Rouleur,

When I did the SARS study in the 2009-2010 time period, I retrieved and examined every record on SARS published from ~2003 until ~2009. I am familiar with all the arguments relative to SARS vaccines and the relation to immune system issues. We can go back and forth on the details ad infinitum, as in fact the main researchers were doing at the time to ascertain the immune system deficiencies.

Your bottom line seems to consist of the following two statements:

1. "SARS is a contagious disease with a high mortality rate, it can cause long-term severe problems even among survivors, and there are few good clinical options for those infected. Under these circumstances, it seems irresponsible to dismiss efforts at developing a safe and effective vaccine and to instead a adopt a "let nature take its course" approach and vaguely urge people to "strengthen their immune systems.""
2. "A course of prevention that includes safe and effective vaccines seems a prudent course to pursue in addition to outbreak monitoring and containment measures and improved clinical care of those exposed."

First, 800 deaths in a global pandemic, while unfortunate, is not a major health issue. In the USA in 2013, 611,000 people died from heart disease, 585,000 died from cancer, 149,000 died from chronic lower respiratory disease, 129,000 died from stroke, and so on. The latter should be the major focus of our attention.

Second, I checked on the Web, and could not find any examples of SARS cases/outbreaks since the end of the pandemic in 2003. Not exactly the type of crisis to warrant anything near your recommendations for vaccine development. Put more bluntly, it's a non-issue.

Third, you state: "No, I don't propose throwing 320,000 or so viruses against the wall and seeing what sticks, and it's ludicrous to think that researchers would propose such an approach either." Nobody is proposing throwing something against a wall to see what sticks. If there are 320,000 viruses with the potential to cause the same type of zoonoses as SARS, vaccines would need to be developed for many if not most of them for prevention, if in fact they offer such prevention in the real world. One could prioritize vaccine development for the viruses most likely to cause a zoonotic pandemic, and perhaps limit them to the top 10,000. But, if one wanted a vaccine-based strategy to prevent the possibility of zoonotic epidemics, that's what's required. Yes, it sounds ludicrous, and it is ludicrous, but you're the one pushing a vaccine-based approach, not me.

Your bottom line seems to be vaccines are valuable, and need to be developed. I get that; it was clear from the correspondence you had with Linda1, and it's crystal-clear from your recent correspondence with me. Why not just state that, and avoid these tortured arguments? However, trying to promote vaccines on a blog where many of the commenters have real-world (highly negative) experience with the consequences of some of these vaccines doesn't seem to me to be a cost-effective strategy.

My bottom line is that there are major non-communicable diseases, and probably many communicable diseases as well, that can be prevented/halted/reversed by taking active measures to eliminate the contributing factors to those diseases. Taking these steps will strengthen the body's ability to ward of myriad diseases. The SARS history shows the main factor in surviving was having a sufficiently strong immune system with the attendant low co-morbidities to neutralize the effects of the SARS coronavirus.

I identify the major pervasive contributing factors to all diseases in my book, and offer suggestions how to eliminate them. If treatments are needed, they can be identified using the same methods I used to identify contributing factors/causes. In my CKD paper, I identified both contributing factors and treatments; that method can be easily extrapolated to all diseases.

I recognize the vaccine manufacturers and other 'healthcare' suppliers will not get rich from my approach, and that the numbers of people willing to make such radical lifestyle changes are small. I get that! But, for those few who are interested, like the Terri Wahls and Dale Breseden examples in my book, major health improvements are possible, if irreversible damage has not already been done and genetic predispositions are not dominant.

Barry,

You initially raised the specific question: "Are you actually suggesting that doctors are aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway"? My response was, and is, they do it all the time. Injuring the patient is not their main objective. Improving the patient's health is the main objective, and the increased risk of injury (side-effect) is the price they (and an appropriately informed patient) are willing to pay by agreeing to the treatment.

"Are you actually drawing a parallel between immunosuppressants for people who receive life saving organ transplants, and risking brain damage in toddlers, for a medication that may or may not prevent ….. measles????"

Showing some generically common features is not the same as drawing an equivalence. The purpose of the immunosuppressants in the case of organ transplants is to (hopefully) prevent life-threatening rejection of the organ. The purpose of the e.g. measles vaccine is to (hopefully) prevent measles, according to its proponents. Both types of medications don't always achieve their main objectives. Additionally, both types of medications have side effects, and from that perspective, both groups of doctors are increasing the risk of injury to their patients. They rationalize each medication by the benefits outweighing the costs. Whether we choose to believe these rationalizations is another story, especially given the manufactured and distorted research results that infest the biomedical literature.

Rouleur,

Not true. Your statement that: "there is evidence that mortality was actually higher among those with the more robust immune responses" completely distorts what happened. There was some debate in the research community about the nature of the specific immune response deficiency, but the consensus seemed to be that the switch from innate to adaptive immunity was overly delayed. Essentially, the people were dying from the consequences of extended chronic inflammation. When I use the term 'strengthen the immune system', it involves producing not only adequate numbers of immune system components, but also insuring that the system switches from innate to adaptive immunity appropriately. That was not the case with SARS, and it was the opinion of this researcher that the immune system was overwhelmed dealing with the co-morbidities present to be able to handle the additional coronavirus stimulus adequately.

Near the end of the pandemic and afterwards, some researchers/clinicians re-examined blood samples taken from their patients in pandemic outbreak areas who did not present with SARS, and who had come for other problems, including routine examinations. They found a number of cases where patients exhibited SARS coronavirus antibodies in the serum, but these patients exhibited no overt symptoms of the SARS disease. That's what a truly healthy immune system can do, if a person adopts a lifestyle that will strengthen their immune system. Additionally, such an approach will avoid the short and long-term side-effects of such vaccines. As we have seen in the case of the MMR vaccine, the shorter-term side-effects have been deliberately suppressed (if Thompson's allegations are correct), and the long-term side-effects (including the potential for transgenerational) have not been reported. Why would we think the example of the MMR vaccine is unique, rather than the norm?

"A course of prevention that includes safe and effective vaccines seems a prudent course to pursue in addition to outbreak monitoring and containment measures and improved clinical care of those exposed." It has been estimated that there are at least 320,000 viruses that infect mammals (http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/5/e00598-13), with the potential of being transmitted from animals to humans (zoonoses, like the SARS pandemic). Are you going to inoculate people with 320,000 vaccines in the hopes of preventing the emergence of zoonotic disease? That would be a vaccine manufacturer's wet dream! Far better to strengthen the immune system (see my book for some recommendations), and let nature carry out the function for which it was designed.

Someone is finally trying to find ways to distinguish immune reactions to bacterial, viral, and vaccine germ exposures. I'm sure the devil is in the details: they don't talk about whether what percentage of which population "suffered" symptoms. But they say flat out, that no one has ever before found the correlation between natural immune reaction and vaccine immune reactions. CRAZY! Politicians trying to mandate a medical procedure that no one has understood before now. How is that entertained in anyone's mind as legal, moral, or anything less than being experimented on without full medical consent?

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/12/viral-infections-leave-a-signature-on-human-immune-system.html

ATSC,

"These children were obviously not healthy to begin with. Instead of inventing vaccines to vaccinate everyone to protect the minority, and inadvertently causing brain-damage to normal children, perhaps they should have been looking for the reasons only a minority of children suffer disease complications."

In 2011, I published a paper on treatments and preventatives for SARS [1], the pandemic of 2002-3 that started in China and swept through the world. Roughly 8,000 people presented with SARS, and roughly 800 died of SARS. Drugs, 'treatments', et al had no effect on the pandemic. It was stopped through isolation, improved hygiene, improved sanitation, etc.

In doing the background research, I found that the 800 who died were not representative of the total; they had numerous co-morbidities even before the pandemic started. Exposure to the SARS coronavirus was the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.

I started the study perhaps six years after the pandemic ended, and examined the literature on SARS since 2002. Much of the research (even during the pandemic but certainly post-pandemic) was focused on new vaccines against the disease. As I concluded in the paper, the rational approach would have been to strengthen the immune system to ward off the disease, so if the virus makes another round, the response would be mild or no symptoms. Or, if another virus surfaces, we will be in the same position as we were with the SARS coronavirus, since the immune system of some people will not be able to handle it, and there wouldn't be sufficient time to develop a credible vaccine. The only hope for prevention in general was to strengthen the immune system to the maximum extent possible. Otherwise, we will end up with Offit's 10,000 vaccines to protect against any credible virus, with who knows how many side effects from the combination.

But, isn't that the problem we have with not only vaccines for infectious disease, but drugs in general for chronic disease? The rational and long-lasting approach is to take those steps that will strengthen the immune and other critical systems, to ward off disease of any type. Unfortunately, most people don't want to make those changes, and would rather maintain their present lifestyle with the present array of drugs and vaccines (and, of course, side effects) to attenuate disease symptoms. That's what we the public want, and that's what the 'healthcare' community is only too glad to oblige. We contribute to the problem, along with the other groups I have mentioned in previous posts.

[1]. Kostoff RN. “Literature-Related Discovery: Potential treatments and preventatives for SARS”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 78:7. 1164-1173. 2011.

Dr Simon Murch co-author of the Lancet paper gave us a clue as to how doctors think:

"I have been advised by colleagues that it is better to accept that a very few children can have adverse events than to continue to investigate that if it is going to have an impact on vaccine uptake internationally."
- BBC Panorama documentary 'MMR Every Parent's Choice' (2002)

In defence of doctors, many have had to care for children who have suffered complications from diseases that the vast majority of us haven't encountered, and they really do believe that without vaccines far many more children would be brain-injured or die from these diseases. What if they have it wrong, it is not the multitudes of children that they do not see walking through the gate on the other side of the hospital for their psychiatric evaluations for ASD, OCD, ADHD etc that have genetic problems but the children who land in their infectious disease ward. These children were obviously not healthy to begin with. Instead of inventing vaccines to vaccinate everyone to protect the minority, and inadvertently causing brain-damage to normal children, perhaps they should have been looking for the reasons only a minority of children suffer disease complications.

Barry,

"Are you actually suggesting that doctors are aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway?"

I stated specifically: "My guess is that, for the most part, they are well aware of the problem.....most doctors don't want to get 'Wakefielded' by exposing the truth about serious vaccine side-effects......they go along with the mainstream.....That is my belief that, for the most part, they know the score only too well, far better in fact than we do.....they look around and see Wakefield, Snowden, Manning, David Lewis (biosludge), William Marcus (fluoridation), and many others who have dared tell the truth, and have decided they don't want to pay the personal price these other heroes have paid."

I did not address motivation or intent, as your question implies. However, much medical practice involves doctors 'injuring their own patients, and are choosing to do it anyway'. It's known as 'side-effects'. Surgeons do transplants all the time, and give immunosuppressants to insure the organ is not rejected. A certain fraction of those patients will have a higher risk of cancer, given a weaker immune system. The medical profession has made the tradeoff determination that the benefits outweigh the risks. Maybe some/many/most Pediatricians have made the same tradeoffs with respect to vaccines: the benefits outweigh the risks. Who knows; I don't have the data, and it's not clear how one would obtain insight into the real motivations of these Pediatricians.

But, I would throw the ball back in your court. Do you believe the side effects of e.g. the MMR vaccine are so rare with such long latency periods that Pediatricians with a large practice, or who are part of an even larger group practice, are completely unaware of these side-effects? If so, that would run counter to the AoA belief that we are in the throes of a virtual epidemic of neurodevelopmental problems that result from vaccinations. If we are in fact in the midst of such an epidemic, then those on the front lines would be well aware of these problems as part of their everyday practice.

Finally, Chapter 9 of my book provides numerous examples of medical misconduct. Who do you think is responsible for this misconduct; many are M.D.s? Look at some of the leaders of the recent state campaigns to mandate vaccines. Without mentioning names, some of these leaders are Pediatricians who were deluged with data showing adverse effects of vaccines. Did that stop them from advancing their agenda? Now, were they "aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway", to put it in your terms? You tell me. My guess is that if push came to shove, they would justify their recommendations on the basis that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the costs (side-effects).

In a recent AoA post, I listed the titles of ~twenty books that described unethical medical experiments performed mainly in the USA. Most of the people who conducted these experiments were M.D.s. Were they "aware that they are injuring their own patients , and are choosing to do it anyway"? Would they have admitted that's what they were doing? Not from the comments I saw. They believed they were doing it for a higher purpose, somewhat in parallel to how most of us rationalize medical experiments on defenseless animals. The data obtained from these unethical experiments would help heal human beings in the future. The benefits outweigh the costs; the ends justify the means!

Some doctors know, at least to an extent, and they rationalize that they have to go along with it because it is their job. Most of the new ones, brainwashed and deliberately broken from their training, have no idea because it takes them a long time to heal from their training, if they ever heal, and they haven't been in the trenches long enough to realize the consequences of vaccination. Some aren't bright enough to ever connect the dots.

That the allopathic model is based on reductionist thinking doesn't help either. Patients that develop problems are passed on to specialists that feed on problems effecting different parts of the body, a hindrance to understanding the whole patient and the origin of disease. Most do not read scientific journals. They certainly don't read to the extent that some of their patients do.

I agree though that they are a big part of how this will stop, if it does. If allopaths begin to stand up against the machine en masse, things will change.

There should be some Prodding for doctors to go to the schools and see just how unhealthy the students (their patients) are now. I guess they can pretend things are fine isolated in their offices but there must be a way to force them to confront reality. I think they are aware there's a problem but there needs to be more direct confrontation or challenge on them to get real about things. If not them, then who?

I am in the process of reading "Fear of the invisible," and it is enough to scare the hell out of anyone, and enough to thoroughly piss off anyone who holds those values we were taught as children- truth, justice, honor, and the American way- dear to heart. The entire history of vaccination has been based upon pseudo-science, hubris, dogma, changing diagnoses, fraud, cowardice, and above all, profit. To some degree I disagree with Ronald Kostoff that doctors know about this. It is likely that those involved in trauma care, pediatricians, and gastroenterologists know, but I think the average GP probably doesn't. I have been educating my own doctor about this, and she is receptive. Real doctors value knowledge, just as they value their patients.

I agree with you. The doctors and Paediatricians are increasingly aware of what's happening. A bunch of them all need to come out in number. Safety in numbers, huh?

Age Of Autism for those who want to wake up not for doctors who take the pharma coin.

Thanks for sharing Mr Enayati,

MMR RIP

Barry,

"DOCTORS are the only people who can stop this madness. They need to wake up to the fact that vaccines are medically useless, and that they've been duped into using them to create pharmaceutical customers.

And when they get past that initial hurdle, they need to turn their back on the pharmaceutical industry."

There are a number of different stakeholders with interest in drugs in general, and vaccines in particular. For the latter, the three groups most involved directly are the children being vaccinated, their parents/guardians, and the doctors/nurses who administer the vaccines. Going up the stakeholder chain are the government agencies who regulate vaccine approval/conduct in-house vaccine studies/sponsor external vaccine studies/supply the vaccines/monitor their safety, the pharmaceutical companies who develop and market the vaccines, the politicians who oversee the pharmaceutical companies and the relevant government agencies, and the media who theoretically have the function of reporting abuses to the public at large.

The higher level stakeholder groups know exactly what is going on with vaccine adverse effects; they have too many conflicts to alter the situation. Certainly, the parents of the affected children (not limited to those with autism) know there's a problem, but an insufficient number of parents with un-affected children (or people without children) are aware of the potential dangers of vaccines.

That leaves the doctors. They, next to the parents, are on the front-lines of vaccine administration and emergence of side effects. My guess is that, for the most part, they are well aware of the problem. As Wakefield has stated correctly, except for a few of those doctors more willing to risk their careers, most doctors don't want to get 'Wakefielded' by exposing the truth about serious vaccine side-effects. So, like most doctors who treat patients suffering the effects of non-ionizing radiation et al, they go along with the mainstream.

That's why I don't agree with your statement that doctors need to 'wake up' or they've been 'duped'. It is my belief that, for the most part, they know the score only too well, far better in fact than we do. They face the consequences of the damage every day. But, they look around and see Wakefield, Snowden, Manning, David Lewis (biosludge), William Marcus (fluoridation), and many others who have dared tell the truth, and have decided they don't want to pay the personal price these other heroes have paid.

That to me is the weakness of the campaigns to expose the dangers of vaccines, non-ionizing radiation, glyphosate, etc. There is an assumption that those in small or large positions of power are essentially unaware of the adverse effects of these toxic stimuli, and only if they could be made aware of the truth, there would be a magical transformation. As I stated previously, paraphrasing Chomsky: 'speaking truth to power is a waste of time; power knows the truth; the challenge is getting power to change their behavior'. Given the complicity of government-industry-media, and those who benefit from the largesse of government and industry relative to vaccines, I see little hope of change being initiated from within any of these stakeholder groups. The only hope is bottom-up-driven change coming from those not directly affected by vaccine-driven diseases. They need to be made aware of the potential damage, and how in the end even they will be affected, financially at a minimum. I have no idea how this can be done at any semblance of a rapid pace, given complete dominance of the media by corporate and government interests.

Hi Benedetta

A reminder

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/11/the-international-autism-coordinating-committee-met-yesterday-below-are-a-few-of-the-public-comments-and-links-to-much-more.html

John

ven if it is “unpopular”, it is ethically imperative that we investigate these reports and study these children. Public health is not simply freedom from infectious disease. Autism is not always a gift or alternate way of being. It often comes with a great cost. My son deserves to have attention paid to him and research done to help him have a better quality of life.

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

Autism is never a gift.

It is always just a name, that was invented by the medical community to create mystery around something that has never really been a mystery at all. It's a name that has allowed perpetrators of an unconscionable crime, to softly refer to physical injuries that have been inflicted upon children by injecting them with poisonous vaccines.

Pharmaceuticals are a trillion dollar a year industry, and people need to wake up to the fact that vaccines have been used to to create it.

Our children are just collateral damage to these people, and appealing to their ethical side isn't likely to achieve much. These architects of this crime will never going to be convinced to stop on their own. Because stopping will involve having to admit to a pretty awful crime. And on a level that I'll bet is of even greater significance to them.... it will collapse the trillion dollar industry.

DOCTORS are the only people who can stop this madness. They need to wake up to the fact that vaccines are medically useless, and that they've been duped into using them to create pharmaceutical customers.

And when they get past that initial hurdle, they need to turn their back on the pharmaceutical industry. They need to join the small legion of doctors who have already woken up, and who are trying to nurse these horribly injured children back to a better state of health health. Using medical strategies that will do no further harm

By now .. it should be obvious to one and all .. the governmental agencies responsible for approving, recommending and administering vaccines .. such as .. CDC, FDA, HHS, etc .. and .. the pharmaceutical companies that are responsible for researching the "safety and efficiency" of vaccines .. prior to and after being approved .. have COMBINED .. RESULTING IN A GLOBAL CONGLOMERATE THAT IS NOW CONSIDERED BY POLITICIANS AND THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA .. SIMPLY "TOO BIG TO FAIL".

We live in a world gone completely mad .. where the vested interests of the people can no longer rely on their government .. to protect THEM .. from the vested interests of that financially powerful .. ethically and morally corrupt .. "global conglomerate".