Ordinarily a "data dump" means downloading a large batch of data so one can comb through it and examine the contents for meaningful analysis.
But when it comes to vaccine related study data the term takes on a new and different meaning. It is now alleged (by Dr. William Thompson, aka the "CDC Whistleblower") that he and his colleagues met to destroy (dump in a garbage can) documents linking an increased risk of autism with receipt of an MMR vaccine prior to 36 months (particularly in black males).
In his statement Dr. Thompson refers to the Verstraten study - a study often cited as "proof" that there is no association between the preservative thimerosal (a form of mercury) and autism - and he refers to it as a "debacle"! Here is one analysis as to why this "study" is rightly called a debacle.
While Dr. Thompson kept silent until 2014 he at least had enough sense of personal ethics not to destroy his own copies - he didn't dump his data. He also finally responded to the nagging of his conscience about this matter.
As Congressman Posey has stated, a thorough investigation and congressional hearings are called for.
What's also called for is a return to greater freedom in medical decision-making ... those who want vaccines should get them, those who decline should not face an retaliation for this decision. Vaccination should not be linked to school participation, employment, nor anything else.
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Vaccination - A Useful Tool ... for genetic alteration
Epigenetics studies how exposures (through diet, chemicals, lifestyle, etc) alters the expression of our genes - turning genes on or off essentially.
But we are moving into an era of genetic modification - of altering the genome itself (a permanent change that could be passed on to the next generation), not changing whether a gene is or is not expressed (which, in theory, is temporary).
So many have been trained to accept vaccination without question - and this is one way that vaccination could be so very useful as a tool to alter the genome of a population.
A concept called "Immunoprophylaxis by Gene Transfer" is being researched - human trials have already begun. It involves inserting synthetic genetic material into the genome of the host by injection into the muscle. There is no way to control where the synthetic genes go - no way to limit which tissue into which they are inserted - so yes, this synthetic genetic material could be transmitted to the next generation.
But who's to say this hasn't already happened? How do we know it hasn't? Genetic material from substrates used to produce vaccines are a known contaminant - human DNA from cell lines from aborted babies is used in various vaccines (WI-38, MRC-5, PER C6, HEK-293, among others). This is no different for vaccines developed using animal tissues as substrates as well (chicken eggs, monkey kidneys, insects, for starters). SV40 (Simian, or monkey Virus 40) was a horrible scandal in the polio vaccine program.
While IGT may be initially developed for all the right reasons - to help people - knowing human nature (sinful) there can be no reassurance that it may well be used for more sinister reasons. One blogger is already speculating about how this sort of technology could be used.
For all that we do know about vaccination there is much that we don't know - and for this reason, no one should be required to be vaccinated. Linking vaccination to employment, or school or anything else is coercive - "soft" force, if there is such a thing. This is one of many areas of life that people must have freedom to determine what they will to do.
But we are moving into an era of genetic modification - of altering the genome itself (a permanent change that could be passed on to the next generation), not changing whether a gene is or is not expressed (which, in theory, is temporary).
So many have been trained to accept vaccination without question - and this is one way that vaccination could be so very useful as a tool to alter the genome of a population.
A concept called "Immunoprophylaxis by Gene Transfer" is being researched - human trials have already begun. It involves inserting synthetic genetic material into the genome of the host by injection into the muscle. There is no way to control where the synthetic genes go - no way to limit which tissue into which they are inserted - so yes, this synthetic genetic material could be transmitted to the next generation.
But who's to say this hasn't already happened? How do we know it hasn't? Genetic material from substrates used to produce vaccines are a known contaminant - human DNA from cell lines from aborted babies is used in various vaccines (WI-38, MRC-5, PER C6, HEK-293, among others). This is no different for vaccines developed using animal tissues as substrates as well (chicken eggs, monkey kidneys, insects, for starters). SV40 (Simian, or monkey Virus 40) was a horrible scandal in the polio vaccine program.
While IGT may be initially developed for all the right reasons - to help people - knowing human nature (sinful) there can be no reassurance that it may well be used for more sinister reasons. One blogger is already speculating about how this sort of technology could be used.
For all that we do know about vaccination there is much that we don't know - and for this reason, no one should be required to be vaccinated. Linking vaccination to employment, or school or anything else is coercive - "soft" force, if there is such a thing. This is one of many areas of life that people must have freedom to determine what they will to do.
Saturday, July 04, 2015
First US measles death - some questions for consideration
Earlier this year a young woman (exact age unknown) died of pneumonia in Clallum County in Washington State, the first official, or documented measles-related death in the USA since 2003. Pneumonia is a known complication of measles. While her death is tragic, as is common in many deaths from secondary complications (well, or even primary causes) she reportedly had other health issues that increased her risk of death from an infection (measles or otherwise).
No one died during the Disneyland outbreak, yet there was a great hugh and cry - this woman died from an illness that is presumed to be measles associated yet there was very little chatter. Why?
If she had had measles as a child (spontaneous, "wild" infection), perhaps she never would have developed this pneumonia at all, as recovery from spontaneous infection from measles is known to provide more robust, and longer-lasting immunity than artificial, man-made, temporary risk-reduction via vaccination. That is why those born before 1957 didn't need to be vaccinated - they were presumed to be protected by having had and recovered from a community acquired infection.
Because nothing is risk free, and because all decisions have both risks and benefits the writer of Vaccine Depot believes in freedom in healthcare decision-making ... if you want to be vaccinated, you should get whatever vaccines you think you need. Conversely, those who are not convinced the benefit of vaccines is greater than the risk should be free to make that decision as well.
Here is what has been reported:
- She had more than 1 medical conditions
- She was on multiple medications, including immune suppressing drugs
- She did not have the rash typical of measles so the presence of measles was not
Here is what is unknown:
verbal report of her family members, though they did not have written documentation of
her vaccination status.
- In what tissue the measles was found (gut, lung, brain, other).
- Her nutrition status (Vitamin A, in particular, is important to recovery from measles; Vit D3
is also an immune-modulator - not showing overt signs of deficiency of a vitamin is not
proof of sufficiency, or having enough of the substrate to maximize your body's ability to
manage an infection).
- Her nutrition status (Vitamin A, in particular, is important to recovery from measles; Vit D3
is also an immune-modulator - not showing overt signs of deficiency of a vitamin is not
proof of sufficiency, or having enough of the substrate to maximize your body's ability to
manage an infection).
She is believed to have been exposed when in the same facility at the same time as a person who later developed a rash and was diagnosed with measles. Were they in the same room? Yes - measles is highly contagious - but how close was their contact? If they were merely in the same facility at the same time (but not in the same room) why did others not also come down with measles - hospitals are filled with people who are immune compromised for a variety of reasons. Certainly she was not the only immune-compromised person who was exposed. Yet she was the only one to become sick ... and she was likely vaccinated as well.
No one died during the Disneyland outbreak, yet there was a great hugh and cry - this woman died from an illness that is presumed to be measles associated yet there was very little chatter. Why?
If she had had measles as a child (spontaneous, "wild" infection), perhaps she never would have developed this pneumonia at all, as recovery from spontaneous infection from measles is known to provide more robust, and longer-lasting immunity than artificial, man-made, temporary risk-reduction via vaccination. That is why those born before 1957 didn't need to be vaccinated - they were presumed to be protected by having had and recovered from a community acquired infection.
Because nothing is risk free, and because all decisions have both risks and benefits the writer of Vaccine Depot believes in freedom in healthcare decision-making ... if you want to be vaccinated, you should get whatever vaccines you think you need. Conversely, those who are not convinced the benefit of vaccines is greater than the risk should be free to make that decision as well.
Monday, June 08, 2015
VE Voodoo
VE is Vaccine Effectiveness - an estimate of how well a vaccine does (or does not) work.
The VE for the 2014 - 2015 flu vaccine was 18% (with a 95% Confidence Interval of 6-29%);
Perhaps I could have titled this one "How a Confidence Interval can be a Confidential Informant".
In statistics, the Confidence Interval (or CI) is interpreted as giving the range within which we can be x certain (in this case, 95%) that the true effect exists. In general, the wider the interval between the two numbers the less certain one can be of the effect. The width of the CI is influenced by the sample size of the study - and in general the larger the study the smaller the width of the CI, providing greater confidence in the precision of the estimation of the effect in question.
The CI associated with the CDC's VE for flu vaccines in the 2014 - 2015 influenza season is wide. It is unknown how large was the sample size used to generate the VE (this information is not provided). But if the sample size was large a wide CI is all the more concerning. In their report they do at least acknowledge "reduced protection" and indirectly allude to the fact that even when the vaccine strain is well-matched to the circulating strain VE is about 50% at best.
But then the last paragraph of the report contains this sentence: "None of the VE estimates by age for this season are statistically significant at this time." A polite way of saying that even the 18% VE may well be meaningless - that there may have been no statistically significant effect from the vaccine at all, or that it didn't work. At all.
Given this information, how is it rational to demand healthcare workers use this product or risk losing their jobs? How can healthcare providers recommend this to a client? Why is the government and why are health insurers paying for this product? Why accept the risks of using this product when the odds of benefit are so slim (even IF the risk of harm is low)?
No one should be forced to use a vaccine - nor manipulated, nor coerced in any way, shape, or form. Being threatened with loss of employment is a form of manipulation and/or coercion. Being threatened with not being able to go to school because you have not been vaccinated is likewise manipulative and coercive - it causes people to make a medical decision under an influence other than objective information and it introduces a third party into a relationship (and decision) that should be private.
We deserve better - especially from people whose salaries we pay (ie: CDC officials).
The VE for the 2014 - 2015 flu vaccine was 18% (with a 95% Confidence Interval of 6-29%);
Perhaps I could have titled this one "How a Confidence Interval can be a Confidential Informant".
In statistics, the Confidence Interval (or CI) is interpreted as giving the range within which we can be x certain (in this case, 95%) that the true effect exists. In general, the wider the interval between the two numbers the less certain one can be of the effect. The width of the CI is influenced by the sample size of the study - and in general the larger the study the smaller the width of the CI, providing greater confidence in the precision of the estimation of the effect in question.
The CI associated with the CDC's VE for flu vaccines in the 2014 - 2015 influenza season is wide. It is unknown how large was the sample size used to generate the VE (this information is not provided). But if the sample size was large a wide CI is all the more concerning. In their report they do at least acknowledge "reduced protection" and indirectly allude to the fact that even when the vaccine strain is well-matched to the circulating strain VE is about 50% at best.
But then the last paragraph of the report contains this sentence: "None of the VE estimates by age for this season are statistically significant at this time." A polite way of saying that even the 18% VE may well be meaningless - that there may have been no statistically significant effect from the vaccine at all, or that it didn't work. At all.
Given this information, how is it rational to demand healthcare workers use this product or risk losing their jobs? How can healthcare providers recommend this to a client? Why is the government and why are health insurers paying for this product? Why accept the risks of using this product when the odds of benefit are so slim (even IF the risk of harm is low)?
No one should be forced to use a vaccine - nor manipulated, nor coerced in any way, shape, or form. Being threatened with loss of employment is a form of manipulation and/or coercion. Being threatened with not being able to go to school because you have not been vaccinated is likewise manipulative and coercive - it causes people to make a medical decision under an influence other than objective information and it introduces a third party into a relationship (and decision) that should be private.
We deserve better - especially from people whose salaries we pay (ie: CDC officials).
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Podcast Post - raw notes (Siegel/Vaccine Myth May 10, 2015)
One of the benefits of long commutes is having time to listen to podcasts - and I've come to appreciate being able to do this. It's also something I'll do on my days off (when I'm not listening to talk radio).
This post contains raw notes I jotted down as I listened to the May 10, 2015 episode of Shawn Siegel's show "The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust" - he has a YouTube channel, and you can listen live to his how on the Logos Radio Network as well. I subscribe to the podcast (via iTunes) and listen when I can.
The guest on this episode was Dr. Suzanne Humphries, and she discusses some interesting tidbits of information she's unearthed in her research. From what I've observed, those who question the paradigm of vaccination are more transparent than those who accept it. At at least two points in the program she acknowledges criticism of her book Dissolving Illusions (co-written with Roman Bystrianyk) and answers the criticisms - without resorting to ad hominem attacks of her critics.
These notes may serve as a starting off point for further research for myself ... or anyone else (though I encourage you to listen to the show yourself - check against my notes!)
They focus primarily on the measles vaccine during the discussion.
Lungs have immune cells with CD150 receptors (only immune cells have this type of receptor); The virus targets these receptors (in the natural/spontaneous infection) and it takes about 1 week before it is in the body - first the lymph, then the reticulo-endothelial system ... at which point you begin to show symptoms (Koplik's spots in the mouth, rash,
fever, cough, etc ...);
Nectin 4 receptors?
"Passaging" described - part of the manufacture of measles vaccine (or perhaps its initial development). Cultured on a variety of tissues - human kidney/chorion, monkey kidney, human diploid cells (from aborted fetuses); Vero cells (from monkey kidneys) have CD 46 receptors to which the wild measles virus does not have an affinity - though that changed as a result of techniques used to develop the vaccine strain used in measles vaccines. CD 46 receptors are present on every nucleated cell (ie: all cells in the body except mature red blood cells);
Measles virus has "H" protein ... virus mutates over time.
Discussed research about response of vaccinated vs unvaccinated when exposed to wild measles - vac have inferior response compared to unvac (Poland study?);
Measles without rash - increased risk of chronic disease.
Low-grade chronic infection circulating throughout vaccinated population that manifests as actual full-blown disease when enough people (vac and/or unvac) are susceptible.
They also touched on Pertussis/Whooping Cough (WC) - discussed theory that the vaccinated may be the source of the mutated bacteria that do not have pertactin and this may be one facet of why the WC vaccine is less effective. This is due in part to the development of "immunity" via injection rather than through the lung tissue (has implications for measles as well since that is also primarily a respiratory virus) - if/when the vaccinated are exposed to disease and subsequently recover may harbor bacteria longer which has allowed it to mutate so the vaccine is less effective. (not sure if this is related to baboon study showing vaccinated as a reservoir of infection).
Dr. VK Singh - testified before congress regarding MMR and auto-immunity/autism
Dr. Steven Walker
Pabst study 1997
Discussed reluctance and/or difficulty of many researchers to pursue research that is perceived as being "anti-vaccine" as it kills careers and ends funding ... being "Wakefielded" (so the issue is not necessarily truth, let alone facts ... science should not be agenda driven, yet it is, as is any human endeavor).
T cell key to eliminating measles, cellular immune system key, especially with measles.
Death is used as a way to "persuade" people to accept vaccine even though death rate had decreased to ~500/year (incidence of 3-4 million/year) prior to implementing vaccine.
These notes are **very** raw and virtually unedited (I typed them up after the fact - they might have more detail and fewer omissions/errors if I had been typing them as I listened but that's not what happened). The interview touched on more that I have forgotten because I wasn't able to write it down (since I frequently listen as I drive!) so I hope you listen to the show and/or episode as well ... and compare your notes to mine!
Ultimately, those who want vaccines should get them (hardly the position of someone who is "anti-vaccine"!) ... this writer appreciates that we are designed by our Creator (Jesus) to live in freedom.
Either way, if you decide to receive a vaccine or have your children vaccinated you should be convinced, satisfied in the amount and veracity/trustworthiness of the information upon which you base your decision - and that your decision should be freely made, not coerced, forced, nor manipulated in any way.
This post contains raw notes I jotted down as I listened to the May 10, 2015 episode of Shawn Siegel's show "The Vaccine Myth: An Issue of Trust" - he has a YouTube channel, and you can listen live to his how on the Logos Radio Network as well. I subscribe to the podcast (via iTunes) and listen when I can.
The guest on this episode was Dr. Suzanne Humphries, and she discusses some interesting tidbits of information she's unearthed in her research. From what I've observed, those who question the paradigm of vaccination are more transparent than those who accept it. At at least two points in the program she acknowledges criticism of her book Dissolving Illusions (co-written with Roman Bystrianyk) and answers the criticisms - without resorting to ad hominem attacks of her critics.
These notes may serve as a starting off point for further research for myself ... or anyone else (though I encourage you to listen to the show yourself - check against my notes!)
They focus primarily on the measles vaccine during the discussion.
Lungs have immune cells with CD150 receptors (only immune cells have this type of receptor); The virus targets these receptors (in the natural/spontaneous infection) and it takes about 1 week before it is in the body - first the lymph, then the reticulo-endothelial system ... at which point you begin to show symptoms (Koplik's spots in the mouth, rash,
fever, cough, etc ...);
Nectin 4 receptors?
"Passaging" described - part of the manufacture of measles vaccine (or perhaps its initial development). Cultured on a variety of tissues - human kidney/chorion, monkey kidney, human diploid cells (from aborted fetuses); Vero cells (from monkey kidneys) have CD 46 receptors to which the wild measles virus does not have an affinity - though that changed as a result of techniques used to develop the vaccine strain used in measles vaccines. CD 46 receptors are present on every nucleated cell (ie: all cells in the body except mature red blood cells);
Measles virus has "H" protein ... virus mutates over time.
Discussed research about response of vaccinated vs unvaccinated when exposed to wild measles - vac have inferior response compared to unvac (Poland study?);
Measles without rash - increased risk of chronic disease.
Low-grade chronic infection circulating throughout vaccinated population that manifests as actual full-blown disease when enough people (vac and/or unvac) are susceptible.
They also touched on Pertussis/Whooping Cough (WC) - discussed theory that the vaccinated may be the source of the mutated bacteria that do not have pertactin and this may be one facet of why the WC vaccine is less effective. This is due in part to the development of "immunity" via injection rather than through the lung tissue (has implications for measles as well since that is also primarily a respiratory virus) - if/when the vaccinated are exposed to disease and subsequently recover may harbor bacteria longer which has allowed it to mutate so the vaccine is less effective. (not sure if this is related to baboon study showing vaccinated as a reservoir of infection).
Dr. VK Singh - testified before congress regarding MMR and auto-immunity/autism
Dr. Steven Walker
Pabst study 1997
Discussed reluctance and/or difficulty of many researchers to pursue research that is perceived as being "anti-vaccine" as it kills careers and ends funding ... being "Wakefielded" (so the issue is not necessarily truth, let alone facts ... science should not be agenda driven, yet it is, as is any human endeavor).
T cell key to eliminating measles, cellular immune system key, especially with measles.
Death is used as a way to "persuade" people to accept vaccine even though death rate had decreased to ~500/year (incidence of 3-4 million/year) prior to implementing vaccine.
These notes are **very** raw and virtually unedited (I typed them up after the fact - they might have more detail and fewer omissions/errors if I had been typing them as I listened but that's not what happened). The interview touched on more that I have forgotten because I wasn't able to write it down (since I frequently listen as I drive!) so I hope you listen to the show and/or episode as well ... and compare your notes to mine!
Ultimately, those who want vaccines should get them (hardly the position of someone who is "anti-vaccine"!) ... this writer appreciates that we are designed by our Creator (Jesus) to live in freedom.
Either way, if you decide to receive a vaccine or have your children vaccinated you should be convinced, satisfied in the amount and veracity/trustworthiness of the information upon which you base your decision - and that your decision should be freely made, not coerced, forced, nor manipulated in any way.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Not such a happy Mother's Day
All mother's want their children to be healthy, and few things warm a mother's heart than knowing that their child(ren) are safe and thriving. This is universal for all parents, but late last week two 1 month old infants died in Mexico after receiving a variety of vaccinations (39 others are hospitalized). To their credit the Mexican government has suspended all vaccinations while they investigate. They had received 3 vaccinations simultaneously - tuberculosis, rotavirus, and Hepatitis B vaccines. Because they received multiple vaccinations simultaneously it will be all the more difficult to determine if it was one particular vaccine that was the primary cause or if there was a synergy in receiving multiple vaccines at the same time that resulted in the deaths. The practice of giving multiple vaccines at the same time is poorly studied as vaccines are simply added to the schedule once they are approved and deemed "safe and effective".
The last paragraph of the article includes the knee-jerk disclaimer that vaccines are in important public health strategy but all medications have risks, etc ... this politically correct statement has begun to fall rather flat, as it is nothing but a token acknowledgement of reality - yet (at least in the United States) it is increasingly difficult to avoid vaccination - there is little choice in the matter, so there is no way for individuals to avoid the risks and while the "herd" may have a short-term benefit, the collective group bears no responsibility when adverse events (like DEATH) occur.
My heart aches for these families - they were doing what they thought was best for their children (and as many think, fulfilling their "duty" to society), yet the result was tragedy. I pray for their comfort and peace as they grieve.
I don't doubt the motive of the parents, or of public health officials (and others) who fervently believe in the necessity of vaccination. I do wish someone would describe how many deaths as a result of vaccination is acceptable ... how many adverse events (either short or long term) ... and why policy makers refuse to insist upon LOTS of studies comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated (in both short term health and long term health) as that is the kind of information that would help both policy makers and parents and adult individuals decide what level of risk/benefit ratio with which they are willing to live.
Why are those who set vaccine policy permitted to be financially conflicted and connected with vaccine manufacturers when both benefit financially from the decision to use vaccines? Why do we not insist that those who set vaccine policy have no financial relationship with vaccine manufacturers, ever - not before they set policy, not after they set policy (Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Paul Offit among many, many others).
I hope Mexican public health officials have the backbone, and integrity, to not allow the vaccine makers the cover of the "Wyeth strategy" in response to these tragic outcomes. While Mexico was not included in this study I hope Mexican health policy makers consider its implications - that more vaccines do not necessarily mean better health.
Because we do not have good data comparing short and long term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals it is difficult for individuals to determine the level of participation in vaccination with which they are comfortable - what vaccines they may want, what they do not want.
Because vaccines have been declared both "safe and effective" by policy makers saddled with conflict of interest and also "unavoidably unsafe" (so says the SCOTUS in Bruesewitz v Wyeth, 2011) people must be able to decide for themselves what vaccines they use and when they use them.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/two-infants-dead-after-receiving-vaccinations/
The last paragraph of the article includes the knee-jerk disclaimer that vaccines are in important public health strategy but all medications have risks, etc ... this politically correct statement has begun to fall rather flat, as it is nothing but a token acknowledgement of reality - yet (at least in the United States) it is increasingly difficult to avoid vaccination - there is little choice in the matter, so there is no way for individuals to avoid the risks and while the "herd" may have a short-term benefit, the collective group bears no responsibility when adverse events (like DEATH) occur.
My heart aches for these families - they were doing what they thought was best for their children (and as many think, fulfilling their "duty" to society), yet the result was tragedy. I pray for their comfort and peace as they grieve.
I don't doubt the motive of the parents, or of public health officials (and others) who fervently believe in the necessity of vaccination. I do wish someone would describe how many deaths as a result of vaccination is acceptable ... how many adverse events (either short or long term) ... and why policy makers refuse to insist upon LOTS of studies comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated (in both short term health and long term health) as that is the kind of information that would help both policy makers and parents and adult individuals decide what level of risk/benefit ratio with which they are willing to live.
Why are those who set vaccine policy permitted to be financially conflicted and connected with vaccine manufacturers when both benefit financially from the decision to use vaccines? Why do we not insist that those who set vaccine policy have no financial relationship with vaccine manufacturers, ever - not before they set policy, not after they set policy (Dr. Julie Gerberding, Dr. Paul Offit among many, many others).
I hope Mexican public health officials have the backbone, and integrity, to not allow the vaccine makers the cover of the "Wyeth strategy" in response to these tragic outcomes. While Mexico was not included in this study I hope Mexican health policy makers consider its implications - that more vaccines do not necessarily mean better health.
Because we do not have good data comparing short and long term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals it is difficult for individuals to determine the level of participation in vaccination with which they are comfortable - what vaccines they may want, what they do not want.
Because vaccines have been declared both "safe and effective" by policy makers saddled with conflict of interest and also "unavoidably unsafe" (so says the SCOTUS in Bruesewitz v Wyeth, 2011) people must be able to decide for themselves what vaccines they use and when they use them.
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/two-infants-dead-after-receiving-vaccinations/
Saturday, May 02, 2015
Questions left begging ...
Another blog post inspired by Twitter ...
Why are vets recommending fewer vaccines to animals in response to higher rates of chronic disease?
Why can't we do at least one study comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children (even a retrospective one, let alone an RCT)?
Is there any company manufacturing or selling vaccines that hasn't been accused or convicted of fraud or deception or unethical actions? In other words - are the products they are making worthy of our trust?
In vaccine studies, why is the "placebo" NOT an inert substance like saline, but rather the vaccine excipient minus the antigen? The excipient is not inert saline and contains many other chemicals that are biologically interactive - this would affect the results of the study.
Why is there so much conflict of interest (COI) embedded in every facet of vaccine policy?
Lawmakers receive large amounts of cash from pharmaceutical lobbyists
Scientists and other researchers are beholden to grant-makers for further funding
Physicians are paid bonuses for vaccinating patients
Healthcare workers are required to be vaccinated to continue employment
Members of the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Vaccination Practices) have ties to and/or
benefit financially from companies that make/sell the vaccines they recommend.
There is a revolving door between the CDC and many vaccine/pharmaceutical companies
Declaring or making known any conflict of interest does not make it go away. What makes it go away is eliminating the conflict (duh!) - do not receive any kind of payment or gift (either cash or in-kind) from any company involved in making or selling vaccines.
Why is use of a product that has been legally declared "unavoidably unsafe" required for participation in community activities (school, employment, etc);
Why are those who make/sell/administer vaccines legally shielded ("immune") from liability?
Why are vaccines "exempt" from being questioned? The "science was settled" in regards to the helio-centric nature of our solar system ... well, at least by Galileo - but he was "made to care" by many in his day - and it was not until recently that those who opposed him finally acknowledged he was correct.
Similarly - the theory that episiotomy protected the pelvic floor was unquestioned ... until someone actually did the research - low and behold, episiotomy tends to do more harm than good and its use should be restricted. Hmmmm. Vaginal birth after cesarean was considered unsafe - until the research was actually done - low and behold, it was "discovered" that it is actually, in general, a safe route of birth for many, if not most women who have previously given birth by cesarean section. Hmmm. Yet there are many questions about vaccination that are studiously unanswered. The theory of vaccination is just that, a theory. Whatever testing and research that has been done is not sufficient and is little more than the academic equivalent of an echo chamber. Those who have questions about vaccination safety, efficacy, and policy are trying to stop the echo of "safe and effective" - it's a technique called the broken record and it can be effective, but it is hardly appropriate for a topic this important.
Why are there some who think that "Shaken Baby Syndrome" may have the DNA fingerprints of vaccine-associated death all over it ... yet no one will take this seriously. How many may have been falsely accused and jailed because of this?
Similarly, does anyone consider any temporal association between SIDS and receipt of vaccines?
Why are those who question vaccination unafraid of freedom, while those who accept vaccination without question frequently want to impose this on others - in other words, advocate limiting freedom to choose or decline a medical procedure - those who advocate for vaccination advocate for denial of informed consent (one element of which is freedom to accept or decline the course of action).
Why is the heavy hand of the state being used to control the population (in the context of this blog post: in regards to vaccination - but certainly the heavy hand of the state is being used to control citizen in far many other domains as well) when there are so many legitimate questions about vaccination?
Why are substances used in vaccines not safe outside of vaccines (ie: like mercury, formaldehyde among many others) but are safe to be injected into anyone when included in vaccines? Why are EPA limits for these toxins unsafe for human exposure at lower levels in drinking water than in vaccines that are injected into the body?
Why do we vaccinate children for Hep B at birth when their mother's do not have this infection?
What would the vaccine schedule look like today if vaccine makers had not been given immunity (since 1986) - the number of vaccines has grown exponentially since then and there are hundreds more being developed.
One generation ago the mantra was "question authority" ... now those who do are pariahs.
Transparency welcomes questions, research, information - none of which is valued by those who deny there are legitimate questions regarding vaccination. Transparency and freedom are a natural fit - how lovely it would be to have both in regards to vaccination. Answering the questions posed in this post would be a start.
Do your own research, consider all points of view.
As always - if you want a vaccine you should get it. If you do not want a vaccine you should be free to decline without being penalized in any way, shape, or form.
Why are vets recommending fewer vaccines to animals in response to higher rates of chronic disease?
Why can't we do at least one study comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children (even a retrospective one, let alone an RCT)?
Is there any company manufacturing or selling vaccines that hasn't been accused or convicted of fraud or deception or unethical actions? In other words - are the products they are making worthy of our trust?
In vaccine studies, why is the "placebo" NOT an inert substance like saline, but rather the vaccine excipient minus the antigen? The excipient is not inert saline and contains many other chemicals that are biologically interactive - this would affect the results of the study.
Why is there so much conflict of interest (COI) embedded in every facet of vaccine policy?
Lawmakers receive large amounts of cash from pharmaceutical lobbyists
Scientists and other researchers are beholden to grant-makers for further funding
Physicians are paid bonuses for vaccinating patients
Healthcare workers are required to be vaccinated to continue employment
Members of the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Vaccination Practices) have ties to and/or
benefit financially from companies that make/sell the vaccines they recommend.
There is a revolving door between the CDC and many vaccine/pharmaceutical companies
Declaring or making known any conflict of interest does not make it go away. What makes it go away is eliminating the conflict (duh!) - do not receive any kind of payment or gift (either cash or in-kind) from any company involved in making or selling vaccines.
Why is use of a product that has been legally declared "unavoidably unsafe" required for participation in community activities (school, employment, etc);
Why are those who make/sell/administer vaccines legally shielded ("immune") from liability?
Why are vaccines "exempt" from being questioned? The "science was settled" in regards to the helio-centric nature of our solar system ... well, at least by Galileo - but he was "made to care" by many in his day - and it was not until recently that those who opposed him finally acknowledged he was correct.
Similarly - the theory that episiotomy protected the pelvic floor was unquestioned ... until someone actually did the research - low and behold, episiotomy tends to do more harm than good and its use should be restricted. Hmmmm. Vaginal birth after cesarean was considered unsafe - until the research was actually done - low and behold, it was "discovered" that it is actually, in general, a safe route of birth for many, if not most women who have previously given birth by cesarean section. Hmmm. Yet there are many questions about vaccination that are studiously unanswered. The theory of vaccination is just that, a theory. Whatever testing and research that has been done is not sufficient and is little more than the academic equivalent of an echo chamber. Those who have questions about vaccination safety, efficacy, and policy are trying to stop the echo of "safe and effective" - it's a technique called the broken record and it can be effective, but it is hardly appropriate for a topic this important.
Why are there some who think that "Shaken Baby Syndrome" may have the DNA fingerprints of vaccine-associated death all over it ... yet no one will take this seriously. How many may have been falsely accused and jailed because of this?
Similarly, does anyone consider any temporal association between SIDS and receipt of vaccines?
Why are those who question vaccination unafraid of freedom, while those who accept vaccination without question frequently want to impose this on others - in other words, advocate limiting freedom to choose or decline a medical procedure - those who advocate for vaccination advocate for denial of informed consent (one element of which is freedom to accept or decline the course of action).
Why is the heavy hand of the state being used to control the population (in the context of this blog post: in regards to vaccination - but certainly the heavy hand of the state is being used to control citizen in far many other domains as well) when there are so many legitimate questions about vaccination?
Why are substances used in vaccines not safe outside of vaccines (ie: like mercury, formaldehyde among many others) but are safe to be injected into anyone when included in vaccines? Why are EPA limits for these toxins unsafe for human exposure at lower levels in drinking water than in vaccines that are injected into the body?
Why do we vaccinate children for Hep B at birth when their mother's do not have this infection?
What would the vaccine schedule look like today if vaccine makers had not been given immunity (since 1986) - the number of vaccines has grown exponentially since then and there are hundreds more being developed.
One generation ago the mantra was "question authority" ... now those who do are pariahs.
Transparency welcomes questions, research, information - none of which is valued by those who deny there are legitimate questions regarding vaccination. Transparency and freedom are a natural fit - how lovely it would be to have both in regards to vaccination. Answering the questions posed in this post would be a start.
Do your own research, consider all points of view.
As always - if you want a vaccine you should get it. If you do not want a vaccine you should be free to decline without being penalized in any way, shape, or form.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)