Petition: Act To End Autism Epidemic & Implement Comprehensive Vaccine Safety Policy Reforms
Panhandled!

Dr Offit and the Milgram Experiment on ECBT

What is milgramBy John Stone

This article first appeared in 2010, but has recently become the subject of a take-down by Joel A Harrison  on the Every Child by Two website , Dr Offit being on the board and advisory board of that organization. I commented  to Harrison on Monday  on Age of Autism regarding his article (amended):

"I note there appears to be nowhere to comment on your splendid new article on ECBT. A basic point - and this may not be the same in the US - but Dr Offit's 10,000 vaccines was frequently used by health officials in the UK as an almost a doctrinal point in support of an extended vaccine program, when addressing public concern about multiple vaccines. I made an analogy with the famous Milgram experiment - I acknowledge there were at least several - but there was one very famous one. And my point is that it was inappropriate to use this to persuade parents that their children could safely have several vaccines at one time, against the evidence that were hurting or had damage - and I was saying that Milgram rulesif you were worried about this you should not be reassured by such statements: just as the people administering the fantasy shocks (who were the people who were really being experimented on) should not have been reassured that what they were doing was beneficial. I think the idea of Dr Offit's article was to reassure parents, but what has happened to our children is not at all theoretical. In the paper reported this morning children who were given DPT vaccine in Guinea Bissau in 1981 had 5 times the mortality of those that did not, and I would suggest that was not very theoretical either...

 "The one thing I do get is that that you could not actually vaccinate an infant with 10,000 vaccines but who said I didn't? But we are talking lunacy. What is the point of saying it is theoretical. In human science nothing is theoretical: if it doesn't work the theory has been disproven. Each one of these products has significant risks but we are just banging more and more of them in regardless. The new one on the UK infant schedule, Bexsero Men B, was said in the package insert to have a serious adverse reaction in 10-25 year-olds in above 1 in 50 administrations, and that is being given Milgramto an 8 week old with DTaP-polio-HiB, rotavirus, 13 strain pneumococcal. But I don't know why we should not add in small pox, anthrax and bubonic plague, because it is all theoretically safe.

"I am not sure what your point is about the Milgram experiment and coercion. There is huge coercion with the vaccine program and it is getting worse."



The Milgram experiment has long passed into modern folklore. In 1961 a 28 year-old psychologist at Yale, Stanley Milgram, devised an experiment to test the preparedness of ordinary citizens to co-operate in performing inhuman acts.



In the experiment volunteers were induced (as they believed at the time) into subjecting another party to ever larger doses of electricity:

“The subjects believed they were part of an experiment supposedly dealing with the relationship between punishment and learning. An experimenter—who used no coercive powers beyond a stern aura of mechanical and vacant-eyed efficiency—instructed participants to shock a learner by pressing a lever on a machine each time the learner made a mistake on a word-matching task. Each subsequent error led to an increase in the intensity of the shock in 15-volt increments, from 15 to 450 volts.



“In actuality, the shock box was a well-crafted prop and the learner an actor who did not actually get shocked. The result: A majority of the subjects continued to obey to the end—believing they were delivering 450 volt shocks—simply because the experimenter commanded them to. Although subjects were told about the deception afterward, the experience was a very real and powerful one for them during the laboratory hour itself.” (See Psychology Today HERE)

65% of participants complied with the experiment to the bitter end. Milgram subsequently explained the experiment:

“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.
The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.” (HERE)

Without commenting directly on vaccine science I believe it is possible to recognize the elements of social control here. The authoritarian construction is far more certain than the safety of the products. Offit gives us to understand that even if our children were to receive 10,000 vaccines in one go it would still be safe: therefore there can be no issue over 5 or 10 in one go, or dozens over the course of a childhood. In fact, in most cases the practitioners will know only slightly more about the products than the assenting parents. Moreover, everyone has to be persuaded that there are no real long-term adverse consequences, and even where they are apparent they are coincidental.

But it is interesting to note that Offit provides a theoretical proposition which does not even depend upon the product: never mind how many there are (and how different they are) they are all safe and perfectly manufactured – it is as if they do not even have to be tested. Indeed, however dramatic the adverse effect they know in advance it wasn’t the vaccine.

Arguing with authority in the middle of the past decade in the UK it was alarming how frequently the fall-back position was Offit’s vacuous claim (See BMJ letters HERE). Even the UK’s vaccine supremo Prof David Salisbury could appear on television declaring it was safe to give an infant  1000 vaccines. Meanwhile, he admitted to me:

"Turning to my comments on Newsnight - I suggest you read Paul Offit's paper - as I have done. On page 126, he states: "Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 (1,000,000,000) to 1011(100,000,000,000) different antibody specificities". And "... then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time" - not antigens. I was speaking very specifically about the infant immune system's ability to respond, in the context of the ridiculous suggestion that the new vaccine combination, containing far fewer antigens than the one it will replace, would overload the immune system. My words were "The immune system of a baby has got huge spare capacity to deal with challenge. If we didn't, the human race wouldn't survive. But let's look specifically at vaccine. This has been studied carefully. A baby's immune system could actually tolerate perfectly well 1,000 vaccines". At no point did I suggest that 1,000 vaccines would not increase the probability of adverse reactions - a quite different matter." (Email August 26, 2004 10.03 am)

We are, of course, not talking about theoretical vaccines or theoretical infants, nor is there any experimental base that he can cite. We, unfortunately, have the experimental base which is our own children and we are not being listened to - like the imaginary victim in Stanley Milgram’s experiment except that we are not imaginary and neither are our children. Nor, as the present Rotateq vaccine scandal demonstrates do we have remotest idea what is really in the vaccines.  
 
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism
 
 

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ATSC

Paul Offit like Humpty Dumpty chooses the meaning of the words he uses.

"Vaccines are remarkably safe"..... (on a population basis)

"In theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once. " .... (not vaccines but antigens)

And what does he mean by the word healthy? Infants might look healthy on the outside but be unhealthy on the inside, and children are vaccinated whether they are healthy or not.

"If a child is well enough to go home, that child is well enough to go home immunized" - South African Routine Immunization Schedule

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

msbiskind

To briefly continue with the interesting question of vaccinating an infant or toddler with their normally scheduled vaccine series (found at NVIC.org, thanks BLF et al!), I used NVIC's vaccine component calculator which determines how much of a variety of Al, Hg, formaldehyde, etc a child would receive (link http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/vic and http://new.vaxcalc.org/calc-step-1).

I then constructed a spreadsheet of injectate volumes (visited varied manufacturer websites and found out that 0.5mL/vaccine is normal injection) and calculated injectate exposures for a 13 month old child. I followed this up with a 'what if' projected exposure calculations if this infant had 5x, 10x, etc vaccines at time of visit.

Notwithstanding an a priori notion that a current vaccine schedule of 7-8 vaccines at this 12-13 month checkup is probably 'not good' for an infant and, if one takes this out to the equally absurd '1000-10000-100000 vaccines are OK' scenario, I arrived at some pretty disturbing numbers.

Thus, if one simply uses a sheer volume multiplier and cognitively ignores the assumption that anyone who advocates this 'new vaccine schedule as an appropriate 'disease control /health strategy' is seriously nuts, I calculated that @1000 vaccines (ie 1-2 orders of magnitude below the 10k-100k projected immune system body burden), one would be introducing 0.5L of fluid as well as 75mg(Al) and 67ug (Hg) along with 337mg(phenoxyethanol) into a 15-20lb 13month old infant.

The bottom line from this 'thought exercise' would be that, if the Aluminum, mercury preservatives or phenoxyethanol didn't have some kind(s) of serious adverse effects upon the poor child, the fact that introducing a 1/2 liter of fluid (ie, potentially doubling the blood volume) would very likely kill the kid!

Finally, I seriously doubt that there is enough sterile water producing capacity on the planet to account for the extra 3-6B liters of fluid required to semiannually vaccinate a global population (just a back of the envelope calculation here), not to mention the logistical issues involved with distribution. At some point, the thought exercise returns to the simple fact that the human immune system developed over millennia to accommodate varied pathogen virulence factors (ie, the 100k antigens) and I wonder if we'd be better served to think a bit more seriously about the broad implications of what's been advocated for vaccinating populations against 1000, 100000, or 100000 pathogens. Further, just the cell ines and media required for this would require some absurd amount of material as well; this is ignoring the waste stream and potential implications in production involved.

John Stone

ATSC

Thank you for finding that. The accusation is that I am being naieve, disingenuous and/or incompetent. Dr Offit I note is making a comparison between casual exposure to non-sterile materials like food and dust. One obvious point is the exposure with vaccines - except in the case of oral vaccines - is not remotely comparable. The other logical problem is that if the immune system was so robust you would net get ill at all: some exposures are not necessarily benign - may kill or maime or are at least very unpleasant when you have them.. But always the point is that being told this is supposed to be reassuring but in order for it to be reassuring you also have to engage in a kind of doublethink.

ATSC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQQ7izQOPdw
Are Childhood Vaccines Safe?

28:35

Paul Offit: "I think conservatively, one could say that, based on their caveats, that one could probably respond to about 100,000 different vaccines at one time."... "I would say you probably could get 100,000 vaccines every day".

Barry

Hi Barry,

A very interesting point. The 100,000 vaccine claim is not made directly by Paul Offit but attributed to him in a feature in Babytalk magazine in 2005. Whether or not it was accurate reporting in the first place is rendered somewhat redundant by the fact that the whole thing was subsequently reproduced in a newsletter from Offit's hospital (Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia) in October 2005 without any demurral. The 100,000 vaccine claim may be an error - this was 2005 and the article "Addressing parents' concerns.." was published in January 2002 but there is no attempt to correct it. Perhaps Offit did tell Babytalk 100,000. Nor is there any doubt about the crude propagandistic style in which the claim is deployed: Offit is softening parents up to give their children more vaccines: so the excuses made by Joel Harrison and Dorit Reiss are wrong.

*******

Hi John,

I get what Offit was tying to accomplish with his propaganda. And I have serious doubts that anyone misinterpreted , or misquoted him on his theory that a child could safely handle 100,000 vaccines at once.

I just want to be sure that when the history books are written for this brutal period in human history, Paul Offit is remembered for the full extent of his psychopathy.

Sandy Lunoe


For your entertainment: "10,000 Crazy Vaccines"!
http://vactruth.com/2012/04/16/10000-crazy-vaccines/

Morag

Yes indeed John ,very good.do you have a note of my e- mail details ? from this post
Chock -a-block busy till next Wed
You are invited to High Tea at Aunty Morag's at The Lighthouse [online]
1913 mental deficiency act will be getting discussed.
along with other items of importance
can you send me an e-mail and we will get this organised .
have you watched US Navy vs Spanish Lighthouse You Tube [ Fact or Fable?]

John Stone

Thank you Morag, that is most enlightening. Probably Alice in Wonderland is still the best way to understand British culture (particuarly bottles saying "Drink me" without any explanation of what is likely to happen). And it would be so nice to be invited to one of Prof Pollard's Oxford parties!

http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/03/prof-pollard-again-oxford-university-hosts-british-government-vaccine-committee.html

PS I guess the Mad Hatter has aluminium in his hat these days.

Morag

Dear John Stone , I need to take the time to" check my spelling, it's an embarrasment "
Machiavellianism and the Peter Principle promotion in motion.
Nurse Professor Lighthouse short for Lighthouse in a Hospital Car Park.
Used for someone climbing the NHS promotion ladder - they shone brightly but were of no pratical use.
Chief Nurse Professor Such
After being called by their first name on promotion, they laid down the lawto the Nhs Staff by saying ,
"My name is Chief Nurse Professor _ ___ and from now on I will be known as such .
From that day onwards they were known as Senior Nurse Professor "Such a Lighthouse"

Glasgow Vet School and Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital are working "Flat out" on
Avian influenza H5N8 [Bird Flu ]
"We need a new TWEETMENT!"
Swine Flu Virus - "The History of Thieves Essential Oils may lead to a modern Day Oinkment"
A blinkin well good job some of us are firmly grounded in the reality of This World rather than offit!

John Stone

Hi Barry,

A very interesting point. The 100,000 vaccine claim is not made directly by Paul Offit but attributed to him in a feature in Babytalk magazine in 2005. Whether or not it was accurate reporting in the first place is rendered somewhat redundant by the fact that the whole thing was subsequently reproduced in a newsletter from Offit's hospital (Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia) in October 2005 without any demurral. The 100,000 vaccine claim may be an error - this was 2005 and the article "Addressing parents' concerns.." was published in January 2002 but there is no attempt to correct it. Perhaps Offit did tell Babytalk 100,000. Nor is there any doubt about the crude propagandistic style in which the claim is deployed: Offit is softening parents up to give their children more vaccines: so the excuses made by Joel Harrison and Dorit Reiss are wrong.

"Myth1: Getting so many vaccines will overwhelm my child's immune system

"No doubt about it, the immunization schedule recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) can seem daunting. Your child can receive up to 23 shots by the time she's 2 years old and as many as six shots at a singledoctor visit. So it's not surprising that many parents have concerns about how vaccines might affect a child's developing immunity and often cite these as a reason to refuse a vaccine.

"But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.

"The bottom line: It's safe to give your child simultaneous vaccines or vaccine combinations, such as the five-in-one vaccine called Pediarix, which protects against hepatitis B, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (also known as whooping cough. Equally important, vaccines are as effective given in combination as they are given individually."

https://web.archive.org/web/20060920014914/https://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=81553">https://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=81553">https://web.archive.org/web/20060920014914/https://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=81553

Barry

..... child could theoretically safely withstand 10,000 vaccines in one sitting. That's what he said and that's what he meant. It was a preposterous, and dangerous statement coming from one who claims to be an expert in pediatrics and vaccinology. The man is a complete fraud.

************

I completely agree. But to be accurate, the number that Offit actually used was 100,000 .... not 10,000. Big difference.

It's on page 2 of the file in the following link.

http://whale.to/vaccine/Parenting-Offit.pdf

Ted Fogarty, MD

Great journalism John Stone. Thank you.
EFFIIIMD

Betty Bona

Sorry Hans. I don't have links. I researched this at some earlier time when it was mentioned on AofA, but didn't keep any links. It was easy to find though. I had thought women would be less likely to continue shocking.

Linda1

"The physical impossibility of giving 10,000 vaccines at once to an infant or anyone together with the exponential leap from the current 17 vaccines, there not even being remotely so many microbes that vaccines would ever be developed for, says it all.""

No it doesn't. In context, Offit was saying that it is unscientific to question or to worry about giving a child the long list of vaccines currently on the unprecedented expanded schedule, because, according to his knowledge of the human immune system and its interaction with microbes, a child could theoretically safely withstand 10,000 vaccines in one sitting. That's what he said and that's what he meant. It was a preposterous, and dangerous statement coming from one who claims to be an expert in pediatrics and vaccinology. The man is a complete fraud.

Morag

Thank you, John Stone, your articles are well balanced and well grounded in common sense !
You may enjoy a quick look at this article Ten books chosen by Simon Wessely
http/bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/1/81
Machiavellianism and Petre Principle promotion
We call it NHS Lighthouse syndrome- short for Lightouse in a desert, gets used for someone climing the promotion ladder. They shone brightly but were of no practical use !

Angus Files

10,000 vaccines at any one time" - world wide Government Ministers, Doctors, Scientist's, Pharma shill Journo`s, and all the pharma puppets below all said it was safe - I can hardly recall the theoretical argument much coming from any of them .Lets just cut the pack again and re-deal the words in a different context as Dorit has just done. Offit managed to speak without a swear amazing. Pharma for Prison.

MMR RIP

Han Litten

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/03/vaccine-damage-awareness-empty-stroller-walk-march-5-2017.html

What a wonderful protest idea !

Empty Strollers . (I'd love to see this take-off at Westminster London)

Hear this well - Who is William Thompson ?

Caroline Canttakeitanymore

Can someone calculate the weight of the vaccines and toxins injected into a 2 month old baby vs the average weight of a baby of that size. For example, if a baby gets 3 shots is it 1% of their weight? And then let's figure out what that would be from 10,000 vaccines. For pity's sake. IT would instantly kill the baby. Why does he even make that remark. May there be a purgatory and may Offit and Dorit be forced to endure 10,000 vaccines. A day. For eternity.

John Stone

Dr Harrison surpasses himself (I seem he has been congratulated By Dorit Reiss on Shot of Prevention):

"Stone repeats the antivaccinationists' trope of 10,000 vaccines, ignoring context and a clear display of lack of common sense. As an analogy, imagine a 15 - 20 minute lecture or 2,500 word article about research into potentially almost limitless energy. The last sentence states: “Our research indicates we could theoretically put 10,000 gallons of gasoline in your car tank.” The average gas tank holds probably up to 25 gallons. Given Stone’s lack of common sense, I assume he would take the 10,000 gallons literally. Most rational people would understand, even without context, that the 10,000 gallons did not refer to actual gallons of gasoline but to the energy/mileage equivalent. The physical impossibility of giving 10,000 vaccines at once to an infant or anyone together with the exponential leap from the current 17 vaccines, there not even being remotely so many microbes that vaccines would ever be developed for, says it all."

Han Litten

Posted by: Betty Bona | March 02, 2017 at 09:47 AM

Thanks Betty , I've always wondered if Mk Ultra had found something specific and characteristic of females that made them easier to target and manipulate when a new or first time mother . I wondered whether there might be something hormonal and protective going on that these malevolent forces were using to their advantage. Far fetched I'm sure but its always been on my mind how they managed to get this vaccine program so far along the road with their devious coercion. I instinctively knew something wasnt right immediately but was completely unable to convince the mother (of course I knew little or nothing about vaccination back then , but I never trusted the authorities from the outset , and it (mmr) didnt make sense versus my childhood experiences where there were no signicant disease threats , and all the children seemed to have perfect health to me with as far as I knew very few vaccinations - indeed the only child I remember who was very badly damaged back then was alleged to have been a vaccine damaged child , but I only heard that second hand , so that is not verifiable.)
Indeed I remember the VitaminK shot where are nurse went right ahead without consulting me in any whatsoever , and of course I later found out it contains aluminium ,and the so called precaution is largely unnecessary (And before anyone starts there are Oral alternatives now available which are aluminium free).

Betty have you any links to show the results of the experiment ?

Gary Ogden

John: It has not yet been published. The Goldman and Miller paper is excellent, a real wake-up call. I simply built a chart which uses both infant mortality rankings and UNESCO child health rankings. There is, of course, a good match with the latter data.

Betty Bona

@ Hans
I think the original experiment was men only, but he apparently found the same compliance rate when he tested women and college students later.

John Stone

Sorry about that Bill. The video was first posted with the article in 2010 but these things do change over the years.

John Stone

Hi Gary,

Exactly so. Where was your blog published? There was also the paper by Goldman and Miller:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Bill

The video above, won't play. The notice says that it "Contains BBC copyrighted content", as an excuse to block play of the video. LAME-AZZ CENSORSHIP. SHAME ON YOU, BBC!....

Gary Ogden

John: Thank you for reminding us of this. Chilling they are, Milgram's findings. I've put together a table for a guest blog post comparing the number of vaccines given by age six and child health and infant mortality rankings for nineteen developed countries. It is almost linear, with the Scandinavian countries (11-13) at the top, and the UK, Ireland, Canada, and the U.S. (20-36) at the bottom. Graphic evidence that vaccination does not serve public health.

Han Litten

So of the 65% who complied without question , was there any gender bias ?
I wonder

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)