This 3 minute vid splices together a few clips detailing some important issues
in vaccines:
From:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqRzdt6jXqM&feature=youtu.be
or
tinyurl.com/MSMpharmaBUSINESS
Commentary:
The first 25 seconds sketches out a conspiracy theory regarding
corporate control - I am not going to comment on this as I have done
very little research about it, though I think it detracts from this video as
it is not clearly linked to the remaining content.
00:25sec - 00:35sec: Brief review of the basic theory of vaccination.
In a perfect world it would be this simple. In reality, it is not. The next
clip gives a glimpse of why.
00:36sec - 01:21min: Dr Suzanne Humphries discusses a study that looked
at what genes were affected (specifically upregulated) as a result
of DTaP vaccination. There is a 10 second clip that is part of this that is
really quite important ... she states the obvious question (and critical)
question: We don't know WHY these genes are affected by vaccination,
because it hasn't been studied. But we are still informed, no matter how
little we may know about the effects of vaccination, that it is "safe and
effective". Sure.
Here's a link to the study (PMID: 18336961)
01:26 - 01:36: Sounds like an (unattributed) news report about deafness and
brain damage (might also be known as encephalitis which is code for autism
but perhaps calling it brain damage is not as scary?!) as a possible sequelae
to the MMR vaccine. But of course, "it's so rare it's hard to tell if it is caused
by the vaccine or something else" - whew, that's a relief! Huh? Seems like
the smart people at the CDC could do a study that might tease that out?!
Or perhaps the company that makes the vaccine - after all, they keep crowing
about how they want to make them as safe as possible! But when you have
no liability for the product there is not much incentive to do so. How convenient.
01:37 - 02:14: Rep Bill Posey (R-FL 8th District) speaking on the house floor about
the #CDCWhistleblower, Dr. Bill Thompson. He is reading Thompson's description
of an incident where CDC vaccine researchers gathered to dispose of data that
gave results they did not want. They were conducting post-normal science where
the outcome was pre-determined. They didn't bother "torturing the data until it
gave the desired result", they just eliminated it. Boom! Problem solved! The study
in question is a 2004 study that was to put to rest concerns about any link between
autism (oops, encephalitis, or brain damage) and vaccines, specifically the MMR
vaccine. Well, mission accomplished!
02:17 - 03:13 (end) You hear audio of Dr. Bill Thompson confessing his involvement
in the above referenced study to Dr. Brian Hooker (on a phone call that was taped
without Dr. Thompson's knowledge). The audio is overlayed with heartrending
footage of children seizing, or banging their heads or screaming in pain. Oddly
enough, none of them are black - this is important, because when the data was
re-analyzed (um, not by CDC "researchers" but by Dr. Brian Hooker) it revealed
that black boys were at significantly higher risk of autism when given the MMR
vaccine before 36 months. It isn't that other people groups were not at risk, just
that compared to one another it was apparent black males had an elevated risk.
Do your own research - for your own health and/or the health of your minor children.
Do not vaccinate unless or until you are satisfied you have the information to make
a decision. You can always vaccinate. You can never un-vaccinate.
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Saturday, October 08, 2016
Monday, October 03, 2016
Evolutionists and Vaccines
In my estimation anyone who believes in evolution should be extremely laissez faire in regards to vaccination. Either way, it's all good! Let me explain:
The theory of evolution posits that life arose spontaneously from the primordial soup after the "big bang" happened (conveniently giving no explanation for how the "Big Bang" occurred or from where the substances that blew might have come. But I digress - that's not the nit I pick on this blog).
Part of the theory of evolution is that beneficial or advantageous genetic or physical mutations lead to improvements in survival allowing the fittest to evolve to higher forms and/or species.
There's nothing about mandatory vaccines that should fit with an evolutionary world view.
If you require vaccines to survive or "evolve" just how fit are you? Vaccines are a deliberate intervention but evolution is spontaneous - it just happens. The chemicals in the primordial soup did not "think" to assemble into proteins - it just happened! Besides, proteins can't think.
If you believe in evolution you should be just fine with people not taking vaccines because those who are "less fit" will be wiped out by the scourge of disease leaving only the fittest to survive and carry on the species and involuntary process of evolution.
If vaccines cause people problems it's all good because this too weeds out those who are not "fit" and don't deserve to live, let alone breed. So if vaccines result in immediate death or contribute to chronic illness that results in an (earlier) death - so much the better. "Evolution" at work!
A feature that seems to be common to those who believe in evolution is great personal pride in their genotype and phenotype - they love to thump their chests and extoll the goodness of their "stock". No wonder they believe in the theory of herd immunity as well.
For the record, I do not believe in evolution. I believe in a literal six-day (as in 24 hours/day) creation as described in the first three chapters of the word of God, the Bible. It is this same God who designed us to live in freedom - so much so that He allowed Adam and Eve to sin. But even this was not plan "B" - it did not catch Him by surprise. The solution to our sin is the blood Jesus shed on the cross - and that is also foreshadowed in the same chapters that detail The Creator speaking this world into existence.
It is because of sin that we have illness, disease, and death. The Creator also provided us with an immune system to protect our bodies and lives. Since our bodies were also affected by sin we die - sometimes our immune systems are overwhelmed and not able to overcome the disease.
Our Creator also gave us brains to create vaccines. While they likely do provide some amount of risk reduction they are not risk free.
Some would rather rely only upon the immune system The Lord provided, others want to use vaccines - either using all of them or vaccinating selectively. Disease can and does spread regardless of the use of vaccination (recent outbreaks of mumps and pertussis in highly vaccinated populations make this abundantly clear).
Some would rather risk getting sick (generally once, generally temporarily, generally resulting in life-long immunity and possibly but seldom resulting in bad long-term consequences). Some would rather accept the risk of vaccination (a risk poorly delineated because it is poorly studied) in order to have the temporary risk reduction (a "benefit" that is just as poorly delineated because it is poorly studied) in getting sick.
It seems to me there is room for both choices ... we are all in this together. Let's respect and tolerate one another even if we do not agree on the decisions we make.
The theory of evolution posits that life arose spontaneously from the primordial soup after the "big bang" happened (conveniently giving no explanation for how the "Big Bang" occurred or from where the substances that blew might have come. But I digress - that's not the nit I pick on this blog).
Part of the theory of evolution is that beneficial or advantageous genetic or physical mutations lead to improvements in survival allowing the fittest to evolve to higher forms and/or species.
There's nothing about mandatory vaccines that should fit with an evolutionary world view.
If you require vaccines to survive or "evolve" just how fit are you? Vaccines are a deliberate intervention but evolution is spontaneous - it just happens. The chemicals in the primordial soup did not "think" to assemble into proteins - it just happened! Besides, proteins can't think.
If you believe in evolution you should be just fine with people not taking vaccines because those who are "less fit" will be wiped out by the scourge of disease leaving only the fittest to survive and carry on the species and involuntary process of evolution.
If vaccines cause people problems it's all good because this too weeds out those who are not "fit" and don't deserve to live, let alone breed. So if vaccines result in immediate death or contribute to chronic illness that results in an (earlier) death - so much the better. "Evolution" at work!
A feature that seems to be common to those who believe in evolution is great personal pride in their genotype and phenotype - they love to thump their chests and extoll the goodness of their "stock". No wonder they believe in the theory of herd immunity as well.
For the record, I do not believe in evolution. I believe in a literal six-day (as in 24 hours/day) creation as described in the first three chapters of the word of God, the Bible. It is this same God who designed us to live in freedom - so much so that He allowed Adam and Eve to sin. But even this was not plan "B" - it did not catch Him by surprise. The solution to our sin is the blood Jesus shed on the cross - and that is also foreshadowed in the same chapters that detail The Creator speaking this world into existence.
It is because of sin that we have illness, disease, and death. The Creator also provided us with an immune system to protect our bodies and lives. Since our bodies were also affected by sin we die - sometimes our immune systems are overwhelmed and not able to overcome the disease.
Our Creator also gave us brains to create vaccines. While they likely do provide some amount of risk reduction they are not risk free.
Some would rather rely only upon the immune system The Lord provided, others want to use vaccines - either using all of them or vaccinating selectively. Disease can and does spread regardless of the use of vaccination (recent outbreaks of mumps and pertussis in highly vaccinated populations make this abundantly clear).
Some would rather risk getting sick (generally once, generally temporarily, generally resulting in life-long immunity and possibly but seldom resulting in bad long-term consequences). Some would rather accept the risk of vaccination (a risk poorly delineated because it is poorly studied) in order to have the temporary risk reduction (a "benefit" that is just as poorly delineated because it is poorly studied) in getting sick.
It seems to me there is room for both choices ... we are all in this together. Let's respect and tolerate one another even if we do not agree on the decisions we make.
Sunday, October 02, 2016
When all else fails, give it to pregnant women ...
Fair warning: the following post is full of sarcasm. If this "triggers" you, it won't be a "safe space", so don't read any further.
Respiratory Syncitial Virus (RSV) is a common infection. Like any infection it can be more serious, and more dangerous in the very young and very old.
Novavax is attempting to develop a vaccine for RSV but apparently trials are showing it to be "safe" (come on, all vaccines are safe! Except when they are not) but not "effective". The crazy thing is they released actual data, though I can't imagine the release was full and complete - we can't have transparency ... and besides, if partial data and tortured data (#CDCWhistleblower) is good enough for the CDC, it should be good enough for everyone else, right?!
Dr. Glenn (Novavax President of R&D) states:
Gregory Glenn , M.D., said, “The rollover trial demonstrated immunogenicity in all active vaccine recipients. As shown in the table above, there was a 6-fold increase in anti-F IgG in the Placebo-Vaccine arm, consistent with the Phase 2 efficacy trial. There was higher anti-F IgG at baseline in the Vaccine-Vaccine arm compared to the Placebo-Vaccine arm. Further, the Vaccine-Vaccine arm showed a greater than 2-fold increase in anti-F IgG from the higher baseline. We observed similar low attack rates and absence of efficacy of a single immunization in this trial as was observed in Phase 3 Resolve trial, although we did observe that a second season immunization could provide efficacy. The event rate comparisons made to either placebo groups suggested that the second season immunization was protective, even in a year with a very low attack rate. Further understanding of these data may come forth with full evaluation of the immune responses.”
In vaccine-speak, a "suggestion" that a vaccine is "protective" is defined as "safe and effective" regardless of actual results. Those who love vaccines play fast and loose with their definitions of "safe" and "effective" in order to protect the paradigm at all costs. There is usually significant monetary motivation associated with this (but hey, we all know association is not the same as causation, right?!) I am sufficiently jaded to suspect that at some point they will shoe-horn this vaccine into being "safe and effective" regardless of actual performance.
Please don't be fooled by the presence of the word "placebo" in the boxes showing some of the data. Unless they provide a definition of what "placebo" meant or was used in the actual study you should not assume it was an genuine placebo (defined as a biologically inert substance, like normal saline - well, even that, in large enough quantities, is not biologically inert but it is far more inert than vaccine excipients!)
As big as the market in pediatric vaccination may be the big kahuna is adult vaccines (Healthy People 2020, anyone?) - in general, and specifically, pregnant women.
Apparently this vaccine is being tested in pregnant women - and there are no plans to stop these trials in spite of current evidence that it has not worked in adults! Why let facts and data stop anything, especially when it comes to vaccines! The end point will not be whether it is safe and effective - that is pre-determined. In today's reality of post-normal science the only thing that matters is motive - they want to "protect" "vulnerable" infants.
Yet we have so many parental reports of children dying or being damaged following routine vaccination - and these were children who were assessed to be strong, healthy, and developing normally prior to vaccination. But because of the paradigm that vaccines are "safe and effective" no one believes them. Or they are (for all intents and purposes) told to "shut up and go away" - the paradigm must be protected at all costs, including the health and well-being of your or your child! You must take the risk of vaccinating so others may receive some perceived benefit of "herd immunity". Besides, this product is sooooo effective it does not work unless it is used >100% of the time (because all must be vaccinated multiple times).
If there are any stillbirths or miscarriages among those who receive the RSV vaccine will these be explained away as being "no more than what would be expected anyway"? I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the grieving parents.
But since vaccines are "safe and effective" the sky is the limit!! Why stop there? Of course, let's add the RSV vaccine! Why not start the whole pediatric schedule prior to birth?! And of course, continue it afterward! Our overlords successfully added a vaccine for a disease transmitted by sex and IV drug use for those who are at low risk - Hepatitis B is given at birth to all newborns even when their mother has tested negative for Hep B in pregnancy. There are now trials of HPV vaccine in infants as well.
We are all vulnerable in a variety of ways, pregnant women all the more so. There is a very necessary movement to stop the manipulation of pregnant women. But will pregnant women, let alone any of us, be "allowed" to decline a vaccination? With laws like SB277 (in California) on the books, it seems unlikely. With employment policies requiring vaccination to keep your job it is even more unlikely.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Summary
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$.
Good outcomes can happen after spontaneous infection.
Vaccines can provide temporary risk reduction without apparent adverse effect.
Vaccines can cause both short and long-term problems (minor and serious).
All of the above are true - and this is why there should be no mandates. People should be able to choose which risk they are willing to accept. And this would be infinitely easier if we had information we could trust. But alas, we do not.
I used to believe "safe and effective" - now I am convinced there is far more to this than any of us have been told and I do not believe we have complete or accurate information about vaccines - for either their efficacy or their safety.
We are entirely capable of doing the kind of research that would provide us with accurate information - but doing so would require breaking paradigms and setting aside agenda$.
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.
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).
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).
Monday, August 29, 2016
Are you "vaccine hesitant"?
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) routinely surveys its membership regarding their perceptions of parents acceptance of vaccines (or lack thereof) with anything other than full acceptance of the "recommended" vaccine schedule being described as "vaccine hesitancy". Here is a link to the abstract of the survey results (the full article is behind a paywall and/or available only to AAP members).
As a survey of its members this is a convenience sample - and those pediatricians who are members of the AAP are (in this writer's opinion) more likely to be biased in favor of vaccination. After all, their headquarters were built (in part) with donations from vaccine makers and they continue to receive large sums of money from industries on a yearly basis. What some might refer to as **conflict of interest** the AAP seems to think of as "just another day that ends in 'Y'".
Here's a facinating nugget from the AAP press release regarding this article:
1) The perception that the problem is a collective loss of memory of "vaccine- preventable" diseases and that
2) more research is needed about why people are "vaccine hesitant".
In some ways I think they are indulging in "blaming the victim" - this convenient projection keeps the group in power from doing any sort of introspection and self examination so they have no reason to consider how they may be contributing to "vaccine hesitancy" - by perhaps, refusing to acknowledge that vaccines can, and do, harm (indeed kill) people (both children and adults).
Yes, because of widespread use of vaccines - people may not have many memories of children spontaneously contracting (and generally recovering without ill effects) a variety of temporary, generally benign infections. But this void in their memory banks is being filled with memories of their own children's reactions and responses to vaccines - not all of which are temporary, or benign. Or of watching what happened to the children of family members and friends. Or of recognizing that there are so many children who are now chronically ill (ie: not healthy in spite of being "up to date" on their vaccinations) ... or seeing how many people have life-threatening allergies to ordinary substances and food stuffs (like peanuts).
It is interesting that the study author thinks it is necessary to study "vaccine hesitancy" yet she does not call for studies of vaccines themselves. If she wants to know why I am far more vaccine hesitant than ever before - it is because of the lack of real, true, genuine, double-blind, randomized controlled trials involving vaccines that also track not just short-term outcomes, but long-term outcomes between populations that are vaccinated and unvaccinated (the definition of unvaccinated meaning "not having received any vaccines" as opposed to "not receiving the vaccine being study but receiving all other vaccines instead").
This is what used to be refered to as "science" - positing a null hypothesis and designing a study that would reveal the answer to the THAT question rather than rigging a study to give the desired results (better called post-normal science where the desired outcome is first determined and then the study is jerry-rigged to provide results that support these results - a fine example of this is what the CDC Whistleblower, Dr. Thompson described as occuring for the 2004 study that was intended to refute any association between autism and vaccines, yet when the results showed an association the results were dumped - quite literally in a gargage can and the authors started over and changed study protocol until they got the results they wanted).
The authors of this article are very interested in gaining greater understanding of those who are "vaccine-hesitant" when perhaps it is themselves they need to study - and why they hold so tightly to a rigid paradigm of vaccination at all costs for infections that were (and still are) generally self-limiting, temporary (but I repeat myself) and nearly always benign - seldom causing death or long-term serious sequelae. They **think** this is true of vaccines, but because of the lack (as in zero) of studies that might actually provide evidence for this belief their paradigm is really rather shaky. Those who are "vaccine-hesitant" are rattling their cage. They are trapped in this paradigm - and want to close the door on any others who dare to leave the reservation - hence the increase in pediatricans who refuse to provide care to families who do not vaccinate their children on schedule - who do not comply with their paradigm.
I am hesitant to trust a paradigm that has a faulty foundation - one in which "evidence" is cooked up and "no-cebos" are used instead of placebos (a no-cebo being a false placebo, a fake placebo ... that means a placebo that is not inert but actually contains substances that are biologically active which would of course affect results making study conclusions less robust and trustworthy).
The purpose of science should be building a foundation of factual information from which we can draw conclusions - so conducting the kind of investigation that would provide this type of information should not be threatening. It is bizarre that those who advocate vaccines do not support this as if their paradigm is true the results of the type of study I have called for would strengthen their case against the "vaccine-hesitant". It is all the more telling that they dance around the subject saying it would be "unethical" (to not forcibly and coercively) vaccinate people.
Interestingly enough, this is what was once said of studying vaginal birth after cesarean ("once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section") or of determining the necessity of routine episiotomy ... yet when the studies were finally done - the results were somewhat surprising (and might I add, paradigm breaking) as they did not support the widely accepted notions that vaginal birth after a cesarean was unsafe or that routine episiotomy benefited women.
Since the ranks of the "vaccine-hesitant" seem to be growing there is an ever larger cohort of people who could be studied to provide some comparisons between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. The excuses need to stop. The studies (real ones) need to be done.
As a survey of its members this is a convenience sample - and those pediatricians who are members of the AAP are (in this writer's opinion) more likely to be biased in favor of vaccination. After all, their headquarters were built (in part) with donations from vaccine makers and they continue to receive large sums of money from industries on a yearly basis. What some might refer to as **conflict of interest** the AAP seems to think of as "just another day that ends in 'Y'".
Here's a facinating nugget from the AAP press release regarding this article:
“The perceived rise in refusals and delays does not seem to be solely attributable to any one vaccine, because pediatricians reported increased rates of parents who refused just one vaccine and those who refused more than one immunization,” said study author Catherine Hough-Telford, MD, FAAP. This supports prior research findings that suggest the public’s collective memory of vaccine-preventable diseases may be fading, she said. “Clearly, though, additional research is needed to evaluate vaccine hesitancy and how it relates to different vaccines,” she said.I find this quote very telling in how it frames their conclusions for two reasons:
1) The perception that the problem is a collective loss of memory of "vaccine- preventable" diseases and that
2) more research is needed about why people are "vaccine hesitant".
In some ways I think they are indulging in "blaming the victim" - this convenient projection keeps the group in power from doing any sort of introspection and self examination so they have no reason to consider how they may be contributing to "vaccine hesitancy" - by perhaps, refusing to acknowledge that vaccines can, and do, harm (indeed kill) people (both children and adults).
Yes, because of widespread use of vaccines - people may not have many memories of children spontaneously contracting (and generally recovering without ill effects) a variety of temporary, generally benign infections. But this void in their memory banks is being filled with memories of their own children's reactions and responses to vaccines - not all of which are temporary, or benign. Or of watching what happened to the children of family members and friends. Or of recognizing that there are so many children who are now chronically ill (ie: not healthy in spite of being "up to date" on their vaccinations) ... or seeing how many people have life-threatening allergies to ordinary substances and food stuffs (like peanuts).
It is interesting that the study author thinks it is necessary to study "vaccine hesitancy" yet she does not call for studies of vaccines themselves. If she wants to know why I am far more vaccine hesitant than ever before - it is because of the lack of real, true, genuine, double-blind, randomized controlled trials involving vaccines that also track not just short-term outcomes, but long-term outcomes between populations that are vaccinated and unvaccinated (the definition of unvaccinated meaning "not having received any vaccines" as opposed to "not receiving the vaccine being study but receiving all other vaccines instead").
This is what used to be refered to as "science" - positing a null hypothesis and designing a study that would reveal the answer to the THAT question rather than rigging a study to give the desired results (better called post-normal science where the desired outcome is first determined and then the study is jerry-rigged to provide results that support these results - a fine example of this is what the CDC Whistleblower, Dr. Thompson described as occuring for the 2004 study that was intended to refute any association between autism and vaccines, yet when the results showed an association the results were dumped - quite literally in a gargage can and the authors started over and changed study protocol until they got the results they wanted).
The authors of this article are very interested in gaining greater understanding of those who are "vaccine-hesitant" when perhaps it is themselves they need to study - and why they hold so tightly to a rigid paradigm of vaccination at all costs for infections that were (and still are) generally self-limiting, temporary (but I repeat myself) and nearly always benign - seldom causing death or long-term serious sequelae. They **think** this is true of vaccines, but because of the lack (as in zero) of studies that might actually provide evidence for this belief their paradigm is really rather shaky. Those who are "vaccine-hesitant" are rattling their cage. They are trapped in this paradigm - and want to close the door on any others who dare to leave the reservation - hence the increase in pediatricans who refuse to provide care to families who do not vaccinate their children on schedule - who do not comply with their paradigm.
I am hesitant to trust a paradigm that has a faulty foundation - one in which "evidence" is cooked up and "no-cebos" are used instead of placebos (a no-cebo being a false placebo, a fake placebo ... that means a placebo that is not inert but actually contains substances that are biologically active which would of course affect results making study conclusions less robust and trustworthy).
The purpose of science should be building a foundation of factual information from which we can draw conclusions - so conducting the kind of investigation that would provide this type of information should not be threatening. It is bizarre that those who advocate vaccines do not support this as if their paradigm is true the results of the type of study I have called for would strengthen their case against the "vaccine-hesitant". It is all the more telling that they dance around the subject saying it would be "unethical" (to not forcibly and coercively) vaccinate people.
Interestingly enough, this is what was once said of studying vaginal birth after cesarean ("once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section") or of determining the necessity of routine episiotomy ... yet when the studies were finally done - the results were somewhat surprising (and might I add, paradigm breaking) as they did not support the widely accepted notions that vaginal birth after a cesarean was unsafe or that routine episiotomy benefited women.
Since the ranks of the "vaccine-hesitant" seem to be growing there is an ever larger cohort of people who could be studied to provide some comparisons between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. The excuses need to stop. The studies (real ones) need to be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)