprint different patterns that correspond to the type of vaccine delivered.

    “It’s possible someday that this ‘invisible’ approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications that could improve how medical care is provided, particularly in the developing world,” Langer says.

    Effective immunization

    Tests using human cadaver skin showed that the quantum-dot patterns could be detected by smartphone cameras after up to five years of simulated sun exposure.

    The researchers also tested this vaccination strategy in rats, using microneedle patches that delivered the quantum dots along with a polio vaccine. They found that those rats generated an immune response similar to the response of rats that received a traditional injected polio vaccine.

    “This study confirmed that incorporating the vaccine with the dye in the microneedle patches did not affect the efficacy of the vaccine or our ability to detect the dye,”
    Jaklenec says.

    The researchers now plan to survey health care workers in developing nations in Africa to get input on the best way to implement this type of vaccination record keeping. They are also working on expanding the amount of data that can be encoded in a single pattern, allowing them to include information such as the date of vaccine administration and the lot number of the vaccine batch.

    The researchers believe the quantum dots are safe to use in this way because they are encapsulated in a biocompatible polymer, but they plan to do further safety studies before testing them in patients.

    “Storage, access, and control of medical records is an important topic with many possible approaches,” says Mark Prausnitz, chair of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Georgia Tech, who was not involved in the research. “This study presents a novel approach where the medical record is stored and controlled by the patient within the patient’s skin in a minimally invasive and elegant way.”

    The research was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Koch Institute Support (core) Grant from the National Cancer Institute. Other authors of the paper include Sean Severt, Mache Cruz, Morteza Sarmadi, Hapuarachchige Surangi Jayawardena, Collin Perkinson, Fridrik Larusson, Sviatlana Rose, Stephanie Tomasic, Tyler Graf, Stephany Tzeng, James Sugarman, Daniel Vlasic, Matthew Peters, Nels Peterson, Lowell Wood, Wen Tang, Jihyeon Yeom, Joe Collins, Philip Welkhoff, Ari Karchin, Megan Tse, Mingyuan Gao, and Moungi Bawendi.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture_MIT.PNG
Views:	12
Size:	300.7 KB
ID:	43655  
    Last edited by Tintin; 20th May 2020 at 18:22.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th June 2020), Gwin Ru (21st May 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 24 of 25 FirstFirst 1 14 24 25 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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