Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: George Steps-All-Over-Us, Too!
Patience and Progress

Vaccines: At Some Point You Have to Trust Somebody

Vaccines:  At Some Point You Have to Trust Somebody

Trust2By Cathy Jameson

“I’ve worked besides doctors… and there’s nobody I’ve ever worked with who questions themselves as much as doctors do, who question their own conclusions, and question their own method of analysis to make sure that they’re as certain as they possibly can be in the circumstance.”

Doctors question themselves because it’s part of their job.  Parents question themselves because it’s their children who would suffer dire consequences if they do not.  Reread that quote.  Remove the word doctor.  Replace it the word parents, and we want the same thing.

That quote came from Peter Michaud, JD, RN, a lobbyist for the Maine Medical Association.  I heard it in a video which Ginger Taylor mentioned in a piece she wrote last week.  At one point during the testimony, a Maine Representative reminds Michaud that the bill in question is calling for more vaccine education.  She asks, “This bill is calling for more education…do you think that this bill makes some sense?  Brought forward by consumers that have real concerns over figuring out whether there’s some correlation to what happened to their child with the vaccine or not?” 

Michaud replied, "We all want answers.  We all want answers to those questions that puzzle us, especially those questions that trouble us." 

But Michaud, like other vaccine defenders, has the answers.  Surely he knows that, for some, vaccines are not lifesaving.  Vaccines were a trigger, the reason for regression, and the piece of the puzzle that lead to a child’s autism diagnosis.  Michaud doesn’t really want answers; he wants questions about vaccines to go away.  A minute later in the video, he says, “At some point you have to trust somebody.” 

Many of us want to trust somebody when it comes to vaccines.  But who do we trust? 



Vaccine companies?


The media?

Vaccines are big business.  Each of those entities has a large stake in vaccines.  Each of them wants us to trust them. 

Science wants us to trust that their word is the answer (and the only answer).

Doctors want us to trust that they know what’s best (even though they sometimes don’t).

Vaccine companies want us to trust that their products are 100% safe and effective (and want us to forget that the VICP exists because of their products).

Certain lawmakers want us to trust their opinion (even if that opinion is based on their financial ties to vaccine companies and their supporters).

The media wants us to stop thinking for ourselves and trust them (and everything they print, post, air, and advertise). 

Parents, when it comes to vaccines, you need to trust yourself!  

Use your intuition.  Use your time to question, to analyze, to come to conclusions, and to be as certain as you possibly can be.  If you are certain that want one, or two vaccines, or the entire schedule for your child, go for it.  Right now, no one is stopping you.  But if the vaccine mandate bills gain more traction, parents will soon lose the chance to choose one or two vaccines.  They won’t get to decide.  Parents will be forced to get all of them. 

Parents want to feel solace in making decisions for their children.  They want to be comforted in knowing that they made a good decision, the right decision.  Decision about vaccines should be left up to parents not doctors, not lawmakers, not the media, and certainly not by those who refuse to listen to what many parents of vaccine injured children are saying.  

From California to Maine, those who support vaccine mandates continue to step up to the microphone speaking in favor of those mandates.  Parents opposed to the mandates have spoken up too.  And just like the legislative representatives and like those who are representing the medical field, parents have come forward to stand at the mic with valuable information and with undeniable evidence.  But they also come forward with their children, many of whom are vaccine injured.  Listen to the parents.  It’s the parents – the vaccine consumers, who know the answers.  Isn’t it time we trust them?

Cathy Jameson is a Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.    



Re miscarriages and vaccines
This excerpt from Pam Weintraub's The Bitter Feud over Lymerix,
Speaks to reason not to trust on this issue in an account of GSK defending Lymerix in an Fda hearing.

"Finally, the company touted a pregnancy registry with "no unexpected findings" and only 4 miscarriages out of 13. "You make it sound as though you find no consequences. I don't consider pattern of anything," the Mayo clinic's Michael O'Fallon fumed. The comment really disturbs me," he said. That was when a tall well-dressed man swept up to the podium from somewhere in the back and motioned the presenting scientists away. It was time for damage control, and David Wheadon, vice president of regulatory affairs at GSK, took charge. "Certainly spontaneous abortion, within the context of pregnancy, in an overall population, is not something that is unexpected" Wheadon told the panel, "and I think that was indeed, what was intended to be said."


Danchi, thanks for all the info on Wakefield.
Linda1; yes, the devil is in the details as they say.
Did find the paper online. Apparently only "healthy" women were used as subjects.
The study also mentions "the results do call attention to the occurrence of twice as many spontaneous abortions in the HPV 16-18 vaccine arm compared with the control arm".

But the authors suggest that may be just chance. ( Good idea to keep the study so small you can lose significance, isn't it?)8 miscarriages in the vaccine group, only 4 in the placebo group. Still haven't been able to find out what the "placebo" consisted of though. Do you know , Politics Buff?
Then there were lots of identified conflicts of interest. the study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. G.C., B.G., and D.D. are all GlaxoSmithKline employees. and then there are the ones who receive consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, then those who hold stock in the company. And those who the company provides travel expenses for Wow.. but they declared them all, so none of them matter, of course. We know their employee would have been thrilled if they had discovered problems with their own vaccine!

On another note; Politics Buff,has your child ever been tested for Fragile X? Maybe your child did not get autism from vaccines, and doesn't react badly to them .That does not prove that vaccines are safe for everyone elses children though. Some of whom regressed after vaccine injury. Why you try and force them to repeatedly give a medication that has already harmed their kid?


Political Buff:
Wakefield FACT: It was not a study, it was a report. The Lancet supposeably removed the paper for some sort of abuse which a British High Court dismissed:
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court)
Decision Between: PROFESSOR JOHN WALKER-SMITH Appellant- and - GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL- Respondent.
Hearing dates: 13th. 14th, 15th, 16th & 17th February 2012
But following the successful appeal of the paper’s senior clinical investigator – John Walker-Smith – the GMC findings that served as the basis for Lancet’s retraction have since been overturned.
-With regard to the GMC’s false claims that the patients in the paper were not “consecutively referred”:
“157. …Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the [GMC] panel. The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that thechildren were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the
Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology.”
-Similarly, the GMC’s rulings that the children in the Lancet paper were subjects of a research project that did not gain ethical approval also proved unfounded:
“158. …The [GMC] panel’s finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.”

The judge found only one misleading statement in the paper, but it was not because investigations undertaken were unethical experiments described as gaining ethical approval in the paper according to the now-overturned findings
on which the paper’s retraction was based. On the contrary, it was because investigations in the paper were described as being ethically approved when most were clinically indicated and required no such approval, although a few investigations were ethically approved. This may require an erratum, but it does not justify keeping the paper fully retracted.
Read the entire adjudication at: http://www.bailii (dot) org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html.

Hmm, lets see. Dr. Wakefield Report was so egregious that it took the British Medical community 12 years to discover it?????

The BMJ, a medical journal that is more open to controversial subjects than most, published an investigative piece and editorial claiming that Andrew Wakefield et al's research on children with developmental and gastrointestinal disorders and the MMR vaccine was "fraud." Wakefield's original research paper was retracted by the Lancet, following a decision by the General Medical Council (GMC) to pull Wakefield's license to practice medicine in the UK on the basis of his work on autism, 12 years AFTER initial publication. The paper had been, in its day, the exemplar of research on vaccine safety problems until Wakefield suggested it would be safer to seperate the shot.

This is what Brian Deer has to say today: “Who Can Say?” -- Journalist Who Alleged Wakefield Committed Fraud Backs Off Key Claim: http://www.ageofautism (dot) com/dr-andrew-wakefield/. Brian Deer finally admitted he filed the complaint. Not the parents of the children, not another doctor-a journalist-and not a very good one. He currently trolls the comment boards looking for his name so he can explain his part in the Wakefield witch hunt.

"Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brian Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccine: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program." Pediatrics Vol. No. 3 March 1998

This Pediatrics abstract says the same thing that Wakefield and his co-horts reported on. The Peds article was posted in the journal less than a month after the Wakefield's report. The difference: Wakefield suggested it may be prudent to separate the combo shot and there needed to be more research into the affects of the combo shot on the neurological system of children. Ironically, Dr. Wakefield was not opposed to vaccination. Never spoke against it. Never questioned the science.

The abstract discussed, shows that DHHS ( Dept of Health & Human Services) doctors came to a similar conclusion (that measles vaccine and neurological damage in children should be investigated) the same year as Wakefield. Those authors were never put on trial, had retracted nothing.

Why did the Lancet retract the paper? The editors list two reasons: the children were not "consecutively referred" and the studies weren't approved by the local ethics committee. Well, after the many prior investigations of this paper, I am astonished that it took 12 years for Lancet to discover the lack of IRB approval. No one was surprised that the British High Court adjudicated the way it did. (see above)

Anyone bother to read the Lancet paper? Obviously the person who wrote this piece didn't. The Lancet paper stated:
The Lancet, Volume 375, Issue 9713, Page 445, 6 February 2010
Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.

We did not prove an association between measles,mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve
this issue.

If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordancerate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins...

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles,mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

Now the Pediatric Journal study published about 3 weeks after the Lancet report:
CONCLUSIONS: This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles

Basically the same conclusion. So the paper was removed not for fraud or ethical reasons-it was POLITICAL. Wakefield made the mistake of voicing a concern for the children this stuff was being pumped into and "suggested" that maybe, just to be cautious, the combo shot be be separated so children can have just the measles part. Blasphemy !!!! Do you know how much it would cost to separate the combo shots. They were combined to save money even thought none of the shots had been studied for their combined affect of a human body. The idea is to make money -not spend it. That's the Wakefield saga.

Obviously you did not VERIFY any of the bogus information you stated. The only resource that continued to pile on lies was Brian Deer. You'd have a much better understanding of what occurred if you'd have researched the writer who initiated the entire witch hunt.


Politics Bluff,

Re #1 - HPV in 437 women - pubmed id: 25424918

We would have to see the actual study. I have read abstracts where the abstract grossly misrepresented the study results in terms of adverse side effects. Long lists of unexpected acute and chronic diseases in the study, with a conclusion of 'tolerated well' in the abstract.

I have never seen a true placebo used in an HPV vaccine study. It's always aluminum hydroxide adjuvant used as a placebo, and sometimes there is a 2nd control group using saline, however, the final placebo results are presented with the aluminum adjuvant and the saline together. Aluminum is no placebo. What did this study use? Sometimes vaccine safety studies use other vaccines as placebos. The abstract doesn't say, but until proven otherwise, my money would be on aluminum or some other non placebo, from prior experience reading these studies.

Other questions and comments: 437 women is far too small a sample size. How were the women selected? Were women with any medical issues, including allergic and other autoimmune disorders, disqualified (they are not in the actual market)? Were athletic women not used (the Danes have found a significantly higher percentage of highly athletic women are the ones having severe adverse reactions to HPV vaccine). Were the women tested for HPV before the study? During the study, the abstract states that the women were tested for 2 strains, 16 & 18, but were the women tested for any of the other HPV stains to see if other strains took the place of the 16 & 18 that they hypothesize were being suppressed by the vaccine? Since more than 90% (95%?) of all women will contract HPV naturally and clear it without any illness or problem, how many of these women had natural infection during the study and developed antibodies from natural infection that was interpreted by the researchers as the vaccine protecting them?

Even if the study was well designed, which remains to be seen, nine years of follow-up is not nearly long enough to know the long-term, decades long, inter-generational, lifetime long effect that this artificial manipulation of the human microbiome and interaction with nature will have on recipients of the HPV vaccine. Will these young women suffer unforeseen sequelae in the their old age as a result of not acquiring and overcoming HPV 16/18 in their youth? Will these viruses be more virulent to an old lady whose vaccine immunity has worn off? Will old ladies be able to tolerate the vaccine? Will future doses be safe or effective? Currently, HPV vaccine is only recommended for women up to age 26. Will other HPV stains be more virulent as a result of the vaccine? What effect will the vaccine have on the microbiome and health of future children of recipients? As with mumps where natural but not vaccine infection produces antibodies that are protective against ovarian cancer, with a significant difference in the rate of ovarian cancer among vaccinated and nonvaccinated, is there some benefit to the human body of natural interaction with HPV? Too many unknowns. This treatment is highly experimental and should not be given to every young person on the planet, Pharma and friend's goal, especially not under mandate with threat of severe penalty with failure to comply.

When the authors write in their abstract that "there were no safety concerns", what researchers consider safety concerns and what I consider safety concerns are two different things. For instance, vaccine researchers gloss over fainting, nausea, vomiting, seizures (!), headaches, etc., whether acute or chronic, as mild side effects that do not make a vaccine unsafe. I disagree. So I'd have to see the study, and beyond that, possibly the data that the study was reported from. Also, these studies often start out with a list of side effects that they're looking for and if a participant reports something not on the list, the side effect or event isn't recorded.

I only looked at your first article. If I have a chance, I'll respond to the others later.

Jenny Allan

Politics Buff says:- "You see, once I did believe that there was something to Wakefield's work. But the smoking gun for me was when it came out that he had a patent, and stood to make millions of dollars off of a single measles vaccine. Now, that's a real conflict of interest."

Ah Yes - this litigious false rubbish is straight out of Brian Deer's BMJ article:- Secrets of the MMR scare
"How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money" Brian Deer, journalist
London, UK 11th January 2011

Brian Deer deals in lies and smears. Unfortunately mud sticks, but this BMJ content is still potentially defamatory and technically litigious, even when repeated on comment threads like this one Politics Buff.

The truth? Dr Wakefield's 'Transfer Factor' is NOT a vaccine as such, but was designed to 'transfer' immunity to measles in the same way as breast milk confers the mother's immunities to her child. Dr Wakefield hoped his discovery would protect children who were immune compromised, and so could not be immunised with conventional vaccines. In that sense, 'Transfer Factor' could possibly be loosely defined as a vaccine, but hardly a 'competing' one. It's very sad, post implementation of MMR vaccine in the UK, two immune compromised children died from measles (the only UK child measles deaths recorded since 1988). Transfer Factor might have given these children, who could not be vaccinated with the MMR live viruses, a chance of survival. Instead Dr Wakefield got accused of 'murdering' them on CNN and ITV, how unfair is that?

The Patent for TS is held by the Royal Free Hospital, London, and any profits would go directly to the hospital, NOT Dr Wakefield. Incoming Medical Director, Professor Mark Pepys, who has publicly admitted he was instrumental in getting rid of Dr Wakefield, stated he was not in favour of manufacturing Transfer Factor. Instead he set up his own company Pentraxin Therapeutics,in partnership with MMR Manufacturers GSK, ostensibly to find cures for dementia.

After many years of apparent failures in the dementia field, including a plethora of unused patents, Prof Pepys was last heard of going cap in hand for cash to develop research into immunology cures and prevention, more than 12 years after his refusal to support Dr Wakefield's immunology research.
Pepys on Wakefield:-
"One of the activities he [Wakefield] wished to pursue was in relation to a company he himself set up, together with others ... and as far as I could gather, the role of this company was to commercialize various treatments for complications of measles vaccination and MMR vaccination ... including treatments which in my opinion were not scientifically robust, for example the use of transfer factor, something which was always very controversial ... comes from an earlier era of immunology, certainly not the current era, and which has long been discredited as something which is a viable scientific or medically acceptable procedure. So I wasn't at all happy that anybody in my department should be involved with that, or try to promote it, particularly in the context of an alarm about safety of vaccination, which had originated from the same source."


Politics Bluff,

Here is the harm Offit's rotavirus vaccine has done.

So since your daughter appears to have escaped or avoided vaccine damage that has caused a regresssion in her "autism" or general health no one's child has ever suffered those outcomes?

You're very lucky if that is the case. I hope in your desire to keep your family up on the aggressive ever changing vaccine schedule you never experience those results. You never get over knowing your ignorance caused the harm.

Mercky Business

Politics Buff

Wakefield's patent was for a treatment for MMR induced inflammatory bowel disease which might possibly have had a secondary application as a vaccine (patent lawyers look for secondary applications of inventions) but it was not a rival commercial product to MMR. Wakefield might have had a commercial interest in the continued application of MMR (except he had assigned all profits to the medical school) but what he advised was the use of single vaccines in which he had no commercial interest.

The BMJ article was drivel.

As to Paul Offit's Rotavirus vaccine:


Political Buff
-pubmed id: 25424918A Phase I Double Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Study of the Safety and Immunogenicity of an Adjuvanted HIV-1 Gag-Pol-Nef Fusion Protein and Adenovirus 35 Gag-RT-Int-Nef Vaccine in Healthy HIV-Uninfected African Adults
11Global BioSolutions, Melbourne, Australia
Glaxo Smith Kline, DENMARK
T. Mark Doherty, Academic Editor: Resume:
Bill and Melinda Gates Senior Fellow. Rockville, Maryland, USA. 2008.
WHO Consultant. 2000-present. Member of expert panel on clinical assay standardization and biomarkers: 2005, 2006, 2007, chair, 2008.
1994. WHO Distinguished Visiting Professor, University of São Paulo, Brazil
International grants:
• 1999. Wrote (with Dr. Peter Andersen) Department of TB Immunology’s contribution to the successful TBRU consortium application (NIH contract number N01-AI-95383)

-pubmed id: 25424918-Sustained efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: final analysis of a long-term follow-up study up to 9.4 years post-vaccination. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines; Wavre, Belgium
pubmed id: 24794369- Safety and immunogenicity of tetanus diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) immunization during pregnancy in mothers and infants: a randomized clinical trial. Corresponding Author: Flor M. Munoz, MD, Departments of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Ste 221-D, BCM-280, Houston, TX 77030 (Baylor College is a pharma wh---)
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Munoz reported serving as a speaker for Sanofi Pasteur; serving as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novavax; and conducting clinical trials sponsored by Hoffmann-LaRoche, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, and Gilead Sciences.
7 of the researchers disclose strong pharmaceutical industry ties. The National Institutes of Health funded the study.

pubmed id: 23807360 -Reactogenicity and safety of a liquid human rotavirus vaccine (RIX4414) in healthy adults, children and infants in China: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase I studies. Study authors: Dong Luo, Ji-Lian Kong, Lao-Hong Wang, Ning-Sheng Song, Helen Zhang, Xueyan Liao, Naveen Karkada, 5 and Htay Htay Han, all work for GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals,

Funding: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA was the funding source and was involved in all stages of the study conduct and analyses. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA also took charge of all costs associated with the development and the publishing of the present manuscript.Rotarix is a trademark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies. (Seriously!!!!)

As far as you believing because an article or pseudo study gets a substantial number of
"HITS" validates it.....what do you think trolls get paid to do. This is their desperation. When an article or study goes up online troll handles call them in to "UPTICK" the article or comments on an article believing others will see it as valid because it got so many hits---wrong. If you open the link to who is actually upticking the comments or article it's the same group of people over and over again. That con has played itself out.

All the studies you provided are pharmaceutical paid for and are executed by pharmetutical insiders therefore making the studies bias and completely unreliable. Bogus. Fake. Juiced Up. Pharmetutical companies get what they pay for. As Marcie Angel, former editor of the NEJM quote: "This issue of conflict of interest and biases in favor of companies that do the market research exists in almost every field of medicine,particularly those that rely on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe the results of the published clinical studies, or to rely on the discretion of the doctors or the medical guidelines.I do not find any pleasure in this conclusion to which I slowly and reluctantly arrived over twenty years of work as a scientific journal editor " The New England journal of medicine."

Sophie Scholl

ZyklonB & the concentration camps were the product of science , no ?
The nucear arms race is the product of science ? no ?

Vaccines are the product of science ! evil science

Jenny Allan

Just as an afterthought -re Brian Deer's BMJ Wakefield Demolition Trilogy: Editor Fiona Godlee was forced to issue this statement regarding her published editorial to Deer's first Article " How the case against the MMR Vaccine was fixed" Jan 2011. Godlee also claimed Deer's articles were 'independently peer reviewed' -they weren't!! They lied to a Texas court about this, stating Godlee's Editorial co-author peer reviewed Deer's articles. Hardly 'independent'!
Incidently Pub Med is just a collection of scientific papers; like most libraries Pub Med does not take responsibility for the merits or otherwise of the papers.

“The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines. For further information see the rapid response from Godlee.” (

Politics Buff

Sophie Scholl

Not that it's any of your business, but yes, my family, including my 18 year old autistic daughter, are up to date with vaccines. She has also had the HPV, and both Hep A and Hep B, as we love to travel. The only exception is her MMR booster, because at that time, Wakefield's study still had credibility with both me and my doctor, so her immune levels (she was immune) were checked instead. And, my daughter has never shown any signs of becoming "more autistic" after her vaccines. She's doing great, finishing high school, and will be taking part in a coop program next year, where she will work. She volunteers in a retirement home, and has done so for several years.

You see, once I did believe that there was something to Wakefield's work. But the smoking gun for me was when it came out that he had a patent, and stood to make millions of dollars off of a single measles vaccine. Now, that's a real conflict of interest.

Yes, Paul Offit has done financially well off his vaccine inventions. But he has also saved hundreds of thousands of children's lives, and he deserves to profit from his life-long work. How many lives has Wakefield saved?


They have, in you words, commandeered the word science, and promoted their own agenda.


Are you familiar with the phrase" The pot calling the kettle black" ??

Jenny Allan

Politics Buff posted:-

"Let's see, there are over 300 articles which come up from that search, and none of them are by Paul Offit."

Too True - Offit doesn't bother with conducting his own scientific research. Instead he cherry picks vaccine friendly research (often commissioned and paid for by the vaccine researchers), for inclusion in his vaccine promoting books, including of course, promoting his own cash generating Rotateq vaccine. Some of Offit's unscientific utterances are downright dangerous, like the time, on a Canadian Radio Talk-In, when he told listeners that child febrile seizures following vaccine administration (a listed side effect)are nothing to worry about. The official medical advice states child seizures MUST always be medically checked out. They CAN sometimes be due to encephalitis. Offit's 'safe to administer 10,000 vaccine's at once' -originally 100,000-will go down in history.

I'm afraid I laughed like a drain when Offit's 'Deadly Choices' book got pulped in the UK, ahead of some much publicised book signing sessions, which had to be cancelled. Offit made the big mistake of including some of Brian Deer's dodgy 2011 BMJ 'Wakefield Trilogy' stuff, which falsely accused Dr Wakefield and Solicitor Richard Barr of fraudulently converting Legal Aid money to themselves. An enraged Mr Barr threatened litigation unless the book was withdrawn. The damages claimed would have been punitive. I suspect the unfortunate publishers were left to pick up the tab for their expenses!!

What Offit and most folks in the US don't fully understand, is Deer's BMJ trilogy 'sank like a stone' in the UK after the UK Press associaton issued warnings to members about possible defamation proceedings if they took up this story. Deer and Godlee had to travel to the US to make an impact. (Remember THAT CNN Anderson Cooper lynch inciting report?)

Sophie Scholl

Agreeing with Barry | May 25, 2015 at 07:57 PM
as always !

Politics Buff - please just do this for us , keep all your vaccines fully up to date , for you and your extended family. Vaccines are safe and effective - it is true.
Themiserol is the safe form of mercury .
Gardakil is a safe vaccine(these girls are attention seeking hysterics).
The flu vaccine really works,make sure you take it annually.
Vaccines are definitely not responsible for the worldwide Autism Holocaust (I think the cause is dafodils myself).
Vaccines have never caused cancer .
The Maurice Hilleman recording is a fake .
William Thompson it turns out actually works as a chef in the CDC canteen and isnt a scientist at all .
The HCG sterilisation Tetanus vaccine is simply indigenous native hysteria (Mexico74, Phillipines95 , Kenya15 )
all these whistleblowers are delusional .

Politics Buff - you are the only sane one here , thank god you came online - you have restored order . Bless you .

Politics Buff


You know, it is very easy to find articles that are double-blind, placebo controlled, and without any conflict of interest.

Here's one on the HPV vaccine, done by a group of doctors at a hospital in Brazil, which reported excellent efficacy and no safety concerns, with 437 women.

pubmed id: 25424918

Here's another one about diptheria and pertussis vaccination of mothers during pregnancy, with authors from the USA, but only from universities and hospitals, with no authors from vaccine companies. It found that good levels of antibodies against pertussis were created in the infants, and that there were no safety considerations.

pubmed id: 24794369

Here's one about human rotavirus vaccine (RIX4414), by Chinese authors, studying a GlaxoSmithKline vaccine. There were no safety concerns, and the infants became immune.

pubmed id: 23807360

Politics Buff


Yes, you have a right as an adult to decide what medical treatments you should receive. The problem comes with underage children.

Suppose you had a bad experience as a child where a car ran you down when you were playing on the sidewalk. You sincerely believe, based on your experience, that it is safer to play in the middle of the street than on the sidewalk. Should you be allowed to make the decision to allow your 2 year old child to play in the street?

Politics Buff

Angus Files wrote: "Ehh! put in the search (top left corner white box)

Pharma Witch Hunts....

55,700 results"

You do know that AoA is a blog. This is not pubmed. Let's put "pharma witch hunts" into pubmed....

And we get ZERO hits.

Politics Buff

Jenny Allen,

You stated: "The huge army of pharma sponsored pro-vaccine propagandists, including politicians, doctors and scientists, have commandeered the word 'science' to promote their own political and corporate agendas."

They have, in you words, commandeered the word science, and promoted their own agenda. This is exactly a world-wide conspiracy, in your view.

If you don't believe it's a world-wide conspiracy, they why are not more "honest" scientists on your side? The scientists on your side are vanishingly few in number. Either it's a massive conspiracy, or you don't believe in science.

Politics Buff

Hi Mercky business,

Try this search:

Double blind, placebo controlled vaccine safety studies. 563 hits.

As for the free speech in the rest of the world being determined by Clinton - that is ridiculous and American-centric. Are you telling me that Germans, Russians, Koreans, Australians are all being controlled by Clinton's laws? Have you ever visited any of those countries? Do you think that they are subject to Clinton?


Political Buff

-Ben Goldacre states in his book "Bad Pharma"
How Drug companies Misled Doctors and harm Patients:

He writes in the introduction that the book aims to defend the following paragraph:
Medicine is Broken. Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analyzed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion. In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure. Sometimes whole academic journals are even owned outright by one drug company. Aside from all this, for several of the most important and enduring problems in medicine, we have no idea what the best treatment is, because it's not in anyone's financial interest to conduct any trials at all. These are ongoing problems, and although people have claimed to fix many of them, for the most part they have failed; so all these problems persist, but worse than ever, because now people can pretend that everything is fine after all.

Dr. Marcie Angle summarizes her conclusions at the end of an article in a few words:

Quote "This issue of conflict of interest and biases in favor of companies that do the market research exists in almost every field of medicine,particularly those that rely on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe the results of the published clinical studies, or to rely on the discretion of the doctors or the medical guidelines.I do not find any pleasure in this conclusion to which I slowly and reluctantly arrived over twenty years of work as a scientific journal editor " The New England journal of medicine."

"A year earlier, Julie Gerberding, who had brought the Gardasil vaccine to market as head of the CDC, left government to become—what else?—president of Merck Pharmaceutical’s vaccine division, maker of the Gardasil vaccine. This new job also put her directly in charge of Merck’s Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine, another controversial shot. One of several concerns with MMR, a possible link to autism in children, has led, not to further scientific research, but rather to media controversy, name-calling, and lawsuits. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who reported the possible link, found himself charged with unethical behavior, his article was repudiated by the publisher, and the doctor’s UK medical license was revoked. Dr. Wakefield subsequently filed suit in the United States, and there is considerable evidence that he is simply a victimn of outraged special interests."

"Interestingly, Dr. Gerberding was asked on a television show if vaccines in general might cause autism, and did not directly deny it. ( The Italian Health Ministry also conceded in court that the MMR had caused autism in at least one case. In addition to Dr. Wakefield’s lawsuit, another, filed by former vaccine researchers at Merck in 2012, and unrelated to autism, charged that the company fabricated trial results for the MMR, in order to bolster claims of effectiveness. Merck is the sole supplier of this vaccine which had also been approved and promoted by Julie Gerberding’s CDC. As of 2012, Merck makes all of the 17 vaccines “recommended” for children by the CDC, and 9 out of 10 “recommended” for adults."
Crony Capitalism in America 2008-2012, Chapter 16, Vaccines: A Crony Capitalist’s Dream


Political Buff:
You say the media is bought out because of Bill Clinton. Supposing that was true, what about the media in the rest of the world? It's not all the USA.

Government financed study. First rules of studies, research the researchers and the financing. Who funded the study:
Present address: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
"vaccines are safe and effective"

Please provide the following:
-An INDEPENDENT double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

-Independent scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

- Independent scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

- Please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?
"there is real consensus in science"
Scientific validity isn't determined by majority vote. It was Galileo - not the consensus of his time - who had it right. When French researcher Pierre Louis concluded, in the early 1800s, that bloodletting was of limited use in treating pneumonia, he was challenging 2,000 years of standard medical practice." Freemon Dyson
"you'd see a raging debate in the scientific literature,"
-Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies:

-Is Academic Medicine for Sale?

-Dr. Angell interview by PBS
The entire interview is available at

-Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
Marcia Angell:

Quote "since the pharmaceutical industry has no direct access to people,The medical people are the link and they are heavily influenced by brainwashing. This industry rolles some enormous amounts of money on the backs of the patients.
Drug companies insist as a condition for providing funds that they will be intimately involved in all aspects of the study, they are the sponsors and they can easily tilt things in their favor, so their medications seem more reliable and secure than what they are in actuality. Therefore, it is not surprising that industry-funded studies published in medical journals, consistently biased in favor of drugs that receive positive results.On the negative results we rarely hear".


Politics Buff
You may find this interesting.

Sismondo,S.(2008) Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review, Contemporary Clinical Trials, Vol 29(2)109-113

From the abstract:
"results are clear. Pharmaceutical company sponsorship is strongly associated with results that favor sponsors interests."

Wow. why do you think that is?

The answer in mo is pretty simple. It doesn't require a conspiracy, just people who like getting paid. If you produce an unfavorable result, what do you think are your chances of getting funded by that particular company again? If you want to do "important research" for which you need money, someone has to give it to you. So you do some bread and butter studies for private industry or government interests.. And you want them to keep funding you, because your real work is vitally important (to you)As is being able to put supper on the table, buy necessities for your family etc.

The expectation from private industry funding is that the people they give money to repeatedly are the ones who can be relied upon to produce studies that are helpful. It only makes common sense from the companies point of view. Why give money to someone who has a history of making your product look bad.
And of course the scientists don't have to actually lie. No fraud needed. You just truncate the range, move groups around, combine them, delete some study participants, add some white noise etc until you get the results you need.
Its why imo looking at study design and method are so important.

I sometimes wonder if the scientists who do the really brazen combining of groups etc are doing it as a subtle protest about having to produce "the right results". The results may be dictated by a need for continued funding, but at least they can make it obvious to people who look closely at the method, that they aren't worth the paper they have been typed on.

Just another point of view.


I don't think it's relevant who is right and who is wrong. I should have the right to decide what medical treatment I or my children receive. It's not really about the vaccines. It's about what we will allow the government to do to us. Today, it's about the measles. Tomorrow, it will be about 'anti-violence' vaccine. The next year it will be about the 'mainstream vaccine'. And then it will be about the 'independent thinking vaccine'.

The control is the key word here. Shut up and listen to the 'science'. The same 'science' that told us that fat is bad 20 years ago but tells us today that it's actually not that bad. The same 'science' that claimed the benefits of asbestos, flame retardants, artificial sweeteners, etc. The same 'science' that made us believe that 1 day old babies need Hep vaccine because somewhere down the road the baby vould contract the dreadful disease.

I may be wrong. But I resent that I am considered to be too stupid to make my own decision about what goes in my body. If I am wrong, I will die of measles (or whatever deadly plague decides to punish me for being wrong). But even that should be my own decision, not that of someone who 1) doesn't know a dam about me, 2) could benefit from a decision about me, 3) can't help me if his decision hurts me.

If you want to vaccinate, go ahead and do it. Just don't tell me what to do. And don't tell me that it's my duty to risk an injury to prevent you from getting injured. You wouldn't ask me to jump in the front of your car to stop you from falling of the cliff. Or would you?


A quick visit to pubmed dispels many of your anti-vaccine myths. Vaccines are double blind tested. They are tested in combination with the rest of the vaccine schedule. "Doing your research" does not equate to visiting anti-vaccine sites that reinforce your personal beliefs, and automatically disallowing every other opinion as that of a pharma-shill.


I have a child who was maimed by vaccines, before he was even 2 years old.

I couldn't give a shit what pubmed tells you, or anyone like you.

I live everyday with a heart wrenching reality, which has taught me that the only real myth about vaccines, is that they are safe and effective.

cia parker

Politics Buff,
Many of the people here, including me, have seen serious and disabling vaccine damage in our families. The truth is out there, in many books by many sources, supported by thousands of scientific studies on the dangers of vaccines. I wouldn't trust a single word any doctor says about anything. If it were on a neutral subject, I'd research it independently to decide if I think the doctor was giving accurate information or not. I wouldn't trust anything he or she said about any vaccine or vaccine-preventable disease, period. And I don't have to. It's every man for himself, sauve qui peut, at this juncture. The vaccines are much more dangerous than the vaccine-preventable diseases.

Mercky Business

Politics Buff

Many double blind vaccine trials are not against placebo. Can you show that all vaccines on the US schedule were trialed against placebo? The other dirty trick is the incredible number of exclusions in vaccine trials. They trialed on only the very healthy and then wheeled out for everybody.

Your understanding of what you can learn from your method of "reading pubmed" is an utterly ridiculous piece of illiterate pomposity btw.

Re: Clinton. The US market is the central pillar of the vaccine market and much of global policy is determined through the CDC, Gates etc.

Angus Files

"it means that the vast majority of parent do vaccinate"

Why coercion?

"You are supposing that there is a vast, world-wide conspiracy theory to suppress what you see is "the truth" about vaccines."

Ehh! put in the search (top left corner white box)

Pharma Witch Hunts....

55,700 results

What are you on??keep taking them the sooner your gone the better.



Politics Buff,

"A quick visit to pubmed dispels many of your anti-vaccine myths".

Finding the truth isn't always "quick". Spend a little (actually a lot) more time. Be wary of conflicted sources. Then come back and tell us what you found.

Politics Buff

Mercky Business,

A response like that shows that you have never visited pubmed.

Let's see, there are over 300 articles which come up from that search, and none of them are by Paul Offit. The first few are from

United Kingdom
South Africa+Mozambique+Netherlands

Contrary to what you say, there is real consensus in science that vaccines are safe and effective. It's not just bureaucrats. If there was any real controversy, you'd see a raging debate in the scientific literature, but if you again look at the papers in that search, you will see that isn't the case.

You say the media is bought out because of Bill Clinton. Supposing that was true, what about the media in the rest of the world? It's not all the USA.

Jenny Allan

"There are none at all who have any ethics, or seek the truth? Not a single rogue scientist? Where are all the whistle-blowers?"

Semantic word spinning, staight out of the trolls' crit sheet Politics Buff. My comment was a general one about the corrosive influence of corporate greed, in many spheres, not just vaccines and pharma.

To remind you about my comment I stated :-
"The huge army of pharma sponsored pro-vaccine propagandists, including politicians, doctors and scientists, have commandeered the word 'science' to promote their own political and corporate agendas."

This is hardly blaming all 'university professors' and scientists, but it's not difficult to distinguish those ethically challenged doctors and scientists, from those who 'toe the line' for fear of losing their livelihoods and reputations, as happened to Dr Wakefield. Vaccine $Millionaire Paul Offit, he who stated it is 'safe' to administer 10,000 vaccines simultaneously to a tiny baby, is a case in point. This ridiculous, totally unscientific, untested statement, is believed by parents, conditioned to trust qualified paediatricians.

In my darker moments I would love to personally administer those 10,000 vaccines to Offit's large bulk, but I am also aware this is 'committing murder' in my dreams. Rotavirus vaccines, including Offit's Rotateq have killed babies, by causing intussusception, or twisted bowels. In the third world no one knows how many babies succumbed, undiagnosed and untreated. That's the reality, but it's not murder -is it??

John Scudamore

“At some point you have to trust somebody.”

Snake (psychopath) talk.

'Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around

Slip into silent slumber
Sail on a silver mist
Slowly and surely your senses
Will cease to resist

Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me''

Offit: "I think questioning vaccines is perfectly reasonable. But I think that when one looks at the data, and sees that vax are safe and effective and...still...says, 'Well, I think there's a conspiracy to sell vaccines' or 'I think my doctor's lying to me,' I think that's when you cross some sort of critical line," says Offit. "What I'm asking is that people trust their experts. And that's sort of a hard thing to politically accept." (CBS) 60 MinutesOctober 20, 2004

Vaccination is a well exposed psychopath racket, why they want u to trust/obey authority

Mercky Business

So, Politics Buff "A quick visit to pubmed dispels many of your anti-vaccine myths". I suppose if you just read articles by Paul Offit written to reassure parents they might. Otherwise the truth is a huge mess and you can find that out by reading many listed articles. There is not much concensus at all in real science, only among the science bureaucrats. Different thing, of course, if you try to contradict the bureacrats in mainstream politics, or media. Then there are differet rules.

You mock William Thompson but he is still awaiting an invitation (or possibly subpoena though likely that just a slip) from Congress. He is in his job because of whistleblower legislation to protect whistleblowers from profession reprisal. The media won't report because they are bought out - have been since Bill Clinton deregulated pharmaceutical advertising. Likewise, Andy Wakefield has not broken any laws - if the PTB really had anything on him apart from the foolish lies of a muckraking journalist don't you think they would have acted long ago. Maybe one day soon it will against the law to contradict the propaganda of government institutions and professional cartels but it has not happened yet.

Politics Buff

Jenny Allen,

You say: "These days science and epidemiology graduates, employed to conduct 'research' know full well they must not 'discover' anything which might cause difficulties for their employers. The huge army of pharma sponsored pro-vaccine propagandists, including politicians, doctors and scientists, have commandeered the word 'science' to promote their own political and corporate agendas."

You are supposing that there is a vast, world-wide conspiracy theory to suppress what you see is "the truth" about vaccines. Everyone, including university professors, all around the world are all in the pockets of pharma? Really? There are none at all who have any ethics, or seek the truth? Not a single rogue scientist? Where are all the whistle-blowers?

Your single example of a whistle-blower, Thompson, has been singularly ineffectual. He's still employed by the CDC, and not in jail or eliminated. If there was a vast world-wide conspiracy, why was he not hunted down? Why is Andrew Wakefield still allowed to speak freely? Still live in his mansion in Austin? Still allowed to raise money on crowd-funding sites? Surely "big pharma" which has enough influence to stop any anti-vaccine science from being published has enough influence to stop that pesky Wakefield.

Politics Buff

Barry - it means that the vast majority of parent do vaccinate. You assume that those parents have not "done their research", but many of them have. And they still vaccinate. Why should the research that has been done by vaccinating parents be somehow inferior to the research that has been done by non-vaccinating parents?

A quick visit to pubmed dispels many of your anti-vaccine myths. Vaccines are double blind tested. They are tested in combination with the rest of the vaccine schedule. "Doing your research" does not equate to visiting anti-vaccine sites that reinforce your personal beliefs, and automatically disallowing every other opinion as that of a pharma-shill.

Jeannette Bishop

Thanks, Cathy. I think you are right, we have to trust ourselves, mainly because our very health and lives are dependent upon all of us seeing that our "untrained" judgements are closer to reality than the "mainstream" pronouncements. We have to trust ourselves to the point of not being afraid of the responsibility we thought we didn't need to take in our healthcare choices.

We thought we had institutions in place to guarantee not only prevention of atrocities various states have historically demonstrated they are capable of committing without checks on their power, but to continue to allow the progress possible through a society free to act under good guiding principles to find the best outcomes possible.

Now "the mainstream" is pretending that they are only asking for "trust" when they are really moving for the color of "law" to protect and further their current practices of unacknowledged force, and this after they have demonstrated quite fully they are perfectly capable of completely violating trust, harming many for very little to no value in exchange, and walking around blind to it and/or accepting of it...

barbara j

every day I take the time to read one CDC study or paper, in an effort to understand the position they are forcing on us. This morning's contained this language.".Therefore, short-term and long-term surveillance during health and disease seems warranted to understand the full implications of vaccine-induced changes in microbiota structure.

Although increased presence or abundance of S. aureus and H. influenzae at 12 months of age was not significant in this subset of children, we observed an increase in culture-proven S. aureus carriage in the original randomized controlled trial (18), as well as further increases in culture-proven S. aureus and H. influenzae carriage observed in surveillance studies 3–5 years after PCV-7 implementation in the Netherlands (8). These findings are consistent with negative associations between S. pneumoniae (particularly PCV-7 serotypes) and S. aureus (33,34) and H. influenzae (35–37) observed in healthy nonimmunized children. Nontypeable H. influenzae and S. aureus were also more frequently isolated from persons with acute otitis media after introduction of PCV-7 in national immunization programs (38–40), which indicates that carriage may reflect disease dynamics. Together with S. pneumoniae nonvaccine serotype replacement, these effects may further jeopardize the net health benefit of vaccinations with PCV."

Sophie Scholl

Julie Gerberding sells 2.4m $ worth of merck shares reports Anne Dachel - rats leaving a sinking ship !

Julie you are criminal number1 !
former cdc head and now chief of mucks vaccine division.

Julie oversaw the cover up of the William Thompson 2003 fraud !

Cherry Sperlin Misra

I not only will not ever again trust any medical authority figure, but I will think long and hard about what to tell my children and grandchildren. I dont want them to be duped as the people of my generation and the ones after mine were duped by vaccine brain-washing.
And I am sure that most areas of medical science have been severely corrupted by the pharma industry and unless a lot of people come to understand that, millions and perhaps billions of people are going to continue to suffer at the hands of doctors and as of today, I have no idea when that is going to end- and telling us to "Trust" is one of the delaying tactics. Friends, they simply play a waiting game. Wait long enough and the mistakes of the past are forgotten, as the disaster of Thalidomide has been forgotten. I actually recall the time when doctors understood that pregnant women should take no medication if possible. Today, the pharma giants are dreaming of dollar signs and banks when they think of the products they can give to pregnant women, starting now with the flu vaccines.

Jenny Allan

Politics Buff states:- "We should trust scientists because, with a few exceptions who are in a conflict of interest, they are trained to weigh the evidence and understand the issues."

Few Exceptions in conflicts of interest??? These days science and epidemiology graduates, employed to conduct 'research' know full well they must not 'discover' anything which might cause difficulties for their employers. The huge army of pharma sponsored pro-vaccine propagandists, including politicians, doctors and scientists, have commandeered the word 'science' to promote their own political and corporate agendas. 'The science is in' they scream, as they produce their flawed statistical and other so called 'research' studies, many of them with 'weird and wonderful' research subjects.

ANY scientific research or data which does not support the so called 'mainstream' science position is branded as pseudoscience. A tame press and media, reliant on the advertising revenues from the huge pharma' agricultural and chemical industries, is collectively terrified to publish anything which might upset the powerful industries, which support their livelihoods.

REAL science is NEVER 'in'. Science is about questioning, observing, evaluating and reassessing when the unexpected happens, or new evidence is found. Science is dynamic. A science degree, or even a PhD does not confer universal knowledge, but should result in 'scientific thinking'. Sadly, in the present corrupt world, scientists are no longer able to think scientifically.


Yes, we should trust the parents, the vast majority of whom vaccinate.


What does that even mean?

Politics Buff

Yes, we should trust the parents, the vast majority of whom vaccinate.

We should trust scientists because, with a few exceptions who are in a conflict of interest, they are trained to weigh the evidence and understand the issues.

Trust is gone

Trust is gone. Trust in media, trust in politicians, trust in doctors. Gone. This is the sad reality of 2015.


Great points, Cathy!

I just want to put Michaud's quote in the context of the sentence he said RIGHT BEFORE, which makes it all the more chilling:

Peter Michaud, J.D., R.N., representing the Maine Medical Association:
“I heard some one say today, 'The CDC is rife with scandal,' and it may be true. But at some point you have to trust somebody.”

Translation: "Pay not attention to the corruption at the CDC, which I admit is true. Trust them anyway."

Think about that one.


I did trust once, and my child suffered. Now, I trust, BUT VERIFY everything.


A minute later in the video, he says, “At some point you have to trust somebody.” Peter Michaud, JD, RN, a lobbyist for the Maine Medical Association.

No Mr. Michaud we have just found out why we shouldn't trust anyone with connection to the pharmaceutical industry-period.

Where did the Tsunami of Vaccine Bills come from? (110 bills in 36 states)


ALEC prepares model bills to run through the nation state capitols based on government intention and corporate interest. Legislators from all over the nation are members of ALEC.

This is how a tsunami of bills suddenly shows up in states across the nation. BILL GATES FOUNDATION & ALEC: This is what I just found. I would think now Gates Foundation would get another associate organization of theirs to support ALEX.
Support for the American Legislative Exchange Council

In November 2011, the Gates Foundation made a $376,635 grant to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council, which it claims was “to educate and engage its membership on more efficient state budget approaches to drive greater student outcomes, as well as educate them on beneficial ways to recruit, retain, evaluate and compensate effective teaching based upon merit and achievement.”[3] In April 2012, during a public campaign by public interest groups targeting ALEC supporters and urging them to cut ties with ALEC, during which the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC),
specifically targeted the foundation, Gates spokesman Chris Williams told the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call, that it does not plan to make future grants to the conservative nonprofit and specifically noted that the foundation was never a dues-paying member of ALEC.[4] Williams also told BuzzFeed that the foundation does not plan to withdraw that grant “for now. . . . We have already paid out a significant portion of it,” he said.[5]

In Iowa for example, a majority of Republicans a members of ALEC.

Watch this video:



When it comes to vaccines, my trust is in me.

The next person to inject a vaccine into anyone in my family, will have to step over my dead corpse to do it.

Angus Files

Vaccines Are Not Safe: Dr. Russell Blaylock.



Vaccines like antibiotics become ineffective when the microbe becomes immune. Giving increasing numbers of vaccines is just teaching the microbes to become resistant. Parents in their research should look out for vaccines that don't work because of vaccine resistance like the Pertussis vaccine and apparently the Hepatitis B. What is the point of using the old vaccine that is resistant. Also why can't we make the connection that vaccines are going the way of antibiotics and pretty soon even when we need a vaccine for a real epidemic we will have blown our opportunity by overuse. This is one more reason to not trust the Pharmaceutical Industry. They will sell products that are useless and for some reason everyone knows it and still ignores it and still trusts the Big Pharm. Trust your rational mind, trust what is obviously true: large outbreaks of disease among vaccinated populations means the vaccine is either resistant or has short lived effectiveness.

Grace Green

Thought provoking article. My trust is in God. Or, if you prefer, "god".

John Stone


A good topic: why would trust someone when their raison d'être is to make you disbelieve the evidence of your own senses?


Shawn Siegel

You'll know whom to trust when the hair on the back of your neck stands up - like when you discover that in 1999 the CDC found in its own study a significant correlation between the mercury in vaccines and the incidence of speech and learning disorders and autism, and never said a word about it to American parents, even after their initial, pointed efforts to find flaws in the findings failed.


GM set to face criminal charges and fine in excess of $1 billion over ignition switch defect that led to deaths of 104 people

US Justice Department investigators identified criminal wrongdoing in General Motors' failure to disclose a defective ignition switch, report said
They are negotiating what is expected to be a record penalty likely to surpass the $1.2billion paid last year by Toyota
GM began recalling 2.6million Chevrolet Cobalts and other cars with faulty ignitions in February 2014
Former GM employees, including some who were fired last year, could face criminal charges, report said

-How many children have become vaccine injured in the last 2 decades?

-How many children have become autistic as a result of being vaccinated?

-How many children have died as a result of being vaccinated?

-How many people have died from the Flu Vaccine?

-How many many people have life long injuries from being vaccinated?

-HPV Vaccine VAERS Reports up to Apr 2015
Deaths: 227
Total Adverse Events 39,038

Between the two "Products" one is held accountable for liabilities and the other is not.

Am I the only one that's sees something wrong with this picture?

Angus Files

"We wont be fooled again" by the WHO pop band rings loud in my head reading your article Cathy many thanks.

Anyone thinking about vaccines and vaccinating ,DONT.
I we were all pro- vaccine at one point..we wont be fooled again.

Trust a doctor biggest joke of the day!!


Bob Moffitt

Ronald Reagan was speaking of a proposed treaty with Russia during the cold war .. when he said: "Trust but verify".

Reagan's wise counsel would equally apply to decisions regarding vaccines between doctors and parents.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)