Vaccines Debate
- Thread starter say what
- Start date
Lerxst
Well-known member
- MBTI
- INFJ
See my post above. If vaccines work, what's the danger? Your kid's immune. You're immune. Your family is immune. Do you really care if your child's friend breaks into red spots and welts for a few weeks? The only reason anyone has to be paranoid about this is if, deep down, they really do feel that immunizations might not really work. In fact, the recent outbreaks in most of these diseases have been traced back to people who had immunizations on record for them.
So if immunizations may not really work as well as propaganda would have us believe, and you've gotten your shots, your kids had theirs and your parents had theirs, then the "sweet lemon" argument takes over. You have a feeling they might not really work, but you're going to argue for them anyway because "Screw you! I got them, you better too!" takes over just because misery loves company.
I don't want billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies telling my doctor to stick my kid with a needle to boost their profits for the quarter. I'd prefer to use my own common sense and figure out what my kids needs and what he can live without. Sorry if any of your parents didn't do that for the rest of you, but that's your problem, not mine; take it up with your parents, don't make the rest of society suffer just because you feel cheated.
Kanamori
Permanent Fixture
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 4w3
Mandatory, or at least influencing people to get, vaccines for the bad ones makes sense... until they're mostly wiped out (good luck, and yeah right, at truly getting rid of a virus). Vaccines have their own risks, especially if they aren't made properly, so a lot of it seems like overkill... with the merrily fluoridated populace (why the --ll are we still doing that?(lol, derp?)), I find myself questioning the wisdom of trusting people to make vaccines, especially for mostly non-lethal viruses.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
I have spoken to many health professionals; these are people the leyman might call 'experts' on matters of health
I advise you to do the same; but when you do ask them to list the contents of the vaccines
If they cannot list the contents then can they really be called 'experts'?
When they fail to list the contents of the vaccine you are asking them about ask them where they get their view on vaccines from.
They will likely mumble something vague about 'guidelines'
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Well there are kind of two things to consider here
Firstly can vaccines that are prepared properly, without any toxic ingrediants by scientists with peoples best interests at heart help combat the spread of disease and if so how effective are they at doing that?
One of the studies i posted shows how it is actually improvements in diet and housing conditions and cleaner water that have had the most impact on health
Secondly can we trust our government (beholden to big corporations as we know it is eg big pharma) to not only give us only the shots we need but to protect us from toxic ingrediants? (are they protecting us from GMO's? NO! Meanwhile the governments of other countries such as Russia, China, India, germany, Brazil etc ARE now protecting their public from GMO's...but NOT the US government who doesn't even insist that food labels advise the consumer that they contain GMO's)
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
ThomasJ79
Intertwined
- MBTI
- ni
- Enneagram
- V
I am really concerned about the spreading of misinformation on the web. Since I don't have a lot of time to do my own research or write my own articles I will post an article that tries to appeal to those who think there is something awfully unreasonable and suspicious about the anti-vaccine propaganda, how they distort the truth for their own version of the truth. It seems that the squeaky wheel often gets the grease and those who are vehemently opposed to vaccinations are terribly squeaky. This does not make their statements true.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-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 isbuffered salt water and the necessary antigens, be they killed virus or bacterial proteins, or whatever.
My guess is that nearly all antivaccinationists 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/toxic-myths-about-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 isbuffered salt water and the necessary antigens, be they killed virus or bacterial proteins, or whatever.
My guess is that nearly all antivaccinationists 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.
54tjsioU
Well-known member
- MBTI
- ESTP
- Enneagram
- 8w9
The reason is that the virus will mutate, just like the flu. We eat this chemistry educed food and our food -our meat when its alive- eats this crap that they aren't suppose to eat along with a shit ton of antibiotics to help their system digest this shit that it's not suppose to eat and we in turn eat those antibiotic filled cattle and chicken and they're trying to do it with fish now and we're all filled with so much antibiotics we now have super bugs. The viruses evolved and are more lethal than ever.
So if someone got Smallpox today, it wouldn't be that same Smallpox people had gotten way back when and depending on the mutation the vaccine we've all shot ourselves with, the people who decided to be safe than sorry, might end up being sorry regardless because some stupid shit asshole didn't figure out viruses mutate and cared more about themselves than the general population. Regardless of how you feel and what kind of crazy ass backwards propaganda you have running through your head, you not getting vaccinated can potentially hurt the people around you. This isn't a me, me, me scenario, you are a risk to public safety because you've chosen to not get vaccinated. And if you do that, if you put the lives and well being of other people at risk, who the fuck is going to be grateful to you? Your children? No, not at all. I'm sorry if you think I'm being harsh, but this is the truth of things.
I get that you don't want to trust the government, I don't want to trust the government either and to an extent this isn't the government, this is science. And yeah, the day that the government has to step in for the well being of the people because more than a select few ass-hats choose to not believe science, its a scary thing. Scary in the way of just knowing how much ignorance and blatant paranoia is out there.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
That's right folks...'science'based medicine says injecting your kid with aluminium is good for your kid! And yes there is formaldehyde in the vaccines which is also in car exhasut fumes but hey don't worry its only in small doses (26 shots in the first year of a childs life followed by many more over subsequent years)
They wish they didn't have to use formaldehyde but hey....lets just move on....its not that bad...its not like we're trying to pickle your kids insides or anything
Also forget about thimerosol as they took that out of the shots for children (so they admit they were poisoning us!!!!!!!!) but don't worry adults 'science' based medicine still has thimerosol in your flu vaccines so you can all still get a nice shot of mercury in your blood! Yay!
And although science based medicine admits it is possible for shots to be contaminated with bacteria....you can trust them because they (crosses fingers behind their backs) are not part of the globalist agenda and are not receiving funds form the globalists...no sir-eee!
Now have another cup here of nice kool aid...i've put some aluminium in it because that's good for you....and remember: IGNORANCE is STRENGTH
NOW GET YOUR DAMN VACCINE!!!...I mean...please step into line...its for the sake of the children...do it for the children...your government loves you
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/vaccination-causes-autism-heres-what-they-know-2/
For many years, parents have believed that multiple vaccinations have caused their children to become autistic. Governments from around the world, however, have categorically denied this possibility.They continue to bury their heads in the sand and ignore what is happening. They refuse to carry out relevant studies and will not answer any questions that may uncover the truth about vaccines.
Their actions are clearly demonstrated in a video titled AutismOne & Generation Rescue 2013 Conference Congressional Panel, featuring Congressman Burton (R-IN), Congressman Weldon, MD (R-FL) and Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL), published on May 11, 2013.
SEE VIDEO BELOW
The video highlights what has been going on behind closed doors over the years and gives parents the rare opportunity to witness first hand the lies that are being told and the sheer enormity of the vaccine deception. [1]
Vaccines, Lies, and Videotape
The video begins in the year 2000.
Representative Dan Burton, chairman of the 2000 House Government Reform Committee on Autism and Childhood Vaccines, opened the conference by stating that autism, once considered a rare disorder, has become a near epidemic. He said that it is a top priority to carry out as much research into the potential connection between vaccines and autism as possible. He finished his introduction to Congress by stating that we must stop burying our heads in the sand and ignoring this possibility.
Turning to Dr. Coleen Boyle, the Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), he asked:
After speaking to other members of Congress, Congressman Burton turned back to Dr. Doyle and stated very firmly:
Dr. Rimland answered:
Government Agencies Continue to Ignore Pleas for Intervention
Moving on to 2002, it appeared as if nothing much had changed. Once again, Congressman Dan Burton can be seen chairing the panel meeting, opening with an extremely poignant and moving piece of film of a child suffering with severe autism to demonstrate what parents cope with on a daily basis.
This piece of film moved the audience to tears and Congressman Burton commented that his grandson, along with thousands of other children across the country, were perfectly normal until they received multiple vaccines and continued by adding this extremely strong statement:
So, why is this happening and why is nothing being done?
Government Investigator Turned Fugitive
In 2012, we see Congressman Bill Posey has taken over the task of trying to question the elusive and now somewhat greying Dr. Boyle from the CDC, about vaccinations and autism.
Congressman Posey asks:
At no time in any part of the video did Dr. Boyle answer any question without evading the issue put before her, even when Posey asked:
Conclusion
It is obvious from listening to the video that not one person whom Congressman Burton or the panel questioned had any conclusive evidence that vaccines did not cause autism. Instead, leading figures gave false information and avoided all of the questions being asked of them. Many had conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry manufacturing the vaccines and saw no problem with this.
Members of the CDC, the FDA and other organizations sanctioning vaccinations are supposed to be independent. If, like Paul Offit, they hold patents to vaccines or are in collaboration with the companies manufacturing the vaccines, they are not independent and therefore not impartial.
Surely, parents trusting those officials with their children’s lives deserve better than this. It is time for change. For parents to have faith in the vaccine programs, they need to see concrete evidence proving that the vaccines are safe. Instead of bringing out more and more vaccines and trying to mandate vaccinations, governments and their representatives need to answer the questions being asked of them. This video is conclusive evidence that this is not happening.
References:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wwDPcNdxJQ
2. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-curious-case-of-poul-thorsen-fraud-and-embezzlement…
[video=youtube;3wwDPcNdxJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wwDPcNdxJQ[/video]
They wish they didn't have to use formaldehyde but hey....lets just move on....its not that bad...its not like we're trying to pickle your kids insides or anything
Also forget about thimerosol as they took that out of the shots for children (so they admit they were poisoning us!!!!!!!!) but don't worry adults 'science' based medicine still has thimerosol in your flu vaccines so you can all still get a nice shot of mercury in your blood! Yay!
And although science based medicine admits it is possible for shots to be contaminated with bacteria....you can trust them because they (crosses fingers behind their backs) are not part of the globalist agenda and are not receiving funds form the globalists...no sir-eee!
Now have another cup here of nice kool aid...i've put some aluminium in it because that's good for you....and remember: IGNORANCE is STRENGTH
NOW GET YOUR DAMN VACCINE!!!...I mean...please step into line...its for the sake of the children...do it for the children...your government loves you
http://www.secretsofthefed.com/vaccination-causes-autism-heres-what-they-know-2/
For many years, parents have believed that multiple vaccinations have caused their children to become autistic. Governments from around the world, however, have categorically denied this possibility.They continue to bury their heads in the sand and ignore what is happening. They refuse to carry out relevant studies and will not answer any questions that may uncover the truth about vaccines.
Their actions are clearly demonstrated in a video titled AutismOne & Generation Rescue 2013 Conference Congressional Panel, featuring Congressman Burton (R-IN), Congressman Weldon, MD (R-FL) and Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL), published on May 11, 2013.
SEE VIDEO BELOW
The video highlights what has been going on behind closed doors over the years and gives parents the rare opportunity to witness first hand the lies that are being told and the sheer enormity of the vaccine deception. [1]
Vaccines, Lies, and Videotape
The video begins in the year 2000.
Representative Dan Burton, chairman of the 2000 House Government Reform Committee on Autism and Childhood Vaccines, opened the conference by stating that autism, once considered a rare disorder, has become a near epidemic. He said that it is a top priority to carry out as much research into the potential connection between vaccines and autism as possible. He finished his introduction to Congress by stating that we must stop burying our heads in the sand and ignoring this possibility.
Turning to Dr. Coleen Boyle, the Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), he asked:
ADVERTISEMENT
We have been checking all the financial records of the FDA, the HHS, the CDC, do you believe that anybody who is getting funds from Merck or any of the other pharmaceutical companies should be on advisory panels that are making judgments about pharmaceuticals coming from those companies, or do you believe that is a conflict of interest?
Now, for many of us, this question would appear to be relatively simple for someone of Dr. Boyle’s standing to answer. However, it was not simple for Dr. Boyle; she appeared to be rendered speechless, before stating:
I think that is a difficult question to answer.
Congressman Burton then turned to Dr. Paul Offit and said:
You talk about collaboration, I guess with the Merck pharmaceutical company?
To which Offit stuttered:
Yes, I, um, as I, um, disclosed in my written report, I have been in collaboration with Merck and Company on the development of the Rotavirus vaccine since 1992.
To which Congressman Burton simply replied:
They produce the MMR, don’t they?
Looking back towards Dr. Boyle, Burton asked her why the CDC did not include the possibility that some of these vaccines may have caused the autism increase as one of the potential causes they were investigating, asking her to check out this matter. Despite replying that she would, it appears that once again this relatively simple task was too difficult for Dr. Boyle, because thirteen years later, we are still awaiting her answer.
After speaking to other members of Congress, Congressman Burton turned back to Dr. Doyle and stated very firmly:
Dr. Boyle, for your information, at a public meeting in Brick Township in January in 1997, and you should know this, with the CDC and others present, several of the audience members asked about the vaccines and the possible autism link and they asked for that to be checked.
He continued:
And I submit that maybe, just maybe, it’s because the pharmaceutical company that manufactures it had some influence on the people in that meeting and they said, ‘Hey, we don’t want to get into that,’ and if that’s the case, that is damn near criminal.
Concluding the 2000 clip, I feel that Dr. Bernard Rimland made the most honest response of the day, when he answered Dan Burton’s question as to whether, after listening to the comments made at the meeting and carrying out his own scientific research, there was any possibility that vaccines were contributing to the increase in autism.
Dr. Rimland answered:
There is not only the possibility, there is an extremely high likelihood, from all the evidence available.
Those are strong words, so why has he been ignored?
Government Agencies Continue to Ignore Pleas for Intervention
Moving on to 2002, it appeared as if nothing much had changed. Once again, Congressman Dan Burton can be seen chairing the panel meeting, opening with an extremely poignant and moving piece of film of a child suffering with severe autism to demonstrate what parents cope with on a daily basis.
This piece of film moved the audience to tears and Congressman Burton commented that his grandson, along with thousands of other children across the country, were perfectly normal until they received multiple vaccines and continued by adding this extremely strong statement:
So, we can’t let the pharmaceutical industries and our government cover this mess up today because it ain’t gonna go away and it’s going to cost the taxpayers trillions more if we wait around on it and for our FDA, the HHS and the health agencies to continue to hide behind this facade that there have been studies that conclusively prove otherwise, is just wrong, too!
In fact, the whole video from beginning to end clearly shows evidence that this heated debate has carried on for more than a decade. Each year the same issues and the same problems appear to be discussed, and yet the panel comes to the same conclusion that studies are not being carried out to investigate the link between vaccines and autism.
So, why is this happening and why is nothing being done?
Government Investigator Turned Fugitive
In 2012, we see Congressman Bill Posey has taken over the task of trying to question the elusive and now somewhat greying Dr. Boyle from the CDC, about vaccinations and autism.
Congressman Posey asks:
Dr. Boyle, my predecessor Congressman Welder was a well-respected, competent medical doctor and I glean from him with some certainty he felt thimerosal in vaccinations definitely was a contributory factor to autism and I wonder if the CDC has conducted or facilitated a study comparing vaccinated children with unvaccinated children yet? Have you done that?
As expected, instead of answering the question asked of her, Dr. Boyle avoids his question completely and answers by stating:
We have done a number of studies looking at the relationship between thimerosal vaccines and autism and other developmental disabilities.
Not to give up on his line of questioning, Congressman Posey rephrased his question in the hope that he may have gotten a direct answer, asking:
So, clearly, definitely, unequivocally, you have studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated?
To which she replied:
We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
Just as she tried to continue with yet more waffle, Congressman Posey stopped her in her tracks, saying:
Never mind, that was the meaning of my question, you have wasted two minutes of my time.
He then asked:
What steps has the CDC undertaken to ensure the integrity of the research that was performed by Dr. Thorsen, who, as you know, has been indicted for misconduct in the misallocation of resources?
Once again Boyle can be seen avoiding his question. Instead of answering Congressman Posey directly, she tried to palm him off with incorrect data, stating that Dr. Thorsen was a co-investigator in just two of the studies carried out. This was immediately refuted by Posey, who asked if he would be allowed to submit, for the record, information proving that Dr. Thorsen was in fact involved in 21 of the 24 studies undertaken.
At no time in any part of the video did Dr. Boyle answer any question without evading the issue put before her, even when Posey asked:
Have you gone back to validate the variety of studies he participated in? I mean, you know this guy is a humongous scumbag, one of the most wanted men on earth, and you relied on him for data to determine whether thimerosal had a negative effect?
Rather than admit to Dr. Thorsen’s failings, Dr. Boyle immediately jumped to Thorsen’s defense, even though this is a man who tops the federal most wanted list for 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering, facing a total of 260 years in jail for his crimes. [2]
Conclusion
It is obvious from listening to the video that not one person whom Congressman Burton or the panel questioned had any conclusive evidence that vaccines did not cause autism. Instead, leading figures gave false information and avoided all of the questions being asked of them. Many had conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry manufacturing the vaccines and saw no problem with this.
Members of the CDC, the FDA and other organizations sanctioning vaccinations are supposed to be independent. If, like Paul Offit, they hold patents to vaccines or are in collaboration with the companies manufacturing the vaccines, they are not independent and therefore not impartial.
Surely, parents trusting those officials with their children’s lives deserve better than this. It is time for change. For parents to have faith in the vaccine programs, they need to see concrete evidence proving that the vaccines are safe. Instead of bringing out more and more vaccines and trying to mandate vaccinations, governments and their representatives need to answer the questions being asked of them. This video is conclusive evidence that this is not happening.
References:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wwDPcNdxJQ
2. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-curious-case-of-poul-thorsen-fraud-and-embezzlement…
[video=youtube;3wwDPcNdxJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wwDPcNdxJQ[/video]
Last edited:
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
[h=1]$64 million in bribes paid to UK doctors last year by drug companies[/h]
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044742_bribes_doctors_drug_companies.html##ixzz2zLRX4vfa
New data that once again highlights the incestuous relationship between Big Pharma and the medical industry indicate that British doctors were paid some $64 million by drug makers, which was only slightly less than in 2012.
According to Reuters, such industry payments to physicians have increasingly come under scrutiny following several scandals involving drug sales practices, most notably in the United States, as well as concerns that such close ties put commercial interests of drug makers ahead of what is best for patients.
As noted by Reuters:
The figure, announced by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) on Thursday, was slightly down on the 2012 level of 40 million pounds [about $66.9 million].
Cozy relationships going to see the light of day
Criticism of the tight relationship between healthcare providers -- doctors especially -- and pharmaceutical companies has led to some companies rethinking their operations. For example, in December, GlaxoSmithKline said it would stop payments to doctors to promote its drugs, but the company will still pay fees for clinical research and advisory work.
Several other firms have also agreed to take limited steps to reduce physician-related marketing practices. That includes AstraZeneca, which announced in 2011 that the pharmaceutical would end payments to doctors for attending international congresses.
Under American healthcare laws, drug companies must now disclose all payments to doctors; in Europe, meanwhile, pharmaceuticals will be required to make public the names of individual physicians they have paid beginning in 2016.
In the interim before the law kicks in, the ABPI has taken to providing aggregate figures based on data from 34 of 40 top drug makers operating in Britain. The trade group said that payments to doctors last year, overall, comprised 27.7 million pounds ($46.3 million) for consultancy services and 10.8 million pounds ($18 million) in sponsorship to attend third-party meetings.
Sources:
http://www.reuters.com
http://www.naturalnews.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044742_bribes_doctors_drug_companies.html##ixzz2zLRX4vfa
New data that once again highlights the incestuous relationship between Big Pharma and the medical industry indicate that British doctors were paid some $64 million by drug makers, which was only slightly less than in 2012.
According to Reuters, such industry payments to physicians have increasingly come under scrutiny following several scandals involving drug sales practices, most notably in the United States, as well as concerns that such close ties put commercial interests of drug makers ahead of what is best for patients.
As noted by Reuters:
The figure, announced by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) on Thursday, was slightly down on the 2012 level of 40 million pounds [about $66.9 million].
Cozy relationships going to see the light of day
Criticism of the tight relationship between healthcare providers -- doctors especially -- and pharmaceutical companies has led to some companies rethinking their operations. For example, in December, GlaxoSmithKline said it would stop payments to doctors to promote its drugs, but the company will still pay fees for clinical research and advisory work.
Several other firms have also agreed to take limited steps to reduce physician-related marketing practices. That includes AstraZeneca, which announced in 2011 that the pharmaceutical would end payments to doctors for attending international congresses.
Under American healthcare laws, drug companies must now disclose all payments to doctors; in Europe, meanwhile, pharmaceuticals will be required to make public the names of individual physicians they have paid beginning in 2016.
In the interim before the law kicks in, the ABPI has taken to providing aggregate figures based on data from 34 of 40 top drug makers operating in Britain. The trade group said that payments to doctors last year, overall, comprised 27.7 million pounds ($46.3 million) for consultancy services and 10.8 million pounds ($18 million) in sponsorship to attend third-party meetings.
Sources:
http://www.reuters.com
http://www.naturalnews.com
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.theguardian.com/business...thkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals
[h=1]GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales[/h] Sales reps in the US encouraged to mis-sell antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma treatment Advair
The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday.
The company encouraged sales reps in the US to mis-sell three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.
The company admitted corporate misconduct over the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma drug Advair.
Psychiatrists and their partners were flown to five-star hotels, on all-expenses-paid trips where speakers, paid up to $2,500 to attend, gave presentations on the drugs. They could enjoy diving, golf, fishing and other extra activities arranged by the company.
GSK also paid for articles on its drugs to appear in medical journals and "independent" doctors were hired by the company to promote the treatments, according to court documents.
Paxil – which was only approved for adults – was promoted as suitable for children and teenagers by the company despite trials that showed it was ineffective, according to prosecutors.
Children and teenagers are only treated with antidepressants in exceptional circumstances due to an increased risk of suicide.
GSK held eight lavish three-day events in 2000 and 2001 at hotels in Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Palm Springs, California, to promote the drug to doctors for unapproved use.
Those who attended were given $750, free board and lodging and access to activities including snorkelling, golf, deep-sea fishing, rafting, glass-bottomed boat rides, hot-air balloon rides and, on one trip, a tour of the Bacardi rum distillery, all paid for by GSK.
Air fares were also covered for doctors and spouses, in most cases, and speakers at the event were paid $2,500 each.
Before one event, the compere said: "We have a wonderful and unforgettable night planned. Without giving it all away, I can tell you – you'll be experiencing a taste of luxury."
Not everyone was impressed, though. One psychiatrist complained: "The style of the conference would have been suitable for a convention of cosmetics sales reps; this is supposed to be a scientific meeting. To me, the music, lights, videos, emcees are offputting and a distraction, even demeaning."
GSK also published an article in a medical journal that mis-stated the drug's safety for children, despite the journal asking several times to change the wording.
Copies of the misleading article were given to sales representatives to pass on to doctors in the hope that it would secure more business. Tickets to sports matches were exchanged for discussions about Paxil, with one doctor writing: "Dinner and a Yankee game with family. Talked about Paxil studies in children."
Despite knowing that three trials had failed to prove its effectiveness on children, Glaxo published a report entitled "Positioning Paxil in the adolescent depression market – getting a headstart".
The second drug to be mis-sold was Wellbutrin – another antidepressant aimed only at adults.
The prosecution said the company paid $275,000 to Dr Drew Pinsky, who hosted a popular radio show, to promote the drug on his programme, in particular for unapproved uses – GSK claimed it could treat weight gain, sexual dysfunction, ADHD and bulimia.
Pinsky, who had not declared his GSK income to listeners, said Wellbutrin could give women 60 orgasms a night. A study of 25 people using the drug for eight weeks was pushed by a PR firm hired by GSK, generating headlines including "Bigger than Viagra? It sounds too good to be true: a drug to help you stop smoking, stay happy and lose weight" and "Now That is a Wonder Drug".
When a GSK-funded doctor refused to remove safety concerns about the drug from an article he was writing, GSK removed his funding.
The investigation also found that sales representatives set up "Operation Hustle" to promote the drug to doctors, including trips to Jamaica, Bermuda and one talk coinciding with the annual Boston Tall Ships flotilla. Speakers were paid up to $2,500 for a one-hour presentation – up to three times a day – earning far more than they did working in their surgeries.
One speaker, Dr James Pradko, was paid nearly $1.5m by GSK over three years to speak about the drug. He also produced a DVD funded by the company, which was claimed to be independent. It was shown more than 900 times to doctors.
The hope was that doctors would be persuaded to prescribe the drug to patients over its rivals.
The last drug under scrutiny was Advair, GSK's bestselling asthma treatment.
The drug was launched to sales representatives in Las Vegas using images of slot machines, emphasising the bonuses they could make through sales. At the event, the then chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, said: "What is the number one reason why you should love to be a GSK sales rep? Advair's bonus plan. Yeah!"
The company pushed the drug as the ultimate answer for tackling asthma, saying it should be the drug of choice for treating all cases. However, it had been approved only for treating severe cases, as other drugs were more suitable for mild asthma. GSK published material calling mild asthma a "myth" in an attempt to boost sales, according to the prosecution.
About $600,000 a year was given to district sales representatives for entertainment, including regular golf lessons, Nascar racing days, fishing trips, and baseball and basketball tickets.
US attorney Carmin Ortiz said: "The sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations [and] paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to tickets to Madonna concerts."
GSK chief executive Andrew Witty said: "Whilst these [matters] originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored. On behalf of GlaxoSmithKline I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learnt from the mistakes that were made."
Despite the large fine, $3bn is far less than the profits made from the drugs. Avandia has made $10.4bn in sales, Paxil took $11.6bn, and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9bn during the years covered by the settlement, according to IMS Health, a data group that consults for drug makers.
[h=1]GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales[/h] Sales reps in the US encouraged to mis-sell antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma treatment Advair
The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday.
The company encouraged sales reps in the US to mis-sell three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.
The company admitted corporate misconduct over the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma drug Advair.
Psychiatrists and their partners were flown to five-star hotels, on all-expenses-paid trips where speakers, paid up to $2,500 to attend, gave presentations on the drugs. They could enjoy diving, golf, fishing and other extra activities arranged by the company.
GSK also paid for articles on its drugs to appear in medical journals and "independent" doctors were hired by the company to promote the treatments, according to court documents.
Paxil – which was only approved for adults – was promoted as suitable for children and teenagers by the company despite trials that showed it was ineffective, according to prosecutors.
Children and teenagers are only treated with antidepressants in exceptional circumstances due to an increased risk of suicide.
GSK held eight lavish three-day events in 2000 and 2001 at hotels in Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Palm Springs, California, to promote the drug to doctors for unapproved use.
Those who attended were given $750, free board and lodging and access to activities including snorkelling, golf, deep-sea fishing, rafting, glass-bottomed boat rides, hot-air balloon rides and, on one trip, a tour of the Bacardi rum distillery, all paid for by GSK.
Air fares were also covered for doctors and spouses, in most cases, and speakers at the event were paid $2,500 each.
Before one event, the compere said: "We have a wonderful and unforgettable night planned. Without giving it all away, I can tell you – you'll be experiencing a taste of luxury."
Not everyone was impressed, though. One psychiatrist complained: "The style of the conference would have been suitable for a convention of cosmetics sales reps; this is supposed to be a scientific meeting. To me, the music, lights, videos, emcees are offputting and a distraction, even demeaning."
GSK also published an article in a medical journal that mis-stated the drug's safety for children, despite the journal asking several times to change the wording.
Copies of the misleading article were given to sales representatives to pass on to doctors in the hope that it would secure more business. Tickets to sports matches were exchanged for discussions about Paxil, with one doctor writing: "Dinner and a Yankee game with family. Talked about Paxil studies in children."
Despite knowing that three trials had failed to prove its effectiveness on children, Glaxo published a report entitled "Positioning Paxil in the adolescent depression market – getting a headstart".
The second drug to be mis-sold was Wellbutrin – another antidepressant aimed only at adults.
The prosecution said the company paid $275,000 to Dr Drew Pinsky, who hosted a popular radio show, to promote the drug on his programme, in particular for unapproved uses – GSK claimed it could treat weight gain, sexual dysfunction, ADHD and bulimia.
Pinsky, who had not declared his GSK income to listeners, said Wellbutrin could give women 60 orgasms a night. A study of 25 people using the drug for eight weeks was pushed by a PR firm hired by GSK, generating headlines including "Bigger than Viagra? It sounds too good to be true: a drug to help you stop smoking, stay happy and lose weight" and "Now That is a Wonder Drug".
When a GSK-funded doctor refused to remove safety concerns about the drug from an article he was writing, GSK removed his funding.
The investigation also found that sales representatives set up "Operation Hustle" to promote the drug to doctors, including trips to Jamaica, Bermuda and one talk coinciding with the annual Boston Tall Ships flotilla. Speakers were paid up to $2,500 for a one-hour presentation – up to three times a day – earning far more than they did working in their surgeries.
One speaker, Dr James Pradko, was paid nearly $1.5m by GSK over three years to speak about the drug. He also produced a DVD funded by the company, which was claimed to be independent. It was shown more than 900 times to doctors.
The hope was that doctors would be persuaded to prescribe the drug to patients over its rivals.
The last drug under scrutiny was Advair, GSK's bestselling asthma treatment.
The drug was launched to sales representatives in Las Vegas using images of slot machines, emphasising the bonuses they could make through sales. At the event, the then chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, said: "What is the number one reason why you should love to be a GSK sales rep? Advair's bonus plan. Yeah!"
The company pushed the drug as the ultimate answer for tackling asthma, saying it should be the drug of choice for treating all cases. However, it had been approved only for treating severe cases, as other drugs were more suitable for mild asthma. GSK published material calling mild asthma a "myth" in an attempt to boost sales, according to the prosecution.
About $600,000 a year was given to district sales representatives for entertainment, including regular golf lessons, Nascar racing days, fishing trips, and baseball and basketball tickets.
US attorney Carmin Ortiz said: "The sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations [and] paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to tickets to Madonna concerts."
GSK chief executive Andrew Witty said: "Whilst these [matters] originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored. On behalf of GlaxoSmithKline I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learnt from the mistakes that were made."
Despite the large fine, $3bn is far less than the profits made from the drugs. Avandia has made $10.4bn in sales, Paxil took $11.6bn, and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9bn during the years covered by the settlement, according to IMS Health, a data group that consults for drug makers.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
If the virus mutates then your vaccine will be useless; you will be dependent then on your immune system which hopefully you won;t have damaged from exposure to various toxins in vaccines
Last edited:
54tjsioU
Well-known member
- MBTI
- ESTP
- Enneagram
- 8w9
It's only useless if a group of assholes decide to not get the vaccine and in turn get the illness. In other words, exactly what has been happening. Reasons why the government needs to step in *sigh*
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
That fucking idiot Piers Morgan got a flu shot on TV whilst the doctor told him he could NOT catch the flu from it because the bacteria is dead yet within 10 days piers got the flu!
First vid shows the injection, second vid shows piers later with the flu talking about it
[video=youtube;1gnqUjBig2E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gnqUjBig2E[/video]
[video=youtube;X5SQPPvR-JA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5SQPPvR-JA[/video]
First vid shows the injection, second vid shows piers later with the flu talking about it
[video=youtube;1gnqUjBig2E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gnqUjBig2E[/video]
[video=youtube;X5SQPPvR-JA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5SQPPvR-JA[/video]
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
It is the vaccinazied people who start the outbreaks **double sigh** see clips above
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/09/bill-sardi/dont-let-them-vaccinate-your-children/
Eighteen Reasons Why You Should NOT Vaccinate Your Children Against The Flu This Season
This year it is more important that you protect your children and loved ones from the flu vaccines than influenza itself. Here are the reasons:
1. This flu is simply another flu. It is not unusually deadly. In fact, the H1N1 swine flu in circulation is less deadly than many other influenza outbreaks. The first 1000 confirmed swine flu cases in Japan and China produced zero deaths. The Centers for Disease Control alleges 36,000 Americans succumb to the flu each year, but so far, since March through August of 2009 (6 months), the swine flu has been attributed to ~500—600 deaths in the US. The swine flu of 2009 has already swept through the Southern Hemisphere’s flu season without alarm. Only exaggerated reports have been issued by the World Health Organization regarding hospitalizations required during the flu season in South American countries. Getting exposed to influenza and developing natural antibodies confers resistance for future flu outbreaks. Artificially boosting antibodies by exposure to flu viruses in vaccines is more problematic than natural exposure. Americans have been exposed to the H1N1 swine flu throughout the summer of 2009 with far fewer deaths and hospitalizations than commonly attributed to the seasonal flu.
2. Health authorities tacitly admit prior flu vaccination programs were of worthless value. This is the first time both season and pandemic flu vaccines will be administered. Both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines will require two inoculations. This is because single inoculations have failed to produce sufficient antibodies. Very young children and older frail adults, the high-risk groups in the population, may not produce sufficient antibodies in response to the flu vaccine. This is an admission that prior flu vaccines were virtually useless. The same people who brought you the ineffective vaccines in past years are bringing you this year’s new vaccines. Can you trust them this time?
3. In addition to failure to produce sufficient antibodies, this swine flu vaccine is brought to you by the same people who haven’t been able to adequately produce a seasonal flu vaccine that matches the flu strain in circulation. In recent years flu vaccination has been totally worthless because the strains of the flu in circulation did not match the strain of the virus in the vaccines. Authorities claim the prevalent flu strain in circulation in mid-September ’09 is the H1N1 swine flu, which appears to be milder than past seasonal influenza in circulation. If this data is correct, why receive the season flu shot this year?
4. The vaccines will be produced by no less than four different manufacturers, possibly with different additives (called adjuvants) and manufacturing methods. The two flu inoculations may be derived from a multi-dose vial and in a crisis, and in short supply, it will be diluted to provide more doses and then adjuvants must be added to trigger a stronger immune response. Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Would you permit your children to be injected with lead? Lead is very harmful to the brain. Then why would you sign a consent form for your kids to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead? Injecting mercury may fry the brains of American kids.
5. This is the first year mock vaccines have been used to gain FDA approval. Mock vaccines are made to gain approval of the manufacturing method and then the prevalent virus strain in circulation is added just days before it is actually placed into use. Don’t subject your children to experimental vaccines. Yes, these vaccines have been tested on healthy kids and adults, but they are not the same vaccines your children will be given. Those children with asthma, allergies, type I diabetes, etc. are at greater risk for side effects. Children below the age of 2 years do not have a sufficient blood—brain barrier developed and are subject to chronic brain infections that emanate into symptoms that are called autism. Toddlers should not be subjected to injected viruses.
6. Over-vaccination is a common practice now in America. American children are subjected to 29 vaccines by the age of two. This means a little bit of disease is being injected into young children continually during their most formative years! Veterinarians have backed off of repeat vaccination in dogs because of observed side effects.
7. Health officials want to vaccinate women during pregnancy, subjecting the fetal brain to an intentional biological assault. A recent study showed exposure flu viruses among women during pregnancy provoke a similar gene expression pattern in the fetus as that seen in autistic children. This is a tacit admission that vaccines, which inject a little bit of influenza into humans, causes autism.
8. Modern medicine has no explanation for autism, despite its continued rise in prevalence. Yet autism is not reported among Amish children who go unvaccinated. Beware the falsehoods of modern medicine.
9. School kids are likely to receive nasally-administered vaccines (Flu-Mist) that require no needle injection. But this form of live vaccine produces viral shedding which will surely be transmitted to family members. What a way to start an epidemic!
10. This triple reassortment virus appears to be man made. The H1N1 swine flu virus of 2009 coincidentally appeared in Mexico on the same week that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France visited Mexican president Felipe Calderon, to announce that France intends to build a multi-million dollar vaccine plant in Mexico. An article written by Ron Maloney of the Seguin, Texas Gazette-Enterprise newspaper announces a "rehearsal for a pandemic disaster" scheduled for May 2, 2009. The article says: "Guadalupe County emergency management and their counterparts around the country are preparing for just such a scenario…" This means county health authorities across the U.S. had been preparing a rehearsal for mass vaccinations prior to the announced outbreak in Mexico. Virologists admit this part swine flu/part avian flu/part human flu virus must have taken time to develop. But it somehow wasn’t detected by hundreds of flu monitoring stations across the globe. On April 24, 2009 Dr. John Carlo, Dallas County Medical Director, alludes that the H1N1 strain of the Swine flu as possibly being engineered in a laboratory. He says: "This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified." (Globe & Mail, Canada)
11. Recall the swine flu scare of 1976. In a politically charged atmosphere where Gerald Ford was seeking election to the Presidency, the swine flu suddenly appeared at a military base. Vaccine was produced and millions of Americans were vaccinated. But the vaccine was worse than the disease, causing hundreds of cases of Guillain Barre syndrome and a few deaths. In a replay of the past, the White House is directly involved in promoting the H1N1 2009 swine flu vaccine. The federal government will use federal funds to pay off schools to administer vaccines, promote vaccination via highway billboards and TV advertisements, and conduct military-style mass inoculations in such rapid fashion that if side effects occur, it will be too late. The masses will have been vaccinated already. Over $9 billion has been allotted by the federal government to develop and deliver an unproven and experimental flu vaccine. Don’t be a guinea pig for the government.
12. Researchers are warning that over-use of the flu vaccine and anti-flu drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can apply genetic pressure on flu viruses and then they are more likely to mutate into a more deadly strain. US health authorities want 70% of the public to be vaccinated against the flu this ’09 season, which is more than double the vaccination percentage of any prior flu season. This would certainly apply greater genetic pressure for the flu to mutate into a more virulent strain.
13. Most seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus strains tested from the United States and other countries are now resistant to Tamiflu (oseltamivir). Tamiflu has become a nearly worthless drug against seasonal flu. According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, among 1148 seasonal flu samples tested, 1143 (99.6%) were resistant to Tamiflu!
14. As the flu season progresses the federal government may coerce or mandate Americans to undergo vaccination. France has already ordered enough vaccine to inoculate their entire population and has announced that vaccination will be mandatory. The US appears to be waiting to announce mandatory vaccination at a later date when it can scare the public into consenting to the vaccine. The federal government is reported to be hiring people to visit homes of unvaccinated children. This sounds like the Biblical account of Pharaoh attempting to eradicate all the young Israelite baby boys. Must we hide our babies now?
15. Public health authorities have cried wolf every flu season to get the public to line up for flu shots. Health authorities repeatedly publish the bogus 36,000 annual flu-related deaths figure to scare the public into getting flu shots. But that figure is based on the combined deaths from pneumonia in the elderly and the flu. Maybe just 5000—6000 or so flu-related deaths occur annually, mostly among individuals with compromised immune systems, the hospitalized, individuals with autoimmune disease or other health problems. As stated above, the swine flu in full force has only resulted in ~500—600 deaths in the first six months in circulation and it is far more dreaded by public health authorities than the seasonal flu. The Centers for Disease Control issues a purchase order for flu vaccines and then serves as the public relations agency to get the public to pay for the vaccines. Out of a population of 325 million Americans, only 100 million doses of flu vaccine have been administered each year and no epidemic has erupted among the unvaccinated.
16. The news media is irresponsible in stirring up unfounded fear over this coming flu season. Just exactly how ethical is it for newspapers to publish reports that a person has died of the swine flu when supposedly thousands die of the flu annually? In the past the news media hasn’t chosen to publicize each and every flu-related death, but this time it has chosen to frighten the public. Why? Examine the chart below. The chart shows that the late flu season of 2009 peaked in week 23 (early June) and has dissipated considerably.
While every childhood flu-related death should be considered tragic, and the number of flu-related pediatric deaths in 2009 is greater than prior flu seasons as a percentage, in real numbers it is not a significant increase. See chart below:
According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, for week 34 ending August 29, 2009, there were 236 hospitalizations and 37 deaths related to the flu. That would represent just 5 hospitalizations and less than one death per State, which is "below the epidemic threshold."
17. Public health officials are irresponsible in their omission of any ways to strengthen immunity against the flu. No options outside of problematic vaccines and anti-flu drugs are offered, despite the fact there is strong evidence that vitamins C and D activate the immune system and the trace mineral selenium prevents the worst form of the disease where the lungs fill up with fluid and literally drown a flu-infected person. The only plausible explanation as to why the flu season typically peaks in winter months is a deficiency of sunlight-produced vitamin D. Protect your family. Arm your immune system with vitamins and trace minerals.
18. Will we ever learn if the flu vaccine this year is deadly in itself? In 1993 the federal government hid a deadly flu vaccine that killed thousands of nursing home patients. It was the first year that flu shots were paid for by Medicare. The vaccine-related mortality was so large that this set back the life expectancy of Americans for the first time since the 1918 Spanish flu! Mortality reports take a year or two to tabulate and the federal government may choose not to reveal the true mortality rate and whether it was related to the flu or the vaccines. You say this couldn’t happen? It did in 1993!
Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com. He is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Afraid Of Cancer Anymore.
Eighteen Reasons Why You Should NOT Vaccinate Your Children Against The Flu This Season
This year it is more important that you protect your children and loved ones from the flu vaccines than influenza itself. Here are the reasons:
1. This flu is simply another flu. It is not unusually deadly. In fact, the H1N1 swine flu in circulation is less deadly than many other influenza outbreaks. The first 1000 confirmed swine flu cases in Japan and China produced zero deaths. The Centers for Disease Control alleges 36,000 Americans succumb to the flu each year, but so far, since March through August of 2009 (6 months), the swine flu has been attributed to ~500—600 deaths in the US. The swine flu of 2009 has already swept through the Southern Hemisphere’s flu season without alarm. Only exaggerated reports have been issued by the World Health Organization regarding hospitalizations required during the flu season in South American countries. Getting exposed to influenza and developing natural antibodies confers resistance for future flu outbreaks. Artificially boosting antibodies by exposure to flu viruses in vaccines is more problematic than natural exposure. Americans have been exposed to the H1N1 swine flu throughout the summer of 2009 with far fewer deaths and hospitalizations than commonly attributed to the seasonal flu.
2. Health authorities tacitly admit prior flu vaccination programs were of worthless value. This is the first time both season and pandemic flu vaccines will be administered. Both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines will require two inoculations. This is because single inoculations have failed to produce sufficient antibodies. Very young children and older frail adults, the high-risk groups in the population, may not produce sufficient antibodies in response to the flu vaccine. This is an admission that prior flu vaccines were virtually useless. The same people who brought you the ineffective vaccines in past years are bringing you this year’s new vaccines. Can you trust them this time?
3. In addition to failure to produce sufficient antibodies, this swine flu vaccine is brought to you by the same people who haven’t been able to adequately produce a seasonal flu vaccine that matches the flu strain in circulation. In recent years flu vaccination has been totally worthless because the strains of the flu in circulation did not match the strain of the virus in the vaccines. Authorities claim the prevalent flu strain in circulation in mid-September ’09 is the H1N1 swine flu, which appears to be milder than past seasonal influenza in circulation. If this data is correct, why receive the season flu shot this year?
4. The vaccines will be produced by no less than four different manufacturers, possibly with different additives (called adjuvants) and manufacturing methods. The two flu inoculations may be derived from a multi-dose vial and in a crisis, and in short supply, it will be diluted to provide more doses and then adjuvants must be added to trigger a stronger immune response. Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Would you permit your children to be injected with lead? Lead is very harmful to the brain. Then why would you sign a consent form for your kids to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead? Injecting mercury may fry the brains of American kids.
5. This is the first year mock vaccines have been used to gain FDA approval. Mock vaccines are made to gain approval of the manufacturing method and then the prevalent virus strain in circulation is added just days before it is actually placed into use. Don’t subject your children to experimental vaccines. Yes, these vaccines have been tested on healthy kids and adults, but they are not the same vaccines your children will be given. Those children with asthma, allergies, type I diabetes, etc. are at greater risk for side effects. Children below the age of 2 years do not have a sufficient blood—brain barrier developed and are subject to chronic brain infections that emanate into symptoms that are called autism. Toddlers should not be subjected to injected viruses.
6. Over-vaccination is a common practice now in America. American children are subjected to 29 vaccines by the age of two. This means a little bit of disease is being injected into young children continually during their most formative years! Veterinarians have backed off of repeat vaccination in dogs because of observed side effects.
7. Health officials want to vaccinate women during pregnancy, subjecting the fetal brain to an intentional biological assault. A recent study showed exposure flu viruses among women during pregnancy provoke a similar gene expression pattern in the fetus as that seen in autistic children. This is a tacit admission that vaccines, which inject a little bit of influenza into humans, causes autism.
8. Modern medicine has no explanation for autism, despite its continued rise in prevalence. Yet autism is not reported among Amish children who go unvaccinated. Beware the falsehoods of modern medicine.
9. School kids are likely to receive nasally-administered vaccines (Flu-Mist) that require no needle injection. But this form of live vaccine produces viral shedding which will surely be transmitted to family members. What a way to start an epidemic!
10. This triple reassortment virus appears to be man made. The H1N1 swine flu virus of 2009 coincidentally appeared in Mexico on the same week that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France visited Mexican president Felipe Calderon, to announce that France intends to build a multi-million dollar vaccine plant in Mexico. An article written by Ron Maloney of the Seguin, Texas Gazette-Enterprise newspaper announces a "rehearsal for a pandemic disaster" scheduled for May 2, 2009. The article says: "Guadalupe County emergency management and their counterparts around the country are preparing for just such a scenario…" This means county health authorities across the U.S. had been preparing a rehearsal for mass vaccinations prior to the announced outbreak in Mexico. Virologists admit this part swine flu/part avian flu/part human flu virus must have taken time to develop. But it somehow wasn’t detected by hundreds of flu monitoring stations across the globe. On April 24, 2009 Dr. John Carlo, Dallas County Medical Director, alludes that the H1N1 strain of the Swine flu as possibly being engineered in a laboratory. He says: "This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified." (Globe & Mail, Canada)
11. Recall the swine flu scare of 1976. In a politically charged atmosphere where Gerald Ford was seeking election to the Presidency, the swine flu suddenly appeared at a military base. Vaccine was produced and millions of Americans were vaccinated. But the vaccine was worse than the disease, causing hundreds of cases of Guillain Barre syndrome and a few deaths. In a replay of the past, the White House is directly involved in promoting the H1N1 2009 swine flu vaccine. The federal government will use federal funds to pay off schools to administer vaccines, promote vaccination via highway billboards and TV advertisements, and conduct military-style mass inoculations in such rapid fashion that if side effects occur, it will be too late. The masses will have been vaccinated already. Over $9 billion has been allotted by the federal government to develop and deliver an unproven and experimental flu vaccine. Don’t be a guinea pig for the government.
12. Researchers are warning that over-use of the flu vaccine and anti-flu drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can apply genetic pressure on flu viruses and then they are more likely to mutate into a more deadly strain. US health authorities want 70% of the public to be vaccinated against the flu this ’09 season, which is more than double the vaccination percentage of any prior flu season. This would certainly apply greater genetic pressure for the flu to mutate into a more virulent strain.
13. Most seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus strains tested from the United States and other countries are now resistant to Tamiflu (oseltamivir). Tamiflu has become a nearly worthless drug against seasonal flu. According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, among 1148 seasonal flu samples tested, 1143 (99.6%) were resistant to Tamiflu!
14. As the flu season progresses the federal government may coerce or mandate Americans to undergo vaccination. France has already ordered enough vaccine to inoculate their entire population and has announced that vaccination will be mandatory. The US appears to be waiting to announce mandatory vaccination at a later date when it can scare the public into consenting to the vaccine. The federal government is reported to be hiring people to visit homes of unvaccinated children. This sounds like the Biblical account of Pharaoh attempting to eradicate all the young Israelite baby boys. Must we hide our babies now?
15. Public health authorities have cried wolf every flu season to get the public to line up for flu shots. Health authorities repeatedly publish the bogus 36,000 annual flu-related deaths figure to scare the public into getting flu shots. But that figure is based on the combined deaths from pneumonia in the elderly and the flu. Maybe just 5000—6000 or so flu-related deaths occur annually, mostly among individuals with compromised immune systems, the hospitalized, individuals with autoimmune disease or other health problems. As stated above, the swine flu in full force has only resulted in ~500—600 deaths in the first six months in circulation and it is far more dreaded by public health authorities than the seasonal flu. The Centers for Disease Control issues a purchase order for flu vaccines and then serves as the public relations agency to get the public to pay for the vaccines. Out of a population of 325 million Americans, only 100 million doses of flu vaccine have been administered each year and no epidemic has erupted among the unvaccinated.
16. The news media is irresponsible in stirring up unfounded fear over this coming flu season. Just exactly how ethical is it for newspapers to publish reports that a person has died of the swine flu when supposedly thousands die of the flu annually? In the past the news media hasn’t chosen to publicize each and every flu-related death, but this time it has chosen to frighten the public. Why? Examine the chart below. The chart shows that the late flu season of 2009 peaked in week 23 (early June) and has dissipated considerably.
While every childhood flu-related death should be considered tragic, and the number of flu-related pediatric deaths in 2009 is greater than prior flu seasons as a percentage, in real numbers it is not a significant increase. See chart below:
According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, for week 34 ending August 29, 2009, there were 236 hospitalizations and 37 deaths related to the flu. That would represent just 5 hospitalizations and less than one death per State, which is "below the epidemic threshold."
17. Public health officials are irresponsible in their omission of any ways to strengthen immunity against the flu. No options outside of problematic vaccines and anti-flu drugs are offered, despite the fact there is strong evidence that vitamins C and D activate the immune system and the trace mineral selenium prevents the worst form of the disease where the lungs fill up with fluid and literally drown a flu-infected person. The only plausible explanation as to why the flu season typically peaks in winter months is a deficiency of sunlight-produced vitamin D. Protect your family. Arm your immune system with vitamins and trace minerals.
18. Will we ever learn if the flu vaccine this year is deadly in itself? In 1993 the federal government hid a deadly flu vaccine that killed thousands of nursing home patients. It was the first year that flu shots were paid for by Medicare. The vaccine-related mortality was so large that this set back the life expectancy of Americans for the first time since the 1918 Spanish flu! Mortality reports take a year or two to tabulate and the federal government may choose not to reveal the true mortality rate and whether it was related to the flu or the vaccines. You say this couldn’t happen? It did in 1993!
Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com. He is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Afraid Of Cancer Anymore.