+ Reply to Thread
Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst 1 14 24
Results 461 to 477 of 477

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
    46
    Posts
    3,931
    Thanks
    27,040
    Thanked 20,759 times in 3,642 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 4 Users Say Thank You to DNA For This Post:

    BMJ (27th April 2019), Constance (12th April 2019), Delight (27th April 2019), Valerie Villars (11th April 2019)

  3. Link to Post #462
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,239
    Thanks
    57,299
    Thanked 90,585 times in 14,933 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 Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 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

  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 Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,239
    Thanks
    57,299
    Thanked 90,585 times in 14,933 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 6 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)

  9. Link to Post #465
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,239
    Thanks
    57,299
    Thanked 90,585 times in 14,933 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 6 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)

  11. Link to Post #466
    Croatia Moderator Franny's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    Island Time
    Posts
    735
    Thanks
    8,356
    Thanked 3,652 times in 655 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 5 Users Say Thank You to Franny For This Post:

    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 Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,239
    Thanks
    57,299
    Thanked 90,585 times in 14,933 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 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Constance (26th May 2019), Delight (13th May 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), onawah (29th May 2019), Paul (14th May 2019), peterpam (30th May 2019), Sierra (14th May 2019)

  15. Link to Post #468
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,239
    Thanks
    57,299
    Thanked 90,585 times in 14,933 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 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Constance (26th May 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), onawah (29th May 2019), peterpam (30th May 2019)

  17. Link to Post #469
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,239
    Thanks
    57,299
    Thanked 90,585 times in 14,933 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 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Constance (29th May 2019), DNA (13th June 2019), Hym (30th May 2019), onawah (29th May 2019), Paul (29th May 2019)

  19. Link to Post #470
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    509
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 1,668 times in 421 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 4 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    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
    2,406
    Thanks
    4,696
    Thanked 10,438 times in 2,089 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 5 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    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
    9,562
    Thanks
    37,831
    Thanked 52,683 times in 8,856 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 4 Users Say Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Delight (31st May 2019), Hervé (31st May 2019), onawah (31st May 2019), Paul (31st May 2019)

  25. Link to Post #473
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,759
    Thanks
    26,251
    Thanked 45,718 times in 9,343 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.

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Delight (31st May 2019), Flash (1st June 2019), Hervé (31st May 2019), Paul (31st May 2019)

  27. Link to Post #474
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,239
    Thanks
    57,299
    Thanked 90,585 times in 14,933 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 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    DNA (13th June 2019), justntime2learn (18th June 2019), RunningDeer (18th June 2019)

  29. Link to Post #475
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,239
    Thanks
    57,299
    Thanked 90,585 times in 14,933 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 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Akasha (13th June 2019), avid (13th June 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
    2,406
    Thanks
    4,696
    Thanked 10,438 times in 2,089 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. Link to Post #477
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    509
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 1,668 times in 421 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...

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

Posting Permissions

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