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.
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
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.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Islamification of vaccines - Part 2
This post is inspired by a tweet:
https://twitter.com/rblotnicky/status/592786638641717249/photo/1
Pointing out another facet of the Islamification of vaccines ... though in all fairness this one may not have been the deliberate lying of taqqiya, but rather, a "journalist" who did not do sufficient fact-checking prior to writing the editorial (aka: article).
There have been no deaths attributed to the "Disneyland" measles outbreak of 2014 - if there had been we would still be hearing about it.
A number of patients were intentionally unvaccinated ... and have now recovered and as a result will benefit from a lifetime of immunity. The intentionally vaccinated bore the risks of receiving the vaccine yet did not derive any benefit. 43% of cases had an unknown or undocumented vaccination status ... but given vaccination rates for MMR at ~92% it would be fair to suspect that a significant portion of this 43% had at least 1 dose of MMR vaccine which would impact estimates of "efficacy" negatively. The "solution" to this problem is always more vaccination ... a solution drug companies like - and this positive feedback loop has lead to the development of an ever increasing array of vaccines - most of which will no doubt also need to be given in repeated "boosters" in order to maintain "efficacy" - now that's a business model, especially since there is zero liability for any risk and/or failure of said products.
Those who advocate forced vaccination seem to be downright Machiavellian in their pursuit of achieving the vaccination of one and all, so they may not care if the deceit was inadvertent or unintentional.
It's a pity more journalists are not following the example of Sharyl Attkisson and Lawrence Solomon, who have written about vaccines with far greater balance and attention to little details referred to as facts.
The truth has nothing to fear from the lie ... regardless of whether the lie is deliberate or accidental. And the truth does not fear fact checking or the challenging of assumptions - two things that send chills down the spines of advocates of forced vaccination.
https://twitter.com/rblotnicky/status/592786638641717249/photo/1
Pointing out another facet of the Islamification of vaccines ... though in all fairness this one may not have been the deliberate lying of taqqiya, but rather, a "journalist" who did not do sufficient fact-checking prior to writing the editorial (aka: article).
There have been no deaths attributed to the "Disneyland" measles outbreak of 2014 - if there had been we would still be hearing about it.
A number of patients were intentionally unvaccinated ... and have now recovered and as a result will benefit from a lifetime of immunity. The intentionally vaccinated bore the risks of receiving the vaccine yet did not derive any benefit. 43% of cases had an unknown or undocumented vaccination status ... but given vaccination rates for MMR at ~92% it would be fair to suspect that a significant portion of this 43% had at least 1 dose of MMR vaccine which would impact estimates of "efficacy" negatively. The "solution" to this problem is always more vaccination ... a solution drug companies like - and this positive feedback loop has lead to the development of an ever increasing array of vaccines - most of which will no doubt also need to be given in repeated "boosters" in order to maintain "efficacy" - now that's a business model, especially since there is zero liability for any risk and/or failure of said products.
Those who advocate forced vaccination seem to be downright Machiavellian in their pursuit of achieving the vaccination of one and all, so they may not care if the deceit was inadvertent or unintentional.
It's a pity more journalists are not following the example of Sharyl Attkisson and Lawrence Solomon, who have written about vaccines with far greater balance and attention to little details referred to as facts.
The truth has nothing to fear from the lie ... regardless of whether the lie is deliberate or accidental. And the truth does not fear fact checking or the challenging of assumptions - two things that send chills down the spines of advocates of forced vaccination.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Focus - on the truth not fearing the lie
Background: The last week has brought another micro-controversy regarding vaccination, this time (primarily) inside the sub-culture of evangelical Christianity, specifically the niche of those who follow the para-church organization, Focus on the Family (founded by Dr. James Dobson). Thriving Families is one of their publications. In the April/May 2015 edition of their Thriving Families one of their medical advisers answered a question about vaccination. A blogger, Megan Heimer (http://www.livingwhole.org) published this response, "Dear Focus On the Family, You're On the Wrong Side of the Vaccine Controversy". It has gone viral and has been shared >10,000 times. According to Ms. Heimer, Focus on the Family (FOTF) has been deleting references to her post that have been shared or posted on FOTF's Facebook page - and that is the topic of today's post.
This post was written Sunday April 19, 2015 at 1830 (6:30pm EST) and I was able to find several links (at least 6 as of when this post was written) to Ms. Heimer's blog post - all posted by the same person (Charissa Kelly), each post with ~3-5 "likes", all posted on April 17 at 1435 (2:35pm), so the links have been up for at least 2 days - and all posted under a topic posted by FOTF, and unrelated to vaccination or the Thriving Families column to which Ms. Heimer initially responded. At least one of them was on a FOTF post that pre-dated Ms. Heimer's blog post! For the record - I did not contact either Ms. Heimer or FOTF prior to writing this blog post. I did post a comment in her private group (of which I am a member) in MeWe.com in response to her post reporting her allegations about FOTF's response to her blog post.
I'm entirely willing to give Ms. Heimer the benefit of the doubt in regards to her allegations about FOTF's response to her post (that they deleted references/links/posts to her blog about their column) - and it may be they have not yet scrubbed the links I found as I did some basic research/fact checking to write this post. Or perhaps they (FOTF) have received feedback about this tactic and have decided to abandon it. It's also inappropriate to post a link unrelated to the primary topic - though people might not feel the need to do that if posts were not being deleted.
While FOTF has every right to control the content of their page it is disingenuous to delete comments in response to something they published! I could find no guidelines on their Facebook page regarding any comment policy. Ms. Heimer's post was not disrespectful, nor inflammatory - she was clear and specific in how and why she disagreed with Dr. Hinthorn's column, and she provided links for supportive documentation/back-up for what she wrote.
Jesus did not shy away from any controversy and He does not fear our questions, instead He welcomes them. The truth has nothing to fear from the lie, and resorting to this sort of tactic (if true) reveals an insecurity about their position. He designed us to live in freedom and He respects our decisions even when they cause us pain and grieve Him - even if/when our decisions are sinful.
Christians are increasingly being scrubbed from public discourse (the marketplace of ideas) because positions conforming to a biblical worldview are contrary to the politically correct ideology that is increasingly dominant. It isn't surprising that non-Christians do not want their ideas challenged. It is surprising, and disappointing that a Christian organization is alleged to have resorted to suppression of an opinion challenging their own.
This post was written Sunday April 19, 2015 at 1830 (6:30pm EST) and I was able to find several links (at least 6 as of when this post was written) to Ms. Heimer's blog post - all posted by the same person (Charissa Kelly), each post with ~3-5 "likes", all posted on April 17 at 1435 (2:35pm), so the links have been up for at least 2 days - and all posted under a topic posted by FOTF, and unrelated to vaccination or the Thriving Families column to which Ms. Heimer initially responded. At least one of them was on a FOTF post that pre-dated Ms. Heimer's blog post! For the record - I did not contact either Ms. Heimer or FOTF prior to writing this blog post. I did post a comment in her private group (of which I am a member) in MeWe.com in response to her post reporting her allegations about FOTF's response to her blog post.
I'm entirely willing to give Ms. Heimer the benefit of the doubt in regards to her allegations about FOTF's response to her post (that they deleted references/links/posts to her blog about their column) - and it may be they have not yet scrubbed the links I found as I did some basic research/fact checking to write this post. Or perhaps they (FOTF) have received feedback about this tactic and have decided to abandon it. It's also inappropriate to post a link unrelated to the primary topic - though people might not feel the need to do that if posts were not being deleted.
While FOTF has every right to control the content of their page it is disingenuous to delete comments in response to something they published! I could find no guidelines on their Facebook page regarding any comment policy. Ms. Heimer's post was not disrespectful, nor inflammatory - she was clear and specific in how and why she disagreed with Dr. Hinthorn's column, and she provided links for supportive documentation/back-up for what she wrote.
Jesus did not shy away from any controversy and He does not fear our questions, instead He welcomes them. The truth has nothing to fear from the lie, and resorting to this sort of tactic (if true) reveals an insecurity about their position. He designed us to live in freedom and He respects our decisions even when they cause us pain and grieve Him - even if/when our decisions are sinful.
Christians are increasingly being scrubbed from public discourse (the marketplace of ideas) because positions conforming to a biblical worldview are contrary to the politically correct ideology that is increasingly dominant. It isn't surprising that non-Christians do not want their ideas challenged. It is surprising, and disappointing that a Christian organization is alleged to have resorted to suppression of an opinion challenging their own.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
The Islamification of vaccination ...
Taqqiya is the Islamic practice of lying, deceiving, or manipulating in order to advance Islam. Since The Truth has nothing to fear from the lie why do those who advocate vaccination feel the need to lie in order to get people to take vaccines?
A former nursing student has now filed a lawsuit against Baker college in Michigan alleging several of their faculty were teaching nursing students that it was acceptable practice to use similar techniques with parents and/or patients in order to obtain the desired result - acceptance of vaccination. She maintains that she was dismissed from the program because she questioned the ethics of this.
The school has not yet officially responded and it seems Ms. Rolfe has strong opinions about many topics. But if what she reports about the nursing program is accurate it is the faculty who need "re-education" about medical ethics, informed consent, nursing's code of ethics and the Nuremberg Code for starters. If what she is stating is accurate the accreditation of the school needs to be reviewed very carefully.
The use of force, deceit, coercion, and manipulation in medicine is not new ... consider the on-going use of forced abortion in China, the (not to distant) history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, the infamous Tuskegee experiments - among others ... all of course, for the greater good!
Given this history if people can be forced, coerced, and/or manipulated into vaccination, what else might people be required to do or receive, or participate in? The lack of freedom to chose to take, or not take a vaccination leads to health dhimmitude.
The proponents of vaccination would make both Muhammed and Machiavelli proud.
A former nursing student has now filed a lawsuit against Baker college in Michigan alleging several of their faculty were teaching nursing students that it was acceptable practice to use similar techniques with parents and/or patients in order to obtain the desired result - acceptance of vaccination. She maintains that she was dismissed from the program because she questioned the ethics of this.
The school has not yet officially responded and it seems Ms. Rolfe has strong opinions about many topics. But if what she reports about the nursing program is accurate it is the faculty who need "re-education" about medical ethics, informed consent, nursing's code of ethics and the Nuremberg Code for starters. If what she is stating is accurate the accreditation of the school needs to be reviewed very carefully.
The use of force, deceit, coercion, and manipulation in medicine is not new ... consider the on-going use of forced abortion in China, the (not to distant) history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, the infamous Tuskegee experiments - among others ... all of course, for the greater good!
Given this history if people can be forced, coerced, and/or manipulated into vaccination, what else might people be required to do or receive, or participate in? The lack of freedom to chose to take, or not take a vaccination leads to health dhimmitude.
The proponents of vaccination would make both Muhammed and Machiavelli proud.
Monday, February 09, 2015
The cracks in trust continue to grow ...
Healthcare providers and patients have placed great trust in researchers (both private and public) to provide data (information) and solutions to health problems based upon good data. Once trust is broken it is not easily regained.
Over the last decade there have been seminal articles sounding the alarm that the trust we have placed in those providing us with information and products we use to either protect or repair our health may have some growing cracks.
In 2005 John Ioannidis published an essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in which he reviews problems with published research that lead to a foundation for skepticism toward much of the results and what to do about it.
In 2009, this quote from Marcia Angell, MD, writing in the NY Times Review of Books, "Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption" caught the attention of many:
In 2010 a qui tam lawsuit was filed against Merck by 2 of their scientists alleging Merck provided fraudulent proof of efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine. A ruling was issued in Sept 2014 allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
In August of 2014, Dr. William Thompson (of the CDC) came forward alleging a major 2004 study reporting no association between vaccines and autism was gerry-rigged to achieve desired results. He is reported to have been granted formal "whistleblower" status, and this story continues to develop.
And today, in 2015, Charles Seife published two articles (concurrently, in lay and professional press) alleging tolerance of fraud at the FDA.
Not all research is corrupt, but it is prudent to be discerning, and no one should be vilified for asking reasonable questions. Science is seldom settled, and has a long history of reversing itself, whether the domain is medicine or physics or any other aspect science.
Because science is not settled, and because of disclosures reviewed above, it is reasonable for people to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio with which they are comfortable in regards to vaccines (or any other medical intervention). We don't have all the data regarding vaccine safety, nor efficacy - much of this remains undisclosed, guarded by the companies that make a product that is mandated by the same government that has provided a virtually impenetrable liability shield, whose use is determined by professionals who may have undisclosed personal financial conflicts of interest with these same manufacturers!
It isn't transparent to stategize management of the crisis of a cluster of infant deaths following vaccination by ensuring no large batches of any one lot of a vaccine go to a particular geographic area (Wyeth 1979) and here for Wyeth's internal memo.
It is impossible to eliminate all risk of disease, even if there were 100% compliance with all vaccines - and we may well be trading temporary illness for long-term chronic ill health. There are many who would love to have studies looking at that very riddle, and what role, if any, vaccination may play in it.
None of us is unbiased, and neither is science as it is conducted by humans, who quite clearly, find it difficult to set aside their personal views in pursuing new knowledge. All of us live with the consequences of each others choices ... whether that is smoking, what we eat or whether we exercise, with whom we have sex and how we have sex ... and of course, whether we do or do not choose to be vaccinated (or have our children vaccinated if we are parents). It is wrong to demand people use a product whose safety and efficacy are unknown, in particular when there is so much apparent conflict of interest embedded in the very system making recommendations for said product ... when those who receive the product bear all risk with essentially no recourse when they are injured by the product they were required to use even against their will!
Over the last decade there have been seminal articles sounding the alarm that the trust we have placed in those providing us with information and products we use to either protect or repair our health may have some growing cracks.
In 2005 John Ioannidis published an essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in which he reviews problems with published research that lead to a foundation for skepticism toward much of the results and what to do about it.
In 2009, this quote from Marcia Angell, MD, writing in the NY Times Review of Books, "Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption" caught the attention of many:
"The problems I’ve discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine."Even with just a cursory read of Dr. Angell's writing one would recognize she has no love for free-market medicine or market-based solutions in healthcare, and here she and I would disagree, as I think this would provide the best solutions for many problems in healthcare. The brilliance of the free market is that it reflects the collective expression of individual economic choices, and good ideas, good products do well because people demand more of them - the "mandate" grows from a groundswell of consumers requesting more of, and being willing to pay for a product rather than it being forced upon them in an authoritarian fashion.
In 2010 a qui tam lawsuit was filed against Merck by 2 of their scientists alleging Merck provided fraudulent proof of efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine. A ruling was issued in Sept 2014 allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
In August of 2014, Dr. William Thompson (of the CDC) came forward alleging a major 2004 study reporting no association between vaccines and autism was gerry-rigged to achieve desired results. He is reported to have been granted formal "whistleblower" status, and this story continues to develop.
And today, in 2015, Charles Seife published two articles (concurrently, in lay and professional press) alleging tolerance of fraud at the FDA.
Not all research is corrupt, but it is prudent to be discerning, and no one should be vilified for asking reasonable questions. Science is seldom settled, and has a long history of reversing itself, whether the domain is medicine or physics or any other aspect science.
Because science is not settled, and because of disclosures reviewed above, it is reasonable for people to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio with which they are comfortable in regards to vaccines (or any other medical intervention). We don't have all the data regarding vaccine safety, nor efficacy - much of this remains undisclosed, guarded by the companies that make a product that is mandated by the same government that has provided a virtually impenetrable liability shield, whose use is determined by professionals who may have undisclosed personal financial conflicts of interest with these same manufacturers!
It isn't transparent to stategize management of the crisis of a cluster of infant deaths following vaccination by ensuring no large batches of any one lot of a vaccine go to a particular geographic area (Wyeth 1979) and here for Wyeth's internal memo.
It is impossible to eliminate all risk of disease, even if there were 100% compliance with all vaccines - and we may well be trading temporary illness for long-term chronic ill health. There are many who would love to have studies looking at that very riddle, and what role, if any, vaccination may play in it.
None of us is unbiased, and neither is science as it is conducted by humans, who quite clearly, find it difficult to set aside their personal views in pursuing new knowledge. All of us live with the consequences of each others choices ... whether that is smoking, what we eat or whether we exercise, with whom we have sex and how we have sex ... and of course, whether we do or do not choose to be vaccinated (or have our children vaccinated if we are parents). It is wrong to demand people use a product whose safety and efficacy are unknown, in particular when there is so much apparent conflict of interest embedded in the very system making recommendations for said product ... when those who receive the product bear all risk with essentially no recourse when they are injured by the product they were required to use even against their will!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)