Tuesday, September 20, 2016


Bad consequences can come from spontaneous infection.
Good outcomes can happen after spontaneous infection.

Vaccines can provide temporary risk reduction without apparent adverse effect.
Vaccines can cause both short and long-term problems (minor and serious).

All of the above are true - and this is why there should be no mandates. People should be able to choose which risk they are willing to accept. And this would be infinitely easier if we had information we could trust. But alas, we do not. 

I used to believe "safe and effective" - now I am convinced there is far more to this than any of us have been told and I do not believe we have complete or accurate information about vaccines - for either their efficacy or their safety. 

We are entirely capable of doing the kind of research that would provide us with accurate information - but doing so would require breaking paradigms and setting aside agenda$. 

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Abortion and Vaccines, Part 6

Both pro-life and pro-health/medical freedom circles are quite concerned about a bill now before the California legislature (Assembly Bill 1671) as it is aimed at making undercover videos/recordings of healthcare providers illegal. 

Within the last two years undercover videos of Planned Parenthood physicians and audio recordings of confessions of post-normal science (tampering with study protocols in order to get the pre-determined desired result) conducted by the CDC have been released. 

Anyone concerned with truth should be worried about this. So many of our nation's elected officials promise transparency and fail to provide this. Part of what is so very bizarre about this is that our government spies on us quite regularly (Patriot Act/NSA, medical records, and educational records) among others). This legislation posits that it is acceptable for the government to collect data on us and about us while hampering out ability to uncover important information about what others are doing. 

The point of this post is not to advocate for recording individuals without their knowing about it. At best I am ambivalent about that. I would certainly want to know if I were being recorded. Yet I am also grateful for the actions of individuals who have recorded testimony about evil and/or illegal/immoral/unethical actions - Planned Parenthood physicians discussing the sale of body parts of babies they dismembered and of Dr. Thompson confessing breach of study protocol in order to obtain "results" that conformed to an agenda around vaccines rather than the truth about efficacy or safety. It is unlikely these things would have come to light any other way. 

The point of this post is why would government not want accurate, factual information to come to light when such information is uncovering activies that are illegal/immoral/unethical? Private individuals were doing what government is **supposed** to be doing!! 

For an organization that is proud of slaughtering unborn human beings why would they object to recording information about what they are actually doing? Keep in mind that they are subsidized with public funds to the tune of more than $1 million/day. All the more reason to know what exactly they are up to. 

If vaccines are safe and effective why is there not more transparency about how the studies are conducted? Look up Simpsonwood. Look up Poul Thorson (you know, the vaccine researcher who is on the FBI's Most Wanted List for fraud). 

If vaccines are safe and effective why do vaccine researchers refuse to do DB RCTs of vaccines comparing (long-term ... over years) the health of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated? I can no longer be fooled by that tired old canard "it wouldn't be ethical" - what is truely unethical is not doing these types of studies as the information people are using to make health and medical decisions is woefully incomplete and so their "consent" (scare quotes are necessary here since no consent is provided for a product that is mandatory) could not be called informed consent. 

Truth and transparency are the foundation upon which trust is built. Whatever foundation that existed for vaccines is eroding. And those who advocate for vaccines can only blame themselves. 

I used to believe what I was taught about vaccination. That was because I trusted those who were teaching me and believed the information was accurate, truthful. Now I know better and it grieves me. I do not want to be suspicious of the motives of those I should be able to trust - governing officials, medical professionals, and academic researchers.  

Sunday, September 04, 2016

What causes autism?

For the record: I don't know. 

I do think it is likely multi-factoral with many variables influencing risk of developing autism (with some more heavily weighted than others). 

I also think it is unspeakably arrogant to dismiss vaccines as a variable, especially because the kind of study that would, with greater certainty, identify if vaccines are (or are not) a variable has not been done - namely, a long-term study comparing the health of a group of vaccinated people compared the health of a group of unvaccinated people (with unvaccinated defined as not having received any vaccines of any kind - not simply not receiving whatever vaccine is being studied). 

An prospective observational study would be a start, but ultimately it will be necessary to do a randomized, controlled, double-blind study comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children. The real challenge would be finding a group of parents who are pro-vaccine but also willing to forgoe them if they randomized to the no vaccine group. There would be no point in approaching those who are "vaccine hesitant" because the vast majority who are in this group got there due to previous negative experience with "coincidence" (aka: a bad experience with vaccination - the adverse events that the pro-vaccine crowd loves to dismiss as never happening). 

There are a multitude of studies touted as "proving" vaccines do not cause harm - yet when one looks at the methods of those studies you see the common problem with study design
that limits (or prevents) such studies from proving vaccines are, or are not, a potential variable in a variety of acute and chronic health issues. And there in lies the problem - those who love vaccines interpret such studies with rose-colored lenses while those who are "vaccine hesitant" have a far different analysis of these same studies. Oddly enough, "pay to play" comes to mind as it seems so many of those who advocate for vaccines can be rightly accused of conflict of interest as they benefit financially through said advocacy while those who are more critical of vaccines generally do not benefit financially from them. 

Financial carrots and sticks are now increasingly used as a way to control both patients and providers - and vaccine status is a variable in this calculus. 

Medicine has a long history of barging ahead with a minimum of information (aka: evidence) and ultimately pulling back as additional information came to light (just in obstetrics: overuse of episiotomy, "once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section", there are a multitude of other examples in other specialities). And this pattern continues unabated. It is my opinion, and my hope, that we will soon recognize this is true of vaccines as well. 

Vaccinosis is recognized in animal medicine. The list of symptoms is shockingly similar to the types of adverse events (aka: "coincidences") people report following vaccination in humans. This kind of cognitive dissonence serves no one and certainly does not help any individual or group achieve better health. 

Because we do not have adequate safety studies for vaccines we cannot rationally evaluate if they do more good than harm. It is possible there is benefit to contacting the diseases for which we now vaccinate - because the odds of recovery are (generally) good and the likelihood of permanent harm is low, while the cost of vaccinating (fiscally - because this must be done repeatedly to maintain suppression of disease) may be much higher than previously calculated. Yes - it costs money when someone is sick (in lost work and/or in seeking medical care during the illness) - yet if getting sick once results in robust life-long immunity the one time cost must be weighed against the cost of continuously vaccinating throughout a persons lifetime to maintain suppression of disease while also calculating the financial cost of any adverse effects of vaccination (once we have more reliable information about this because we have looked at the long-term health comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated).