+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 46 FirstFirst 1 3 13 46 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 909

Thread: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

  1. Link to Post #41
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Something like this needs to happen:

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    At night, the great removal. The two men who thought themselves masters of the world, brought before the tribunal on the largest square in the world, before men of the earth and pursued by those who have rebelled. Scientists condemned by them to slavery through their power, to put their talents at the service of death, will be the accusers.

    Then will be the turn of the persecuted. Terrible will be the conviction and Man will find himself in the embrace between science and faith.

    The proceedings of the trial will be the poem of the people, and the lyrics are sweet to the lowly, terrible for the arrogant powers.

    The dispatched armies stopped at the boundaries of the square and the men-soldiers turned their weapons around. Weapons are defeated that day. Those of the earth, those of the sky.

    I do SO pray that this prophecy is true. I went to the linked post and looked for "The Prophecies of Pope John XXIII." It does not seem to be in English. Thanks for sharing them again.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Hervé (29th April 2019), onawah (29th April 2019), Sandy123 (29th April 2019), T Smith (23rd August 2019), Tintin (3rd May 2019), Valerie Villars (29th April 2019), william r sanford72 (29th April 2019)

  3. Link to Post #42
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Quarantined US Navy Ship Destroys “Herd Immunity” Myth

    Baked Blunts
    Published on Apr 24, 2019

    Why has a US Navy ship been quarantined at sea for months with a mumps outbreak when 100% of the sailors & marines have been vaccinated at least once? With politicians and BigPharma pushing mandatory vaccines, it’s an important lesson.
    EXCELLENT analysis

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

    Hervé (29th April 2019), onawah (29th April 2019), Sandy123 (29th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  5. Link to Post #43
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Last edited by Delight; 29th April 2019 at 16:41.

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

    avid (29th April 2019), mountain_jim (30th April 2019), onawah (29th April 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (29th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  7. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member Sandy123's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th January 2019
    Thanked 226 times in 45 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Quote Posted by Bubu (here)
    I am actively campaigning against vaccine wherever I get a chance. Say every time I see a baby or child with their parents. A number have thanked me outright for the tip. This is the best thing we can do. To spread awareness. There should be enough number of people if we are to defeat this mandatory BS.

    You should also look at the new wrecker, new born screening.
    The pro vaccine people trust their gov't and MSN. These people are rabid to attack the anti vaxers. I think somewhere deep down they can't admit there is such evil among us. Do they not know how to read or research on their own. So how about we make a list up of all the instances where our gov't experimented on our own. There's the syphilis given to people of color. I think there are 2 where they sprayed neighborhoods claiming it was for mosquitoes. I'm sure there are more intentional cases that are well documented.
    I still think the Zika virus was caused by spraying or vaccines. I wonder why that debacle died down - because new and better propaganda like the Presidential elections came up?
    We are the creators of our reality, what story are you creating?

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sandy123 For This Post:

    Delight (29th April 2019), mountain_jim (30th April 2019), onawah (29th April 2019), T Smith (30th June 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  9. Link to Post #45
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    North America
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Can anybody on this thread talk about what is happening in LA with measles?

    Here are some talking points to consider:

    Like can anyone address that unvax'd people maybe getting measles? What strain are they getting?

    Has measles been weaponized?

    All the dialogue on the thread thus far has been very interesting and very informative, but I really would like to hear about the current state of affairs with what virus is hitting LA.

    I was just aware of a virus hitting a friend in Boulder that required glandular removal because it was harming breathing. It was not strep but viral.

    Thanks group.

  10. Link to Post #46
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Quote Posted by Sandy123 (here)
    Quote Posted by Bubu (here)
    I am actively campaigning against vaccine wherever I get a chance. Say every time I see a baby or child with their parents. A number have thanked me outright for the tip. This is the best thing we can do. To spread awareness. There should be enough number of people if we are to defeat this mandatory BS.

    You should also look at the new wrecker, new born screening.
    The pro vaccine people trust their gov't and MSN. These people are rabid to attack the anti vaxers. I think somewhere deep down they can't admit there is such evil among us. Do they not know how to read or research on their own. So how about we make a list up of all the instances where our gov't experimented on our own. There's the syphilis given to people of color. I think there are 2 where they sprayed neighborhoods claiming it was for mosquitoes. I'm sure there are more intentional cases that are well documented.
    I still think the Zika virus was caused by spraying or vaccines. I wonder why that debacle died down - because new and better propaganda like the Presidential elections came up?
    I agree that it is very painful to admit the degree of evil evidenced. I also think that we have been generationally conditioned to believe that vaccines have saved us from small pox and polio. There is a fear deeply embedded... that SOMETHING is waiting to attack us in the microbial world. What I had not thought about is a subtle belief that we should never be "sickened" by microbes (that we have the right to never contract a communicable diseas).

    This idea that we must protect at all costs from ever contracting a disease is a basic error IMO. The body immune system in its natural state is one which strengthens by our contact with micriobes. In fact, the body is actually a physical community of symbiotic microbes. Everything has its place.

    I know from my research that in FACT, in the presence of sound nutrition and in a state of low stress, the more microbes we encounter the better!

    Dr. Humphries in one interview talks about the changes in social structure in England when people were forced off the land to be crowded into industrial cities. People lost access to nutritional food, were forced into crowded conditions, forced to breathe polluted air, had no basic sanitation, were made to work long grueling hours and on and on concerning the loss of HYGIENE.

    Then the populace had epidemics. You can see something similar in the cases of large numbers of homeless getting sick in large cities. You see it in any case where people are forced to give up HUMANE conditions.

    I think communicable disease is an opportunistic situation that occurs in conditions where nature is perverted and the environment is such that people become ill. We can look at a few sectors of people like the Amish to see how health is not mysterious. This article is indicative and IMO overstates the issue of heart disease.

    Quote Amish People Stay Healthy in Old Age. Here's Their Secret

    Illustration by Pete Ryan for TIME
    FEBRUARY 15, 2018
    Many people think of the Amish as living without. These devout communities, predominantly located in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, go without cars, TVs, computers, phones or even the electricity needed to run so much of 21st century gadgetry. But what researchers who have studied them have found is what the Amish have a surplus of: good health in late life. The average American life expectancy is currently just under 79 years. Back in 1900, it was only 47, but for early–20th century Amish it was already greater than 70. Over the decades, most Americans have caught up in overall life expectancy, but the Amish still have a significant edge in late-life health, with lower rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and more. So how do they do it?

    Start with lifestyle. Amish communities are agrarian, with no modern farm equipment, meaning all the work has to be done by hand. In 2004, the American College of Sports Medicine fitted Amish volunteers with pedometers to determine how much physical activity they performed. The results were dramatic. Amish men took 18,425 steps a day and women 14,196 steps, compared with non-Amish people who are encouraged by doctors to shoot for at least 10,000 steps–and typically fail. Including other forms of manual labor–lifting, chopping, sowing, planting–the Amish are six times as active as a random sample of people from 12 countries.

    One result of this is that only about 4% of Amish people are obese, compared with 36.5% of the overall U.S. population. Amish children are about one-third as likely as non-Amish to be obese, according to a 2012 study in PLOS One. This means 50% lower rates of Type 2 diabetes.

    The near absence of tobacco in the Amish community–some men do smoke cigars–results in a 63% lower rate of tobacco-related cancers, according to a 2004 study of Ohio’s Amish population. The Amish also had rates of all cancers that were 40% lower than the rest of the Ohio population.

    Cardiovascular disease is one area in which the Amish don’t have an edge, with blood-pressure and heart-disease rates slightly higher than those of other populations. Some of this might be attributable to the Amish diet, which is heavy on pancakes, eggs and sausage for breakfast; and meat, potatoes, gravy and bread for dinner. Working the farm can burn off those calories, but all the fat and salt and carbs still take a toll.

    The most powerful weapon in the Amish long-life arsenal, however, may be genes. The Amish population in the U.S. is about 318,000, descended from just 200 families that immigrated in the 1700s. They mostly marry within their own communities, which means the genes that existed when their ancestors got to America have remained. That can be a dangerous thing if bad genes are hidden in the mix but a good thing if the genes are sound. While no community is without genetic problems, the Amish seem to have gotten a lucky draw.

    In a study released last November, researchers at Northwestern University announced the discovery of a gene in an Amish community that seemed to be associated with an average life span 10% longer than that of people without the gene. The long-lived subjects also had 10% longer telomeres–the caps at the end of chromosomes that shorten over time and drive the aging process. The gene, known as PAI-1, is linked not only to slower aging but also to better insulin levels and better blood pressure and arterial flexibility.

    Not all Amish have the PAI-1 mutation; it has been found so far in just one community in Indiana. But those who do carry it have an additional edge over and above the one they have simply from being born Amish.

    While much of the Amish advantage is unique to the Amish themselves, there is one long-life lesson they can teach everyone else. Almost all elderly people in the Amish community are cared for at home, by relatives. This isn’t always realistic or possible in the non-Amish world, but when it is, it pays huge health dividends. The PLOS One study estimated that aging in place has the same longevity benefits as quitting smoking. In all communities, it seems, the power of family may trump the power of medicine.

    Write to Jeffrey Kluger at jeffrey.kluger@time.com.

    And though there may have been a genetic mutation, Epigenetics has demonstrated that genes turn on and off with changes in the environment AND quite quickly

    I disagree about the Amish advantage being about genetics... it is IMO EPIGENETIC.

    Quote Amish study sheds light on heart disease
    By GINA KOLATANOV. 12, 2008

    For the sake of heart disease research, 809 members of the Old Order Amish community agreed to go to a clinic in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, near their homes, and drink a rich milkshake that was made mostly of heavy cream. Over the next six hours, a group of investigators took samples of their blood, determining how much fat was churning through their bloodstreams.

    Most of the study participants responded as expected - their levels of triglycerides, a common form of fat in the blood, rose steadily for three to four hours and then declined. But about 5 percent had an extraordinary reaction: Their triglyceride levels started out low and hardly budged.

    It turns out, the researchers report in the Friday issue of the journal Science, that those individuals who barely responded have a mutation that disables one of their two copies of a gene called apoC-III. The gene codes for a protein, APOC3, that normally slows the breakdown of triglycerides.

    With the mutated gene, people break down triglycerides unusually quickly. And, the investigators find, they also have low levels of LDL cholesterol, which at high levels increases heart disease risk. They have high levels of HDL cholesterol, which is associated with a decreased risk of heart disease. And they appear to have arteries relatively clear of plaque.

    To find the gene mutation, the researchers, led by Toni Pollin, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, scanned the entire genomes of their study subjects, looking for genetic regions that were linked to levels of blood triglycerides.

    That led them to a region containing the apoC-III gene. When they sequenced it, they found the mutation that destroyed its function.

    Dr. Alan Shuldiner, head of the division of endocrinology, diabetes and nutrition at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore and the senior author of the paper, said the Amish were ideal for the study because they were an isolated population that had been in the United States for 14 generations and whose members shared many genes.

    In this case, Pollin said, she and her colleagues traced the apoC-III mutation to a member of the Amish community who was born in the 18th century.

    The gene is also regulated by insulin, noted Dr. Daniel Rader, a heart disease researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, and people with diabetes have high levels of APOC3, high levels of triglycerides and an increased risk of heart disease.

    The discovery of the gene mutation, researchers say, helps bolster the case that triglycerides are related to risk of heart disease and that APOC3 is an important contributor. But clinical applications may be years away.

    Dr. Ira Goldberg, chief of the division of preventive medicine and nutrition at Columbia University, said the triglyceride case had mostly rested on studies showing an association between high triglyceride levels and an increased incidence of heart disease. But that, Goldberg added, is not cause and effect. The new study provides more direct evidence.

    "Here we have a group of people with a genetic mutation that lowers triglycerides," Goldberg said. "They seem to have less cardiovascular disease."

    As for apoC-III, the study clarifies its role, said Dr. Alan Tall, head of the molecular medicine division at Columbia. "It was known from animal studies that apoC-III might have a role like this," Tall said. "But the human information is really novel. We suspected it might be the case but this nails it down."

    Rader agreed. "This is among the strongest human evidence we have that APOC3 is quote, unquote, bad," he said. "If you had a drug to turn off the gene to prevent as much APOC3 being made, this study suggests that that would be beneficial to do."

    But he added that there were no such drugs on the immediate horizon.
    Today in the industrialized world we have extreme stress and chronic exposure to assailing factors LIKE vaccines. Dr. Humphries is an excellent resource articulating the factors that begin at birth in the corporatocracy take over of our lifestyle. Chronic disease is a much bigger issue than communicable disease.

    It is more clear all the time that we are being poisoned by the lifestyles we have adopted because we believed they are improvements. That is a hard pill to swallow. People have been shown to deny what is overwhelming to the cognitive landscape. The cognitive dissonance continues until the person has less to lose by taking on a new set of information than clinging to the old IMO.

    Information that empowers us to take things into our own hands regarding health is one way to shift POV. I wonder what we can do to assert our power to REFUSE further assault? One thing is by beginning to talk to everyone we know armed with true information.

    Maybe the reason I am most focused on vaccination is because of the fact that IMO we must band together and stop MANDATORY vaccination. Where there is choice, there is a chance to change our minds. I am certain we are spiritual beings but subscribe to no religion.

    However, I think that asserting religious freedom is something we can use to fight the seeming tide of horrors, or maybe not? Now, religious organizations seem to be unconcerned once children are born? Then the belief kicks in that public "health" is about everyone being vaccinated.

    It hurts to be aware that maybe there is more danger from other humans than from microbes.
    Last edited by Delight; 29th April 2019 at 18:59.

  11. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    earthdreamer (30th April 2019), onawah (29th April 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  12. Link to Post #47
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    Can anybody on this thread talk about what is happening in LA with measles?

    Here are some talking points to consider:

    Like can anyone address that unvax'd people maybe getting measles? What strain are they getting?

    Has measles been weaponized?

    All the dialogue on the thread thus far has been very interesting and very informative, but I really would like to hear about the current state of affairs with what virus is hitting LA.

    I was just aware of a virus hitting a friend in Boulder that required glandular removal because it was harming breathing. It was not strep but viral.

    Thanks group.
    Was it like a viral tonsillitis? I have heard of that issue in adults.

    I am aware of no information about which measles strains are are infecting unvaccinated people and not sure how to find it?

    This was odd IMO...
    In Oregon, Dr. Paul Thomas tried to report a case of possible measles and was told not to send in a sample of blood for testing. This was at the high point of the measles "epidemic".

    Find it here after 20:15

    In the Ukraine, a measles vaccine push was correlated with increased measles outbreak and when tested, the lab confirmed wild strain measles was seen to be much less than the total measles cases that MDs saw in clinic? The presence of an attenuated strain is not discussed in the graph.

    Outbreak of over 12,000 cases of measles in Ukraine is caused by recent vaccination campaign?!
    © Mara Gabriëlle, Daphne Knipping and Door Frankema
    12 May 2018

    This CDC article does not reveal any attenuated measles strains detected in recent outbreaks. But why would CDC report that anyway if they are mostly concerned with scares of wild measles?

    Measles Cases and Outbreaks

    Measles Cases in 2019

    By the way....
    The CDC does not consider post vaccination symptoms "the Measles".

    Quote APRIL 04, 2019
    Measles, Measles, Everywhere!

    Vaccine-induced vs. vaccine-preventable
    While the measles five-alarm is ringing, it is worth looking into the peer-reviewed, published medical literature about recent infections. The funny thing is that there are hundreds of documented cases – maybe thousands undocumented — of measles going unreported to the CDC every year. Not secret cases of feverish children with mottled rashes, hidden away in the houses of Orthodox Jews or anti-vaxxer wellness types. No. Thousands of kids, show up in emergency rooms and clinics across the nation with spiking fevers, rashes and seizures caused by measles virus. The medical literature describes their illness as “clinically indistinguishable” from wild-type measles but it is caused by a vaccine virus.

    “Vaccine- Associated Rash Illness” looks so much like wild measles that parents go in droves to emergency rooms, usually seven to 12 days after a shot. Even doctors have to be educated to distinguish “vaccine-associated measles” from “vaccine-preventable” measles. The only accurate way to do this is by genotyping the virus using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. Good thing we can do that, right? Except that doctors are told not to do PCR tests on children with measles who were recently vaccinated. Public health agencies tell doctors that they must report every case of measles – unless it is in children (or adults) who were recently vaccinated.

    ER visits
    It’s true, public health agencies tell parents to expect loss of appetite, mild fever and rash — “a mild form of measles” — seven to 12 days after a measles injection. But for many, many children the reaction is not mild. One study, published in 2017 in Vaccine (the journal of the vaccine industry) found that 7,480 (0.8 percent) of 946,806 American babies — that’s approaching one in 100 — who had recently received a first shot of MMR or MMRV between 2000 and 2012 were taken to an emergency room or clinic and had a “medically-attended” fever 7 to 10 days later. The study excluded children in hospital earlier than day 7 as well as children who spiked fevers beyond day 10, so actual hospital visits for vaccine fevers is under-reported. This was not an expected vaccine reaction, the researchers said, but “considered an adverse event” to immunization and the study was trying to distinguish those children, clumped in certain genetic families it turns out, who are vulnerable to the reaction so that vaccines could one day be “personalized.” So, if vaccine researchers have found that some kids react differently to vaccines in a bad way than others, should county executives be issuing mandates that all children must be vaccinated? One shot clearly does not fit all.

    An earlier study from Canada also found that one in every 168 babies end up at an ER within two weeks of a measles shot. That’s a lot higher than the one-in-a-million vaccine risk that parents are told about, isn’t it? The study said the babies were seen mostly for spiking fevers, rashes and seizures. The CDC recognizes an increased risk of seizures after vaccines, including the MMR. Parents take seizures seriously. Maybe they’d be inclined to join the growing ranks of “anti-vaxxers” who don’t want to take any risk – no matter how small the CDC thinks it is –of seizures in their healthy baby.

  13. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Bob (29th April 2019), onawah (29th April 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  14. Link to Post #48
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Status RI H7704 | 2018
    ....Introduced on February 28 2018 - 25% progression, died in committee
    Action: 2018-03-28 - Committee recommended measure be held for further study
    Pending: House Health, Education and Welfare Committee
    Text: Latest bill text (Introduced) [PDF]

    Requires informed consent for mandatory vaccines

    A physician regarding informed consent bill H7704 states it is just too time consuming. His nonchalant arrogance is amazing!



    WOW... at least some people spoke up in Rhode Island. Here is a comment from a viewer of the videos

    Quote I guess he doesn't have the intelligence to figure out that he could inform those who are scheduled to see him for vaccines by newsletter or information sheet with the known side effects, up to and including death, prior to their scheduled visit. Pediatricians don't have time for that? Sad that too many of them are in it only for the money and could care less about what happens to your child. I wonder if they inform their own family. If they don't have time for you, you shouldn't have time for them. Remember, it's your life and your family - please do your own research from independent sources prior to seeing any medical person (I didn't say "doctor" because some of them don't deserve that title).
    Last edited by Delight; 29th April 2019 at 20:39.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  16. Link to Post #49
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Some things are just so hurtful that one cannot stop ranting.

    Quote Edward Bernays, Corporate Pseudo-Science and the 2017 March for Science
    Thursday Apr. 27th, 2017Gary G. Kohls, MD

    Propaganda definition: “a message designed to persuade its intended audience to think and behave in a certain manner. Thus advertising is commercial propaganda. Or institutionalized and systematic spreading of information and/or disinformation, usually to promote a narrow political or religious (or commercial) viewpoint.” -- from http://www.businessdictionary.com/

    Mercenary definition: ”a person primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics.”
    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.” -- Edward L. Bernays, the Father of Propaganda in America and Sigmund Freud’s nephew, from his seminal book Propaganda (1928).

    “Entire populations, which were undisciplined or lacking in intellectual or definite moral principles, were vulnerable to unconscious influence and thus susceptible to wanting things that they do not need. This is achieved by manipulating desires on an unconscious level.” – Edward Bernays, From the Annals of the American Academy of Poliltical and Social Science (March 1947)

    I recently heard a talk given by the author of a book whose theme was “the war on science”. The author happened to be on the national steering committee that helped to organize last weekend’s March for Science. The author was not a scientist, but he appeared to be fairly well read about some of the issues about which I was also concerned, such as global warming, resource depletion, pollution, over-population and other highly probable environmental catastrophes.


    However, during the speech, I was disappointed to hear the author boldly state as fact a widely-propagated media, medical and pharmaceutical industry myth that falsely claims that vaccines (presumably including the 270 new experimental ones that are in Big Pharma’s pipeline) are totally safe and efficacious (when they are injected into the muscle tissue of tiny, even premature infants whose blood-brain barriers and immune systems are not yet developed enough to keep out the mercury, aluminum and live viruses).

    Obviously, unbeknownst to this non-scientist author, his statement revealed that he was ignorant or otherwise unaware of the voluminous body of documented, peer-reviewed and unbiased neuroscientific evidence that refutes the oft-repeated claim – or perhaps it just revealed the success of the indoctrination process that he and so many others, including far too many health journalists, had heard again and again. One only needs to recall Goebbels dictum: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it as truth.” (For that evidence that refutes the lie about vaccine safety, go to https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.co...eries/replay/; www.nvic.org; http://vaxxedthemovie.com/; www.vactruth.com; http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com; http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/learn-more/science/.)

    The Fluoridation of America’s Water Supplies

    The author also disappointed me when he repeated the American Dental Association-propagated (and fluoride industry) myth that the widespread fluoridation of municipal water supplies with the hazardous waste by-product of the fertilizer industry (fluoride) has no downsides (implying that fluoride supplementation is totally safe for the bodies and brains of children, notwithstanding the documented proof that the ingestion of that neurotoxic mineral can cause lowered IQ levels, hypothyroidism and brain damage, as well as fluorosis of bones and teeth.

    The statement also ignored the fact that the fertilizer industry’s waste products contain an variable combination of fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride, in addition to untested-for-contaminants like arsenic. It is important to note that fluoridation of water supplies is banned in most municipalities in Europe (on the basis of good, unbiased science), with no evidence of any increase in the incidence of dental caries in those non-fluoridated communities. (Explore www.fluoridealert.org for much more - and also read the warning on the next tube of fluoridated Crest toothpaste that you can find on the grocery store shelf.)

    Edward Bernays, the Father of American Propagnda

    Edward Bernays is considered the Father of American Propaganda. His writings on propaganda inspired Nazi Party leader Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment to be really good at his job. One of Bernay’s most influential corporate” accomplishments” occurred in the mid- to late-1940s, when he was hired by ALCOA (the Aluminum Company of America) to orchestrate a public relations campaign to convince political leaders and the public that it would be good if ALCOA’s highly toxic by-product (fluoride salts) were added to the nation’s drinking water supplies under the guise of preventing tooth decay in children. (Google “Edward Bernays, the Father of American Propaganda” and “A Chronology of Forced Fluoridation in America” for more.)

    Bernays’ propaganda campaign worked like a charm, with many state legislatures (including my state of Minnesota) passing laws that compelled reluctant municipalities to fluoridate their water supplies with the waste product that had up until then been responsible for so much poisoned air, water, soil, food, vegetation, livestock and other living things surrounding ALCOA’s aluminum smelting plants.

    The aluminum industry, with the help of the American Dental Association (which is still in denial about the serious neurotoxicity of the mercury in its dental “amalgam” fillings), was enabled to sell its otherwise unmarketable and poisonous by-product - and they made a profit to boot! Win-win-lose.
    Bernays’ and ALCOA’s fluoride caper was just another example of how cunning mercenary lobbyists that work for sociopathic corporations can convince non-scientist legislators to do their bidding, especially if the politicians also accept campaign contributions from those often criminal enterprises! (It should be noted, by the way, that, in recent years, most of the highly caustic fluoride powder that is purchased by American municipalities like Duluth comes from the toxic smokestacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry [rather than from the aluminum industry] and that the handlers of the fluoride powder need to wear hazmat suits.)

    It is obvious to any close observer of what industry calls “science” is that there are at least two types of science:
    1) the biased, Big Business kind of science that hires well-trained scientists to perform the necessary research in order to develop products that will make money for the company and its investors, and
    2) the unbiased kind of science that is in it for altruistic reasons – with scientists that work for the advancement of pure knowledge, the advancement of society and the creation of a more humane and prosperous world for everybody – hoping, of course, to make a decent living at the same time.

    The first kind of science – the one that has been dominant in American society for far too long - must be regarded with extreme suspicion, for it hires scientists that are expected do the will of the corporation’s non-scientist management and marketing teams that may be serial liars and manipulators of statistics. Far too often – because of the intense competition, corporations find themselves unable to afford following ethical principles other than the so-called “business ethics” (an oxymoron) that they may have learned in the business administration course they once took in school.

    Mercenaries, Whether Scientists or Soldiers, Can’t be Trusted to do the Honorable Thing
    continued here

  17. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    enigma3 (1st June 2019), onawah (29th April 2019), Paul (1st May 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), T Smith (30th June 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  18. Link to Post #50
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    This article by Gary Kohls MD has important questions for parents to ask THEMSELVES, for all of us to ask OURSELVES.

    What are we willing to allow into our experience and what will we do to resist?

    Quote A Few Important Questions that Parents need to Ask Before Giving Consent for the Next Round of Big Pharma-recommended Vaccinations
    (Big Pharma corporations, it must be remembered, are the untrustworthy, unindicted criminal cartel that brought us the Opioid Crisis)
    Thursday Apr. 18th, 2019

    There are a few important questions that all parents of “vaccine-eligible” infants and children deserve to have answered before they allow their children to get the next CDC-recommended batch of vaccinations. Most parents have not been allowed to see, read or understand the negative information about vaccines that would naturally make them “hesitant” to proceed with allowing their child to receive the Big Pharma and CDC-recommended schedule that has never been fully proven to be either safe or effective long-term.

    Those of us in the Anti-Over-Vaccination Resistance Movement have been gauged to have been “too effective” (for Big Pharma’s tastes) in proving to “reality-based” parents that over-vaccinating their infants and children with neurotoxic and/or auto-immunity-inducing vaccines isn’t a good idea. Apparently, the Anti-Over-Vaccination movement’s sound science-based writings, lectures, videos and conferences have been too effective at refuting the propaganda that is being constantly trumpeted by the for-profit corporations that make up Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Big Government, Big Media and Wall Street. The Big Business indoctrination campaigns that claim that all vaccines are 100% safe, 100%: effective and 100% necessary are now being understood by most of the American population to have been lies.

    And so, as always happens when propaganda or advertising campaigns by the rich and powerful fail to convince prospective believers or prospective customers, the propagandists start resorting to libel, slander, censorship, ridicule and even adolescent name-calling (especially in the case of corporate-paid internet trolls) to “win” the battle against the truth-tellers who are pointing out why “vaccine hesitancy” makes total sense to “reality-based” parents who are given the opportunity to think for themselves.

    All of our movement’s efforts at truth-telling about vaccine safety issues are being increasingly censored out of existence by recent figurative “book-burnings” by social media entities like Face Book, YouTube, Google, Pinterest, Amazon, etc. that have, accompanied by threats from governmental agencies and the eager assistance of their cohorts in Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Media. When truth is a danger to the power elite in any given culture, that culture is drifting toward fascism. Fascist countries, of course, are led by anti-democratic, pro-violence, conscienceless leaders that meet the definition of “sociopathic entities” who routinely lie and therefore can never be trusted.

    Here are Four Important Questions to get Answers to Before Continuing the Over-vaccinating of Your Child

    Question #1: Have you or anybody that you have heard about ever experienced these symptoms after being vaccinated? Myalgia (muscle pain), myositis, muscle weakness, arthralgia (joint pain), arthritis, chronic fatigue, sleep disturbances, cognitive impairment, chronic headache or memory loss. (The onset of these symptoms may have been either acute or delayed by weeks or months after the inoculations. Note that this is just a short list of autoimmune symptoms and signs.)

    Question # 2: Do you know any fully vaccinated people that have suffered any of the following disorders that actually may have been undiagnosed, preventable, iatrogenic, aluminum-adjuvanted, vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders? (Note that a failure to accurately diagnose the cause of vaccine-induced disorders will invariably mean that appropriate treatment [and prevention of future sicknesses as well] will be erroneous.).

    Here is a short list of disorders that can be vaccine-induced: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), diabetes mellitus (type 1), Systemic Lupus Erythematosis (SLE), demyelinating neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis (MS), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP), vasculitis, dermatomyositis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), Alzheimer’s Dementia (AD), Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), Macrophagic Myofasciitis Syndrome (MMF), Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), Primary Biliary Cirrhosis (PBC), Autoimmune Thyroid Diseases (AITD), Addisonian crisis and thyroid storm, ASIA, et, etc.

    Question # 3: Would you as a parent prefer having your child go through a benign and transient viral illness such as measles, mumps, rubella or chicken pox (illnesses that would actually give the child life-long immunity with no need for booster shots [as opposed to fully vaccinated children that will “need” to be re-vaccinated over and over again to just maintain their theoretical partial serological immunity])?

    Question #4: Or are you willing to take the very real risk of allowing your child to come down with (for example): vaccine-induced sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), near-SIDS, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, vaccine-induced encephalopathy, vaccine-induced neurodevelopmental disorders, vaccine-induced learning disorders, an autism spectrum disorder, so-called attention/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), aluminum adjuvant-induced diabetes mellitus type 1, transverse myelitis, multiple sclerosis or any of the many other life-long, chronic, aluminum-adjuvant-induced autoimmune disorders listed above and below that could cause your child to become a chronically ill patient that will be dependent on medical care and prescription drugs for the rest of his/her life?

    The level of alarm that should be generated as you seek responses to the above questions will reveal how mis-informed and even dis-informed you and your physicians have become, thanks to the profit-motivated entities within Big Pharma and Big Medicine (including the AAP, the AMA, the AAFP, the CDC, the FDA and the NIH). Consider this summary statement concerning the many still-unrecognized contraindications to future vaccinations in certain cases. It comes from Dr Yehuda Shoenfeld, the “Godfather of Autoimmunology”):

    “It seems preferable that individuals with prior autoimmune or autoimmune-like reactions to vaccinations, should not be immunized, at least not with the same type of vaccine.” “Whoever Pays the Piper, Calls the Tune”

    Big Media, which derives 70% of its revenues from Big Pharma’s (often viewed as unethical) direct-to-consumer advertising, has collaborated with Big Pharma in creating a web of lies and disinformation. This incestuous relationship has effectively silenced investigative journalists and columnists from doing the job that made them go into the profession, http://duluthreader.com/articles/201...ts_need_to_ask

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

    onawah (29th April 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  20. Link to Post #51
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    addressing the theory of Natural Immunity and Vaccination

    Dr Tetyana Obukhanych focusing on measles

    Quote Dr Tetyana Obukhanych is the author of Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do to Regain Our Health. In her book, she presents a view on vaccination that is radically different from mainstream theories.
    Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, has studied immunology in some of the world's most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. and Stanford University in California.

    Quote ‘Herd Immunity’: the misplaced driver of universal vaccination

    The term, ‘herd immunity’, was coined by researcher, A W Hedrich, after he’d studied the epidemiology of measles in USA between 1900-1931. His study published in the May, 1933 American Journal of Epidemiology concluded that when 68% of children younger than 15 yrs old had become immune to measles via infection, measles epidemics ceased. For several reasons, this natural, pre-vaccine herd immunity differed greatly from today’s vaccine ‘herd immunity’.1,2

    When immunity was derived from natural infection, a much smaller proportion of the population needed to become immune to show the herd effect; compare the 68% measles immunity required for natural herd immunity to the very high percentages of vaccine uptake deemed necessary for measles vaccine ‘herd immunity’. In his ‘Vaccine Safety Manual’, Neil Z Miller cites research which concluded increasing vaccine uptake necessary for ‘herd immunity’ ranging from “70 to 80 percent of two year olds in inner cities” in 1991 to “‘close to 100 percent coverage’…with a vaccine that is 90 to 98 percent effective.” in 1997. Miller notes that, “When the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, officials were confident that they could eradicate the disease by 1967.”

    Subsequently, new dates for eradication were pronounced as 1982, 2000 and 2010. Meanwhile, “In 1990, after examining 320 scientific works from around the world, 180 European medical doctors concluded that ‘the eradication of measles…would today appear to be an unrealistic goal.’” And in 1984, Professor D. Levy of Johns Hopkins University had already “concluded that if current practices [of suppressing natural immunity] continue, by the year 2050 a large part of the population will be at risk and ‘there could in theory be over 25,000 fatal cases of measles in the U.S.A.'”

    Disease-conferred immunity usually lasted a lifetime. As each new generation of children contracted the infection, the immunity of those previously infected was renewed due to their continual cyclical re-exposure to the disease; except for newly-infected children and the few individuals who’d never had the disease or been exposed to it, the ‘herd immunity’ of the entire population was maintained at all times.

    Vaccine ‘herd immunity’ is hit-and-miss; outbreaks of disease sometimes erupt in those who follow recommended vaccine schedules. If they do actually “immunize”, vaccines provide only short-term immunity so, in an attempt to maintain ‘herd immunity’, health authorities hold ‘cattle drives’ to round up older members of the ‘herd’ for administration of booster shots. And on it goes, to the point that, now, it’s recommended we accept cradle-to-grave shots of vaccine against pertussis, a disease which still persists after more than sixty years of widespread use of the vaccine.

    Russell Blaylock, MD remarks, “One of the grand lies of the vaccine program is the concept of “herd immunity”. In fact, vaccines for most Americans declined to non-protective levels within 5 to 10 years of the vaccines. This means that for the vast majority of Americans, as well as others in the developed world, herd immunity doesn’t exist and hasn’t for over 60 years.”3

    In the pre-vaccine era, newborns could receive antibodies against infectious diseases from their mothers who had themselves been infected as children and re-exposed to the diseases later in life. Today’s babies born to mothers who were vaccinated and never exposed to these diseases do not receive these antibodies. In direct contrast to fear mongering disease “facts” and ‘herd immunity’ theories related by Public Health, most of today’s babies are more vulnerable than babies of the pre-vaccine era.

    1. “Monthly estimates of the child population ‘susceptible’ to measles, 1900-1931, Baltimore, Maryland”; A W Hedrich; American Journal of Epidemiology; May 1933 – Oxford University Press.

    2. ‘Vaccine Safety Manual’ by Neil Z Miller; New Atlantean Press; 2008, 2009; pg 152.

    3. Ibid; pgs 16-17.
    Quote Herd Immunity: Myth or Reality?
    April 5th 2014
    Written By: Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

    Tetyana Obukhanych (Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University, New York, NY) is the author of Vaccine Illusion. The book is available in pdf e-book form for immediate download here.

    Even though endemic outbreaks of common childhood diseases, such as measles, have been eliminated in some regions after prolonged mass-vaccination efforts, we are still being constantly reminded that reducing vaccination coverage of children in a community poses the risk of a reimported disease outbreak with potentially dire consequences to infants and immuno-compromised individuals. We are also being persuaded that implementing strict vaccination compliance will prevent an outbreak and protect vaccine-ineligible infants via the herd-immunity effect.

    There is no question that a disease outbreak can happen in a non-immune community, if a virus gets there. The real question is, how well can high-vaccination compliance ensure herd immunity and protect a community from an outbreak?

    Herd Immunity, a Key Principle
    Herd immunity is not an immunologic idea, but rather an epidemiologic construct, which theoretically predicts successful disease control when a certain pre-calculated percentage of people in the population are immune from disease. A scholarly article on herd immunity states:

    "Along with the growth of interest in herd immunity, there has been a proliferation of views of what it means or even of whether it exists at all. Several authors have written of data on measles, which "challenge" the principle of herd immunity and others cite widely divergent estimates (from 70 to 95 percent) of the magnitude of the herd immunity threshold required for measles eradication."[1]

    Herd immunity has been deemed instrumental in rapid disease eradication. Relying upon the meticulous work of Dr. A. W. Hedrich, who documented annual measles attack rates in relation to the proportion of naturally immune people in the 1900s-1930s, the United States Public Health Service had confidently announced in 1967 its intent to swiftly eradicate measles in the USA over the Winter by vaccinating a sufficient number of still susceptible children.[2] Mass vaccination was implemented, but the expected herd-immunity effect did not materialize and measles epidemics did not stop in 1967.

    The concept of herd immunity has been used to justify the idea of vaccinating children against a mild disease, who do not personally benefit from such vaccination, to protect a vulnerable but vaccine-ineligible segment of the population. For example, rubella is not dangerous for children. However, for pregnant women who have not become immune from rubella prior to pregnancy, a rubella infection poses a danger during the first trimester by increasing the risk of fetal developmental abnormalities (congenital rubella). Obviously, vaccination with a live-attenuated viral vaccine, such as the rubella vaccine, is contraindicated during pregnancy.

    Perhaps with the good intention to immediately put an end to any risk of congenital rubella in their community, elementary-school children were vaccinated en mass against rubella in 1970 in Casper, Wyoming. Ironically, nine months after this local vaccination campaign, an outbreak of rubella hit Casper. The herd-immunity effect did not materialize and the outbreak involved over one thousand cases and reached several pregnant women. The perplexed authors of the study describing this outbreak wrote:

    "The concept that a highly immune group of pre-pubertal children will prevent the spread of rubella in the rest of the community was shown by this epidemic not always to be valid."[3]

    The belief in herd immunity has no doubt been influencing vaccine-related legislation in many U.S. states and other countries. This notion is used as a trump card to justify and mandate legal measures aiming to increase vaccination compliance. An implicit assumption is that liberal vaccine exemptions somehow compromise this precious herd immunity, which the public-health authorities strive to establish and maintain via vaccination.

    Herd Immunity, a Flawed Concept
    Although the evidence for vaccination-based herd immunity is yet to materialize, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just a single publication by Poland & Jacobson (1994) reports on 18 different measles outbreaks throughout North America, occurring in school populations with very-high vaccination coverage for measles (71% to 99.8%). In these outbreaks, vaccinated children constituted 30% to 100% of measles cases. Many more similar outbreaks, occurring after 1994, can be found by searching epidemiologic literature.

    Before the 1990s, only a single dose of the measles vaccine was on the childhood schedule in North America. Frequent occurrence of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities have been blamed by the medical establishment on what they thought was a failure-prone, single-shot vaccination strategy. The second MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) shot was introduced in the United States and Canada in the 1990s, followed by the elimination of the endemic measles virus from North America by 2002.

    In 2011, an imported measles outbreak – and the largest in the post-elimination era – hit a community in Quebec, Canada with 95-97% measles vaccination compliance in the era of double vaccination against measles. If double vaccination is not enough to patch those alleged vaccine failures and ensure the elusive herd immunity, should we then look forward to triple (or, might as well, quadruple) MMR vaccination strategy to see how that might work out with respect to herd immunity? Or, should we instead re-examine the herd immunity concept itself?

    The herd-immunity concept is based on a faulty assumption that vaccination elicits in an individual a state equivalent to bona fide immunity (life-long resistance to viral infection). As with any garbage in-garbage out type of theory, the expectations of the herd-immunity theory are bound to fail in the real world.

    Ochsenbein et al. (2000) conducted an experiment in mice, in which they compared the effect of injecting mice with two preparations of the vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). They immunized mice with either unmodified VSV (live virus) or ultraviolet light-inactivated VSV incapable of replication (dead virus). Then they tested the capacity of the serum from the two groups of immunized animals to neutralize live VSV over the 300 days following immunization.

    The injection of the live-virus preparation induced long-lasting virus-neutralization capacity of the serum in mice, which persisted for the whole duration of the study (300 days). In contrast, the injection of the dead-virus preparation induced much lower levels of virus-neutralizing serum titers to start with. Virus-neutralizing serum titers reached a peak at 20 days post-immunization and then started to wane rapidly. They went below the level detectable by the neutralization test by the end of the study period (300 days). The conclusion of this experiment was that a procedure that attenuates or inactivates the virus also diminishes its ability to induce long-lasting virus-neutralizing serum titers upon immunization of animals.

    Vaccines against viral childhood diseases are similarly prepared by first isolating the virus from a sick person, then rendering it artificially attenuated or inactivated to make a vaccine. The attenuation or inactivation of a wild virus to become a vaccine-strain virus is done to reduce the likelihood of it inducing the disease symptoms or complications, although this happens anyway in some cases. The process of attenuation, while making a vaccine virus "safer" than the original wild virus, as far as disease symptoms are concerned, also limits the durability of vaccine protection. In fact, all vaccines are by necessity either attenuated or inactivated microorganisms or their isolated pieces mixed with adjuvants; and, therefore, the protective effect of any vaccine is bound to wane sooner or later.

    The protective threshold for measles-virus neutralizing serum titers in humans is known.[4] Also known is the duration of time after vaccination with MMR when measles-virus neutralizing serum titers drop below the protective level in a segment of the population. [5]

    The Boston University Measles Study
    In 1990, a blood drive was conducted among the students of Boston University a month before the campus was hit with a measles outbreak. Due to these natural circumstances, researchers happened to have access to blood samples of many students who either got measles or were spared from the disease during the outbreak. The levels of measles virus-neutralizing serum titers were appropriately measured by the plaque reduction neutralization (PRN) technique, a month prior to and two months after the exposure. Pre-exposure PRN titers were then correlated with the degree of protection from measles: (1) no detectable infection or disease; (2) serologically confirmed measles infection with a modified clinical course of disease; or (3) full-blown measles. By the way, eight out of nine students who ended up getting full-blown measles, had been vaccinated against measles in their childhood.

    The outcome of the Boston University measles outbreak study by Chen et al. (1990) was the following:

    (a) In all previously vaccinated students who experienced full-blown measles, pre-exposure PRN titers were below 120;

    (b) 70% of students whose pre-exposure PRN titers were between 120 and 1052, ended up having a serologically confirmed measles infection, but since their altered disease symptoms did not conform to the clinical measles case definition, they were categorized as non-cases during the outbreak; and

    (c) Students with pre-exposure PRN titers in excess of 1052 were for the most part protected both from the typical clinical disease and measles infection.

    During the outbreak, many students with pre-exposure PRN titers between 120 and 1052, who were officially categorized as non-cases, nevertheless had most of the viral-disease symptoms, including cough, photophobia, headache, and fever. These "non-cases" ended up with high post-exposure measles PRN titers, just as the disease cases did, suggesting that they were able to replicate the virus during their illness and possibly transmit it.

    Subsequent Measles Vaccine Observations
    A study by LeBaron et al. (2007) was conducted to determine the duration of measles virus-neutralization serum titers after the receipt of the second MMR shot. The study enrolled several hundred healthy Caucasian children from rural U.S. areas free of measles outbreaks for the duration of the study. About a quarter of these children generated relatively high titers in response to vaccination, although not nearly as high as the titers after a natural infection would be. The rest responded modestly, and some very poorly. The titers in all children, regardless of being high, moderate, or low, reached a peak in a month after the MMR booster, then came down in six months to the pre-booster levels and continued to decline gradually over the next 5-10 years of observation.

    In the above study, only about a top quarter of children (called high responders) were able to maintain PRN titers in excess of 1000 units 10 years following their second MMR shot, received at the age of five. These children are therefore likely to still be protected from the measles infection by the time they are adolescents.

    The least-efficient vaccine responders (bottom 5%) had their PRN titers fall below 120 units within 5-10 years after the second MMR shot. This percentage of vaccinated children is expected to have full-blown, clinically identifiable measles upon exposure when they get a bit older. This is the reason why vaccinated (and even twice-vaccinated) people show up as disease cases in numbers equal to or even exceeding the unvaccinated cases in communities with very high (>95%) vaccination coverage. Rapid loss of vaccine protection in low responders is the reason for the paradox of a "vaccine-preventable" disease becoming the disease of the vaccinated in highly vaccinated communities. Such disease cases (and outbreaks driven by them) are not due to random vaccine failures, they are anticipated vaccine failures.

    For the majority of children, the PRN titers fall between 120 and 1000 by the time they reach adolescence. These individuals can acquire infection upon exposure and be potentially contagious during an outbreak, although they might experience a modified course of measles and therefore not be labeled as measles cases for the purposes of reporting.

    High Vaccination Compliance Is No Guarantee
    Measles cases imported into North America after the eradication of the endemic virus in the early 2000s had typically resulted in small or no sustained outbreaks in the last decade, in part due to the vigilance of the public-health authorities in quarantine implementation. However, the 2011 imported outbreak of measles in Quebec, Canada, characterized by de Serreset al. (2013), appeared to be ominously different. Strict quarantine measures were not implemented, possibly because of the assumption that the region was well under herd immunity due to an exceptionally high and uniform vaccination compliance for measles (95-97%) in this region. The consequences of relying on non-existent herd immunity as opposed to quarantine in curbing an imported disease outbreak were very telling.

    Imported by a high-school teacher during the Spring break trip abroad (he himself having been vaccinated for measles in his childhood), the outbreak spread swiftly from this index case, involved more than 600 individuals, and lasted for half a year. Nearly 50% of the measles cases were twice-vaccinated individuals. As would be predicted by the waning nature of vaccine-based protection, the contribution of twice-vaccinated children to disease cases increased with age. Twice-vaccinated cases constituted only 4.1% of the 5-9 age group, but 18% of the 10-14 age group, and 22% of the 15-19 age group. Unfortunately, the study did not assess how many previously vaccinated individuals ended up getting a measles infection with a modified course of disease and thus were not counted as disease cases for the purposes of reporting, yet were spreading the virus around in the community.

    The medical establishment assumes that vaccinated children, if they themselves get infected with the virus or even develop full-blown (called breakthrough) disease, cannot transmit it to others. Some cite a paper published in the prestigious Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) as providing evidence for this assumption. Indeed, the title of the article reads "Failure of Vaccinated Children to Transmit Measles."[6] However, careful examination of the study design reveals that it did not properly address the question it purported to address: whether vaccinated children who get infected during an outbreak can or cannot transmit the virus.

    The results of the study clearly show that during an outbreak of measles in an Iowa community in 1970s, which involved both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, non-sick vaccinated children were unlikely to transmit measles to their younger preschool siblings, many of whom could have been recently vaccinated themselves and therefore not vulnerable to measles anyway during that particular outbreak. The vaccination status of those younger siblings was not determined (or disclosed) by the study. Curiously, the study shows that non-sick unvaccinated children also "failed" to transmit measles (which they obviously didn't contract during that particular outbreak) to their younger preschool siblings with undisclosed vaccination status. If this tells us anything about the failure of the vaccinated children to transmit the virus, then this failure has nothing to do with their vaccination status. But wouldn't a paper entitled "Failure of Unvaccinated Children to Transmit Measles" be egregiously out of place in JAMA? read more here
    Full disclosure... she has been debunked by skepticalraptor

    Tetyana Obukhanych – another anti-vaccine appeal to false authority

    There are so many annoying issues about the antivaccination cult, that most of us can’t even keep up with it. If only they would provide evidence published in high quality, peer-reviewed journals (yes, a high standard, but if we’re talking about public health, a high standard is required), the fake debate would move into a real scientific discussion. One of their favorite feints against real evidence is to push people, like Tetyana Obukhanych, who appear to have great credentials, but once you dig below the surface, not much is there.

    One of the most irritating problems I have with the anti-vaccination movement is their over-reliance on false authorities, where they trumpet the publications or commentary from someone who appears to have all of the credentials to be a part of the discussion on vaccines, but really doesn’t. Here’s the thing – it simply does not matter who the authority is or isn’t, all that matters is the evidence.

    For example, Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic, two researchers in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia, have, for all intents and purposes, sterling credentials in medicine and science. However, they publish nonsense research (usually filled with the weakest of epidemiology trying to show a population-level correlation between vaccines and adverse events) in low ranked scientific journals.

    Now the anti-vaccine world has a new hero – Tetyana Obukhanych.

    Last edited by Delight; 29th April 2019 at 22:45.

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

    Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), T Smith (19th September 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  22. Link to Post #52
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Paul Thomas is not ANTI-VAX. He has a pediatric practice that has an individualized approach to vaccination. He wrote a book called "The Vaccine Friendly Plan" .

    He has been harrassed. Challenged to prove his approach is not dangerous to children, he was able to show through data sets that his clients do not have the catastrophic side effects of developmental delays diagnosed as autism and ASD. He is part of a group "Physicians For Informed Consent".
    He emphasizes informed consent and no coercion. He follows "First Do No Harm".

    Quote A Pediatrician's Perspective on Mandatory Vaccination Laws, Paul Thomas, M.D.

    Paul Thomas, M.D., shares his journey from board-certified pediatrician administering the myriad of vaccines recommended by the CDC and AAP, to becoming fully informed about vaccine risks and making changes in his practice to improve patient health outcomes.

    Quote Paul Thomas, MD- Vaccine Friendly Plan
    02:09 CDC Recommendations for Pregnancy: The Tdap vaccine is recommended for women during pregnancy. Just a few decades ago, pregnancy was a sacred time, a time to protect an unborn child from toxins and other dangers

    03:52 Tdap Pregnancy Vaccine Theory:

    05:53 Lack of Data on Drugs: There are lots of studies, but few randomized placebo controlled studies. Vaccines get a special fast track. One that upsets Dr. Thomas is the HPV Gardasil vaccine that is administered to teenagers to prevent cervical cancer in women.

    08:43 Toxins, Toxins, Toxins: At the time of the 1 in 1000 study in Norway, the US autism rate was 1 in 100. What toxins do we have in the US that they don’t have in Norway? GMO is banned in most of Europe. They also do not do the hepatitis B vaccines for newborns. We have been doing this in the US for about 20 years. Hep B is contracted from sex and IV drug use, which babies don’t do. Babies can get it if their mothers have it. The CDC believes that 1 in 100 mothers have hepatitis B, however some studies say it is more like 1 in 1,000. We are injecting a 250 mcg toxic dose of aluminum to 99 out a hundred or 999 out of a thousand infants for a disease for which they are not at risk.

    11:47 Flu Shots and Autism: There are studies that show an increased risk of autism if you have inflammation in the womb.

    12:28 Genomics: There are hundreds of thousands of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms). Much research is being done.

    13:48 Individualized Vaccine Approach: Families should be able to individualize the approach to vaccines.

    17:47 Dr. Thomas’ Shift to Integrative Pediatrics:

    19:21 Developmental Delays: A policy in Dr. Thomas’ practice is if you start to see developmental delays, you stop all further vaccination. Each child is an individual and care must be tailored to what you are seeing.

    20:31 Informed Consent: Doctors have been taught to never do anything to a patient without informed consent, explaining explicitly the risks and benefits of the procedure. Also explained must be the alternatives.

    22:24 Herd Immunity: Herd immunity is a concept that if we vaccinate enough in the human herd, if the disease is introduced into the herd, it cannot take hold.

    25:34 Vaccines and Pediatricians: Dr. Thomas’ book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan is about far more than vaccines.

    30:50 CDC’s View on Risk: Allergic reaction and severe autoimmunity issues are seen as risk by the CDC, but not family history, genetics or other impacts.

    31:34 Pediatricians Must Think for Themselves: It is time for pediatricians to stand up and return to informed consent.

    36:12 Dr. Thomas’ Morning Routine:

    40:18 Dr. Thomas’ Favorite Botanical:
    Last edited by Delight; 30th April 2019 at 00:46.

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  24. Link to Post #53
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Explanation of California bill that threatens Medical Exemptions for school aged children.

    Christina Hildebrand explains SB276
    Published on Apr 29, 2019

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  26. Link to Post #54
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Bob Sears MD is the medical canary heralding suppression of physicians ability to grant medical exemptions.

    Dr. Bob Sears on CA Medical Probation: In His Own Words

    Dr-Bob-Sears Note: We support Dr. Bob Sears' commitment to treating patients as individuals and his willingness not to compromise his medical ethics. California is a political bellwether state. Their draconian vaccine policies are shocking. Healthy children banned from school. And good doctors barred from practicing. Below the LA Times report is Dr. Sears' on words on his public Facebook page. For those who want to hear the story from the horse's mouth, not the jackasses at the LA Times, long known for castigating the vaccine safety community. He wrote a letter - and madness ensued. By the way, the Times new owner is "Soon-Shiong, 65, has lived in Los Angeles for 38 years and is one of its richest residents, with a fortune estimated at $7.6 billion by Forbes. He holds a small ownership stake in the Lakers, runs a cluster of healthcare companies, operates a cutting-edge biotech laboratory in Culver City and, last year, rescued six small California hospitals. He has pioneered medical treatments and performed scientific experiments for NASA’s Space Shuttle program." So how to you think medicine will be treated at the paper? Objectively? Dr. Richard Pan is behind the vaccine laws in California. Dr. Soon Shiong will report his work.

    LA Times report: California doctor critical of vaccines is punished for exempting 2-year-old boy from all childhood immunizations

    In a decision that could signal how California’s fierce vaccine debates will play out in the coming years, the Medical Board of California has ordered 35 months’ probation for Dr. Bob Sears, an Orange County pediatrician well-known for being sympathetic to parents opposed to vaccines.

    In 2016, the board threatened to revoke Sears’ medical license for wrongly writing a doctor’s note for a 2-year-old boy that exempted him from all childhood vaccinations. This week, the medical board settled on a lesser punishment. Read more here.

    Patients, friends, and colleagues:

    I want to update all of you on the status of the California medical board case against me which began in 2015. For those who don’t know, the board has been investigating me for writing a court opinion letter for a child who had an adverse reaction to vaccines. Recently, instead of proceeding to a trial, the board has offered me a settlement of 35 months probation, and I have accepted. I am at peace with this outcome. Probation means that I will choose a pediatric colleague in the area who will periodically review some of my charts to verify I am, as always, practicing within the standard of care. I will also have to take some extra continuing medical education classes and an ethics course.

    Why accept a settlement when I’ve done nothing wrong? The challenge with medical board cases is that even if I win on all aspects of a case, the medical board can still exercise its authority and put me on probation anyway. I win, or lose, a trial before a judge, then the medical board decides the punishment based on how they see the facts. Since it was likely that I’d get probation anyway, I accepted the offer.

    All this for a court opinion letter? Medical boards are normally tasked with protecting patients against doctors who do things like sell drugs, see patients while intoxicated, commit insurance fraud, prescribe a wrong drug that ends up hurting a patient. However, this investigation probably came from higher up the chain of command. I picked a fight with a California Legislator, and he has been very vocal about openly working with the medical board to prosecute doctors who excuse patients from their vaccines, regardless of the merits of a case. I signed up for this.

    So what really happened, and why should the very existence of this case concern every American? A child and his mother came to me for help. The mom described how her baby had suffered a moderate to severe neurologic reaction to vaccines almost three years prior, and she was afraid a judge in her upcoming hearing was going to force her to resume vaccines now. Medical records of the reaction were not available yet, and I gave the patient a letter of opinion to show the judge that the reaction was severe enough to justify not doing any more vaccines. The board accusation against me states that such a judgement should not be made without medical records. But this patient needed a letter right away. Getting the patient’s medical records ended up taking over a year. Isn’t it my job to listen to my patients and believe what a parent says happened to her baby? Isn’t that what ALL doctors do with their patients? A patient’s word is often the only evidence we have - as doctors we must trust our patients, the same way our patients trust us to look out for their best interest. After all, I don’t want a child to receive a medical treatment that could cause more harm. I am going to first do no harm, every time.

    The second detail in this case, and the part which ultimately prompted me to agree to a settlement, is the medical board observed that I did not make complete medical notes of the neurological exam I performed on the child at a second visit. The child came in complaining that he had been hit on the head with a hammer. I checked him out thoroughly, performed a complete neurologic exam, but you know what? I didn’t write down all aspects of the exam. I documented everything else but that one detail.

    Is this fight over? No it is not. This was just case number one. The medical board is already lining up four more cases, and these will be about vaccine medical exemptions under the new vaccine law. It seems there is an attempt to keep me on probation for the rest of my medical career. But the one thing I’m going to do differently this time is that I’m going to be very open with all the proceedings. With case one, I was silent. Upon the recommendation of my lawyers I haven’t said a thing until now. But I’m tired of being quiet.

    So, case number two involves siblings who got vaccine medical exemptions from me because one of the children has a severe medical condition that research has shown can get worse with ongoing vaccination. The other child doesn’t have the condition, yet, but dad does. Exemption for reasons in a family’s medical history is an amendment guaranteed under SB277. We’ll see if the medical board agrees - probably about two years from now. These things take a long time.

    Case number three is a child with a family member who had a severe permanent neurological injury after vaccines.

    Case number four is a teen who had a severe reaction to an infant vaccine, her own doctor told her to opt out of that vaccine after that, and I gave her an exemption from the teen booster dose. We’ll see if the board agrees.

    Case number five involves siblings to whom I did not give vaccine exemptions to, but a parent somehow reported me to the medical board anyway. I don’t know why yet. Should be interesting.

    It alarms me to see any medical board questioning exemptions that are given to families who have suffered severe vaccine reactions. It should alarm everybody. More doctors need to stand up for their patients, especially the ones who are the most vulnerable. I’m going to continue to stand for these children.

    Now that case one is settled, I can go back to being loud and proud about my belief that every single patient should receive complete informed consent prior to vaccinations. This two-year period of silence has been tough. I will not rest until every single family has been given access to full, complete, objective, and un-doctored information that makes every parent fully aware of the risks they accept if they don’t vaccinate their child, and all the risks they take if they do vaccinate their child. Period. And I will fight against mandatory vaccination laws until they are no more. When every single person on this planet has access to informed consent, and can make a free choice, I will then be able to say my work is done.

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    onawah (30th April 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019)

  28. Link to Post #55
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Quote HPV on Trial
    Published on Jan 29, 2019
    Mary Holland & Eileen Ioreo discuss the conflict of interests, ethics, clinical trials, legal action, and much more in this blockbuster book that exposes the HPV vaccine.

    Quote AUGUST 11, 2017
    New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines

    By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    A new study published in Clinical Rheumatology exposes how vaccine manufacturers used phony placebos in clinical trials to conceal a wide range of devastating risks associated with HPV vaccines. Instead of using genuine inert placebos and comparing health impacts over a number of years, as is required for most new drug approvals, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline spiked their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant and cut observation periods to a matter of months.

    Researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil 9). Pharmaceutical company scientists routinely dismissed, minimized or concealed those injuries using statistical gimmicks and invalid comparisons designed to diminish their relative significance.

    Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

    Scientific researchers view double-blind placebo trials as the gold standard for testing new drugs. To minimize bias, investigators randomly assign patients to either a “treatment” group or a “control” (placebo) group and then compare health outcomes. The standard practice is to compare a new drug against a “pharmacologically inert” placebo. To minimize opportunities for bias, neither patients nor researchers know which individuals received the drug and which the placebo. However, in clinical trials of the various HPV vaccines, pharmaceutical researchers avoided this kind of rigor and instead employed sleight-of-hand flimflams to mask the seriousness of vaccine injuries.

    Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison. One does not have to be a scientist to understand that using aluminum-containing placebos is likely to muddy the comparison between the treatment and control groups. Critics of the HPV vaccine have pointed to the aluminum adjuvant as the most likely cause of adverse reactions, and some researchers have questioned the safety of using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines at all, due to their probable role as a contributor to chronic illness. The aluminum-containing placebos appeared to provoke numerous adverse reactions among the presumably unwitting patients who received them, allowing the pharma researchers to mask the cascade of similar adverse reactions among the groups that received the vaccines. Although both placebo and study groups suffered numerous adverse events in these studies, there were minimal differences between the two groups. The similar adverse outcomes in both groups allowed industry researchers and government regulators to claim that the vaccines were perfectly safe, despite manifold disturbing reactions. The Mexican researchers’ meta-review confirms the difficulty of ascertaining vaccine-attributable differences from this mess; the researchers identified only a few indications of “significantly increased systemic adverse events in the HPV vaccine group vs. the control group” across the 16 pre-licensure trials.

    The HPV promoters found it more difficult to employ deceptive devices in the 12 post-marketing safety reviews, and the Mexican authors summarize some of the more noteworthy findings. In Spain, they found a ten-fold higher incidence of vaccine-related adverse events following HPV vaccination compared to “other types of vaccines.” In Canada, they found an astonishing one in ten rate of hospital emergency department visits among HPV-vaccinated individuals “within 42 days after immunization.” Still, the industry researchers did what they could to minimize these injuries. The Mexican reviewers criticize the authors of the various post-marketing studies for failing to ask essential questions, to evaluate the many serious adverse events, or to elaborate on their often-troubling findings.

    Typically, FDA requires drug companies seeking approval for a new drug to observe health outcomes in both the placebo and study groups for 4-5 years. Vaccine manufacturers take advantage of FDA regulatory loopholes that allow fast-tracking of vaccines and cut that period down to a few weeks or even a few days. This means that injuries that manifest, or are diagnosed, later in life—most neurodevelopmental disorders, for example—will escape attention entirely.

    Further Smokescreens

    Martínez-Lavin and Amezcua-Guerra point to clinical trial data posted on the FDA webpage for the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine approved in 2006. Those clinical trials deployed a panoply of the kind of cunning deceptions used by industry and government researchers. Unlike many of the other HPV vaccine clinical trials, these clinical studies employed a true saline placebo.

    Across the Gardasil clinical studies, a group of 15,706 females ages 9-45 and males ages 9-26 received the quadrivalent Gardasil vaccine. A control group of 594 individuals received an inert saline placebo. The industry researchers never explain the tiny relative size of the saline placebo group; it’s noteworthy that small size would have the effect of keeping unwanted signals weak. But a second control group of 13,023 received a so-called “spiked” placebo loaded with an aluminum adjuvant (amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate or AAHS). The large size of this “spiked placebo” group suggests that the decision to keep the saline placebo group small was strategic.

    Putting aside the thorny ethical question of whether study participants were told that they were being injected with a neurotoxin with probable associations with Alzheimer’s, dementia and other forms of brain disease, the inclusion of both saline and aluminum placebos provided these researchers a chance to do some genuine science. But the FDA webpage shows the troubling gimmick that was then employed by the FDA and Merck, which seems deliberately designed to blur datasets in order to mask adverse effects during the clinical trials. The table showing relatively minor injection-site adverse reactions—one to five days post-vaccination—displays three distinct columns for the three groups: Gardasil recipients, the aluminum “placebo” recipients, and saline placebo recipients (see table below). In the table, “Intergroup differences are obvious,” in the words of the Mexican researchers. For example, roughly three and a half times more girls/women experienced injection site swelling in the Gardasil group compared to the saline group (25.4% vs. 7.3%). In fact, by all five measures, both the Gardasil recipients and the aluminum placebo recipients fared two to three times worse than the saline recipients.

    When it came time for Merck to report on the occurrence of more serious reactions, “Systemic Adverse Reactions” and “Systemic Autoimmune Disorders,” for example, the company scientists switched to a very different format. In these tables, the third column that reported results for the saline placebo recipients disappears. Instead, Merck combined the groups receiving the spiked aluminum placebo into a single column with the group receiving the genuine saline placebo (see example below). The merger of the two control groups makes it impossible to compare results for Gardasil versus the saline placebo or the aluminum placebo versus the saline placebo. In this way, Merck’s researchers obliterated any hope of creating a meaningful safety comparison.

    Risks and Benefits

    Given aluminum’s known neurotoxicity and its association with debilitating autoimmune conditions, it is unsurprising that there are no observable differences between the Gardasil and AAHS/saline groups. But, despite the researchers’ efforts to paper over adverse effects, they were not able to conceal the devastating health injuries to their human guinea pigs. The bottom line of these trials reveals a shocking truth: An alarming 2.3% of both their study and control groups had indicators of autoimmune diseases! These data are even more alarming when one considers that the observation period was curtailed after only six months. With this level of risk, it would seem that no loving parents would allow their daughter to receive this vaccine—particularly given the comparatively low risk posed by HPV in countries with appropriate cervical cancer screening tests. Even in countries such as India, where cervical cancer mortality is high due to late detection, leading Indian physicians argue that comprehensive screening should be the country’s top priority rather than the “panacea” of HPV vaccination.

    Consider the math: According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an estimated 2.4 women per 100,000 die of cervical cancer in the US each year. On the other hand, the FDA’s Table 2 (above) shows that 2.3 per 100 girls and women developed an “incident condition potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder” after enrolling in the Gardasil clinical trial. It is difficult to understand how any rational regulator could allow more than two in 100 girls to run the risk of acquiring a lifelong autoimmune disorder, particularly when Pap smears are already doing an effective job of identifying cervical abnormalities. The NIH notes that the incidence and death rates for cervical cancer in the US declined by more than 60% after introducing Pap smear screening.

    Martínez-Lavin and Amezcua-Guerra make their own effort to illustrate the zany risk-benefit ratios associated with these vaccines when discussing the results of one of the 16 clinical trials. That study compared approximately 14,000 women who received either Gardasil 9 or the original quadrivalent Gardasil. Based on the numerical outcomes of that study, the Mexican researchers calculated the likelihood of being actually “helped or harmed by the 9-valent HPV vaccine.” Their “worrisome” finding is that the “number needed to harm” is just 140, whereas 1757 women would need to receive the vaccine for a single one of them to enjoy its projected benefits.

    Implications for Aluminum Adjuvants

    Merck found that astronomical casualty counts were equal among both Gardasil and aluminum “placebo” recipients. The inescapable implication is that aluminum adjuvants may be a principal culprit in the flood of injuries reported for the various HPV vaccines. This conclusion, if true, requires reevaluation of the use of aluminum adjuvants in several other vaccines, including some given to infants. Aluminum adjuvant levels have mushroomed since the 2003 removal of thimerosal from three pediatric vaccines. The following chart, prepared by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, illustrates the stunning amount of aluminum in vaccines.

    Multiple peer-reviewed studies have connected aluminum exposures to a range of autoimmune and neurological disorders, including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, that have become epidemic coterminous with these aluminum exposures. A review in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition warns of dangerous accumulation of aluminum in the brain when, as in the case of vaccination, “protective gastrointestinal mechanisms are bypassed.” It’s time to go back to the drawing board on HPV vaccines and aluminum adjuvants. More importantly, FDA needs to start requiring the same rigorous pre-licensing safety testing for vaccines that it has long required for other drugs. All existing vaccines, particularly those containing aluminum, should be safety-reviewed according to these more stringent standards.
    Last edited by Delight; 30th April 2019 at 02:46.

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    onawah (30th April 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  30. Link to Post #56
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    The mercenaries cannot be depended upon to do the right thing

    Quote the truth is out: Gardasil vaccine coverup exposed
    by kelly brogan, md

    grassroots awareness
    at lunch with publishing wheeler-dealers discussing the state of affairs in women’s mental health, a soft-spoken pregnant woman seated to my left turned to me and said: “i know this is off-topic, but what do you think of the gardasil vaccine? I know a 25 year old who got it and hasn’t been able to leave the house in months? It seems more and more people are seeing it’s a bad idea?”

    this question and its implications moved me.

    A woman who will soon be responsible for the welfare of another human, is asking questions she wouldn’t be asking if she just behaved like a good patient. She feels a curiosity fueled by doubt. She feels, inside herself, that something isn’t right about what we’ve been told and recommended. She senses, even if unconsciously, that the authorities we have vested with so much power, are not delivering on their promises.

    one of my favorite medical terms, anosognosia, means lack of awareness of a deficit. I have come to find this useful in description of so many of my colleagues who practice the medicine they were trained to practice without conscious acknowledgement of its gross limitations and even hazards.

    Relatedly, agnotology is the study of the propagation of ignorance. It is the meme-ification, societally, of coverups, half-truths, and misinformation. Simple catch phrases parroted in an echo chamber. It’s the creation of a mirage of information, often accomplished through concerted efforts like those described by journalist sharyl attkisson, as astroturfing.

    I’ve always wondered whether those casting a dark veil over the truth know that they are doing that? Or do the folks carefully crafting messages truly believe that they are working in the best interest of you and your beloved children. In following the published literature, i will sometimes catch a glimpse of the frustration felt by doctors and medical specialty organizations who are now finding that they have to cope with an unprecedented onslaught of inquiry from their silly patients who are, of course, reading too many pseudoscience internet blogs.

    Sometimes, and never in mainstream media (thank goodness for the democratization of information the internet offers!), we learn about deliberate misinformation. Whistleblower william thompson told us that the cdc had knowingly suppressed and manipulated data that demonstrated a clear statistical association between the mmr vaccine and autism in african american boys.

    We also know that the 4250% increase in fetal deaths documented in the two vaccine flu season of 2009/2010 was known to the cdc but not to you or your girlfriend.

    The jig is up on gardasil vaccine
    and now we may have some of the most damning evidence of deliberate misinformation around one of the least indicated and most reported of all vaccines – the hpv vaccine, most commonly represented by gardasil.

    A vaccine i remember feeling righteously excited for as a medical student – finally, a women’s vaccine!

    The past 8 years of my research have led me to conclude that the promotion of this pharmaceutical product (and its new and improved versions) is nothing short of reckless endangerment of our youth.

    Lucija tomljenovic, phd, poses this important question:

    “is it ethical to put young women at risk of death or a disabling autoimmune disease at a pre-adolescent age for a vaccine that has not yet prevented a single case of cervical cancer, a disease that may develop 20-30 years after exposure to hpv, when the same can be prevented with regular pap screening which carries no risks.”

    on january 14, 2016, sin hang lee, md wrote an open letter of complaint to the director-general of the world health organization, dr. Margaret chan. Documents made available to him through a freedom of information request in new zealand revealed evidence that the global advisory committee on vaccine safety (gacvs) deliberately misled the japanese expert inquiry convened to explore concerns around hpv vaccine safety in 2014 hearings in japan.

    Email chains within the committee exposed a conspiratorial energy. Like a circle of teens cooking up an alibi to give an angry parent whose carpet was stained with wine stolen from their liquor cabinet. There is an undeniable air of an us vs them strategy. But aren’t these supposed to be officials looking out for the greater good and for collective wellness?

    As dr. Nicholas gonzalez once said, “medicine is the last religion. The hospital is the temple. The priests wear white and they all speak their own internal language.” it isn’t hard to generate an air of authority in the realm of medical science. Throw some definitive statements in there. Use the phrase “expert panel” or “expert opinion” or “consensus”, and be sure to attach references to any statements in question. No one ever checks references, right?

    Unfortunately for drs. Pless, dr. Petousis-harris, and other committee members, dr. Lee has checked references, and what he discovered could only be made right through “an immediate independent investigation and appropriate disciplinary action”.

    You can read his 15 page letter here and learn how:

    Declarations of harmlessness – science by proclamation – are made in the absence of available science to support these claims.
    Concerns about contamination of hpv dna fragments were dismissed without a shred of evidence: References were falsely attributed to conceal a total vacuum of peer-reviewed science on the safety of hpv l1 gene dna fragments. These fragments were conflated with hpv-16 particles in hopes that this wave of the hand would quiet further inquiry.
    Concerns about the antigenicity of aluminum is dismissed in direct conflict to available evidence of inflammatory response generated by vaccination as demonstrated by the who’s own data.
    Tactics used to generate an illusion of scientific certainty including: Cdc technical reports by ghostwriter(s) based on phone conversations, references to unpublished phd material, and health blogs.
    Dr. Lee offers a summary analysis of 22 key peer-reviewed references to summarize the available information on aluminum adjuvant as a biotoxicant.

    He implies that while aluminum adjuvant may have sound intentions to stimulate a “productive”, antigen-specific immune response by damaging local cells at the injection site, sending out a stimulatory signal, the evidence of its biological activity in this vaccine is more complicated.

    With the presence of viral dna, the body recognizes the pathogen dna as non-self, and this viral dna/aluminum compound stimulates an inflammatory cytokine storm.

    This is plausible mechanistic explanation for autonomic dysfunction, primary ovarian failure, and sudden death, the stories of which are circulating the globe.

    He states, “there is no excuse for intentionally ignoring the scientific evidence. There is no excuse for misleading global vaccination policy makers at the expense of public interest.”

    hot off the press indictment
    a study published just this week uses a true placebo (rather than an aluminum placebo) to demonstrates behavioral and cognitive changes induced in rodents delivered the hpv vaccine and those injected with aluminum. They conclude:

    “moreover, anti-hpv antibodies from the sera of gardasil and gardasil+pt-injected mice showed cross-reactivity with the mouse brain protein extract. Immunohistochemistry analysis revealed microglial activation in the ca1 area of the hippocampus of gardasil-injected mice compared to the control. It appears that gardasil via its al adjuvant and hpv antigens has the ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes.”

    this signal of harm for this fda fast-tracked product has become undeniable.

    When you know better, do better
    what we need to know, we already know.

    We are in an uncomfortable transition phase, one that charles eisenstein refers to as the space between the story of separation and the story of interbeing. We are allowing our previously constructed worldview – the beliefs underpinning the myth of science and technology as agents to free and better us – to crumble. We are watching the defenders of this story scramble to keep the illusion of it alive, like that of oz behind the curtain.

    But dorothy had what she needed to get home, the whole time.

    Let go of the us vs germs paradigm. There’s a huge safety net to catch you. It is woven from the flora and fauna waiting patiently for our return.
    Quote behind the veil: Conflicts of interest and fraud in medical research
    chris kresser

    last updated on
    april 10, 2019

    recent reports have revealed that conflicts of interest and research fraud are rarely reported in the scientific literature or announced to the general public, which raises questions about the integrity of clinical trials and the reliability of public agencies like the fda and cdc.

    In this article, i’m going to discuss two other reasons that the public mistrusts scientific research: Fraud, and conflicts of interest.

    Why conflicts of interest and fraud harm the public’s trust of medical research.

    Fraud in medical research: “out of sight, out of mind, and out of the peer-reviewed literature”
    a large part of the subtitle above comes directly from a paper published in jama internal medicine, authored by charles seife. (1) in short, seife discovered that clinical trial data determined to be fraudulent or mishandled by the fda is rarely excluded from research studies published in scientific journals.

    One of the fda’s roles in the drug approval process is to inspect clinical trial sites to determine whether these sites are complying with fda regulations. A typical inspection might involve auditing the records of the site, verifying that investigators adhered to the trial protocol, and comparing an investigator’s notes in hospital records with data reported to the study sponsor to ensure that there aren’t any discrepancies.

    If there is a violation, the fda classifies it in one of two ways: Voluntary action indicated (vai) means the inspectors have found violations, but the problems aren’t serious enough to require sanction. Official action indicated (oai) means that the inspectors have found violations significant enough to warrant official action.

    Siefe and his assistants used the freedom of information act to request information from the fda, and supplemented that data with google searches of the fda database. They found 57 clinical trials that were directly linked to an oai inspection.

    The misconduct identified by the fda in these cases included:

    Falsification or submission of false information
    underreporting of adverse events
    failure to follow the investigational plan or other violations of protocol
    inadequate record keeping
    failure to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of patients
    use of experimental compounds in patients not enrolled in trials
    failure to supervise clinical investigations properly
    the 57 trials seife identified were in turn linked to 78 research articles published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 96 percent of these articles failed to mention the violations identified by the fda inspection—despite the fact that in the majority of cases the inspection was completed at least 6 months before the article was published.

    Doctors, researchers, and other health professionals rely on scientific studies to establish treatment protocols and public health policies. If the data in some of these studies are fraudulent, but the doctors and researchers have no way of knowing that, the decisions they make may be unsound and even put people at unnecessary risk.

    I’d like to make the significance of these omissions even more clear by sharing a couple of examples mentioned in seife’s paper.

    One case involved a researcher who falsified lab test results to hide a patient’s impaired kidney and liver function in a trial comparing two chemotherapy regimens. The first dose of the regimen proved to be fatal to this patient, and the researcher was sentenced to 71 months in prison. Despite this episode being described in both fda and court documents, not one of the studies in the peer-reviewed literature associated with the chemotherapy trial have any mention of the falsification, fraud, or homicide.

    Another case involved a clinical site in china participating in a large trial of apixaban, an anticoagulant (i.e. Anti-clotting) drug. The fda determined that this trial site had altered patient records and falsified data. If the data from this site had been excluded, the mortality benefit for the drug would have disappeared. In other words, the “proof” that this drug saved lives was dependent on this fraudulent data. Yet none of this discussion appears in the scientific literature. In fact, studies since 2011 have consistently relied on the full data set (including the fraudulent data from the china trial site), and this was even true for an article published nearly 18 months after the fraud was discovered.

    How can such egregious cases of fraud and misconduct go unreported in the scientific literature and in the media? The answer is almost hard to believe. The fda does not notify journals when a site participating in a clinical trial receives an oai inspection, nor does it typically make any announcement which would alert the media and general public to the issues it identified.

    What’s more, the documents the fda produces about these oai inspections are heavily redacted, which makes it extremely difficult even for researchers like seife who’ve invoked the freedom of information act to determine which published clinical trials are tainted by misconduct. The fda redacts these documents because it considers the identity of the drug company involved in the trial to be “confidential commercial information” that it is bound to protect.

    In other words, the fda appears to believe that it’s more important to protect private, commercial interests than it is to protect public health.

    Seife’s says as much in the conclusion of his paper:

    However, failing to notify the medical or scientific communities about allegations of serious research misconduct in clinical trials is incompatible with the fda’s mission to protect the public health. Such allegations are relevant to include in the peer-reviewed literature on which physicians and other medical researchers rely to help them choose treatments that they offer to patients and other research participants.

    The issues highlighted here raise serious concerns not only about the trustworthiness of the data in clinical trials and published research, but the reliability and motives of the agencies tasked with protecting public health.

    Which takes us to the second reason that public mistrust of scientific research is sometimes well-founded: Conflicts of interest.

    Conflicts of interest in research are common—and often unreported
    in my article about the disconnect between scientists and the public, i mentioned that two-thirds of medical research is sponsored by drug companies, and industry-sponsored trials are more likely to report favorable results for drugs because of biased reporting, biased interpretation, or both. (2) this is a well-established phenomenon, and it has been explored in both the media and the scientific literature:

    Can the source of funding for medical research affect the results? (scientific american)
    bad pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients (a book authored by ben goldacre)
    how pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes (social science & medicine)
    pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review (british medical journal)
    association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials (canadian medical association journal)
    is it really a big surprise that the source of funding influences study results? After all, as upton sinclair famously said, “it’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary is dependent upon him not understanding it.” the time-honored saying “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” also applies here.

    Unfortunately, just as research misconduct and fraud is often not reported, conflicts of interest in academic research are rarely disclosed. According to a 2009 report issued by the department of health and human services, very few universities make required reports to the government about the financial conflicts of interest of their researchers—and even when they are reported, the universities rarely require those researchers to eliminate or reduce these conflicts.

    In fact, 90 percent of universities relied solely on the researchers themselves to decide whether to report their potential conflicts of interest, and half of universities don’t even ask their faculty to disclose the amount of money or stock they make from drug or device makers.

    This isn’t likely to change anytime soon, according to eric g. Campbell, an associate professor at harvard medical school that was quoted in this new york times article covering the report. He said that “universities had no interest in putting real limits on the incomes of their star researchers for fear that those researchers would leave for institutions with fewer restrictions.”

    but conflicts of interest aren’t just a problem in academia; they’re also a problem on expert advisory panels that influence public health policy. For example, back in 2008 dr. John briffa linked to a web page disclosing the conflicts of interest in members of the national cholesterol education program, a government organization that creates the official blood cholesterol target values for the u.s..

    Are you ready for this? 8 out of the 9 doctors on the panel had direct ties to statin drug manufacturers. Here’s the complete list, excerpted from a post written by dr. Stephan guyenet in 2008 (the companies in bold are statin manufacturers):

    Dr. Grundy has received honoraria from merck, pfizer, sankyo, bayer, merck/schering-plough, kos, abbott, bristol-myers squibb, and astrazeneca; he has received research grants from merck, abbott, and glaxo smith kline.

    Dr. Cleeman has no financial relationships to disclose.

    Dr. Bairey merz has received lecture honoraria from pfizer, merck, and kos; she has served as a consultant for pfizer, bayer, and ehc (merck); she has received unrestricted institutional grants for continuing medical education from pfizer, procter & gamble, novartis, wyeth, astrazeneca, and bristol-myers squibb medical imaging; she has received a research grant from merck; she has stock in boston scientific, ivax, eli lilly, medtronic, johnson & johnson, scipie insurance, ats medical, and biosite.

    Dr. Brewer has received honoraria from astrazeneca, pfizer, lipid sciences, merck, merck/schering-plough, fournier, tularik, esperion, and novartis; he has served as a consultant for astrazeneca, pfizer, lipid sciences, merck, merck/schering-plough, fournier, tularik, sankyo, and novartis.

    Dr. Clark has received honoraria for educational presentations from abbott, astrazeneca, bristol-myers squibb, merck, and pfizer; he has received grant/research support from abbott, astrazeneca, bristol-myers squibb, merck, and pfizer.

    Dr. Hunninghake has received honoraria for consulting and speakers bureau from astrazeneca, merck, merck/schering-plough, and pfizer, and for consulting from kos; he has received research grants from astrazeneca, bristol-myers squibb, kos, merck, merck/schering-plough, novartis, and pfizer.

    Dr. Pasternak has served as a speaker for pfizer, merck, merck/schering-plough, takeda, kos, bms-sanofi, and novartis; he has served as a consultant for merck, merck/schering-plough, sanofi, pfizer health solutions, johnson & johnson-merck, and astrazeneca.

    Dr. Smith has received institutional research support from merck; he has stock in medtronic and johnson & johnson.

    Dr. Stone has received honoraria for educational lectures from abbott, astrazeneca, bristol-myers squibb, kos, merck, merck/schering-plough, novartis, pfizer, reliant, and sankyo; he has served as a consultant for abbott, merck, merck/schering-plough, pfizer, and reliant.

    Another 2009 report, also from the department of health and human services, revealed similar issues with expert panels that advise the centers for disease control (cdc) on vaccine safety. The report found that 64 percent of experts who served on advisory panels in 2007 to evaluate vaccines for flu and cervical cancer had potential conflicts of interest that were never identified or resolved. The report also revealed that the cdc failed nearly every time to ensure that experts adequately disclosed that they were being paid by vaccine manufacturers.

    Can you see how these conflicts of interest might be a problem, when the advisory committees mentioned above strongly influence the sales of both statin drugs ($30 billion a year) and vaccines ($20 billion a year)?

    Sadly, these financial relationships between experts who influence or formulate guidelines and drug companies whose drugs are being considered are not the exception, they’re the rule. A study published in jama shows that 59 percent of the experts participating in guideline creation have such financial ties. (3)

    another related problem is the “revolving door” between public agencies like the cdc and fda or institutions like the u.s. Congress, and pharmaceutical companies. A year after leaving her position as the director of the cdc in 2009, dr. Julie gerberding took a position as president of merck vaccines. Another former cdc employee, dr. Thomas verstraeten, took a position with glaxosmithkline (a vaccine manufacturer) while he was still involved in completing a major study on the possible negative side effects of thimerosal (a mercury-containing compound used in some vaccines) at the cdc. Finally, over half of the lobbyists employed by the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 had worked in congress or another branch of the federal government, and 35 had been former members of congress. (4)

    these conflicts of interest do not necessarily lead to fraud or misconduct. There are surely many honest and unbiased researchers and physicians investigating controversial topics like cholesterol targets and statin drugs, vaccines, and genetically-modified foods. However, studies have confirmed what common sense and an understanding of human nature would also suggest: Conflicts of interest can and do influence both individuals and institutions. For example, the financial interests of researchers are positively associated with outcomes favorable to the sponsor in medical studies, and research institutions can be influenced by industry sponsorships such as grants, endowed chairs, and other gifts. (5, 6, 7, 8)

    concluding thoughts
    my purpose here is not to attack the credibility of scientific research as a whole, or scientists as a group. But science is a human endeavor, and like all human endeavors, it is subject to the vagaries of human ethics and behavior. There is good science, and bad science; there is honest science, and dishonest science.

    If you’ve been following my work for several years, you’ll know that my blog used to be called “the healthy skeptic.” i called it that because i believe that skepticism is healthy when it comes to science. Yet all too often i see this skepticism being applied in a biased or inconsistent manner.

    For example, i’ve noticed that some people who are indignant about conflicts of interest in government agencies responsible for bank bailouts or among experts responsible for establishing blood cholesterol targets are completely unwilling to consider how similar conflicts might affect research on, say, genetically-modified foods.

    I’ve also encountered people who are skeptical of any challenge to the status quo, but don’t apply their skepticism with the same rigor to the the status quo itself. On the other side of the coin are those that accept unconventional or alternative ideas (regardless of whether there is evidence to support them), and tend to reject anything that could be remotely construed as conventional or mainstream.

    Someday, perhaps we’ll be able to extricate the financial interests of big pharma from the behavior of medical scientists and regulatory agencies. Until then, our responsibility—whether we are clinicians, patients, researchers, or members of the media—is to acknowledge the influence these relationships may have on scientific research, and take that influence into account when considering controversial issues—especially when large amounts of money are at stake.

    Now i’d like to hear from you. Were you aware that research misconduct rarely gets reported on in the media or scientific literature? Are you surprised by the extent to which conflicts of interest are present on advisory panels responsible for creating guidelines? How do you feel about this subject after reading this article? Let us know in the comments section.

  31. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    onawah (30th April 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), Satori (30th April 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  32. Link to Post #57
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    One can see that sincere people believe vaccination is a necessary evil and those insincere who stand to gain don't care. Those who stand to lose are frightened but those who lose to fear will be everyone

    Quote Oregon Vaccine Bill Clears Committee, Heads To House
    by Dirk VanderHart April 26, 2019

    A bill tightening Oregon vaccination laws will move on to a vote in the state’s House of Representatives, despite a deluge of opposing calls and e-mails to lawmakers in recent days.

    In a vote that largely stuck to party lines, the Legislature’s budget committee on Friday voted 13-7 to move House Bill 3063 to the full House. The vote came at the tail end of a week when hundreds of parents who opposed the bill flocked repeatedly to the Capitol, holding a raucous rally on the front steps on Tuesday and testifying for hours against the measure on Wednesday.

    “This issue has been one of the most emotional issues I’ve seen in all of my years in the Legislature,” said state Sen. Lee Beyer, D-Springfield, at a hearing of the Joint Ways and Means Committee.

    Beyer voted to send the bill to the full House, saying it should be heard by the House and Senate. But he also said he’d be a “no” vote if the bill makes it to his chamber.

    “I think it goes too far,” Beyer said.

    Proposed in response to a measles outbreak centered in Southwest Washington this year, HB 3063 would eliminate the religious or philosophical exemptions parents have long been able to claim in order to avoid otherwise required vaccines and still send their kids to school.


    In Oregon’s Vaccine Fight, Some Exemptions Could Become Easier To Get
    Under the bill, parents could still obtain exemptions for valid medical reasons — and the process for those exemptions would be more permissive. That has not been enough to quell the concerns of some parents, who believe vaccines pose a risk to their children and are being irresponsibly pushed by pharmaceutical companies.

    On the other side of the debate, a wide array of doctors and health officials support the bill, saying it will curb the spread of preventable diseases that endanger children or people with compromised immune systems. The overwhelming majority of scientific study has found vaccines are safe and effective.

    That the bill was before the Legislature’s budget committee was something of a technicality. It contains $100,000 to the Oregon Health Authority, which would be used to mount an education campaign ahead of the August 2020 deadline for immunizing school children.

    But the Ways and Means Committee also includes a co-chair, Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, who has championed legislation to eliminate non-medical exemptions in the past. And the fact that the committee is comprised of both senators and representatives means HB 3063 does not necessarily have to go before a Senate committee if it passes a full floor vote in the House. The bill already passed the House Health Care Committee.

    At Friday’s brief work session, lawmakers who are skeptical of the legislation largely dominated the discussion.

    State Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, spoke of his phone being “jammed this morning with emails and messages, almost all in opposition.”

    “Ironically, about three-quarters of them are in the opposite party than me,” said Girod, a retired dentist. “I am a health provider, and I believe that people have the right to say ‘no.’”

    Rep. David Gomberg, D-Central Coast, said he’d received more than 2,000 emails and calls about the bill the day before. “The great majority of them were not from my district,” said Gomberg, who voted for the bill out of worry for the health of children and the elderly.

    Sen. Dallas Heard, R-Roseburg, who’d made an emotional speech on the bill at a subcommittee hearing on the bill two days earlier, called his vote “the strongest no I have ever been on any bill.”

    Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, pointed out that the legislation had scrambled the usual political lines, with anti-abortion types advocating for medical choice, and people who support abortion backing required vaccinations.

    “I find it extremely ironic, those that are pro-life now are advocating for choice, and those that are pro-choice now are advocating for a mandate,” said Smith, who voted against the bill in committee but said he did not know how he would vote when the full House considers it. “That’s ironic, and we need to keep that in mind in the future.”

    The 13-7 vote was ultimately not close, and included one Republican, Sen. Chuck Thomsen, for the measure and one Democrat, Sen. Betsy Johnson, against.

    Friday’s vote for tougher vaccine requirements isn’t necessarily an indication of what’s in store for HB 3063 on the floor. Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers. Still, two Democratic lawmakers, Beyer and Rep. Susan McLain voted for the bill as a “courtesy” but made clear they would vote no in their full chamber.
    Last edited by Delight; 30th April 2019 at 04:25.

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

    Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019), T Smith (30th June 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  34. Link to Post #58
    Philippines Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2013
    Thanked 9,861 times in 2,258 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    Quote Posted by Sandy123 (here)
    Quote Posted by Bubu (here)
    I am actively campaigning against vaccine wherever I get a chance. Say every time I see a baby or child with their parents. A number have thanked me outright for the tip. This is the best thing we can do. To spread awareness. There should be enough number of people if we are to defeat this mandatory BS.

    You should also look at the new wrecker, new born screening.
    The pro vaccine people trust their gov't and MSN. These people are rabid to attack the anti vaxers. I think somewhere deep down they can't admit there is such evil among us. Do they not know how to read or research on their own. So how about we make a list up of all the instances where our gov't experimented on our own. There's the syphilis given to people of color. I think there are 2 where they sprayed neighborhoods claiming it was for mosquitoes. I'm sure there are more intentional cases that are well documented.
    I still think the Zika virus was caused by spraying or vaccines. I wonder why that debacle died down - because new and better propaganda like the Presidential elections came up?
    I'm thankful that people are still adept at reading emotions face to face. If you talk with genuine concern (to their adorables) they normally listen. I have not been attack outright so far. Why would they attack someone who shows genuine concern but is simply a moron.
    Face to face campaign is actually more effective because they are able to show your genuine concern.

  35. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bubu For This Post:

    Delight (30th April 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), Sandy123 (30th April 2019)

  36. Link to Post #59
    United States Avalon Member Sandy123's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th January 2019
    Thanked 226 times in 45 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe


    to reiterate, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule of developed countries (administering the most vaccines the earliest). If vaccines save lives, why are American children “dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger” compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a “57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood”? Japanese children, who receive the fewest vaccines—with no government mandates for vaccination—grow up to enjoy “long and vigorous” lives. International infant mortality and health statistics and their correlation to vaccination protocols show results that government and health officials are ignoring at our children’s great peril.

    Among the 20 countries with the world’s best infant mortality outcomes, only three countries (Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore) automatically administer the HepB vaccine to all newborns—governed by the rationale that hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in these countries. Most of the other 17 top-ranking countries—including Japan—give the HepB vaccine at birth only if the mother is hepatitis B positive (Table 1). The U.S., with its disgraceful #56 infant mortality ranking, gives the HepB vaccine to all four million babies born annually despite a low incidence of hepatitis B.

    Is the U.S. Sacrificing Children’s Health for Profits?
    Merck, the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer, is in court over MMR-related fraud. Whistleblowers allege the pharmaceutical giant rigged its efficacy data for the vaccine’s mumps component to ensure its continued market monopoly. The whistleblower evidence has given rise to two separate court cases. In addition, a CDC whistleblower has alleged the MMR vaccine increases autism risks in some children. Others have reported that the potential risk of permanent injuryfrom the MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles.

    Why do the FDA and CDC continue to endorse the problematic MMR vaccine despite Merck’s implication in fraud over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy? Why do U.S. legislators and government officials not demand a better alternative, as Japan did over two decades ago? Why are U.S. cities and states forcing Merck’s MMR vaccine on American children? Is the U.S. government protecting children, or Merck? Why are U.S. officials ignoring Japan’s exemplary model, which proves that the most measured vaccination program in the industrialized world and “first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition” can produce optimal child health outcomes that are leading the world?

    A central tenet of a free and democratic society is the freedom to make informed decisions about medical interventions that carry serious potential risks. This includes the right to be apprised of benefits and risks—and the ability to say no. The Nuremberg Code of ethics established the necessity of informed consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Forcing the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccine, on those who are uninformed or who do not consent represents nothing less than medical tyranny.

    This is only part of the article. It also has a few interesting tables of other countries schedules.
    We are the creators of our reality, what story are you creating?

  37. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sandy123 For This Post:

    Delight (30th April 2019), onawah (30th April 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), william r sanford72 (2nd May 2019)

  38. Link to Post #60
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Thanked 20,879 times in 3,608 posts

    Default Re: The US Vaccine issue is more than just about "The Shots", it's the Totalitarian Tiptoe

    This was in the Washington Post

    Quote Anti-vaxxers are dangerous. Make them face isolation, fines, arrests.
    By Juliette Kayyem
    April 30, 2019

    I love my children. And, if I’m in a gracious mood, I believe that parents who do not vaccinate their children love theirs as much as I love mine.

    But, I am quite confident in this fact: I love their children much more than they love mine. These anti-vaxxer parents — call them free-riders or even pro-plague — are putting my children and our communities at risk to cater to their erroneous belief that vaccinations would harm their children rather than contribute to the elimination of childhood diseases.

    It is time we stop viewing the anti-vax movement and its adherents’ responsibility for the measles outbreak as a public health problem. With more than 700 reported cases confirmed in 22 states, it is now a public safety crisis, and the tools of public safety — arrests, fines, isolation — are absolutely necessary.

    We are not in a “both sides” moment. On Friday, President Trump finally conceded that his previous statements questioning the safety of vaccinations (promoting the debunked claim that vaccinations contribute to autism) were erroneous. He didn’t put it that way, of course; instead, when pressed, he said, “They have to get the shots.” Just as he does with “both sides” statements regarding white supremacists, Trump promotes risky, unscientific ideologies until the reality of their harms becomes too dangerous to ignore.

    And, when it comes to the measles, it is too late to ignore. “Get the shots” is not a plan. We are in a crisis; an avoidable one, but a crisis nonetheless. Measles cases in the United States have exceeded the highest number on record since the disease was declared eliminated nationwide in 2000. Trump’s statement came too late; the measles are back.

    It is important to remember that the measles outbreak is not only the result of low-information communities or religious exceptions. Indeed, religious leaders are urging their adherents to get the shots, even in the Hasidic communities hit hardest by outbreaks. Imagine, instead, that this outbreak is what happens when negligent people do negligent things, such as sending a kid to school with a loaded gun and hoping for the best.

    In some places, sadly, more education is necessary, especially in isolated communities. But some of the crisis was bred in well-off and informed communities, where voodoo science is given equal weight with yoga and kale; vaccination rates in areas of California have, at times, been less than rates in South Sudan. And this utter negligence has had, until last week, a safe harbor in the White House (and is being amplified by Russia, a hostile foreign power that exacerbates this false narrative through its disinformation bot-farms to promote an unsafe America).

    The initial steps we have taken are essential: prohibit non-vaccinated children from public spaces, including schools; promote educational efforts; and, in extreme cases, force isolation on pockets of populations that might have been exposed to the outbreak, as is happening now in the University of California system. But these efforts impact the children who might have been put at risk by the decision of individuals not to vaccinate. Viewed through the lens of public safety, it is the parents who should be punished. Why not make them pay for the harms they are causing?

    Fines for the increased public safety burdens put on these communities by a few ought not to be the responsibility of all. In many states, when hikers ignore warnings that certain trails are too dangerous and then have to be rescued, the fees for the rescue must be paid by the hikers. It’s a fine for making a self-centered decision that placed an unreasonable burden on a larger community. Measles should be no different.

    In the same way we have created sex-offenders lists to protect our children, communities can inventory families that choose not to be vaccinated, notifying employers of these parents as well as neighbors who may choose not to expose their children. Exceptions might be made for religious or medical reasons, but not for those who are simply choosing to ignore the science.

    The anti-vaxxers are also putting at risk populations that cannot be vaccinated due to health conditions or allergic reactions. Mostly children and the elderly, these people are dependent on the rest of us being vaccinated so that they can benefit from herd protections; they should be the only acceptable free-riders.

    Yes, this language is harsh, the language of a homeland security expert, not a pediatrician. Maybe the threat of greater penalties will get these parents to be less self-centered. But, sometimes a crisis requires a change in orientation if only to scare the free-riders into loving my children as much as I love theirs.
    Hey wait a minute

    Quote The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm
    Tuesday, April 9th 2019 at 2:30 pm
    Written By: GreenMedInfo Research Group
    This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2019

    20 years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. The manufacturer Merck's own product warning links MMR to a potentially fatal form of brain inflammation caused by measles. Why is this evidence not being reported?

    The Vaccinated Spreading Measles
    The phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) has been known about for decades. In fact, 20 years ago, scientists working at the CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.

    Published in 1995 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology and titled, "Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients," researchers analyzed urine samples from newly MMR vaccinated 15-month-old children and young adults and reported their eye-opening results as following:

    Measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period.
    In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after the children were vaccinated.
    Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination.
    The authors of this study used a relatively new technology at that time, namely, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which they believed could help resolve growing challenges associated with measles detection in the shifting post-mass immunization epidemiological and clinical landscape. These challenges include:

    A changing clinical presentation towards 'milder' or asymptomatic measles in previously vaccinated individuals.
    A changing epidemiological distribution of measles (a shift toward children younger than 15 months, teenagers, and young adults)
    Increasing difficulty distinguishing measles-like symptoms (exanthema) caused by a range of other pathogens from those caused by measles virus.
    An increase in sporadic measles outbreaks in previously vaccinated individuals.
    Twenty years later, PCR testing is widely acknowledged as highly sensitive and specific, and the only efficient way to distinguish vaccine-strain and wild-type measles infection, as their clinical presentation are indistinguishable.

    Did the CDC Use PCR Testing On The Disneyland Measles Cases?
    The 2015 measles outbreak at Disney was a perfect example of where PCR testing could be used to ascertain the true origins of the outbreak. The a priori assumption that the non-vaccinated are carriers and transmitters of a disease the vaccinated are immune to has not been scientifically validated. Since vaccine strain measles has almost entirely supplanted wild-type, communally acquired measles, it is statistically unlikely that PCR tests will reveal the media's hysterical storyline -- "non-vaxxers brought back an eradicated disease!" -- to be true. Until such studies are performed and exposed, we will never know for certain.

    Laura Hayes, of Age of Autism, recently addressed this key question in her insightful article "Disney, Measles, and the Fantasyland of Vaccine Perfection":

    "Has there been any laboratory confirmation of even one case of the supposed measles related to Disneyland? If yes, was the confirmed case tested to determine whether it was wild-type measles or vaccine-strain measles? If not, why not? These are important questions to ask. Is it measles or not? If yes, what kind, because if it's vaccine-strain measles, then that means it is the vaccinated who are contagious and spreading measles resulting in what the media likes to label "outbreaks" to create panic (a panic more appropriately triggered by our 25 year history of epidemic autism).

    It would be what one might call vaccine fallout. People who receive live-virus vaccines, such as the MMR, can then shed that live virus, for up to many weeks and can infect others. Other live-virus vaccines include the nasal flu vaccine, shingles vaccine, rotavirus vaccine, chicken pox vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine."

    Additional Evidence That the Vaccinated Are Not Immune, Spread Disease
    The National Vaccine Information Center has published an important document relevant to this topic titled "The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission." Pages 34-36 in the section on "Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses and Live Attenuated Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses" discuss evidence that the MMR vaccine can lead to measles infection and transmission.

    Cases highlighted include:

    In 2010, Eurosurveillance published a report about excretion of vaccine strain measles virus in urine and pharyngeal secretions of a Croatian child with vaccine-associated rash illness.[1] A healthy 14-month old child was given MMR vaccine and eight days later developed macular rash and fever. Lab testing of throat and urine samples between two and four weeks after vaccination tested positive for vaccine strain measles virus. Authors of the report pointed out that when children experience a fever and rash after MMR vaccination, only molecular lab testing can determine whether the symptoms are due to vaccine strain measles virus infection. They stated: "According to WHO guidelines for measles and rubella elimination, routine discrimination between aetiologies of febrile rash disease is done by virus detection. However, in a patient recently MMR-vaccinated, only molecular techniques can differentiate between wild type measles or rubella infection or vaccine-associated disease. This case report demonstrates that excretion of Schwartz measles virus occurs in vaccinees."
    In 2012, Pediatric Child Health published a report describing a healthy 15-month old child in Canada, who developed irritability, fever, cough, conjunctivitis and rash within seven days of an MMR shot.[2] Blood, urine and throat swab tests were positive for vaccine strain measles virus infection 12 days after vaccination. Addressing the potential for measles vaccine strain virus transmission to others, the authors stated, "While the attenuated virus can be detected in clinical specimens following immunization, it is understood that administration of the MMR vaccine to immunocompetent individuals does not carry the risk of secondary transmission to susceptible hosts.
    In 2013, Eurosurveillance published a report of vaccine strain measles occurring weeks after MMR vaccination in Canada. Authors stated, "We describe a case of measlesmumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine-associated measles illness that was positive by both PCR and IgM, five weeks after administration of the MMR vaccine." The case involved a two-year-old child, who developed runny nose, fever, cough, macular rash and conjunctivitis after vaccination and tested positive for vaccine strain measles virus infection in throat swab and blood tests.[3] Canadian health officials authoring the report raised the question of whether there are unidentified cases of vaccine strain measles infections and the need to know more about how long measles vaccine strain shedding lasts. They concluded that the case they reported "likely represents the existence of additional, but unidentified, exceptions to the typical timeframe for measles vaccine virus shedding and illness." They added that "further investigation is needed on the upper limit of measles vaccine virus shedding based on increased sensitivity of the RT-PCR-based detection technologies and immunological factors associated with vaccine-associated measles illness and virus shedding."
    In addition to this evidence for the disease-promoting nature of the measles vaccine, we recently reported on a case of a twice vaccinated adult in NYC becoming infected with measles and then spreading it to two secondary contacts, both of which were vaccinated twice and found to have presumably protective IgM antibodies.

    This double failure of the MMR vaccine renders highly suspicious the unsubstantiated claims that when an outbreak of measles occurs the non- or minimally vaccinated are responsible. The assumption that vaccination equals bona fide immunity has never been supported by the evidence itself. We have previously reported on a growing body of evidence that even when a vaccine is mandated, and 99% of a population receive the measles vaccines, outbreaks not only happen, but as compliance increases vaccine resistance sporadic outbreaks also increase -- a clear indication of vaccine failure.

    There is also the concerning fact that according to the MMR vaccine's manufacturer Merck's own product insert, the MMR can cause measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), a rare but potentially lethal form of brain infection with measles. For more information you can review a case report on MIBE caused by vaccine strain measles published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases in 1999 titled "Measles inclusion-body encephalitis caused by the vaccine strain of measles virus."

    Global Measles Vaccine Failures Increasingly Reported

    China is not the only country dealing with outbreaks in near universally vaccinated populations. Between 2008-2011, France reported over 20,000 cases of measles, with adolescents and young adults accounting for more than half of cases.[4] Remarkably, these outbreaks began when France was experiencing some of their highest coverage rates in history. For instance, in 2008, the MMR1 coverage reached 96.6% in children 11 years of age. For a more extensive review of measles outbreaks in vaccinated populations read our article The 2013 Measles Outbreak: A Failing Vaccine, Not A Failure to Vaccinate.

    Given that clinical evidence, case reports, epidemiological studies, and even the vaccine manufacturer's own product warnings, all show directly or indirectly that MMR can spread measles infection, how can we continue to stand by and let the media, government and medical establishment blame the non-vaccinated on these outbreaks without any concrete evidence?

    Quote Measles Transmitted By The Vaccinated, Gov. Researchers Confirm
    October 26th 2018
    This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2018
    Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder

    Research reveals that a vaccinated individual not only can become infected with measles, but can also spread it to others who are also vaccinated against it - doubly disproving that the administration of multiple doses of MMR vaccine is "97% effective," as widely claimed.

    One of the fundamental errors in thinking about measles vaccine effectiveness is that receipt of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine equates to bona fide immunity against measles virus. Indeed, it is commonly claimed by health organizations like the CDC that receiving two doses of the MMR vaccine is "97 percent effective in preventing measles," despite a voluminous body of contradictory evidence from epidemiology and clinical experience.

    This erroneous thinking has led the public, media and government alike to attribute the origin of measles outbreaks, such as the one reported at Disney in 2015 (and which lead to the passing of SB277 that year, stripping vaccine exemptions for all but medical reasons in California), to the non-vaccinated, even though 18% of the measles cases occurred in those who had been vaccinated against it -- hardly the vaccine's two-dose claimed "97% effectiveness." The vaccine's obvious fallibility is also indicated by the fact that that the CDC now requires two doses.

    But the problems surrounding the failing MMR vaccine go much deeper. First, they carry profound health risks (over 25 of which we have indexed here: MMR vaccine dangers), including increased autism risk, which a senior CDC scientist confessed his agency covered up, which do not justify the risk, given that measles is not only not deadly but confers significant health benefits that have been validated in the biomedical literature. Second, not only does the MMR vaccine fail to consistently confer immunity, but those who have been "immunized" with two doses of MMR vaccine can still transmit the infection to others -- a phenomena no one is reporting on in the rush to blame the non- or minimally-vaccinated for the outbreak.

    MMR Vaccinated Can Still Spread Measles
    Three years ago, a groundbreaking study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, whose authorship included scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, looked at evidence from the 2011 New York measles outbreak that individuals with prior evidence of measles vaccination and vaccine immunity were both capable of being infected with measles and infecting others with it (secondary transmission).

    This finding even aroused the attention of mainstream news reporting, such as this Sciencemag.org article from April 2014 titled "Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient for First Time."

    Titled, "Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011," the groundbreaking study acknowledged that, "Measles may occur in vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented."

    In order to find out if measles vaccine compliant individuals are capable of being infected and transmitting the infection to others, they evaluated suspected cases and contacts exposed during a 2011 measles outbreak in NYC. They focused on one patient who had received two doses of measles-containing vaccine and found that,

    "Of 88 contacts, four secondary cases were confirmed that had either two doses of measles-containing vaccine or a past positive measles IgG antibody. All cases had laboratory confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms consistent with measles, and high avidity IgG antibody characteristic of a secondary immune response."

    Their remarkable conclusion:

    "This is the first report of measles transmission from a twice vaccinated individual. The clinical presentation and laboratory data of the index were typical of measles in a naïve individual. Secondary cases had robust anamnestic antibody responses. No tertiary cases occurred despite numerous contacts. This outbreak underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status."

    Did you follow that? A twice-vaccinated individual, from a NYC measles outbreak, was found to have transmitted measles to four of her contacts, two of which themselves had received two doses of MMR vaccine and had prior presumably protective measles IgG antibody results.

    This phenomenon -- the MMR vaccine compliant infecting other MMR vaccine compliant cases – has been ignored by health agencies and the media. This data corroborates the possibility that, during the Disney measles outbreak the previously vaccinated (any of the 18% known to have become infected) may have become infected or already were shedding measles from a vaccine and transmitted measles to both the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated.

    Moreover, these CDC and NYC Bureau of Immunization scientists identified a 'need' for there to be "thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status," i.e. investigators must rule out vaccine failure and infection by fully infected individuals as contributing to measles outbreaks.

    Instead, what's happening now is that the moment a measles outbreak occurs, a reflexive 'blame the victim' attitude is assumed, and the media and/or health agencies report on the outbreak as if it has been proven the afflicted are under or non-vaccinated – often without sufficient evidence to support these claims. Clearly stakeholders in the vaccine/non-vaccine debate need to look at the situation through the lens of the evidence itself and not science by proclamation or pleas to authority.

    Amazingly, the truth has been suppressed for decades. Twenty years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. Scientists working at the CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it. The MMR vaccine's manufacturer Merck's own product insert, the MMR can cause measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), a rare but potentially lethal form of brain infection with measles. Learn more by reading my article on the topic, "The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm."

    Stop Blaming A Failing Vaccine on Failure to Vaccinate
    The moral of the story is that you can't blame non-vaccinating parents for the morbidity and mortality of infectious diseases when vaccination does not result in immunity and does not keep those who are vaccinated from infecting others. In fact, outbreaks secondary to measles vaccine failure and shedding in up to 99% immunization compliant populations have happened for decades. Here are just a few examples reported in the medical literature:

    1985, Texas, USA: According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, "An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced." They concluded: "We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune."1

    1985, Montana, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, "A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures," an outbreak of 137 cases of measles occurred in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: "This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy."2

    1988, Colorado, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, "early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity ... due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded: "...measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations."3

    1989, Quebec, Canada: According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was "largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage," but following an extensive review the researchers concluded "Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.4

    1991-1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccine before their first birthday.5

    1992, Cape Town, South Africa: According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, "[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised." Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak.6

    There are plenty of other examples of the measles vaccine's abject failure, including a study published in PLoS titled, "Difficulties in eliminating measles and controlling rubella and mumps: a cross-sectional study of a first measles and rubella vaccination and a second measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination," which brought to light the glaring ineffectiveness of two measles vaccines (measles–rubella (MR) or measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) ) in fulfilling their widely claimed promise of preventing outbreaks in highly vaccine compliant populations. We dove deeply into the implications of this study in our article titled, "Why Is China Having Measles Outbreaks When 99% Are Vaccinated?"

    The most recent example was released on the CDC's website today in a report titled, "Measles Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated Population — Israel, July–August 2017," where they describe a patient zero who had received three doses of MMR. Not unsurprisingly the CDC does not draw the obvious conclusion that the MMR vaccine failed, rather, that they should consider the measles a possibility when they examine a patient with fever and a rash even when the patient is vaccinated.

    Source: CDC

    These seven outbreaks are by no means exhaustive of the biomedical literature, but illustrate just how misled the general public is about the effectiveness of measles vaccines, and the CDC's vaccination agenda in general. No amount of historical ignorance will erase the fact that vaccination does not equal immunization; antigenicity does not equal immunogenicity. Nor are the unintended, adverse effects of MMR and other vaccines in the CDC schedule accurately portrayed, precluding access to the medical ethical principle of informed consent.

    To learn more about this topic read my previous article, "The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm."
    Last edited by Delight; 30th April 2019 at 23:49.

  39. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    onawah (1st May 2019), Reinhard (30th May 2019), T Smith (30th June 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 46 FirstFirst 1 3 13 46 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