Vaccines Debate

Ok

So lets cut through dogmans bullshit

I'm going to post clips by experts, not dogman's opinions that he has wrapped up in the packaging of logical fallacies
lol. My opinions. Check my sources muir, please. If there is error, I'd be more than happy to address it. However, I am sure you'll find my claims reliable. Until you can establish my error, your doing no more than "blowing smoke".

Just because he says something is a logical fallacy doesn't mean it is
You know, I am a philosophy/psychology major....at a major institution....currently studying logical fallacies and psychological biases.................
If you have reason to say why my claims of your logical fallacies are incorrect, please put them forth and we will address them. Otherwise, don't say that I'm wrong just because you feel that i'm wrong.

And no dogman i did not say thimerosol is not toxic
Sorry, I only meant to establish that you implied that it might not be. You did this in your claims about thermisol not being a primary contender. Otherwise, I do have the arguments for why it doesn't make sense (again, concentrations are no where near high enough). I can re-quote it if you wish.

So first off lets re-visit the flouride issue

Lets hear an EPA whistleblower telling us about the dangers of flouride in the drinking water:

[video=youtube;9MYTIgIC89U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYTIgIC89U[/video]
Ignoratio elenchi....again.
You know, I'm really getting some run time with this phrase with you....

Ok now lets hear a neuroscientist talk about the dangers of wifi radiation

[video=youtube;avANkBWCDaE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avANkBWCDaE[/video]

Ok now lets hear barrie Trower an ex UK intelligence whistleblower speaking about the dangers of wifi and microwaves (see for example the TSA's scanners in airports that were supplied by Michael Chertoff one of the authors of the 'patriot act' and a dual israeli citizenship whose father was a terrorist in Irgun)

[video=youtube;ZchahZaWM8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZchahZaWM8Y[/video]
Not only is this Ignoratio elenchi, but it is ridiculous in principle to BASIC principles in science. Do I need to quote myself again? Or do you have a reason where principles that have long been established as fact are false? These aren't my opinions. This is based on scientific common sense. You can know this truth a priori if you only knew the meaning of the words...

Has dogman or stu listened to these guys and countless more experts besides? I'm guessing no. I have though
This is an appeal to authority again muir. Very simple, very ineffective argumentation method. Just because I'm not this guy, then I know nothing about the issue? Very elitist view. I have studied this material, and I don't rely on propagandist material.

Let's hear Dr Carley speak about how vaccinations are being used for depopulation; this clip also contains a quote by an ex world bank demographer who admits that vaccine are used for depopulation

[video=youtube;JqoOLd7IiYA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqoOLd7IiYA[/video]

the information is out there for those who can look beyond the corporate media

I'm amazed everyone can't see this yet
I'm amazed you can't admit the fault in your reasoning.....
It's perfectly possible that vaccines are toxic. That cannot be established a priori. But your failure to provide a valid justification for vaccine toxicity is why are justified in believing the reverse (because the reverse does entail safety of vaccines). In other words, your argument hasn't a leg to stand on in science. It is reduced to, "vaccines are toxic because [X conspiracy group] wants to kill us (or cause other harm)" This is circular reasoning! If I ask you why vaccines are toxic, you say because [X conspiracy group] wants to kill us (or cause other harm). I ask you why [X conspiracy group] wants to kill us (or cause other harm), you say because they want to control the population and don't care about us. I ask you how you know they want to control the population and don't care about us, you say because they are making toxic vaccines. There may be more steps between the second and third questions, but nonetheless this reasoning is circular. Even if it wasn't circular, its not valid. Vaccines cannot be toxic because [X conspiracy group] wants to kill us (or cause other harm) does not answer a relevant question. I ask why are vaccines toxic, you answer readily enough. I ask how are vaccines toxic, and you stumble around grasping at straws putting together anything that might justify your claim! No matter how ridiculous. That is why your arguments don't hold, and why people should not listen to you.
 
Look stu, i know you vaccinated your kids so this is a hard pill to swallow but can you explain to me why the vaccine courts are paying out damages to people in the US, UK and other countries if the vaccines aren't harmful?

Try and do that

If you can't then perhaps you should quieten down and let the people who have bothered researching this speak

This is just blatantly rude muir. Just because you can't effectively defend your view doesn't mean you can attack other forum members.
 
Oh, almost forgot to mention....

Ok

So lets cut through dogmans bullshit

I'm going to post clips by experts, not dogman's opinions that he has wrapped up in the packaging of logical fallacies
This is an attempt at proof by assertion (rhetorically ridiculous and logically invalid)

Just because he says something is a logical fallacy doesn't mean it is

And no dogman i did not say thimerosol is not toxic

So first off lets re-visit the flouride issue

Lets hear an EPA whistleblower telling us about the dangers of flouride in the drinking water:

[video=youtube;9MYTIgIC89U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MYTIgIC89U[/video]

Ok now lets hear a neuroscientist talk about the dangers of wifi radiation

[video=youtube;avANkBWCDaE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avANkBWCDaE[/video]

Ok now lets hear barrie Trower an ex UK intelligence whistleblower speaking about the dangers of wifi and microwaves (see for example the TSA's scanners in airports that were supplied by Michael Chertoff one of the authors of the 'patriot act' and a dual israeli citizenship whose father was a terrorist in Irgun)

[video=youtube;ZchahZaWM8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZchahZaWM8Y[/video]

Has dogman or stu listened to these guys and countless more experts besides? I'm guessing no. I have though

Let's hear Dr Carley speak about how vaccinations are being used for depopulation; this clip also contains a quote by an ex world bank demographer who admits that vaccine are used for depopulation

[video=youtube;JqoOLd7IiYA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqoOLd7IiYA[/video]

the information is out there for those who can look beyond the corporate media

I'm amazed everyone can't see this yet

Shotgun argumentation is no better than a proof by assertion.


Muir, you once asked me to point out your logical fallacies. I have pointed out a few of them. I can identify some, but others I don't know how to describe. Unless you have good reason to deny any of my points, any further claims to toxicity appears as just grasping at straws (not conclusive, but certainly justifiable). Your argument fails muir.
 
it seems that dogman has presented a viable alternative to the psychopath theory of world dominion....
ollide-a-Scape



« On GMOs, Cultural Brokers, and Sticky NarrativesA Farewell Post »
The Robert Kennedy Jr. Anti-Vaccine Tour

By Keith Kloor | April 13, 2015 1:08 pm
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services158


My mother-in-law, who lives in New Jersey, recently mailed me a newspaper clipping. It was about a famous person who came to her state to publicly oppose a bill that would make it harder for parents to exempt their children from school-mandated vaccinations. This same famous person had just visited two other states to lobby against similar legislation proposed in the wake of the Disneyland/Measles outbreak. Local media and wire services have covered the spectacles in Oregon, California, and New Jersey.
Yes, Robert Kennedy Jr. has made headlines again for, as the New Jersey Star Ledger put it in a hard-hitting editorial, “his crazy-talk about a vast government conspiracy to hide the truth that a vaccine ingredient called thimerosal causes childhood autism.” The Star-ledgergoes on to correctly note:
He is wrong. Every major scientific and medical organization in the country agrees that he is wrong. Here’s all you need to know about thimerosal: There is no link between it and any brain disorders, including autism. To assuage fears, the government removed it from pediatric vaccines nearly 15 years ago, with the exception of a specific flu vaccine, and childhood autism rates have actually gone up since.
After reading the editorial, my mother-in-law clipped it out and mailed to me with a note:
Keith–
Saw this–I know it’s an “old” topic–but still in the news!
Baba
That’s the infuriating part of this story for many people–that it’s still in the news, from the New York Daily News to the UK’s Daily Mail. Of course, Baba mailed me the story because she had read about Kennedy’s unrelenting and misguided crusade last summer in apiece I wrote for the Washington Post magazine.
I anguished over that story: Before I pitched it, after it was accepted, and each step along the way during the reporting and writing process. I agonized over every sentence, every edit. I agonized because I didn’t want to give any oxygen to anti-vaccine activism, but when it became obvious to me that one of their celebrity crusaders was engaged in newsworthy activities, I felt the story of his obsessive crusade was legitimate. The reactions were all over the map.
I’ve spent enough time with Kennedy and argued with him enough to know that he’s gone down a deep rabbit hole. It’s not just that he can’t let go of the discredited thimerosal/autism connection. It’s his irresponsible conspiracy talk involving the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), calling it a “sock puppet” of the pharmaceutical industry. And his shameless hyperbole, which he has ramped up in recent weeks. For example, here’s what Kennedy said last month before a crowd in California:
“They get the shot, that night they have a fever of 103, they go to sleep and three months later their brain is gone,” Kennedy, 61, said, reported the Sacramento Bee. “This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”
A California state legislator who has introduced a bill to tighten the state rules on vaccine exemptions has a quote in that Sacramento Bee article:
“I think it is dangerous that he [Kennedy] is spreading misinformation about something that’s very important for public health,” Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, a pediatrician, said in an interview. “Autism rates have continued to rise even though we are not using thimerosal in vaccines for children,” he added. “We still haven’t figured out exactly what causes autism. We do know it’s not vaccines.”
That’s what’s even more puzzling about Kennedy’s rhetoric. The vaccine ingredient he is most hopped up about was removed from U.S. childhood vaccines nearly 15 years ago (out of an abundance of caution and in response to parental fears). So why is he still ranting about vaccines today the way he does? When I was writing my profile on him, his focus was on thimerosal. He got upset, he said, when his critics branded him as anti-vaccine. He made it seem like all he cared about was getting people to listen to him about thimerosal and CDC’s supposed efforts to cover-up the evidence of thimerosal’s harm–which was the story that he and others unsuccessfully peddled in the mid-2000s.
But Kennedy is as disingenuous as he hyperbolic. Several weeks ago, I attended an event held at NYU’s law school, where Kennedy was appearing on a panel about thimerosal and vaccines. The event was combined with a screening of a documentary called, Trace Amounts, which Kennedy has been promoting. (The movie does not have a distributor, so it is being privately screened at various venues.)
Before the film was shown, Kennedy was introduced by an independent scholar affiliated with NYU’s law school. I took notes. Here’s how he started off:
I am fiercely pro-vaccine. I had all my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved millions of lives. But it is essential we have a safe vaccine supply.
Notice the double talk and the inference–that our vaccine supply is unsafe. He continued, launching into an anti-CDC tirade:
It’s an issue of corruption. The CDC is a cesspool of corruption. The CDC is cataclysmically conflicted. It is no longer focused on human health. It is focused on money.
You get the idea. The CDC is just a subsidiary of Big Pharma, and American journalists are too cowardly to investigate this captive agency. He goes on to mention that, “today, kids get 69 vaccines. When I was a little boy, I had 5 vaccines.”
In actuality, today’s children, from birth to 6, are innoculated for 14 diseases (yes, some with multiple doses), and six diseases between 7-18 years old. (This includes a recommended annual flu vaccine.) The impression Kennedy gives, though, is that today’s generation is receiving more vaccines than is necessary (after all, he only got 5!). Naturally, this is because the CDC is a “sock puppet” of Big Pharma, as Kennedy recently put it to one of his audiences. As the parent of two young children, I’m glad my two boys have receivedimmunity from many more diseases than was possible when Kennedy was 5 years old.
Kennedy’s fear-mongering, combined with his inflammatory language, is toxic. Here’s anAP article reporting on the aftermath of his visit to Sacramento:
A California bill that would sharply limit vaccination waivers after a measles outbreak at Disneyland has generated such an acidic debate that the proposal’s author was under added security this week.
Authorities wouldn’t specify the extra protections around state Sen. Richard Pan on Friday, but the level of anger over the measure has been clear.
Opponents have flooded the Capitol to stand up for parental rights, and images that compare Pan to Adolf Hitler have circulated online.
Let me stop here for a second to point out the danger of media amplification of this tiny fringe element. It is for this reason that I held off on writing about Kennedy’s latest campaign–until now. It is a real quandary for journalists who are obligated to report newsworthy events, but who also don’t want to give undue attention to a tiny minority.
But the more headlines I saw Kennedy generating on his anti-vaccine tour, the more I felt obligated to weigh in on his latest shenanigans. Additionally, as Slate notes:
anti-vaxxers turn out in droves. They are few in number—representing less than single-digit percentage points of most states’ populations—but extremely passionate. Their tendency to cluster means they remain a significant risk for supporting outbreaks of disease. They are organized by well-funded groups financed by family foundations. They still gather at rallies and fundraisers featuring disgraced doctor Andrew Wakefield, whose claim that vaccines cause autism was later found to be a complete fraud. Their voices are amplified by notorious anti-vax celebrity cranks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
As a result of this disparity in activism, anti-vaxxers have been successful in defeating pro*–public health legislation that would eliminate some exemptions in a number of states, including Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and most recently, North Carolina. Bills in Texas, New Jersey, and California are still being hotly contested. Well-organized vaccination opponents flood legislators with a near-constant stream of materials of dubious scientific or legal validity. And, of course, Kennedy participates, traveling around to states in contention, promoting a conspiracy-theory documentary called Trace Amounts. This documentary focuses on the manufactured controversy surrounding thimerosal, an ethylmercury-based preservative that was removed from the vast majority of childhood vaccines in 2001. (Autism rates did not decline.)
So Kennedy is not just whipping up anti-vaccine emotions; he may well be influencing policy. That’s newsworthy.
And yet…I’m still torn. Julie Leask, an Australian public health researcher who is one of mygo-to sources on the vaccine communication issue, has recently published an importantarticle titled, “Should we do battle with antivaccination activists?”
She writes:
Radical antivaccination groups, unlike industry bodies, are difficult to regulate. They arise organically, consisting of small core groups of highly motivated and vocal individuals who devote large amounts of time and energy to their cause. As for other such movements, a highly adversarial strategy could give oxygen to antivaccination activists, who may believe that persecution legitimises their efforts within a martyrdom frame. It also affords more attention to them, stimulating highly polarized discussions in social and traditional media, and perpetuating a false sense that vaccination is a highly contested topic.
Julia Belluz, a Vox health reporter, is also vexed by the media amplification concerns I expressed. She hast just published a really smart and helpful piece that asks:
The debate over how to handle peddlers of pseudoscience comes up again and again in the newsroom. With every Food Babe, Dr. Oz, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Jenny McCarthy, we mull some combination of the following: Do they deserve to be addressed? Should we seriously engage their ideas? And if we cover them, what’s the best way to do so: mockery? Earnest debunking?



Her probing discussion is music to my hears, including a quote from the social scientist Brendan Nyhan, who says that, “the principle of holding people accountable for saying misleading things is an important one.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...rt-kennedy-jr-anti-vaccine-tour/#.VTbOsdL4_Gg
 
[h=2]Introduction[/h]In 1877, renowned children’s author Lewis Carroll found himself embroiled in a newspaper debate about vaccination.1 Carroll had read a letter published in the Eastbourne Chronicle in which Mr W Hume-Rothery claimed that the smallpox vaccine was causing smallpox in large numbers of people. Using his real name of Charles L Dodgson, Carroll refuted the claims with his characteristic eloquence. This correspondence escalated into an increasingly defensive exchange between Carroll and Hume-Rothery, in which Carroll, “a trifle ruffled but keeping to the point, retired after the third round”. His opponent continued vigorously until the editor ended the correspondence.
Opposition to vaccination, as expressed within such public debates, has occurred since variolation was introduced in Europe in the 18th century. Today, organised opposition to vaccination is a worldwide phenomenon. The manifest claims of opponents centre on the belief that vaccines are unsafe and ineffective. Activists promote themselves as champions of transparency in public information and individual choice, and locate their rhetoric within latent themes of cover-up, manipulation for profit, threat of excessive government control and the back-to-nature idyll.2
Hobson-West characterised two types of ‘vaccine-critical’ groups: ‘reformists’, who were critical of vaccines but likely to support vaccination in some respects, and ‘radicals’, who questioned the rationale for, and use of, all vaccines.3 Australia’s main ‘vaccine critical group’, the Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network, is a radical group whose 1998 book asserts that “vaccines are extremely toxic and are suspected to cause more harm to more vaccinees than results when infection is naturally acquired”.4 It claims, for example, that smallpox, which was declared eradicated by the World Health Organization in 1980, “has enormous non-human reservoirs in which it continues to survive and infect humans, but those cases of smallpox which continue to occur are ‘creatively diagnosed’ and reported under another name”. The book lists homeopathy, reflexology, chiropractic, traditional Chinese medicine and a good diet as possible alternatives to vaccination.
Such groups are mostly made up of parents.5 Some may express an underlying antipathy to medical intervention, with a preference for natural or alternative modes of disease prevention and management. Among these parents, nonvaccination is bound up with how they shape their individual identity as vigilant parents questioning the medical status quo, and their group commitments. Not vaccinating is a manifestation of a deeper set of shared values. Some parents have at one time supported vaccination, but one of their children has experienced a frightening but temporary adverse event or a chronic, permanent and usually idiopathic condition, which they believe to be a result of vaccination. They then embark on phases of questioning and decision making.6 Other activists include general citizens, some health professionals, and providers of alternative therapies.7
Some commentators lament the impact of antivaccination activist groups. In a recent article, Garrett and Builder argued that “misinformation and rumours from just one persuasive voice, delivered effectively, can derail entire immunisation campaigns and persuade millions of parents to shun vaccinations for their children”.8 Citing the contribution of antivaccination groups to outbreaks of disease, a 2011 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine asked “what can we do to hasten the funeral of anti-vaccination campaigns?”9
Some of public health’s greatest achievements have been won through adversarial advocacy, either by reducing the credibility of an opponent’s messages or by contributing to regulations that limit the reach and adverse consequences of their products. Adversarial public advocacy has contributed to achievements in tobacco control, harmful drinking reduction and gun control.
Should public health and other professionals use adversarial advocacy against antivaccination activists to minimise their potential impact? Here, adversarial advocacy is defined as attempts to publicly discredit or disband an antivaccination activist or group. Such an approach might seem reasonable under two assumptions. The first is that the claims of the antivaccination activists directly and significantly contribute to undervaccination. Second is the assumption that such advocacy could succeed in stopping the movement in general. Both assumptions have flaws.
[h=2]The role of antivaccination activist groups in the vaccine decisions of parents[/h]It is often assumed that audiences of naïve parents uncritically absorb antivaccination messages – the more messages, the more vaccine fear and the less vaccination. In the early 1970s, media scholars largely discredited this model of media influence, pointing to the social and cultural contexts in which audiences decoded messages and derived meaning.10 A case in point is the UK’s measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine scare, which saw the theory of a link to autism catch on despite evidence to the contrary. Many parents lost confidence in the vaccine, resulting in an 11% drop in UK MMR vaccination rates and a measles epidemic. The impact was not immediate. Groups had previously linked vaccines to autism, but this scare had a charismatic doctor as its champion, whose (eventually retracted) publication in The Lancet meant that mainstream journalists took note. Aside from a medical champion, a number of other factors unique to the UK were at play. There was some erosion of health professional confidence in the vaccine. The government’s previous handling of the Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease affair provided a foundation of mistrust in government safety assurances. A sustained anti-MMR campaign gained momentum in the tabloid press, which was amplified by prime minister Tony Blair’s refusal to acknowledge whether or not his son Leo had been given MMR.11
Journalists could readily access moving narratives from parents who were convinced that their child’s autism resulted from the vaccine. Sometimes, members of antivaccination groups facilitated this access and were also given airtime. However, their role in eroding MMR vaccination rates was one of many amplifiers.
Australia was relatively insulated from the effects of the MMR scare, despite attempts by local activists to amplify it through media releases, background media lobbying, websites and social media.7 Many parents presented their concerns about MMR to health professionals, but national vaccination rates remained stable at around 92%.12 This stability has been maintained through two decades of activity from a small but active and vociferous antivaccination group and a concomitant rise in audience exposure to vaccine-critical messages through the internet and social media. It reinforces that antivaccination groups and activists act within a complex set of influencers.
[h=2]Antivaccination groups persist and attempts to silence them may amplify exposure to their messages[/h]It is unrealistic to believe that it is possible to cease antivaccination efforts. As long as vaccination has existed, there have been such activists, just as there will always be a minority who stand outside the mainstream, reject orthodox medicine and its interventions, mistrust government and value natural health. Radical activist groups tend to be self-limiting in their appeal because of that radicalism.13 With the reformist groups, robust vaccine programs in democratic societies can and should be able to tolerate the existence of critics. Such programs come with coordinated adverse events reporting systems that are underpinned by the willingness to detect, investigate and respond to safety signals.14
Radical antivaccination groups, unlike industry bodies, are difficult to regulate. They arise organically, consisting of small core groups of highly motivated and vocal individuals who devote large amounts of time and energy to their cause. As for other such movements, a highly adversarial strategy could give oxygen to antivaccination activists, who may believe that persecution legitimises their efforts within a martyrdom frame. It also affords more attention to them, stimulating highly polarised discussions in social and traditional media, and perpetuating a false sense that vaccination is a highly contested topic.
Typically, adversarial approaches have been effective where they are directed towards industries or groups who promote a harmful product. With vaccination, public health advocates promote the product and opponents are often parents with moving stories of disabled or ill children. In the media, the primary contest is one of establishing the trust of hesitant-parent audiences and reminding them of why we vaccinate. Adversarial approaches can engender mistrust if they show advocates as overly defensive and lacking empathy.
[h=2]Playing the issue, not the opponent[/h]What, then, is the best focus of vaccine advocacy for time- and resource-limited public health professionals? It should be on addressing the causes of low coverage where two demographically distinct groups are seen: 1) those who lack opportunity to vaccinate and face practical, economic, social or geographic impediments to full and timely vaccination; and 2) those who lack acceptance of vaccination and have beliefs, attitudes and experiences that cause them to reject or delay some or all vaccines. They may worry that vaccines have harmful ingredients, can weaken the immune system of the baby and that children get too many vaccines.15
For parents lacking opportunity, systematic reviews underscore the need to advocate for recommended vaccines to not incur out-of-pocket expenses and be easily accessible; for accurate national recording; for incentives; and for reminders for parents and providers.16,17 Specific strategies are needed for Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse families to ensure services are culturally respectful, easy to access and flexible.
Among those who lack acceptance, parents who are highly hesitant about vaccination (not entrenched nonvaccinators) warrant the greatest investment. This includes supporting health professionals in their communication, ensuring that tailored and effective information is readily available, and establishing routine monitoring of vaccination attitudes to provide early warning of a dip in order to guide timely action.
Countries that have recovered from vaccine safety scares, such as Nigeria, teach advocates that community understanding and health diplomacy with influential leaders is effective.18 When vaccine safety scares arise, whether they are real or perceived, it is ideal for governments to have some preparation in place. This includes plans for who will communicate and when, and established channels of communication to providers in particular, helping them to be confident and competent to address the concerns of parents.
[h=2]Should advocates always ignore the antivaccination activists?[/h]There are occasions warranting direct action with antivaccination activists or groups. These include when advice or activities could lead to direct and immediate harm to individuals, such as the promotion of infectious disease parties, harassment or threats. In addition, it may be warranted to stop their intrusion into public institutions (such as distributing leaflets in schools) where the setting could markedly increase the perceived legitimacy of their messages.
[h=2]Conclusion[/h]Vaccination has prevented illness and death in millions of children and adults.19 It is understandable that advocates sometimes passionately want to defend vaccination programs. However, advocates need to be strategic, working in with the known mechanisms through which uptake can be improved. This includes advocacy for accessible and affordable vaccines. With respect to media audiences, vaccine-hesitant parents are the most important group. For them, trust in the source of information is a powerful moderator of message influence. Publicly adversarial debates are unlikely to convince them to vaccinate and may merely serve as catharsis for the converted. Advocates can employ empathic responses that focus on the issue, not the opponent, and appropriate the values underscoring vaccination – protection of children from serious diseases with an explicit acknowledgement of the importance of vaccine safety.
[h=2]Acknowledgements[/h]The author would like to thank Ken Griffin for comments on an earlier draft, and two anonymous peer reviewers.
Copyright:
88x31.png

© 2015 Leask. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence, which allows others to redistribute, adapt and share this work non-commercially provided they attribute the work and any adapted version of it is distributed under the same Creative Commons licence terms.
http://www.phrp.com.au/issues/march...with-antivaccination-activists/#fullTextPanel
 
If you can't then perhaps you should quieten down and let the people who have bothered researching this speak

We all know you don't actually research the things you say. You regurgitate the things you want to hear.
 
We all know you don't actually research the things you say. You regurgitate the things you want to hear.

Why don't you summon some courage and listen to the experts i have posted?
 
The vaccine courts are in place to protect consumers. They are informal and simple use for people who were potentially harmed. They need not establish cause, only potential or likely or possible harm. From this, settlements must be granted. It certainly is not saying that people are being poisoned by vaccines, these courts are in place for special cases. This is not evidence, and even if it was it is only an appeal to authority (again) and is hardly a justifiable argument. Perhaps a belief, but not an argument.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-program-readmore

wow you are delusional
 
Oh, almost forgot to mention....


This is an attempt at proof by assertion (rhetorically ridiculous and logically invalid)



Shotgun argumentation is no better than a proof by assertion.


Muir, you once asked me to point out your logical fallacies. I have pointed out a few of them. I can identify some, but others I don't know how to describe. Unless you have good reason to deny any of my points, any further claims to toxicity appears as just grasping at straws (not conclusive, but certainly justifiable). Your argument fails muir.

You are committing the biggest fallacy of all!

You are forgetting that there is only ONE THING that matters in all this: the TRUTH

If the vaccines are harmful and if they are, as i assert being used deliberatly as population control then all of your bluster about 'logical fallacies' is all just so much bluster and hot air

So lets get back to the vaccine shall we, because that is what is important here

Unlike you i will be posting more information for people to read...not bullshit about, 'logical fallacies' but information about the harmful nature of the vaccines
 
lol. My opinions. Check my sources muir, please. If there is error, I'd be more than happy to address it. However, I am sure you'll find my claims reliable. Until you can establish my error, your doing no more than "blowing smoke".

If you cannot show that these kids have not been harmed by the vaccines then you are doing no more than 'blowing smoke'

You know, I am a philosophy/psychology major....at a major institution....currently studying logical fallacies and psychological biases.................

So you are being programmed to be a left brain prisoner...oh dear....well hopefuly one day you well break out from your programming

If you have reason to say why my claims of your logical fallacies are incorrect, please put them forth and we will address them. Otherwise, don't say that I'm wrong just because you feel that i'm wrong.

You are committing the biggest fallacy of all

All that matters is whether or not the vaccines are harmful; if they are then your talk about logical fallacy is a bunch of verbose wank

Sorry, I only meant to establish that you implied that it might not be. You did this in your claims about thermisol not being a primary contender. Otherwise, I do have the arguments for why it doesn't make sense (again, concentrations are no where near high enough). I can re-quote it if you wish.

LISTEN (if you are capable of doing that).....the vaccines are designed to be harmful. Thimerosol is only one component in that process of causing harm

Ignoratio elenchi....again.
You know, I'm really getting some run time with this phrase with you....

Well that's the difference between me and you. For you this is a game, but for me it is about real people being caused real harm (and this is one of the primary reasons i believe you are not an INFJ)

Not only is this Ignoratio elenchi, but it is ridiculous in principle to BASIC principles in science. Do I need to quote myself again? Or do you have a reason where principles that have long been established as fact are false? These aren't my opinions. This is based on scientific common sense. You can know this truth a priori if you only knew the meaning of the words...

The whistleblowers say otherwise but you ignore their testimony to pursue your confirmation bias (ie only listening to government released info)

This is an appeal to authority again muir. Very simple, very ineffective argumentation method. Just because I'm not this guy, then I know nothing about the issue? Very elitist view. I have studied this material, and I don't rely on propagandist material.

And you are committing an appeal to bullshit
I'm amazed you can't admit the fault in your reasoning.....
It's perfectly possible that vaccines are toxic.

I don't give a damn about how my argument is presented, i am talking about the toxicity of vaccines. All that matters is whether or not they are harmful to people and THEY ARE

Grow up

That cannot be established a priori. But your failure to provide a valid justification for vaccine toxicity is why are justified in believing the reverse (because the reverse does entail safety of vaccines). In other words, your argument hasn't a leg to stand on in science. It is reduced to, "vaccines are toxic because [X conspiracy group] wants to kill us (or cause other harm)" This is circular reasoning! If I ask you why vaccines are toxic, you say because [X conspiracy group] wants to kill us (or cause other harm). I ask you why [X conspiracy group] wants to kill us (or cause other harm), you say because they want to control the population and don't care about us. I ask you how you know they want to control the population and don't care about us, you say because they are making toxic vaccines. There may be more steps between the second and third questions, but nonetheless this reasoning is circular. Even if it wasn't circular, its not valid. Vaccines cannot be toxic because [X conspiracy group] wants to kill us (or cause other harm) does not answer a relevant question. I ask why are vaccines toxic, you answer readily enough. I ask how are vaccines toxic, and you stumble around grasping at straws putting together anything that might justify your claim! No matter how ridiculous. That is why your arguments don't hold, and why people should not listen to you.

I have posted countless experts telling you that the vaccines are harmful and that improvements to health have not come from vaccines but instead in imporvements in water, food, sewerage and housing etc

Screw your neck in, man up and go and listen to the experts i have posted

And there are experts there telling you wifi is harmful too including an expert in microwaves, Trover who has some pretty serious things to say about wifi in schools
 
[h=2]How should journalists cover quacks like Dr. Oz or the Food Babe?[/h] Updated by Julia Belluz on April 13, 2015, 11:50 a.m. ET @juliaoftoronto julia.belluz@voxmedia.com
Tweet (1,026) Share (11k) +









Don't miss stories. Follow Vox!

When a new book by blogger Vani Hari, who calls herself the "Food Babe," arrived on my desk a few months ago, I looked at the cover, thumbed through a few pages, and tossed it away.
"Break free from the hidden toxins in your food," The Food Babe Way boasted. "Lose weight, look years younger, and get healthy in just 21 days."
Everything about this reeked of pseudoscience: the suggestion that people can reinvent their bodies with quick fixes. The notion that we're being attacked by chemicals and in need of a thorough detox. I didn't want to dedicate any reporting energy to addressing Hari's nonsense.
A couple months later, I wondered if I'd made a mistake. Profiles of the Food Babe were turning up in the New York Times and the Atlantic. Her audience now numbered in the millions, and her mostly insane tirades against the toxins in our environment seemed to be catching on. Some were even calling her the next Dr. Oz.
Every journalist faces the question: How to deal with cranks?
The Food Babe was now impossible to ignore, so I wrote a quick item highlighting some of the reasons scientists think she’s completely off-base. It's a tactic I've used a lot in reporting on people like Hari. Highlight the gap between what a misinformed celebrity says and what the science says. Point out how they're hoodwinking the public, when necessary. Advocate for science and rational thinking.
But even then, I wasn't sure if that was the right way to deal with Hari. Perhaps I should have dedicated many more reporting hours to debunking her ideas. Or perhaps I should have continued to ignore her altogether. Maybe drawing any attention to Hari would help popularize her message — making me complicit in spreading misinformation.
Science writer Keith Kloor was puzzled by a similar question recently: "How do you communicate to a popular and deeply flawed messenger of health concerns, such as a Dr. Oz or a Vani Hari, who has a large, built-in audience and who seems immune to facts?" It's not a dilemma that the media always addresses well.
[h=3]The media needs to get better at dealing with pseudoscience[/h]
151296637.0.jpg
The Food Babe, Vani Hari. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)
The debate over how to handle peddlers of pseudoscience comes up again and again in the newsroom. With every Food Babe, Dr. Oz, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Jenny McCarthy, we mull some combination of the following: Do they deserve to be addressed? Should we seriously engage their ideas? And if we cover them, what’s the best way to do so: mockery? Earnest debunking?
I decided to ask other researchers and science communicators who have grappled with this problem. Everyone I spoke to seemed to agree that it probably isn't worth it to engage fringe theories that don't really break through to the mainstream. "If they are unknowns, the best thing to do is to ignore them, because they thrive on attention, however negative it may be," said Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist at the University of Bristol.
But it's a harder call for phonies who have gained a sizable platform and whose positions pose a risk to public health — like, say, Jenny McCarthy. In these situations, experts had more varied advice. Once these hoodwinkers get endorsed by public figures, major media outlets, or government institutions, critical coverage is important, the experts advised. Be clear on where the balance of scientific evidence lies. Be careful of turning quacks into martyrs. Don't gin up scientific controversies where they don't exist. Hold their enablers accountable, too.
[h=3]1) Don't just go after cranks — hold their enablers accountable[/h]
474281495.0.jpg
Oprah Winfrey: Is she the most powerful crank-enabler on the planet? (Kevin Winter/Getty)
I made my first call to Ben Goldacre, a British author, physician, and longtime slayer of bad science. When asked how he decides to cover a quack or crackpot idea, he said, "To me, it depends on whether the way they misused science is interesting enough that it makes a good pop-science column." This was all part of his science advocacy mission. "Mocking people who misuse science is a really useful gimmick for communicating how science works," he said.
But Goldacre doesn't just go after cranks; he also criticizes those in the media who give them credibility. "Going after people who facilitate the cranks is more likely to produce long-term benefits and also more closely reflects where the true source for the problem lies," he explained. "I can tell you who hates having their name in the paper, and that is journalists, editors, broadcasters, and policymakers. They are used to being able to hide in the shadows, anonymously, and if you can call them out by name I think that changes their behavior quite well."
Goldacre had a point. I've written about Dr. Oz's misrepresentations of medical evidence over the years, with little measurable impact. But I also once criticized an anti-vaccine story in Canada's largest newspaper. My reporting — one voice in a chorus of criticism — pointed out that the paper's editor-in-chief was in denial about its bad coverage, and that he was ridiculing well-meaning critics. (In a memorable turn of phrase, he called me a "bathwater gargler.") The result? A rare retraction of the story.
Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth, agreed with Goldacre's advice, relating it to Dr. Oz. "Oprah Winfrey should be ashamed of how she helped give Dr. Oz a platform. People who put Dr. Oz on TV should be embarrassed," Nyhan said. "I advocate naming and shaming, not just naming and shaming the public figures who mislead people but the institutions that give them platforms."
[h=3]2) Be clear on where the balance of scientific evidence lies[/h] John Oliver nails the problem with the climate-change "debate." (YouTube)
The experts I spoke to all said it's extremely important to reflect the state of the science in coverage, and to avoid giving equal weight to both sides of an argument that aren't actually equal according to science. When reporters do that, we risk misrepresenting the research and creating controversy where there isn't any.
Many journalists covering discussions of climate change have struggled with this for years. In the early days, they often allowed those who deny the existence of manmade warming to weigh in on a variety of stories. Broadcast programs typically featured one person who "believes in" climate change alongside one denier, giving the false impression that the evidence is split 50-50. Of course, research for years has overwhelmingly suggested that humans are behind global warming. But even today, reporters aren't sure how to cover politicians who deny the existence of climate change.
Here's Ivan Oransky, a physician and longtime health journalist and editor: "The doubt industry knows that journalists actually do want to get things right and reflect nuance, and they have figured out how to craft their messages and arguments in such a way that they seem like honest academic questions."
[h=3]3) Beware of turning cranks into martyrs[/h]
96238866.0.jpg
Andrew Wakefield, whose fraudulent research suggested a link between vaccines and autism. (Peter Macdiarmid/Getty)
Oransky raised a problem that can sometimes occur when journalists cover charlatans critically — we risk turning those spreading misinformation into martyrs.
A great example can be seen in media coverage of chronic fatigue syndrome, a condition that scientists once doubted was real but now has the endorsement of the Institute of Medicine (albeit with a different name). Back in 2009, researchers proposed that a virus might be at the root of the condition, and sufferers of chronic fatigue latched on to the theory. "But that research didn't hold up," Oransky explained. For the most part, reporters tended to reflect what scientists learned in the ensuing years — the virus likely wasn't causing chronic fatigue syndrome.
Unfortunately, that coverage ended up backfiring. "Every time [the media] would say the research wasn't holding up, the patient community would turn around and say, 'You’re denying we have an illness,'" Oransky said. One of the leading researchers behind the viral theory, Judy Mikovits, has essentially been turned into a martyr, seen by patients as someone who is really trying to get to the bottom of their issue — despite the fact that the weight of science is now stacked against her.
The more press coverage, the more scrutiny, the more you end up with these martyrs
A similar dynamic occurred with Andrew Wakefield, the fraudulent physician who popularized the autism-vaccine link. He fabricated his research — research that was retracted, research that is blamed for stoking vaccine fears and bringing back preventable diseases. But all along, he has insisted he's the victim of a witch hunt and PR campaign, and some vaccine deniers see him as a sacrificial lamb. "The more press coverage, the more scrutiny, the more you end up with these martyrs and with people saying, Everyone is against us,'" Oransky said.

The other difficulty is that these martyrs often wade into areas that relate to our very deepest fears and desires. Wakefield exploited parents' worries about vaccines and autism. Dr. Oz trades on the near-universal pursuit of better health and weight loss and mistrust of Big Pharma. Food Babe Vani Hari has built her brand around the worry that unseen and ubiquitous toxins are slowly killing us all.

When these figures are ridiculed and struck down by critics, their audiences can interpret the criticism of their work as diminishing or making fun of their own, often understandable concerns, thus helping to fuel the crank-to-martyr transformation.
[h=3]4) Don't overstate the influence of cranks[/h]
169081991.0.jpg
Jenny McCarthy: she just makes stuff up about the dangers of vaccines. (David Becker/Getty)
Just last week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a well-known vaccine denier, attended a Sacramento viewing of an anti-vaccine documentary, and told his audience that mass inoculation is akin to "a holocaust."
I asked Dan Kahan, a professor of law and psychology at Yale, how he would suggest covering this event. He said it was important to consider the broader context here: "The fortunate truth of the matter is that there's tremendous confidence by the American public in vaccines," he said. "We have had 90 percent coverage for well over a decade. There are enclaves of people who are concerned. But most parents vaccinate and don't give it a second thought."
So any reporting on vaccine deniers like RFK Jr. should reflect that this is a minority view, Kahan explained. Otherwise reporters risk creating an appearance of significant conflict when there isn't really any — signaling to the unconcerned that they should potentially worry, which could have a negative impact on vaccine rates.
"You don't want to [write] that there's a public health crisis because more and more parents are becoming anxious," he said. "That trope is false. There are some people anxious about vaccines. But they are an outlier." So a story about RFK Jr. might explain how he represents a tiny sliver of Americans. It would also explain that the majority of people abide by the social contract of safeguarding public health through mass inoculation.
But, Kahan added, reporters need to be mindful of a potential pitfall in doing even that: "Even when you're telling people not to worry about something, they worry a bit more about it. It doesn't help to start screaming, 'There's no fire in the theater, everybody!'"



[h=3]5) Critical coverage is important — but avoid creating controversy for its own sake[/h]
450774052.jpg
Dr. Oz. (Tom Williams/Getty)
I've been covering Dr. Oz's promotion of pseudoscience for several years. Recently, my dad made an astute observation about that work. He suggested I was somehow dependent on Oz's shenanigans, benefiting from his erroneous medical infotainment to build an audience. I couldn't deny the charge, and his words made me think of the central conflict in Janet Malcolm's ethics tome, The Journalist and the Murderer, summed up on its first page: "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible."

But given that Oz is, depressingly, the most influential public figure in health in America, I would argue that the coverage is warranted and necessary.
Brendan Nyhan raised this conundrum, calling it a "synergy between people who are pushing these theories and people who are covering them in a kind of freakshow style."
the principle of holding people accountable for saying misleading things is an important one
This doesn't mean that journalists should shy away from covering charlatans, he added. Instead, reporters should only start to write on theories when they are being "endorsed by public figures and discussed in government institutions and other settings that matter." At that point, he said, "It’s appropriate to cover that claim, to say how dubious it is, because of the watchdog function of the press."
I was a bit surprised by Nyhan's response, since his own research has shown that it's extremely difficult to change people's opinions about subjects that are important to them through debunking. In a study on perceptions of flu shots, Nyhan found that correcting myths actually had the opposite of the desired effect among vaccine skeptics. In his political research, he has demonstrated that giving people corrective information can backfire and deepen their misperceptions. The findings can be disheartening for any slayer of bad science.
Yet despite those findings, Nyhan pointed out that critical media coverage of incorrect claims is still valuable: "I’m not convinced media coverage will necessarily convince people who are predisposed to believe the Food Babe or Dr. Oz that they are wrong," he said. "But the principle of holding people accountable for saying misleading things is an important one."
That is, even when journalism doesn't change minds, it can still serve a greater good by getting cranks on the record, showing the gap between what they say and what science says, and holding them accountable.
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8385295/science-reporting-ethics
 
16 of 25 [h=2]Mahatma Gandhi Quote about Vaccines[/h]





gandhi.jpg




Gandhi did not think that small pox was a contagious disease.

Updated April 18, 2015.

Written or reviewed by a board-certified physician. See About.com'sMedical Review Board.
Anti-vax folks like to use the following quote from Gandhi, who was indeed against vaccines. They rarely use the whole quote though or note his other views on health and medicine, which he wrote about in his 1921 book "A Guide to Health."
That Gandhi was against vaccines is a bit surprising, because as like most major religions, “vaccination is widely accepted in predominantly Hindu countries.”
Vaccination is a barbarous practice, and it is one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time, not to be found even among the so-called savage races of the world.
[...]
Those who are conscientious objectors to vaccination should, of course, have the courage to face all penalties or persecutions to which they may be subjected by law, and stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defense of their conviction.
[...]
If, while objecting to the introduction of the poisonous vaccine into the system, they surrendered themselves to the still more fatal poison of sensuality, they would undoubtedly forfeit their right to ask the world to accept their views on the matter.
So even though small pox was devastating India at the time (early 20th century), Gandhi was indeed against vaccination. This is actually not too surprising though when viewed in the context of his other writings. Gandhi didn't think that small pox was a contagious disease. Instead, he thought small pox was "caused, just like other diseases, by the blood getting impure owing to some disorder of the bowels; and the poison that accumulates in the system is expelled in the form of small-pox."
Gandhi also thought that medicines were useless, that he could cure Bubonic Plague with a mud poultice, and that "man can live on wheat alone, for in it we have in due proportion all the elements of nutrition."
It is rather ironic that Gandhi also wrote that "Very often we get bewildered at the most ordinary diseases out of sheer ignorance, and in our anxiety to get better, we simply make matters worse. Our ignorance of the most elementary laws of health leads us to adopt wrong remedies or drives us into the hands of the veriest quacks."
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/vaccinesafety/ss/Best-Quotes-about-Vaccines_16.htm
 

The problem with your posts Stu is that you are posting opinion pieces not expert testimony

So i'm not sure what you want me to say in response

Also i think that this piece is misrepresenting ghandi. I think Ghandi understood well the poisonous impact of colonialism having worked as a lawyer in kenya within the british system

This article is trying to present ghandi as a backward fool and that is not the case

Ghandi was not a walking mendicant who had always worn a loin cloth. he chose to where that because the british were subsidising the textile mills in britain and by doing so were destroying the industry in india

So ghandi was saying to people: ''look if we want to throw off foreing control we need to be self sufficient and that requires making our own clothes and sustaining our own homegrow industry so he encouraged people to wear the dhoti and this is why the spinning wheel is on the indian flag because it represents indian autonomy

Ghandi understood well the dangers of modern medicine and i think by advocating a cleaner form of living including fasting he was advocating the importance in health of a STRONG IMMUNE SYSTEM

Vaccines do not boost your immune system they weaken it; they act as a negative stressor

Ghandi knew exactly what the game was, he saw the system from the inside out and he saw very pragmatic ways to then combat that insidious control system. he was not a backward person, but he did realise that health problems followed in the wake of colonialism

So for exmaple 1 million indians died in a famine brought on by excessive british taxation. A further 1 million died in the partition when pakisthan was created.

Currently tens of thousands of indian kids are being paralysed and harmed by the polio vaccination programme and many indian farmers are committing suicide because of their crop failures because they have been forced to switch to monsanto seeds and pesticides

Basically the billionaires behind UN Agenda 21 have earmarked certain places including africa and india to be bread baskets of their new world order, but in order to clear the way for that they have to depopulate those areas and they are doing that through war, disruption to farming and vaccination programmes as well as lab created weaponised viruses such as the recent ebola virus whioch was released from a george soros funded laboratory

These billionaires get together at places like the bilderberg club and dream up these schemes. prince philip helped create it with his pal prince bernhard of the netherlands who was an ex nazis SS officer. Prince Phillip once said that when he dies he wants to be reincarnated as a virus so that he can cull humanity

This quote of ghandis is spot on:

''Very often we get bewildered at the most ordinary diseases out of sheer ignorance, and in our anxiety to get better, we simply make matters worse. Our ignorance of the most elementary laws of health leads us to adopt wrong remedies or drives us into the hands of the veriest quacks."
 
mq4xloqase9ldjswuhio.jpg
 
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...bout-vaccines/

Toxic myths about vaccines
Posted by David Gorski on February 18, 2008

Ever since there have been vaccines, there has been an antivaccination movement. It began shortly after Edward Jenner discovered how to use the weaker cowpox virus to induce long-lasting immunity to smallpox, there has been resistance to the concept of vaccination, a resistance that continues to this very day. Reasons for this resistance have ranged from religious, to fear of injecting foreign substances, to simple resistance to the government telling people what to do. Some fear even the infitessimally small risk that vaccines pose for the benefit of resistance to disease far more than they fear the diseases themselves, a result of the very success of modern vaccines. Of course, vaccines, like any other medical intervention, are not without risks, making it easy for them to jump on any hint of harm done by vaccines, whether real or imagined, even though vaccines are among the very safest of treatments.

One of the biggest myths that antivaccinationists believe and like to use to stoke the fear of vaccines is the concept that they are full of “toxins.” The myth that mercury in the thimerosal preservative commonly used in vaccines in the U.S. until early 2002 was a major cause of autism is simply the most recent bogeyman used to try to argue that vaccines do more harm than good, as was the scare campaign engineered in response to Andrew Wakefield’s poor science claiming a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Now that study after study have failed to find or corroborate a link between thimerosal in vaccines or vaccines in general and autism to the point where even the most zealous of zealots are having a hard time defending the claim that mercury in vaccines cause autism any more, predictably the campaign against vaccines has fallen back on the old “toxins” myth. If you peruse antivaccinationist websites, it won’t take long to find articles claiming that vaccines are full of the most terrifying and nasty toxins. Examples in the media abound as well. For example, Jenny McCarthy, comic actress and former Playboy Playmate who has been doing the talk show and publicity circuit lately to plug her book in which she claims that vaccines caused her son’s autism and that she was able to cure it with “biomedical” interventions and diet, recently gave an interview in which she said:

What I really am is “anti-toxins” in the vaccines. I do believe that there is a correlation between vaccinations and autism. I don’t think it’s the sole cause, but I think they’re triggering—it’s triggering—autism in these kids. A really great example is…is, sometimes obesity can trigger diabetes. I do believe that vaccines can trigger autism…It’s so much more than just mercury. That is one ingredient in the recipe of autism…I’m talking about all of them. I’m calling for cleaning out the toxins. People don’t realize that there is aluminum, ether, antifreeze, still mercury, in the shots…People are afraid of secondhand smoke, but they’re OK with injecting the second worst neurotoxin on the planet in newborns.

Another example of what I sometimes call the “toxin gambit” comes from Deirdre Imus, wife of shock jock Don Imus, with both husband and wife being well-known and reliable media boosters of the claim that vaccines somehow cause autism:

So, where are the evidenced based (conflict free) studies that prove the safety of these “trace” amounts and proof that there are “no biological effects” of any amount of mercury being injected into our children and pregnant moms? Also, where are the evidence based studies proving the safety of vaccines given to pregnant moms and our children that contain other toxins such as aluminum and formaldehyde?

The most recent example of this tactic comes from an organization called Generation Rescue, which just last week ran a full-page ad in USA Today, paid for in part by Jenny McCarthy and her present boyfriend Jim Carrey:

antivaxgradvertisement.jpg

Besides being one of the most egregious examples of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I’ve ever seen from an antivaccination site, this Generation Rescue ad demonstrates clearly a new strategy (or, more properly, a resurrection of an old technique) now that science is coming down conclusively against mercury in vaccines as a cause of autism, a strategy of propagating fear by linking vaccines with “toxins.” So what’s the real story? Are there really deadly toxins in vaccines that parents should be worried about?

To answer this question, I thought I’d use what to me is arguably the most amazingly over-the-top examples of this strategy of listing “toxins” in vaccines as a jumping off point. This example is embodied in a post by one Kent Heckenlively writing for the Age of Autism blog entitled FDA Says A-OK: Vaccine Ingredients from A to Z. This post examines a list taken straight from the CDC website of ingredients found in vaccines besides the bacterial or viral proteins designed to evoke the protective immune response and tries to scare parents about almost every one. Of course, nearly all of these comparisons fail to acknowledge that time-honored pharmacological principle that “the dose makes the poison” and extrapolate horrible consequences known to occur during prolonged exposure or exposure to large amounts to the tiny amounts in vaccines. That’s exactly what Mr. Heckenlively does to what is, I must say, a truly ridiculous level. However, as patently ridiculous as Mr. Heckenlively’s post is, I believe that it is not a straw man and still worth starting the discussion with because it serves almost as a reductio ad absurdum concentration of actual arguments that antivaccinationists make about “toxins” in vaccines. A few examples, starting with these, will readily show you what I mean:

Neomycin is used as an anti-bacterial. It is also nephrotoxic and can cause kidney damage.

And:

Polymyxin B is used as an anti-bacterial. It binds to the cell membrane and alters its structure, making it more permeable. The resulting water uptake leads to cell death. Side effects include neurotoxicity and acute renal tubular necrosis.

And:

Streptomycin is used as an anti-bacterial. Streptomycin stops bacterial growth by damaging cell membranes and inhibiting protein synthesis. Specifically, it binds to the 16S rRNA of the bacterial ribosome, interfering with the binding of formyl-methionyl-tRNA to the 30S subunit. This prevents initiation of protein synthesis. Humans have structurally different ribosomes from bacteria, thereby allowing the selectivity of this antibiotic for bacteria. Streptomycin cannot be given orally, but must be administered by regular intramuscular injection. An adverse effect of this medicine is oto-toxicity. It can result in permanent hearing loss.

All of this is true but highly deceptive. Why? The recommended dosage of streptomycin for the treatment of various infections is 20-40 mg/kg per day, for a maximum of 1 g per day! Why is this relevant? Because every vaccine given to a child during his entire life probably doesn’t even come anywhere near 1 mg, that’s why. Antibiotics like streptomycin and neomycin are used in cell culture medium at low concentrations to suppress the growth of bacteria. The reason that these antibiotics are listed is because they’re used in culturing the cells necessary to grow the viruses used in making vaccines. By the time the vaccine is made, these antibiotics are only present in trace amounts, nowhere near enough to cause renal toxicity or ototoxicity, which only occurs with use at or above the range of the doses listed above. I suspect that Mr. Heckenlively knows this too but only mentions it because he knows it will scare parents. Indeed, he takes this sort of distortion to a truly comical extreme with this example:

Sucrose is used as a stabilizer. Over-consumption of sucrose has been linked with some adverse health effects. The most common is dental caries or tooth decay, in which oral bacteria convert sugars (including sucrose) from food into acids that attack tooth enamel. When a large amount of foods that contain a high percentage of sucrose is consumed, beneficial nutrients can be displaced from the diet, which can contribute to an increased risk for chronic disease. It has been suggested that sucrose-containing drinks may be linked to the development of obesity and insulin resistance.

Does Heckenlively honestly think that the baby is eating the vaccine or that there’s kilogram upon kilogram of sucrose in vaccines? Using Mr. Heckenlively’s logic, I could say that because there’s the chelation agent EDTA used in some vaccines as a preservative babies could use it as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning. Sadly, Mr. Heckenlively is not alone in using such distortions to attack vaccines. For example, here are some even more deceptive statements on other such antivaccinationist lists as well about other vaccine ingredients:

Sodium Hydroxide (also known as lye, caustic soda, soda lye.) Is corrosive and is an Eye, skin and respiratory irritant. Can burn eyes, skin and internal organs. Can cause lung and tissue damage, blindness and can be fatal if swallowed. Found in oven cleaners, tub and tile cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners and drain openers.

And:

Hydrochloric acid: CAN DISTROY TISSUE UPON DIRECT CONTACT! Found in aluminum cleaners and rust removers.

Neglected is the simple chemical observation that these effects depend upon the pH of these acids and bases. The reason they’re used in vaccines is to adjust the pH of the vaccine to neutral. The person who wrote these things clearly doesn’t understand the basic concept of pH. Does she honestly think that the pH of vaccines is either 0 (very acid) or 14 (very basic)? Moreover, sodium hydroxide, when it neutralizes an aqueous acid solution will simply form the sodium salt of whatever the anion was in the acid. Hydrochloric acid will form the chloride salt with whatever cation was in the base. When sodium hydroxide or hydrochloric acid are used, one to neutralize the other, the result is an NaCl solution of neutral pH: common table salt.

Of course, this list does contain a number of chemicals that do sound really scary. However, if you remember the pharmacological principle that “the dose makes the poison,” they are much less so. These chemicals are all present at extremely low concentrations in vaccines, certainly not at any dangerous levels. Moreover, some of the fearmongering about such seemingly scary toxins betrays a serious lack of understanding of basic chemistry.

Here’s one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been repeating that there is “antifreeze” in vaccines, as she did in the interview linked to earlier. That line is straight off of a number of antivaccination websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to restrain himself from repeating “the “antifreeze in vaccines” gambit. I can only hope that it is due to intellectual honesty, although I can’t rule out the possibility that he just didn’t know about it.) One website in particular links to an MSDS about Quaker State Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which are ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There’s no ethylene or diethylene glycol in vaccines. Accurate chemistry or pharmacology never was a major concern among antivaccinationists. After all, Jenny McCarthy also says that there’s “ether” in vaccines, too. The only “ether” I could find in the CDC’s list is polyethylene glycol pisooctylphenyl ether (Triton X-100), a common detergent agent used to make cell membranes permeable. In the past, a compound called Tween-Ether was sometimes used instead of Triton X-100; it’s the same sort of thing, a fairly large organic molecule with an ether chemical group hooked on. I suspect that Jenny and most antivaccinationists are too chemistry-challenged to realize that this is not the same thing as diethyl ether, which was used as an anaesthetic agent before safer volatile agents were developed and is often commonly referred to as just “ether.” Jenny also apparently doesn’t realize that ether is not very soluble in aqueous solution. The only way I could even conceive ether being used in the vaccine manufacturing process is if it’s used for a chemical extraction, in which case, it too would be present in at best trace amounts. Moreover, this may even be one source of the claim that antifreeze is in vaccines as well. Note the first part of the chemical name: “polyethylene glycol.” It just so turns out that a major component of many antifreezes is the chemical ethylene glycol.

I also suspect that the whole “antifreeze in vaccines” canard may have derived from a claim that ethylene glycol is used in the synthesis of thimerosal. In actuality, it’s synthesized using ethyl mercuric chloride, thiosalicylic acid, sodium hydroxide and ethanol, although I don’t know if there are other methods of synthesis that do involve ethylene glycol. The origin of this claim could also come from other trace chemicals in vaccines as well, such as propylene glycol. Either way, even if there were ethylene glycol in vaccines, it would not be at a concentration anywhere near high enough to be toxic or dangerous.

Because mercury hasn’t been in most childhood vaccines for six years, one of the two most favored ingredients that antivaccinationists now like to cite is formaldehyde. Yes, that is indeed the same chemical that’s used to fix tissue for pathology (usually as a 10% solution known as formalin that contains 10 g/100 ml of formaldehyde and is buffered to a neutral pH) and the same chemical used in the embalming fluid for the cadavers we dissected as medical students. (Indeed, I still remember that smell, which was impossible to get rid of entirely during the months I took gross anatomy.) During the vaccine manufacturing process, it’s used to inactivate live virus, and traces do remain after manufacturing. Why on earth would those traces be allowed to remain? Remember again: The dose makes the poison. In trace amounts, formaldehyde is not dangerous. Also, it doesn’t last long in aqueous solution, such as vaccines. It breaks down to formic acid and carbon monoxide. Moreover, exposure to far more formaldehyde than any vaccine contains is ubiquitous in modern life. It’s in auto exhaust, and various substances found in virtually every household emit it:

Latex paint, fingernail hardener, and fingernail polish release a large amount of formaldehyde to the air. Plywood and particle board, as well as furniture and cabinets made from them, fiberglass products, new carpets, decorative laminates, and some permanent press fabrics give off a moderate amount of formaldehyde. Some paper products, such as grocery bags and paper towels, give off small amounts of formaldehyde. Because these products contain formaldehyde, you may also be exposed on the skin by touching or coming in direct contact with them. You may also be exposed to small amounts of formaldehyde in the food you eat. You are not likely to be exposed to formaldehyde in the water you drink because it does not last a long time in water.

Of course, given my background, it’s hard not to mention that every generation of medical students since time immemorial has been exposed to large amounts of formaldehyde. I’m not saying this is a good thing; personally I wish I could have avoided it, and it would be a good thing if we could decrease the average exposure to it while going about our activities of life. However, it’s a matter of perspective. Antivaccinationists rant about formaldehyde in vaccines and ignore a source that is orders of magnitude greater over the lifetimes of each and every one of us from childhood to old age: the environment.

Finally, now that thimerosal has been removed from nearly all childhood vaccines, the antivaccinationists needed to find another bogeyman in vaccines to demonize, and, given their fear of heavy metals and belief that chelation therapy to remove them can cure autism, the most obvious candidate was aluminum, which has been used as an adjuvant in many vaccines for over 80 years to increase the ability of antigens to provoke the desired immune response. It has become other of the top two chemicals that antivaccinationists like to cite to demonize vaccines. True, aluminum is not nearly as scary-sounding as mercury, but with mercury falling by the wayside, antivaccinationists are certainly trying very hard to make it so, which brings us back to Mr. Heckenlively’s post:

Aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate are all used as adjuvants to stimulate the immune system. Aluminum products found in commercial antiperspirants have been linked with breast cancer. A recent article published in the Journal of Inorganic Chemistry based on research from Keele University in England was trying to explain the “known, but unaccounted for, higher incidence of tumors in the upper outer quadrant of the breast.” They found that aluminum content was higher in the outer regions where there would be the highest density of antiperspirant. In discussing aluminum’s potential danger the report stated, “Aluminum is a metalloestrogen, it is genotoxic, is bound by DNA and has been shown to be carcinogenic. It is also a pro-oxidant and this unusual property might provide a mechanistic basis for any putative carcinogenicity. The confirmed presence of aluminum in breast tissue biopsies highlights its potential as a possible factor in the etiology of breast cancer.”

I can’t help but ask here: Applying an aluminum-based compound to one’s skin over the course of many, many years is related to some injections of aluminum-based adjuvants in vaccines exactly…how? Of course, the above claim is a total nonsequitur, but what about the frequent confident claims on antivaccination websites that aluminum causes Alzheimer’s disease and that by implication vaccines cause Alzheimer’s? This is a claim by well-known antivaccinationist Hugh Fudenberg, who is often quoted thusly:

According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD (http://members.aol.com/nitrf), the world’s leading immunogeneticist and 13th most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals), if an individual has had five consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (the years studied) his/her chances of getting Alzheimer’s Disease is ten times higher than if they had one, two or no shots. I asked Dr. Fudenberg why this was so and he said it was due to the mercury and aluminum that is in every flu shot (and most childhood shots). The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. Is that why Alzheimer’s is expected to quadruple? Notes: Recorded from Dr. Fudenberg’s speech at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference, Arlington, VA September, 1997. Quoted with permission. Alzheimer’s to quadruple statement is from John’s Hopkins Newsletter Nov 1998.

Not surprisingly, this claim is not supported by science. There’s no good evidence that the flu vaccine is associated with an increased incidence of Alzheimer’s. Indeed, on his personal blog, my co-blogger Steve Novella has nicely summarized the evidence regarding whether or not aluminum is involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease, concluding:

The evidence of aluminum and AD is mixed, without a clear direction. At present the best answer we have is that aluminum probably does not cause AD but appears to be playing some role, perhaps influencing severity. But even after 42 years, there remains a question mark next to these conclusions. We can rule out that aluminum is the single cause of AD, but whether or not it is an independent risk factor is a qualified “probably not.”

And, most importantly, Steve said this about how the science looking at whether aluminum causes Alzheimer’s disease or not is abused:

The mainstream scientific and patient or disease-oriented groups accurately reflect the above interpretation of the research. But the complexity of the results make it very easy to exploit for the purpose of fear-mongering. The notorious crank website, Rense.com, for example, cherry picks the evidence that suggests there is a correlation and piles it up to present a very distorted view of the issue. There will likely persist rumors, scare e-mails, and conspiracy websites promoting the idea that aluminum causes AD regardless of how the research progresses.

Now the antivaccinationists are climbing aboard the aluminum scare train as well because the scientific evidence is becoming so clear that their previous favorite bogeyman vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, is not associated with autism that even the die-hards are having a hard time arguing that it is anymore, particularly now that thimerosal is no longer present above trace amounts in most childhood vaccines. Consequently, they have no choice but to branch out to other scary-sounding ingredients in vaccines and invoking vague (and, conveniently enough, almost impossible to demonstrate) “environmental toxins” or risk becoming irrelevant.

One thing that you have to remember about resistance to vaccines by groups like Generation Rescue, SafeMinds, and others is that it is not scientific in nature. It is either due to an excessive reliance on anecdotes or confusing correlation with causation (usually with a distrust of science and medicine), or it is ideological in nature. No matter how many of the “toxins” scientists remove from vaccines, it will never be enough for Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy, or other antivaccinationists, because it’s all about the vaccines and the very concept of vaccination itself, not any individual ingredients in the vaccines. Antivaccinationists will never come to a point where they say, “OK, now I believe that all the toxins are gone and vaccines are safe.” They’ll either fixate on the viruses or the viral or bacterial antigens themselves, or they’ll make the claim that vaccines are made using “aborted fetuses” because some cell lines used to grow up virus stocks were derived from aborted fetuses 40 or more years ago. If every trace of formaldehyde, aluminum, or any other chemical with more than two syllables in its name were somehow to be removed from all vaccines, they would still be saying things like this:

It is the toxin, or germ, contained in the shot itself that causes the adverse affects on the immune system.

Dead-virus, or live-virus vaccine etc…who cares? The cultures for polio vaccines are grown in the kidney tissue of dead monkeys in third-world countries with little or no controls and the virulent pustule toxin is put in vaccines to be shot into you little kid’s arm. I wouldn’t go into a room where that putrid stuff is, let alone inject it into my blood stream! Would you?

Here’s an even more ridiculous example:

This DNA is from such organisms as various animals, animal/human viruses, fungi and bacteria. It has been documented that the injecting foreign DNA can cause it or some of it to be incorporated into the recipient’s DNA (see ‘Immunisation’ Against Diseases for Children). Remember, nature has not experienced such a direct invasion as this before, so can you be sure that it would have developed a way to protect your body against it?

That pretty much rules out any live attenuated virus vaccine for such an antivaccinationist, doesn’t it? Even worse is this:

The human blood is supposed to be, and traditionally was, sterile — no bacteria (or other organisms) present in it. That is not the case any more. Naturally this has a weakening effect on the immune system, apart from sometimes leading to severe bacterial infections.

No live bacteria is in a vaccine. It is possible, as with any injection, for vaccines to become contaminated with bacteria (which is one reason why preservatives like thimerosal were used for multidose vials, where reuse increases the risk of bacterial contamination), but that is not the intent. What is in vaccines are bacterial proteins, which contain the antigens necessary to provoke the desired immune response.

It would be fascinating to engage an antivaccinationist who makes the claim that he is not “antivaccine” but “antitoxin” or “pro-vaccine safety” in a discussion and ask him this hypothetical question: If formaldehyde, “antifreeze,” aluminum, thimerosal, and every chemical in vaccines circulating in all those lists on antivaccination websites that so frighten you were somehow absolutely removed from the standard childhood vaccines so that not a single molecular remained, would you then vaccinate your child? The only thing that would remain is buffered salt water and the necessary antigens, be they killed virus or bacterial proteins, or whatever.

My guess is that nearly all antivaccinatioists would say no, because it’s the “toxin” that makes vaccines work that really disturbs them, as the quotes above clearly demonstrate. Remember that when you see these lists circulating on antivaccinist websites. Remember, too, the principle that the dose makes the poison. Only then will you understand how toxic the myths about vaccines being peddled by antivaccinationists are.
]http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...bout-vaccines/
 
[h=1]Anti-Vaccination Conspiracy Theories[/h][h=2]Vaxopedia[/h]
By Vincent Iannelli, M.D.
Pediatrics Expert




Share this






Ads




Updated March 17, 2015.

Written or reviewed by a board-certified physician. See About.com'sMedical Review Board.

Conspiracy theories have always been popular - at least with certain people. From a belief that the moon landing was faked, that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone, or that Princess Diana was killed on purpose, there are always people who believe in conspiracy theories.
The belief in anti-vaccination conspiracy theories isn't that much different. After all, most anti-vaccination folks are ultimately believing in a coverup that involves all of the world's governments and their health agencies; private and public scientists and doctors working in hospitals, medical schools, and pharmaceutical companies; humanitarian groups that work around the world; and so many more people who have been able to keep their secrets.
Which of these anti-vaccine conspiracy theories do you believe in?

mercury-in-vaccines.jpg


Although thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 1999, some anti-vax folks still claim that many vaccines contain mercury. Photo courtesy of Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes[h=3]1. In the Spotlight - Continued Exposure to Mercury in Vaccines[/h]Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claims that even though thimerosal has been removed from pediatric vaccines, "thimerosal levels remain virtually unchanged." This is mostly, he claims, because of flu shots with thimerosal. Also, when a pregnant woman gets a flu shot, Kennedy claims that the fetus gets a bolus of thimerosal "that's about 800 times the amount of mercury the CDC recommends."
First, it is important to remember that the original concerns about thimerosal were because children who received a complete set of thimerosal containing vaccines (only hepatitis B, DTaP, and Hib ever had thimerosal) could get up to 187.5 micrograms of ethyl mercury by the time they were six months old, which exceeded the EPA limits for methyl mercury ingestion (but was less than the FDA limits). They aren't the same type of mercury, and thimerosal free versions of DTaP and Hib were already available in the late 1990s, many kids likely got less than 187.5 micrograms of ethyl mercury.
Thimerosal was removed from almost all vaccines beginning in 1999, leaving flu vaccines as the main pediatric vaccine that still used thimerosal as a preservative.
So did expanded flu shot recommendations for kids mean that they still got a lot of thimerosal over the years?
It is extremely unlikely that many kids got each and every one of their yearly flu vaccines with thimerosal. It is more likely that they got just a few with thimerosal and the rest without, as thimerosal free flu vaccines became more widely available. After all, a flu vaccine with reduced thimerosal was available as early as 2002.
In 2003, thimerosal free flu shots became available and Flumist, a thimerosal free flu nasal spray vaccine was also approved. The supply of thimerosal free flu vaccines increased each and every year. For the 2014-15 flu season, over 100 million doses of flu vaccine are available that are thimerosal free or preservative free (with only trace amounts of thimerosal).
Even if kids did get flu vaccines with thimerosal each year though, would it matter? A 2008 study in Pediatrics, "Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants After Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines," found that the half-life of ethyl mercury was about two days, "suggesting that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines does not result in an accumulation of mercury in blood." And the highest blood level they found was less than 5-8 nanograms/ml, which is far less than the 187.5 micrograms that anti-vax groups continue to talk about, even in infants who had already received a cumulative dose of 162.5 micrograms of thimerosal.
What about flu shots in pregnancy?
A 2010 study in Pediatrics, "Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism," found that "prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of" autism spectrum disorders. Two other studies have also found that prenatal exposure to thimerosal from immunoglobulin preparations, like Rho(D) immune globulin, during pregnancy were not associated with an increased risk for autism.
And also consider that even though they became recommended, before 2009, fewer than 15 to 30% of pregnant women got flu shots. After 2009 and the H1N1 pandemic, rates did increase, but only to about 38 to 52%.
Although current recommendations don't state a preference for the type of flu shot for pregnant women, it is likely that at least some of them got thimerosal free flu shots. InCalifornia, for example, since the passage of their Mercury Free Act in 2006, pregnant women and children younger than age 3 years have to get vaccines that are 'mercury free.'
So, like all anti-vaccine myths and conspiracy theories, the ideas of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that "thimerosal levels remain virtually unchanged" and the premise of his new book, don't seem to hold water.
An appearance on Dr. Oz certainly doesn't make Kennedy's arguments any more true, a show during which Dr. Oz seemed to recommend Flumist for pregnant women, a vaccine that is currently contraindicated during pregnancy. Sure it is recommended that pregnant women get a flu shot, but not a live virus flu vaccine.
Dr. Oz even double-downed on his bad advice, appearing on a radio show on WPLJ in New York City to hype up a show about the "epidemic levels" of enterovirus infections (being sure to call it a cousin of polio) and telling people to 'get the mist, which works for most adults that way you don't have any shots, or just get the shot itself. But don't get it with thimerosal. You can get it thimerosal free now. That's free of the mercury. That's what I would recommend to folks. Especially if you are pregnant."
Again, flu vaccines are a great idea if you are pregnant, but pregnant women shouldn't get Flumist.

Ads
Top 10 Hearing Aids
dealhunter.us/Digital-Hearing-Aids
Bestselling Digital Hearing Aids Jaw Dropping Spring 2015 Offers

4 veggies to never eat:
biotrust.com
Cut down a bit of stomach fat every day by never eating these 4 foods.


[h=3]2. Fake Vax Ops Gather Our DNA[/h]Have you seen the headlines?
"White House admits staging fake vaccination operation to gather DNA from the public"
It originated with the Natural Health News site, but was quickly picked up by many of the anti-vax websites. Going so far as to use the New York Times and The Guardian as a source, they make the jump to say that:
It’s almost as if the White House is saying, “Yeah, we ran a fake vaccination op; we harvested the DNA of your children; we lied to your people under the cover of public health and we got caught… but NOW you can trust us! We promise!”
It's almost like Natural Health News, the NVIC, the FHFN, and others are saying that the government is harvesting the DNA of all our children right now... probably at the order of our Reptilian overlords.
Of course, the "public" in the CIA operation that they are talking about were the family members of Osama Bin Laden who were living in his compound in Pakistan. And the operation was not successful in its goal of getting any DNA samples.
The operation was successful in harming efforts to get kids vaccinated in the area, driving up polio rates. Come to think of it, that simple fact kind of conflicts with a few other anti-vax conspiracy theories.
If polio disappeared or was renamed and vaccines don't work, then why are we still seeing it in the few countries where we are having problems getting people vaccinated, like Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan, Somalia, and Syria, etc.
And if vaccines don't work, why is it that unvaccinated northern Pakistan has anunstoppable outbreak of polio while the rest of vaccinated Pakistan is mostly polio-free?
There is no government plot to use vaccines to get your children's DNA. That is an argument that the Taliban is using to keep humanitarian workers out of Pakistan. The CIA used vaccinations as a cover for spying. They have stopped.

anti-vax-research.jpg


Typical anti-vax research and arguments. Photo courtesy of Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes[h=3]3. Big-Pharma[/h]When faced with evidence that their anti-vaccine talking points are basically lies and propaganda, the fall back position is often that you are a "Big-Pharma shill" if you actively support following the immunization schedule of the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics. After all, they believe, you must have sold-out to the interests of the big pharmaceutical companies who make vaccines if you really think that vaccines are safe and effective.
The Pharma Shill Gambit is a popular attack method of many who prefer alternative medicine to more traditional methods of health care, including protecting their kids from vaccine-preventable diseases.
Can't defend your position that vaccines are toxic (the toxin gambit) or that they don't work? Then just launch an ad hominem attack on the experts you are "debating."
What they don't mention, is that most anti-vaccination and natural medicine sites do their own selling. Vitamins, supplements, newsletters, and cure-all books, etc., are all big sellers for the natural or alternative medicine folks.

Ads
3 Worst Foods for Thyroid
medixselect.com
The One Thing You Should Be Eating For Your Thyroid Every Morning.

2015 Best Skin Tighteners
www.shopskin.care/FaceLifting
Products To Tighten Loose, Sagging Face Skin, Without Plastic Surgery


103919484_HighRes.jpg


Blend Images - ERproductions Ltd/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images[h=3]4. Population Control[/h]Do you know how vaccines are used to reduce human populations? The population control conspiracy or depopulation myth can be found on many anti-vaccination sites. Natural News even has articles about.
It is not a new conspiracy. The vaccine genocide conspiracy has long been a favorite of the WHALE anti-vax site - it is a part of "the on going Reptilians agenda to kill off humans" - but it got new life when anti-vax folks misinterpreted a quote by Bill Gates during a TED talk a few years ago. Bill Gates stated that "if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent," referring to the predicted growth in the world's population to 9 billion people.
Of course, he is referring to the fact that many people in third world countries have extra children because they know many of them will not survive childhood. These countries do have the highest infant mortality rates in the world.

anti-vax-history-lesson.jpg


An Anti-Vaxxers History Lesson. Photo courtesy of Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes[h=3]5. Vaccines Don't Work - Better Hygiene[/h]So, vaccines didn't save us and vaccines don't really work?
Yes, coincidentally, just after a vaccine was introduced for each of these diseases, better hygiene, clean water, and better nutrition helped to decrease the incidence of:

  • smallpox in the 19th century
  • diphtheria in the 1940s
  • pertussis in the 1940s
  • polio in the 1950s
  • measles in the 1960s
  • rubella in the 1970s
  • mumps in the 1970s
  • Hib in the 1990s
  • rotavirus in 2007
Of course, these vaccine-preventable diseases have decreased or have been eliminated (smallpox), not because of better hygiene, sanitation, and better nutrition, but rather because of the vaccine that was introduced to fight the disease.
If better hygiene and sanitation is the answer for all infectious diseases, then why are so many other diseases still around for which we don't have vaccines? We haven't seen croup, scarlet fever, roseola, West Nile virus infections, or staph infections go away yet, have we?

Ads
Stem Cell Treatment
lunginstitute.com
Attention Lung Diseases Sufferers Find Out If You're a Candidate


[h=3]6. Vaccines Don't Work 2 - Disappearing Diseases[/h]How do diseases disappear?
According to some anti-vaccination sites, instead of vaccines working to dramatically decrease disease, health experts simply change the name of the disease once they introduce a new vaccine. That makes it seem like the vaccine worked, since even if the disease is still around, it is now known by a different name.
The Vax Truth(er) site claims that "Doctors around the world are being faced with children catching the diseases they have been vaccinated against. Rather than diagnosing these children correctly, professionals have discovered that the doctors are giving the diseases new names. This suggests a cover up is going on and the vaccinations we are all being told are safe and effective are in fact completely useless."
Of course, no one else notices the name change. And it makes you wonder why they even need this conspiracy theory if better hygiene and sanitation already makes all of thevaccine-preventable diseases go away.

contrails.jpg


Contrails from planes flying over London. Photo by Getty Images[h=3]7. Chemtrail Vaccine Conspiracy Theory[/h]Do chemtrails ring a bell? In many anti-vax circles, they are the preferred term for contrails, the condensation trails that you often see behind planes and jets. This seems to be one of Dr. Russell Blaylock's(a neurosurgeon) favorite conspiracy theories. He thinks that nanoparticles of aluminum of being sprayed on us from airplanes in chemtrails, causing Alzheimers and other diseases.
What started as a conspiracy theory of the United State Air Force using the so-called chemtrails to spray us with chemicals, it has now morphed into a conspiracy involving vaccines too.
Does your anti-vaccination expert believe in chemtrails? Do you?

[h=3]8. Vaccines Cause Peanut Allergies[/h]Is peanut oil being used as an adjuvant in vaccines? Could peanut oil or another adjuvant be creating allergic children?
Many anti-vax sites claim that "peanut oil is a hidden and non-stated ingredient in the manufacture of children's vaccines." Their source of that information is a doctor who testifies as an "expert witness" defending parents accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome, helping them with their claims that the children instead suffered from a "vaccine injury."
However, according to experts at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, they are "not aware of any documentation in the medical literature of the contamination of vaccines by peanut antigen" and peanut oil "has never been included in vaccines."
What about Adjuvant 65? This is an adjuvant that was once tested in flu vaccines - in the 1960s. It is a water-in-oil emulsion that used peanut oil, Arlacel A, and aluminum. By allowing the slow release of vaccine antigens from the water-in-oil emulsion after an injection, this method helps provoke a better immune response than some others with less antigen.
Because of the concern for side effects though, we continue to use aluminum-based adjuvants in our vaccines. It was the Arlacel A component of Adjuvant 65 that led it to be discontinued in vaccine tests, as that chemical was found to be capable of causing cancer in mice.
Adjuvant 65 is hardly the "dirty little secret" that anti-vaccination folks make it out to be.
Anyway, peanut oil is typically refined and doesn't contain any peanut allergens. In fact, most people with peanut allergies can eat foods that are cooked in most types of peanut oil, unless it is extruded, cold-pressed or expelled peanut oil.
If peanut oil doesn't contain the peanut allergens that would trigger an allergic reaction in people who already have a peanut allergy, then how would peanut oil in vaccines, if Adjuvant 65 was actually ever used, trigger a peanut allergy epidemic?

[h=3]9. Vaccines Cause Shaken Baby Syndrome[/h]Some anti-vaccination experts not only believe that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome, they actually work to defend people accused of harming or killing children.
At the very least, they provide a defense for these parents or caregivers, who can claim it wasn't the fact that they shook the child, but rather it was the vaccines.
The NVIC even offers advice to parents who have been accused of shaken baby syndrome.
Fortunately, the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome offers their own advice - "prosecutors of shaken baby cases should be aware of this untrue defense and be prepared to exclude this irresponsible medical testimony."

stagnant_pond.jpg


The hot, stagnant water in a pond like this can put a child at risk for a deadly infection with the Naegleria fowleri ameba. Photo by Vincent Iannelli, MD[h=3]10. Contaminated Vaccines[/h]


Some anti-vaccination sites aren't just concerned about all of the "toxins" that they believe are in vaccines. They also worry about contaminants that they fear could be in vaccines, from nanoparticles to brain eating amoebas.
While Naegleria fowleri, the "brain-eating amoeba," are known to enter the nose when children swim in warm, stagnant water, noted anti-vaccine expert and micropaleontologist Viera Scheibner thinks she can link the infections to vaccines.
There are also conspiracy theories that vaccines continue to be contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40), which was found in oral polio vaccines made before 1963. Or that SV40 contaminated vaccines can cause cancer.
Barbara Loe Fisher of the NVIC provides plenty of articles about SV40, including her testimony before Congress. Interestingly, they don't include the research by the National Cancer Institute which concluded that "exposure to simian virus 40 (SV40) is not associated with cancer in humans."
The NVIC does provide information and "evidence that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may have been created after simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) entered the human population when African green monkey kidney tissues infected with SIV were used to produce polio vaccines."
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/immunizations/tp/Anti-Vaccination-Conspiracy-Theories.htm
 
The information is now out there proving that vaccines cause autism...here is an article with a link to a document from glaxosmith klein admitting that vaccines cause autism; all people now have to do is adapt their minds to accomodate this new reality

It's just like when they called me crazy for saying that the government was spying on all of us before edward snowden then told everyone that was true

It's the same as when people though the world was flat

The truth is now out, people just need to assimilate the truth

http://www.naturalnews.com/049458_autism_Infanrix_vaccine_GlaxoSmithKline.html#

[h=1]Vaccines cause autism, says confidential document from corrupt drug company[/h] Thursday, April 23, 2015 by: Jennifer Lilley

While the debate rages on about whether or not vaccines cause autism, a confidential document has surfaced that makes clear what science has led Natural News readers to believe: Yes, vaccines are linked to autism.

The document,[SUP][PDF][/SUP] which runs over 1,000 pages, is from the fraudulent and corrupt GlaxoSmithKline. Several hundred pages in, it's revealed that vaccines are tied to autism. It's blatantly outlined in a chart, along with a long list of other conditions caused by vaccines, including "motor development delay," "tremor" and "altered state of consciousness." Autism is listed in this chart as a nervous system and mental impairment disorder associated with receiving GSK's Infanrix hexa vaccine.[SUP](1)[/SUP]

Signed by Dr. Felix Arellano, the Vice President and Head of Biological Safety and Pharmacovigilance of GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, the document's introduction states:

This summary bridging report integrates the information presented in the two Combined Diphtheria, Tetanus and Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B enhanced Inactivated Poliomyelitis and
Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine (Infanrix™ hexa) periodic safety update reports (PSURs) covering the two year period from 23 October 2009 to 22 October 2011.[SUP](1)[/SUP]

[h=2]Vaccine is "favourable," despite long list of health conditions[/h]The document suggests that, although there are several adverse health effects associated with vaccine, the risk is not deemed to be problematic:

The Company will continue to monitor cases of anaemia haemolytic autoimmune, thrombocytopenia, thrombocytopenic purpura, autoimmune thrombocytopenia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, haemolytic anemia, cyanosis, injection site nodule, abcess and injection site abscess, Kawasaki's disease, important neurological events (including encephalitis and encephalopathy), Henoch-Schonlein purpura, petechiae, purpura, haematochezia, allergic reactions (including anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions) cases of lack of effectiveness as well as fatal cases.[SUP](1)[/SUP]

Yet, despite the long list of health problems mentioned, the document maintains, "The benefit/risk profile of Infanrix hexa continues to be favourable."[SUP](1)[/SUP]

In 2014, Infanrix was ruled by an Italian court to be responsible for a young Milan boy developing autism shortly after receiving the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine. As such, the decision was to award the boy for his vaccine-induced autism.[SUP](2)[/SUP]

The child received a series of Infanrix hexa injections in 2006, a vaccine designed to protect children from polio, tetanus, hepatitis B, diphtheria, pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type B. Instead of being protected, his health declined: He developed autism. Medical experts in the Italian Court pointed to the confidential document, suggesting that the boy likely developed the condition due to the variety of antigens and thimerosal (a mercury-containing preservative now banned in Italy due to its neurotoxicity) and a host of other toxic ingredients that were in the vaccine at the time.[SUP](2)[/SUP]

Of Infanrix hexa's thimerosal, the Court noted that it was "in concentrations greatly exceeding the maximum recommended levels for infants weighing only a few kilograms."[SUP](2)[/SUP]

[h=2]Despite irrefutable proof that vaccines cause autism, court appeals are in the works[/h]Interestingly, in 2012, the Italian courts made a judgement in a similar situation in which they ruled that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine caused a child's autism. Just like the Infanrix hexa ruling, however, this finding has not set well with the Ministry of Health; they initially denied compensation to the family. Ultimately, the court granted compensation. Still, in the case of the young boy who was given the Infanrix hexa vaccine, the Ministry of Health has appealed, a process that's expected to take several years to sort out.[SUP](2)[/SUP]

Such rulings should be applauded, although it's disturbing 1) that appeals have ensued, and 2) that the United States has yet to come close to such court decisions.

This document -- straight from the horse's mouth, GlaxoSmithKline themselves -- blatantly shows that vaccines are linked to autism and other conditions. What more is there to question, when the proof exists before our very eyes?

Sources:

(1) https://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com[SUP][PDF][/SUP]

(2) http://www.ageofautism.com

 
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/04/parent-offers-epic-response-to-vaccine.html

[h=2]Monday, April 20, 2015[/h] [h=3]Parent Offers Epic Response to Vaccine Homework[/h]
Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

By now readers to this site have seen some outrageous indoctrination assignments springing forth from public schools. Yet wonders never cease when dissecting the exact mechanism of influencing young, impressionable and trusting minds. It cannot be by accident.

Over the weekend, a reader sent us an actual homework assignment from an unspecified elementary grade (below). It's titled "Medicine" and coerces the young mind to believe that vaccines (and prescription drugs) are the main route to overall health, if not the only route. That without them, there would be a gaping lack of health - a vaccine deficiency?

Sadly, this is not for Health Class! Like so many other assignments we've seen, this is for a staple class (the three Rs) but produces propaganda about an unrelated topic. We've seen this happen for math classes in story problems. In the upper right corner is the word "comprehension" indicating that this is from Reading class. The sheet is copyrighted 1995, but this is a recent assignment.

The parent, however, would have none of it. Not only did she cross out the entire assignment with a large X, epic on its own, but left a response that didn't pull punches.

Here is the assignment and the parent's response typed below:


The explanatory paragraph mixes the idea of vaccines as part of a healthy lifestyle, falsely claiming that by taking them, you'll never contract measles, mumps and other illnesses. Unfortunately, it is the vaccinated that are getting hit the hardest with disease spikes like measles and whooping cough and like the fox with its tail cut off are encouraged by the media to blame others for not having their tails removed too.

In question #4, "A word that means 'medicine that keeps you healthy is'" - the child is forced to select a. for "vaccine."

At the end is an open-ended question to determine if the child will explain the guided response that vaccines are the equivalent to taking care of yourself and will prevent disease. It's only a comprehension assignment in that the child is meant only to comprehend vaccine propaganda and medical dogma and be able to repeat the program back to an authority.

The parent's epic response stands up for medical autonomy and reminds the teacher of age appropriate topics and privacy:

Please send home work! I have decided to not have ---- do this homework and will ask to not have her do school or home work on drugs and shots!!

This is a serious and complicated issue that should be between [her] parents and her healthcare provider. At her age, she cannot make informed decisions about the risks.

This appears to be propaganda!

Thank you


That's just it - this inappropriate assignment is making the decision for the child outside of the family life and even the course provided by their healthcare providers. But with no talk of risks. A unilateral decision about medicine in what appears to be a Reading class. Drug corporations do not have a place in children's classrooms.

If children are brainwashed to believe that vaccines are a necessary part of health - they'll never flinch at the idea of forced injections. They'll never question the increase of new vaccines in the pipeline ready to have forced subjects. Or ponder that global corporations like Merck and cowardly, money-grubbing politicians do not have public health in mind...

See also:

Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook.

Recent posts by Heather Callaghan:

 
Back
Top