How To Win the Vaccine Credibility War
By Ted Kuntz
- Take All the Credit for Success
Vaccine manufacturers and the medical industry have declared themselves fully responsible for the significant decline in mortality from infectious disease over the last century. When asked for evidence of vaccine effectiveness, vaccine proponents point to the decline of whooping cough, diphtheria, measles, mumps, polio and other “vaccine preventable” diseases. The fact that the mortality rates of these diseases declined up to 99% prior to the introduction of the vaccine is not considered relevant.
- Tell a Good Story
The vaccine story is a great story! No question. “Vaccines are a miracle of modern medicine.” “Vaccines have saved millions of lives.” “The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.” The problem with this story is it is not supported by clinical or biological evidence. But when you have a good story, you don’t need evidence.
- All for One and One for All
The medical industry and the media refer to vaccines as if they are one uniform product. No differentiation is made between a vaccine produced by Merck versus a vaccine produced by GlaxoSmithKline. A vaccine for chicken pox is no different than a vaccine for measles. A vaccine given to a sixteen year old is no different than one for a newborn. When you question the safety and effectiveness of one vaccine, you question the safety and the effectiveness of all vaccines. Individual consideration is not permitted.
- Under Report Adverse Effects
No one likes to hear about adverse effects. Besides, they happen to someone else’s children. While the medical industry claims to keep accurate data on the number of incidences of vaccine injury, there is no clear definition of vaccine injury and no mandatory requirement to report adverse events following vaccinations. It’s up to each individual health practitioner to self-report that what they did caused harm to their patient. It’s also important to keep any data on vaccine injuries hidden from the prying eyes of the public. Better yet, deny that vaccines cause injury. If you have to admit to vaccine injury, pick a good round number like “one in a million”.
- Hear No Evil. See No Evil. Speak No Evil.
It’s important not to discuss any concerns about vaccine safety or effectiveness. Tell the mainstream media that providing balanced reporting on vaccines is irresponsible. Even when CDC scientists take whistleblower status, claiming fraud and the destruction of data, there is nothing worth reporting. Besides, your advertising revenues might be at risk if you report on vaccine injuries or government fraud.
- Claim Consensus
Everyone knows vaccines are safe and effective. The science is settled. No long-term clinical trials are needed to substantiate these claims. It would be unethical to conduct clinical research with an unvaccinated population. Even discussing vaccine safety is irresponsible. Asking questions about vaccine effectiveness is anti-science. Everyone knows there is no vaccine for stupid people.
- Let the Money Speak for Itself
Money is the best criteria to decide the outcome of research. Money should decide which studies get published. Money should decide what research will be done and what questions will be asked. Money should decide what editors allow on their programs and in their newspapers. Money should decide which politicians will be elected. Money should decide what is in “the greater good”. And who has more money that the pharmaceutical industry.
- Everyone Must Believe
It’s not good enough that most people believe in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. It’s not good enough that vaccines rates are 99% effective. Everyone must believe. Everyone must partake. Everyone must be vaccinated for the greater good. There is a theory called ‘herd immunity’ that means everyone must be vaccinated to be effective. Just getting vaccinated yourself is not enough protection. Mandate vaccines if people aren’t responsible enough to get vaccinated. We can’t have any unvaccinated children around to remind us of what a healthy immune system is like.
- Keep Everyone Afraid
If everyone doesn’t get their required vaccines, killer diseases will return and get us all. We need to stop those “vaccine preventable diseases”. It’s the responsible thing to do. Anyone who doesn’t vaccinate is a danger to the community. There is no time to discuss the matter. Vaccine decisions are best made from a place of fear rather than thoughtful evaluation of the evidence. Do you want polio to come back?
- Avoid Any Discussion
It’s best not to discuss the matter. It just confuses people. Everyone knows that vaccines are safe and effective. It’s like discussing whether the earth is round. The time for discussion is over. We don’t need to investigate this any further. The bottom line is – the more vaccines, the better. Terrorize any professional who does honest research and reports negative effects. “Wakefield” them.
“Any possible doubts, whether or not well founded,
about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist.”
- Federal Register. Vol 49, No 107
- June 1, 1984
Ted Kuntz is a psychotherapist, author, and community activist. He lives in Vancouver, British Columbia. Ted is also the father of a vaccine injured son. Ted shares his journey with his son in his book, 'Peace Begins With Me’. Ted is also the author of ‘How Can I Wake Up When I Don’t Know I’m Asleep’.
Assuming what I am reading about Wakefield's business ideas about testing, then
lets get real, the "transfer factor/competitor to vaccines" issue is a blue herring for pro-vaccine extremists. The real target they were trying to distract from must have been the diagnostic test. I wonder what would have happened if they had actually gotten that diagnostic test for measles virus off the ground? Maybe the whole current attack on patient directed laboratory tests would have began 15 years ago instead of more recently? It's pitting patients, scientific labs, and personal rights against doctors, pharmaceutical companies and chemical manufacturers. Just look at what went on with 23andme and what's going on with Theranos. Can't let the public get their hands on knowledge that might contain some ugly truths. Let's get with the insurance companies, invent "standard of care" and see how long we can stop people from realizing their bodies are theirs and not ours, otherwise we have a real information problem on our hands.
Maybe that test would have distinguished that wild measles and their antibodies are present in tons of healthy people as well as sick people, but that only the sick people have lots of vaccines strain measles virus in their disabled gastrointestinal systems? What if that test could have been extended to easily distinguishing vaccine strains of anything vs wild strains? What if that led to the discovery of things like adjuvants and formaldehyde and thimerosal stuck in unhealthy people but not in healthy people, among countless other possible revelations? That test would have been like pulling the string that led to the whole ugly sweater unraveling.
Posted by: Jenny | April 24, 2016 at 05:40 PM
Tami,
I believe what you're saying is that human body was not designed to withstand vaccination.
Posted by: Linda1 | April 24, 2016 at 01:08 PM
The truth is that all the answers are right before us.
The genes for hyperglycinemia. Illness after vaccination, then recovery with false immunity. What does autism have in common with epilepsy, MS, RA, and diabetes? I'm looking into it. The genetic susceptibility factor to harbouring these illnesses after vaccination is there.
If the focus of vaccine safety is upon transfer factors and transviral relationships to tumors/necrosis factor...
Glycine metabolism is the key to understanding it all.
Posted by: Tami | April 24, 2016 at 12:41 PM
Benedetta
Please don't feed the trolls.
Posted by: Mercky Business | April 24, 2016 at 12:41 PM
Eindeker
Dr. Tom Insel head of the National institute of Mental Health said; The worst outcome of disease was death and brain injury and that vaccines had not changed that out come what so ever! NOT ONE BIT!-- there was no decrease in that out come.
What he did not say was that there had actually been an increase of mental health issues, and auto immune diseases.
Will you dispute that?
Posted by: Benedetta | April 24, 2016 at 11:52 AM
Here are some comments from the FDA meeting transcript. The Doctor is identified just by initials but you can go read the transcript to find out their names. The statement from will be in quotations, the basic translation after:
“We have really identified three major factors that could potentially convey risk from tumor derived cells. And these include the cells themselves … and if they were tumor-derived cells then maybe they themselves could form tumors in a vaccine recipient.” (Dr. K)
*The vaccines may cause tumors in recipients*
“What I think is qualitatively different about the tumor cell lines is the fact that they can cause tumors.” (Dr.L)
*A fact: tumor cell lines can cause tumors*
“But certainly, if you are going to address this question about tumor risk of vaccines made in tumor cell lines, it’s going to have to be a decade’s question.” (Dr.C)
*Tumors may occur decades after vaccinations*
“… but we are here to consider the issues that we would like to advise the agency to consider in helping the company continue the manufacturing process, what should they be concerned about, what should they be watching for.” (Dr. D, leader of the meeting)
*FDA is there to help vaccine manufacturers*
“I’m not optimistic that we’re going to find animal models to assess oncogenicity of DNA. That’s why I’m feeling that maybe it’s the clearance aspect that we have to deal with, with respect to DNA.” (Dr.P)
*Doubt regarding test animals for assessing oncogenicity*
“Are they watching these animals long enough? Should it be longer?” (Dr.D)
“Is it relevant to safety that a cell forms a tumor after a year, a year and a half?” (Dr.P)
*Uncertainty about length of time for safety testing*
“How is this group (of vaccines) going to be able to be accepted by the consumers … As soon as you hear “a tumor-derived cell line”, how do you explain that, put the public at ease?” (Dr.B)
“… the practicing medical community and also the lay public. They are going to hear that we are recommending or that the manufacturers are making vaccines with tumorigenic cell lines and say, oh, my God, even if there’s no scientific basis to say, oh, my God.” (Dr.D)
*Doctors and the public may say “Oh, my God”!*
“… because it’s a discussion of how one communicates these issues and how the public will perceive them. But I’m not completely sure that we have a complete answer on the fundamental scientific question. So how can you communicate a scientific concensus that the product is safe unless we’re sure that you, the experts we are asking to advise us are convinced that it’s safe?” (Dr.K)
*Framing information to convince doctors and the public*
“The minute you describe something in the package insert in terms of potential clinical safety concerns, I think that really precludes using these cell substrates.” (Dr. G)
“When it gets right down to what’s in the vial and what the patient is going to ask me about, whether it’s safe, I’m not going to say, well, you know, HeLa cells kill nude mice.” (Dr. C)
“I don’t know that our charge is to micromanage the package insert today. I think that’s a new discussion, with lots of issues that we haven’t really aired completely.” ( Dr.D)
*Plan to hide information and omit it from package inserts*
Go read the transcript, it is revealing. Read "Fear of the Invisible" and the "Vaccine Papers" written by a genuine investigative journalist who isn't on anyone's payroll. IMHO, this is the information that should be made public. When people began to read what is being injected into human being-I believe the distractions created by the government & the CDC pushed by their online pro-vaccine terrorist will fall by the wayside. According to a CDC study 1 child in 6 is chronically ill in the US and that coincides with the increase in the vaccination schedule. The America population is one of the sickest in the world. Despite all the excessive vaccinations it has now slipped to #167 in life expectancy compared to other countries in the world. The US has the highest infant mortality rate of the industrialized world. Something is clearly wrong.
Posted by: Danchi | April 24, 2016 at 10:27 AM
AND, Eindecker,
Dr. Wakefield wasn't calling for a change in public health policy, although it was within his right to do so. He was recommending that people opt for the single vaccines spaced apart, which at the time was part of public health policy. Those single vaccines were withdrawn I believe 6 months later, denying parents the choice they had always had. It was MMR or nothing. It was not Dr. Wakefield's fault that some parents opted for nothing. Considering the number of parents coming forward to report that their children's health and lives had been devastated by the MMR, the parent's decision to heed the parents' warnings was reasonable. What was not reasonable or responsible was the public health departments' decision to no longer offer the individual vaccines.
Posted by: Linda1 | April 24, 2016 at 10:17 AM
A lot of the comments from the Pro-Vaccine Extremist revolve around Dr. Wakefield and the MMR. There are other variables involved here. Investigative Journalist (a real one) was given access to everything the CDC/FDA/pharmaceutical industry had in regards to vaccines. In other world she had unlimited access. This is what she found about the MMR:
How 'Measles Virus' is isolated for a Vaccine.
by Janine Roberts
Monday, 18 August 2008
extract from her book Fear of the Invisible
In an online paper entitled 'Isolation and Identification of Measles Virus in Cell Culture,' the CDC, the central Health Research authority of the USA, lays out how isolation of this virus should be done so it can be used, say for a vaccine. It instructs, first obtain from the patient a small sample of urine or fluid from the nose or mouth.
Next 'sacrifice' a marmoset monkey, take some of its cells, then make these cancerous, perhaps by exposing them to radiation, and then give them, on top of this, Epstein-Barr disease! Such extremely sick cells, the CDC informs us, are '10,000 times' more sensitive to the measles virus than are normal human cells.
Now add to these cells a toxin called trypsin. The CDC tells us to expect some cells to fall off the sides of the vessel as if they have been poisoned. They have been. Now add nutrients and glucose and leave for two or three days so the cells can somewhat recover.
Now add to the cells the sample gathered from the patient. After an hour, inspect the cells in the culture with a microscope to see if any of the cells are becoming distorted, or are floating free as they did when trypsin was added. If they are, the CDC says this is proof that measles virus is present and making the cells ill.
This statement made me sit back and think. Why should this illness now be caused by a virus? They had poisoned the cells, made them cancerous..... and now the CDC was saying the cells must be ill because they had measles. Where was the logic in this?
The next stage involves the addition of two antibiotics, Penicillin and Streptomycin, to the culture and leaving it alone for a day. Again the cells are inspected - and if small holes now appear between cells, it is now presumed that measles virus has caused these. If no sign of such damage, this process is repeated. If after this there are still no signs of damage, then the culture is discarded. However, if 50% or more of the cells are now seriously ill and distorted, the culture is set aside and kept in the fridge as 'isolated measles virus stock suitable for vaccines!' All this without actually detecting the virus itself!
This is the whole process as recommended by the CDC. There is no mention of the need to have a control culture, no mention of any need to isolate the measles virus or even to see it with an electron microscope. The cells are poisoned - and an unseen measles virus is blamed - even thou' the disease the cells have is totally unlike measles. Where is the logic in this?
What they call measles virus is in effect the fluid in this poisoned cell culture.
-Source document - CDC. Isolation and Identification of Measles Virus in Culture, Revised November 29, 2001.
In "Fear of the Invisible" she further documents:
Before I started on this investigation, if I thought about it, I would have presumed our vaccines were made of selected viruses in sterile fluid to which a small amount of preservative chemicals has been added. I think this is what most parents presume.
It was thus a shock to discover from this top-level scientific workshop that the viruses in our current vaccines are not in a sterile fluid as I had presumed, but in a soup of unknown bits and pieces, a veritable witches' brew of DNA fragments, added chemicals, proteins and, even possibly prions and oncogenes, all of which would easily pass through the filters used to be injected into our children.
Our vaccines, I thus learnt, are not filtered clean but are suspensions from the manufacturers' ‘incubation tanks' in which the viruses are produced from ‘substrates' of mashed bird embryo, minced monkey kidneys or cloned human cells. These suspensions are filtered before use but only to remove particles larger than viruses. The point of the vaccine is that it contains viruses, thus these must not be filtered out. This means there remains in the vaccine everything of the same size or smaller, including what the manufacturers call ‘degradation products' - parts of decayed viruses or cells.
I also learnt that the only official checks made for contaminants in vaccines are for a few known pathogens, thus ignoring a vast host of unknown, unstudied, small particles and chemicals. These eminent doctors reported at these vaccine safety meetings that it is simply impossible to remove these from our common vaccines - and this would of course also apply to vaccines for pets, farm animals and birds.
I went to the published reports of the MMR manufacturers and found these confirmed what the scientists at this workshop had reported. A manufacturer stated in 2000 that it made the MMR vaccine with ‘harvested virus fluids.' It stated frankly that their ‘Measles vaccine bulk is an unpurified product whose potency was measured through a biological assay for the active substance rather than through evaluation of integrity of physical form. Degradation products are neither identified nor quantified.' In other words, it left the latter in the measles vaccine along with all contaminants that lay there quietly, or worked slowly. The pharmaceutical company admitted checking the measles vaccine only for obviously active contaminates. It did not measure how much the vaccine was polluted with genetic code fragments, other viruses, or with parts of bacterial, animal, bird or human cells.
This is a clear case of looking over there instead of looking right here. Because secrecy prevails and the government with the funds of big pharma control what's put out to the pubic, people are left debating studies, personalities, conflicts of interest, money etc rather than looking deeply at what exactly is being injected into children and adults. If the populace knew the "secret formulas" if they knew that vaccine contain-human cells, animal cells, aborted fetal cells,DNA fragments without the protein coating which are highly reactive and vaccine makers have no idea what the outcome of this is, they would be appalled. Sickened. It is a given that parents will reject the ritual of vaccination once it's know that the FDA approved in 2012 vaccine makers can now grow vaccine on Tumor Cells:FDA Meeting. Human Tumors for Vaccine Manufacture-https://www.scribd.com/doc/246682536/FDA-Meeting-Human-Tumors-for-Vaccine-Manufacture#scribd,
something they'd been doing for decades as reveal in "Fear of the Invisible".
Posted by: Danchi | April 24, 2016 at 10:03 AM
Eindecker,
One would expect that measles would be more common in the unvaccinated. You still haven't answered my questions as to the medical condition, including the vaccination status, of the morbid and deceased. The other question was, during that same time period, how many were fallen from the vaccine itself? All that information isn't released. And that data is crucial in order to do any kind of meaningful analysis.
"You may not like the source but this link, https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/10/11/andrew-wakefields-vaccine-patent/ , has transcripts from the GMC hearing when AW's business was discussed in detail and clearly shows he put in a patent application in his name without informing the hospital where he was employed, then asked them to fund the patent, probably why it was withdrawn. The 2nd patent application names the hospital and the US Biotech company, not AW."
Some things I consider strictly off limits. Among them, going to Matt Carey's site and engaging in devil worship. I don't go there.
Again, I don't see anything wrong with a scientist applying for a patent in the way you describe. You say "probably why it was withdrawn". Eindecker, you're making up stuff. Re the 2nd patent application, so what? You don't know what was behind that and, so what? You really sound like a gossip monger. You're grasping at straws to make a case when there is none.
""he was recommending a major change in public health policy...
Did AW notify the Dept of Health before his press conference announcement, did he discuss what he was going to say with other experts, did he take any advice on the likely outcome in public reaction might be? No He wasn't an immunologist or vaccine expert or virologist, he was a surgeon with an interest in gut problems, and certainly not a public health expert, was that really a reasonable thing to do?"
What are you talking about? He was a well qualified academic gastroenterologist who was absolutely within his rights and responsibility to have and express a professional opinion that differs from every other medical professional in the world. What the hell is going on in the UK that professionals are not allowed to think independently and speak freely?
He didn't need to do a study of what the public reaction might be.
He didn't need to notify the dept of health of his opinion, although we don't know if he did or not.
He did not need to consult any other experts, although again, we don't know who he consulted prior to that press conference or after.
He didn't need to be an immunologist or virologist or vaccine expert (whatever that is), and he did not have to have ties with Glaxo Smith Kline, etc., in order to have a professional opinion. Your attempt to diminish his expertise with "he was a surgeon with an interest in gut problems" is transparent and disgusting.
Re Japan, I wasn't talking about the fact that they dropped the MMR for the MR, but thanks for bringing that up. Right, the British stopped using the mumps Urabe strain because it was causing aseptic meningitis. But the British didn't lose a dime on that decision, did they? They just found another market in South America to sell their tainted vaccine to. Brazil, wasn't it? Where there was an epidemic of aseptic meningitis thanks to the Uk. Nice public health department you have there, Eindecker. NOT people I would consult about ANYTHING. They should all be in prison.
I can't find reference to the Japanese government stopping administration of a vaccine because of 4 infant deaths because there are so many search hits to go through. But I did find this article in The Japanese Times from a few years ago, showing that they are under the same pressure from CDC operatives as we and your country have been. Note the comments by Reiss and a clown that calls himself Mike Stevens from 2 years ago. They get around, don't they?
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/10/04/lifestyle/vaccination-choice-two-unknowns/#.VxzOK_krKUn
Excerpts:
"Even though chickenpox is now part of the routine vaccination schedule, vaccines for hepatitis B, mumps and the rotavirus are still excluded. Subsidies for these vaccinations vary depending on the municipality, as well as the stance of local medical practitioners on whether or not they recommend such shots.
What’s more, compensation for victims of side effects differ greatly between those who received a vaccination through the routine program or voluntarily.
According to nonprofit organization Know VPD, Protect Our Children, victims’ families receive ¥42.8 million if someone dies from a routine inoculation. By comparison, victims’ families receive just ¥7.14 million for children who die from a voluntary inoculation"....
"Hosobe, head of Hosobe Pediatric Clinic in Tokyo’s Bunkyo Ward, says she often hears mothers express concern about possible side effects of vaccines. The pediatrician holds regular study groups to provide information to parents about infectious diseases and inoculation in an effort to ease their fears.
“I provide information on the consequences of contracting a VPD. I also talk about the side effects of vaccination and ask them to weigh the risks,” Hosobe says. “I tell them there are many benefits to vaccination … and, ultimately, have each family decide what to do.”...
"Hiroko Mori, former head of the infectious disease section at the former Institute of Public Health (now known as the National Institute of Public Health), has been warning people about the dangers of vaccination for decades.
The 80-year-old expert on public health used to be involved in research to improve the Japanese encephalitis vaccine and prevent the maternal transmission of hepatitis B.
Mori says times have changed and children don’t need to be vaccinated as much, noting that deaths of infants less than 1 year old have dropped from 205,000 in 1947 to 2,200 in 2013. Indeed, Japan has one of the lowest mortality rates of newborns and infants on the planet, according to World Health Organization data.
Much of this is due to the country’s first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition, Mori says, agreeing that vaccination is still advisable in developing countries.
“I don’t oppose vaccination across the board,” Mori says. “Medicine is supposed to be about healing, but babies who cannot speak are being given unnecessary shots because parents are scared. Children are losing their ability to heal naturally.”
Mori says that the push to vaccinate children is so strong that mothers who avoid it are being harassed and accused of neglect.
“There are so many people who have suffered side effects (from vaccination),” Mori says. “All we are asking is to establish the right to say ‘no.’ The right to choose should be recognized as a fundamental human right.”"...
"In the 1970s, about 300 victims and relatives of children who died after receiving vaccinations against smallpox and other diseases in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Fukuoka fought against the government and won compensation in the 1980s and ’90s.
Japan introduced the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine in 1989 but was forced to take it off the shelves four years later after about 2,000 people suffered side effects that included aseptic meningitis.
These incidents led to a major revision of the Preventive Vaccination Law in 1994, with lawmakers deciding to recategorize vaccination from being mandatory to one that is routine and optional.
People, however, continue to suffer from side effects caused by inoculation.
Statistics compiled by the health ministry show that 38 infants have died after being inoculated with the Haemophilus influenzae type B or streptococcus pneumoniae vaccines since 2011. And the health ministry has received more than 2,000 complaints of side effects from the human papillomavirus vaccine that is designed to prevent cervical cancer."...
Mori and Koga are concerned about the rapidly growing vaccination market. According to the Japanese Association of Vaccine Industries, the estimated value of domestic production totaled ¥41.8 billion in 1995 but shot up to ¥273.9 billion in 2012.
“Vaccines should only be given to those who need them but that is not happening. The global industry is being driven by a strategy that promotes VPD. We must put a stop to it,” says Koga, who currently works for Consumer Net Japan, an independent information network. “Vaccines have close ties to money. From development to circulation to research on side effects, there are a lot of vested interests involved.”
-------------------------------
And here is one on HPV. Of course, I know you are aware that the Japanese government rescinded their recommendation for the HPV vaccine and have ruled that all providers inform patients before administration that the government does not recommend the vaccine:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/10/04/lifestyle/time-stopped-since-vaccine/#.VxzM8_krKUl
Posted by: Linda1 | April 24, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Eindeker
I note you twisted representation of the Wakefield news conference (and btw I am sure actually he had gone to great trouble to convey his concerns to the Department of Health). I have made the point also that the reason why Wakefield was intolerable to the powers that be was that he listened to parents about vaccine injury - your contemptuous remarks about self-selected cases just makes the point. Anyone who speaks up or notices has to be subjected to hate and ridicule: that is precisely how government science is done - of course they are careful how they express themselves but they always have plenty of lackeys and lick-spittles to do the dirty work. I think really the sneering has stop.
Meanwhile, I also notice how ducked the point over Prof Pollard and the JCVI recommending his own vaccine. All the rules have been suspended and you don't bat an eyelid.
Posted by: John Stone | April 24, 2016 at 09:28 AM
Robin
Dr. Wakefield. Consider - he had vaccines ready to go once he discredited the existing vaccines.
You must not be following this site closely. Here is the back story that was posted some time ago:
-Professor Mark Pepyps admitted on that BBC Radio interview, he effectively got rid of Dr Wakefield, by asking him to leave his research position. (Refusal would have meant a sacking). Prof Pepys then withdrew all UCL support for Dr Wakefield's patented Transfer Factor,****** NOT a vaccine*****, as Deer claimed, but designed to ameliorate the effects of measles, particularly in children who could not be vaccinated due to their immune systems being compromised. (ie children with cancer undergoing chemotherapy). Dr Wakefield was working on a hypothesis, vaccine derived measles virus, could be causing gut problems in autistic children. This research was deliberately stopped and denigrated, in my opinion a chance to understand and treat both gut disorders and autism was deliberately and shamefully prevented. Prof Pepys linked up with MMR vaccine manufacturers GSK (what a coincidence),to produce a new company Pentraxin Therapeutics, and produced a plethora of patents of his own. At the last count he was going 'cap in hand' to the UK Medical Research Council for funding to research the benefits of .....guess what? 'immunotherapy'..yes the same therapies Dr Wakefield was working on. As Deer says:- 'You couldn't make it up!' (AOA)
Posted by: Danchi | April 24, 2016 at 09:28 AM
Robin Kelly
"...bear in mind vaccines work by stimulating the immune system EXACTLY as a live infection does, but without a huge risk of death."
Not according to the FDA:
In 1995, Golding and Scott,2 published the need for strategies to make vaccines that would generate the “required” Th cell to the corresponding microorganism. Since that time, attempts to produce vaccines that would generate a “natural”- type response have failed. So, we are left with vaccines that generate “protective” responses as a second choice. How does this work? In vaccine-induced Th2 responses, called humoral responses, the body produces large quantities of specific antibodies that block the virus from entering cells. This response is why a vaccinated child doesn’t get a full blown infection and why the child won’t spread as many viruses into the environment. However, antibodies cannot get into cells to eliminate viruses once the viruses are in the cells or cannot kill infected cells themselves. Therefore, the body has no choice other than to internalize the virus and be chronically infected when the body is forced into a Th2 antibody response. The body is essentially constipated with viruses that it cannot expel! (Vaccine Strategies: Targeting Helper T Cell Responses BASIL GOLDING and DOROTHY E. SCOTT) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Both researchers still work for the FDA.
Posted by: Danchi | April 24, 2016 at 09:23 AM
Greg
"So, yes, it's shocking that a greater percentage of the vaxxed cases would be coming down with infections"
Greg that's just plain wrong, you clearly haven't looked at the reference provided by Linda1, this one: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/measles-rubella-surveillance-oct-2013.pdf Open it up, go to page 5, Fig 4: "Figure 4. Proportion of vaccination status among measles cases by age group, November 2012–October 2013, EU/EEA countries (N=10,675, cases with known age)"
The dark green line shows measles cases in people having had 2 or more MMR's, it's a very small percentage across all age groups. Fig 3 above it shows breakdown of cases by age "Measles notification rate (cases per million) by age group, November 2012–October 2013, EU/EEA countries (N=10 675 cases with known age)" So I'm sorry but measles, as you would expect, is far more common amongst unvaccinated individuals.
Linda1
You may not like the source but this link, https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/10/11/andrew-wakefields-vaccine-patent/ , has transcripts from the GMC hearing when AW's business was discussed in detail and clearly shows he put in a patent application in his name without informing the hospital where he was employed, then asked them to fund the patent, probably why it was withdrawn. The 2nd patent application names the hospital and the US Biotech company, not AW.
""he was recommending a major change in public health policy on the basis of 12 self-selected patients" Yes. The Japanese have taken vaccines off the market for 4 infant deaths. So what?
Did AW notify the Dept of Health before his press conference announcement, did he discuss what he was going to say with other experts, did he take any advice on the likely outcome in public reaction might be? No He wasn't an immunologist or vaccine expert or virologist, he was a surgeon with an interest in gut problems, and certainly not a public health expert, was that really a reasonable thing to do?
Re Japan they substituted measles/rubella vaccine for their Japanese MMR vaccine because the vaccine they were using had the Urabe mumps strain, long after it was withdrawn in the UK, this short article published in 2004 summarized the history http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)16715-9/fulltext of interest “Japan has been confronting the problems of uncontrolled measles for more than a decade now, and WHO has taken the initiative to eliminate measles worldwide. Despite these global efforts, however, measles is still endemic in Japan: there were an estimated 200 000 cases and 88 deaths (mainly in children) in 2000. But measles is not only a domestic problem. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that Japan is the country that exports measles to the USA most frequently.”
Posted by: Eindeker | April 24, 2016 at 08:21 AM
Eindekker says...
Time and time again I see this slight of hand by vaccine zealots that fool so many. Eindekker, a 90% MMR vaccination rate for Germany, most likely would only be true for German youths under 18. When we consider that the larger population would've been born before the vaccine, or those that got it the effects would've worn off there is likely to be a lot more unvaxxed Germans than vaxxed ones in the general population. So, yes, it's shocking that a greater percentage of the vaxxed cases would be coming down with infections.
Posted by: Greg | April 23, 2016 at 10:45 PM
Barry
You don’t understand what “Public Domain” means, it refers to publicly available knowledge, not a product, in fact the AW transfer factor patent application was very speculative and I am unaware that any practical work was carried out
*********
OK, we need to stop for a pause here.
First, let's deal with your public domain lecture stuff. I can't think of any other response here, than to tell you to stick that feedback straight up your ass. I couldn't give a rats ass about it, or your opinion of it.
On a more relevant note, you appear to be admitting that when 'award winning' (....gag, ,cough, puke!) reporter Brian Deer was accusing Dr. Wakefield of a " .. secret scheme to raise huge sums from a campaign, launched at a London medical school,that claimed links between MMR, autism, and bowel disease..", his accusations were based on nothing more than a withdrawn patent application, upon which no practical work was ever actually carried out.
Is that really the message you're trying to deliver today?
Posted by: Barry | April 23, 2016 at 08:19 PM
"he was recommending a major change in public health policy on the basis of 12 self-selected patients"
Yes. The Japanese have taken vaccines off the market for 4 infant deaths. So what?
"his patent applications were not public knowledge, indeed the hospital was unaware of the patent application."
I don't know if this is true or if it's the whole story, but again, so what? You can't prove that his intent wasn't to better society by doing his job, which was to innovate.
"As I’ve detailed above the “Transfer Factor” was all hypothetical, no practical work demonstrating that it had any basis in factd and years away from any product implementation."
So what? As John Stone pointed out, Dr. Wakefield's professional opinion and recommendation, which he was perfectly within his right and responsibility to put forth, was that children should receive the individual vaccines spaced apart until more research was done on the MMR. Sounds reasonable to me. He should have been exploring other treatment possibilities. That was his job.
You are claiming that he had nefarious intent. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence showing that. None. He was doing his job and the Pharma mafia and their government cronies didn't like what he was suggesting and possibly they didn't like the fact that he could outdo them by developing something better.
It was not the direction they wanted to take. They didn't want to do more research. They wanted to sell the vaccines that they had without anyone getting in their way, not brilliant dedicated doctors and not chronically ill children who reacted to the vaccine. So the government/Pharma mob steamrolled over any resistance. And here we are how many years later? What is the autism rate now?
Posted by: Linda1 | April 23, 2016 at 07:34 PM
Barry
You don’t understand what “Public Domain” means, it refers to publically available knowledge, not a product, in fact the AW transfer factor patent application was very speculative and I am unaware that any practical work was carried out, that was the objective of the AW business plan to raise money to explore this, you may be interested to know the basis of this was “The technology involved so-called "transfer factors", a fringe conjecture that special substances can be harvested from blood cells. Wakefield advised injecting mice with measles, extracting cells, injecting the result into pregnant goats, milking them and turning the product into capsules” Bit of a witch’s brew really
John
Pollard: No financial interest in Bexsero vaccine, JCVI decision based on a health economic model, not developed by him, first recommendation was to reject it as it did not meet HE criteria, only subsequently recommended by JCVI because of significant cost reduction, and then only for < 12 month old babies, no “catch up” program for up to 12 year olds as not justified by HE criteria. No competing product.
AW: Built business plan forecasting £m’s profit on basis of hypothetical “Transfer factor” supplementing or replacing MMR. ”If Wakefield had just wanted to make money he would have had an easy life working for pharma What on earth do you think his business plan was all about, if not making money for him surely you’re not that naïve??
Linda1
” For Heaven's sake, if what your report of Dr. Wakefield's work is true, then he was attacked because he was serious competition. He had a better idea. Can't have that now, can we? No Linda1 he was “attacked” because he was recommending a major change in public health policy on the basis of 12 self-selected patients, his patent applications were not public knowledge, indeed the hospital was unaware of the patent application. As I’ve detailed above the “Transfer Factor” was all hypothetical, no practical work demonstrating that it had any basis in factd and years away from any product implementation
Posted by: Eindeker | April 23, 2016 at 06:04 PM
And I note the obsession you guys have with studies. They are all done by people with a massive pro vaccine bias and are therefore all suspect. That is why you guys love using them instead of open source data - because you are 100 per cent reliant on opinions for your beliefs as opposed to facts and logic,
Now, why don't you explain why rates of disability have skyrocketed since the widespread use if vaccines?
Posted by: Rtp | April 23, 2016 at 02:07 PM
Eindeker, diphtheria doesn't have to have the membrane. And most doctors in 1992 wouldn't have thought to look for it. Just as most doctors in 1900 would have had diphtheria at the top of their minds. Don't you know what a differential diagnosis is? Try looking it up. There are DDx for diphtheria (ie the condition can be and often is confused with other conditions) so your entire thesis is worthless.
Same for rubella. There are more congenital defects today than before the vaccine. The fact that doctors simply blame genes or some such instead of the virus does not prove that the vaccine worked.
Posted by: Rtp | April 23, 2016 at 01:59 PM
Eindecker,
Did you ever stop to think that Dr. Wakefield had a purely scientific/medical motive for his work? If a gifted scientist comes across a poorly tested treatment (MMR) that appears to be causing significant morbidity, it would be his job to 1) call for more research on the treatment 2) a halt on the treatment's use until the research is done 3) work as hard as he can to come up with a a) a cure for those already harmed and b) a better vaccine, if he has an idea to pursue. All that would fit his job description. But he stepped on some big toes, didn't he and all of a sudden he is no longer the gifted scientist, now he's a dangerous fraud. Why? Because by doing his job - well - he threatened the interests of the vaccine industry and government partners.
Posted by: Linda1 | April 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM
Eindeker
You really take the biscuit (British) or is it the cake (American)? Not many weeks ago you were on here defending the position of Prof Pollard who chaired a British government committee as it recommended the vaccine of which he was lead developer. So, really I don't think you are that fastidious. If Wakefield had just wanted to make money he would have had an easy life working for pharma like you instead of trying to fend off the biggest health disaster the modern world has seen.
The rival products for MMR in 1998 were the single vaccines and I am sure that is exactly how he saw it when he obliged Ari Zuckerman, head of the Royal Free Medical School, by attending a press briefing and supporting the vaccine schedule as it still was at the time.
PS Wakefield worked many hours over seven or eight years at the standard rate for court work, and I don't suppose he got most of the money in the end anyway.
Posted by: John Stone | April 23, 2016 at 12:17 PM
Ted Kuntz,
Why make it complicated? Before any product is introduced on a large scale, the benefits need to be assessed against the costs. In the ideal case, the introduction of vaccines (or any other purported health-promoting product) would lead to improved health over one's lifetime and greater longevity. For vaccines, the major benefits appear to be suppression of infectious disease symptoms, especially in the first few years.
The costs have not been determined. We don't know whether vaccines increase the susceptibility to more serious diseases in mid or later life (there is some indication from the medical literature that they do), and we don't even know the extent of adverse effects in early life. If Thompson's allegations are correct, the latter could be significant. We don't know the extent of these adverse effects for vaccines in isolation, and we certainly don't know these effects for vaccines as part of the full vaccination schedule, and in combination with other toxic stimuli.
We can trust neither industry nor their handmaidens in the Federal government to provide us with credible cost or benefit information. From Thompson's allegations alone for the MMR-autism link, the sheer numbers affected adversely by just the MMR vaccine are far in excess of those for which some German doctors were hanged at Nuremburg!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | April 23, 2016 at 12:16 PM
Barry
AW took out a patent on a so-called transfer factor to protect against measles as an alternative to MMR. It is in the public domain that he wrote a business plan forecasting a bright future for this as an alternative to MMR vaccine: In parallel with the clinical trial the company will develop a clinical diagnostic for the presence of the measles virus. It is estimated that the market for this diagnostic is about £4,000,000 per annum in the UK alone. The company will also investigate the potential of transfer factors as vaccine alternatives. An animal model trial of the value of measles specific transfer factor in preventing inflammatory bowel disease will begin upon securing funding.
********
Are you telling me this because you don't know the difference between vaccines and transfer factor? Or because you don't think that I do.
If Dr. Wakefield has developed a measles specific transfer factor, then please show me where it is in the 'public domain' that I can go to buy some.
Because I desperately need some of that measles specific transfer factor, to eradicate the vaccine strain measles that continues to thrive inside my MMR injured son. Nearly ten years after it was put there by the MMR vaccine!
Posted by: Barry | April 23, 2016 at 12:05 PM
Eindecker,
For Heaven's sake, if what your report of Dr. Wakefield's work is true, then he was attacked because he was serious competition. He had a better idea. Can't have that now, can we? What was he doing that was so bad? Coming up with a better treatment? A treatment for the patients that had been brought to him? Possibly, according to your quote, a better vaccine? Why in hell do you consider it a crime for a scientist to develop a new treatment to replace one that he and his colleagues believed caused serious illness and death? Seriously, Eindecker, take a step back and think about what you're saying. The crime here that has hurt all of mankind, is that they stopped this brilliant man from continuing his research.
"...the vaccine coverage in Germany & the UK is classified as 85-94%, so let’s assume 90% vaccine coverage."
Let's not assume anything, ok, Eindecker?
"You’ll have noticed there were 3 measles deaths & 8 cases of acute measles encephalitis within these 10000 measles cases, about the going rate for this disease. "
I asked for the specifics of the individuals who died and got encepalitis - probably the deaths were included in the encephalitis figure. I asked if those individuals were infants, and how many of them had been vaccinated. How man of those individuals already had other terminal illnesses? The answer to those questions will determine how to interpret the data. Here we are told by public health officials that 1-2 out of every 1000 cases will die.
"...“From 1956 to 1960, an average of 450 measles-related deaths were reported each year (∼1 death/ 1000 reported cases)”
The key word being "reported". Only a small percentage of measles cases ever saw a doctor in the 1950s. Few were reported according to the CDC. Through semantic slight of hand in order to prop up their vaccine program, the CDC have removed the word "reported" and now tell the public that 1-2 in every 1000 cases die. Just disgusting.
But their day is coming. The public is finding out the truth. Our former FDA commissioner has been brought up on serious criminal fraud charges. The murderous house of cards is coming down.
Posted by: Linda1 | April 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM
Dear John
Please correct me if any of the facts I presented in my reply to Barry re AW & his transfer factor are incorrect, or as you say a false narrative. AW had 2 financial motives in damning MMR: the £0.5m already received from UK legal aid in supporting the MMR litigants, plus the latent intellectual property residing in these patents, which from reading his business plan was clearly ready to commercialize should the use of MMR be stopped.
As a clinician he may well have thought that MMR & autism were linked, but that in no way discounts the conflicts of interest in his narrative that only became public some time after that notorious press conference in 1998:
"My opinion, again, is that the monovalent, the single vaccines, measles, mumps and rubella, are likely in this context to be safer than the polyvalent vaccine."
Posted by: Eindeker | April 23, 2016 at 10:41 AM
Eindeker
Wakefield in 1998 recommended the use of already commercially/NHS available single vaccines in which he had no financial interest. He was not, of course, to know that the UK government and pharma would withdraw these products within months in order to politicise the issue and create an entirely false narrative, which you and many other persist in peddling.
Posted by: John Stone | April 23, 2016 at 09:36 AM
Barry
AW took out a patent on a so-called transfer factor to protect against measles as an alternative to MMR. It is in the public domain that he wrote a business plan forecasting a bright future for this as an alternative to MMR vaccine: In parallel with the clinical trial the company will develop a clinical diagnostic for the presence of the measles virus. It is estimated that the market for this diagnostic is about £4,000,000 per annum in the UK alone. The company will also investigate the potential of transfer factors as vaccine alternatives. An animal model trial of the value of measles specific transfer factor in preventing inflammatory bowel disease will begin upon securing funding.
The UK patent application 9711663.6 dated June 1997 was subsequently withdrawn, (as the application had been filed without contacting the hospital where AW worked) this first application states, referring to his work with MMR "What is needed therefore is a safer vaccine that does not give rise to these problems....What I have now discovered is a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent etc This is all in the public domain, AW's plans to commercialize the so-called transfer factor, setting up analytical laboratories.
There was a follow up patent, GB 2 235 856A June 1998, now between the Royal Free Hospital (who were unaware of the first application) and the Neuroimmuno Therapeutics Research Foundation based in Spartanburg US entitled Pharmaceutical Preparation for the treatment of MMR virus mediated disease comprising a transfer factor.... and you talk dismissively of "Proffit"....
RTP
The recent Dutch paper is discussing Mortality statistics in Holland over the 1903 to 1992, nothing to do with diagnosis, all to do with determining the actual cause of death. Do you really think 60 or more years ago, when vaccines were being introduced doctors in the post mortem room were saying "Oh we better not say he died of diphtheria, because he was vaccinated despite the obvious pseudo-membrane blocking the airways"!!!! Wake up and smell the coffee RTP.
If you want the true picture of the impact of vaccination on Congenital Rubella Syndrome on the national US picture look at this reference: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/968523-overview , the number of Rubella cases in the US declined from nearly 100,000 per year to 100 per year in the 20 years following start of the vaccine program.
Linda1
OK let’s look at the reference you quote and your statement “Look at the failure rate of the vaccine. I wonder how many of the measles encephalitis cases were among the vaccinated” Scroll down to page 5 & Fig 4, the dark green line shows the confirmed measles cases in fully vaccinated individuals, it’s tiny, then turn to Fig 5, the vaccine coverage in Germany & the UK is classified as 85-94%, so let’s assume 90% vaccine coverage. Now the report shows 91% of cases had received no MMR vaccine (83%) or only 1 dose (8%). So 10% of the population is not fully vaccinated but 91% of the cases were in this under vaccinated 10%.......and that’s a vaccine failure Linda1, please explain why.
You’ll have noticed there were 3 measles deaths & 8 cases of acute measles encephalitis within these 10000 measles cases, about the going rate for this disease. And Dorie you may not have known any children who died of measles when you were growing up, but “From 1956 to 1960, an average of 450 measles-related deaths were reported each year (∼1 death/ 1000 reported cases)”
Posted by: Eindeker | April 23, 2016 at 09:04 AM
The only doctor who generally agrees with you is Dr. Wakefield. Consider - he had vaccines ready to go once he discredited the existing vaccines.
********
What are the commercial names of those vaccine? And what's the name of the lab that he used to develop them?
Are academic gastroenterologists actually trained to develop vaccines? If not, who did he work with to develop them?
Posted by: Barry | April 23, 2016 at 01:56 AM
Eindeker, all of that data is worthless because it is based on a circularity.
Doctors are prejudiced against and are instructed/encouraged not to diagnose measles/polio/diphtheria etc in vaccinated patients.
And right here is the proof of that:
"To minimize the problem of false positive laboratory results, it is important to restrict case investigation and laboratory tests to patients most likely to have measles (i.e., those who meet the clinical case definition, especially if they have risk factors for measles, such as being unvaccinated,[...]"
www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt07-measles.html
And here is the UK's National Health Service: "Following assessment, if a diagnosis of measles is considered likely, it is essential to notify the local Health Protection Unit (HPU)" and subsequently: "Measles is very unlikely in people who have been fully immunized", followed by “Consider a different cause if the patient is likely to have immunity” http://cks.nice.org.uk/measles#!diagnosissub
And this is for diphtheria: "Because diphtheria has occurred only rarely in the United States in recent years, many clinicians may not include diphtheria in their differential diagnoses. Clinicians are reminded to consider the diagnosis of respiratory diphtheria in patients with membranous pharyngitis and who are not up-to-date with vaccination against diphtheria."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt01-dip.html
And this is for pertussis http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/pertussis/professionals-professionnels-eng.php. According to the Canadian Public Health Agency only those who are not vaccinated (or for whom immunity has ‘waned’) are “at risk”.
And for polio: “Consider polio in patients presenting with polio-like symptoms, especially if the person is unvaccinated and has recently traveled abroad to a place where polio still occurs, or was exposed to a person who recently traveled from such an area.” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/828839#vp_2
As you can see (although I am sure you will go to the ends of the earth to rationalise it all away) the entire so-called success of all vaccines is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Doctors no longer diagnose measles when they see someone with a rash.
There are still plenty of kids (and adults) with rashes, they just get diagnosed with something else (roseola, fifth disease etc).
The same holds true for all so called vaccine success stories.
They have just been renamed.
And I prove that with all my data - because it is very plain that in each case the complications of the disease have not been reduced even though the official data claims that the disease has been reduced.
Posted by: rtp | April 23, 2016 at 01:31 AM
?11. Historical data has "zero relevance" today, except mortality data before a vaccine (but often not right before a vaccine) and certainly overall mortality data for any vaccine has "zero relevance," since it's never been studied. And for more "zeroing," don't even talk about diagnostic accuracy or vaccination status bias.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | April 22, 2016 at 10:16 PM
Oh for goodness sake I am old enough to remember when all the kids got measles when I was growing up and none of us died. I have never had a life-saving vaccine and remain alive 63 years later. People at work would go to get their flu shot. I would say no thanks. I only had the flu once when I was ten years old. I lived.
Posted by: Dorie Southern | April 22, 2016 at 08:37 PM
Thanks, Eindecker, for making me look up European measles information. Very interesting. From November 2012 to October 2013, there were 10,678 reported cases. Certainly there must have been unreported mild cases not counted in that figure. In the 1950s only a small percentage of infected children ever saw a doctor.
Look at the failure rate of the vaccine. I wonder how many of the measles encephalitis cases were among the vaccinated. Also, wonder how many were under a year old, babies who would have been protected if their mothers had wild measles as children and had been breastfed. Wonder too, how many serious adverse reactions and deaths were caused by the MMR:
"Measles
During the most recent 12-month period (November 2012 to October 2013) the 30 EU/EEA countries conducting measles surveillance reported 10 678 cases.
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and the United Kingdom accounted for 94% of the cases in this period.
In eleven countries, the measles notification rate was less than one case per million population during the last 12 months.
Sixty-two percent of the cases had a positive result in a measles laboratory test (serology, virus detection, or isolation).
Of the 10 129 cases for which information on vaccination status was available, 83% were unvaccinated.
In the target group for routine childhood MMR vaccination (1–4-year-olds), 81% of the cases were unvaccinated.
Three measles-related deaths were reported during the period November 2012 to October 2013, and eight cases were complicated by acute measles encephalitis."
http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/measles-rubella-surveillance-oct-2013.pdf
Posted by: Linda1 | April 22, 2016 at 06:58 PM
Robin Kelly,
"...bear in mind vaccines work by stimulating the immune system EXACTLY as a live infection does, but without a huge risk of death."
Not true. Wild measles infection confers lifelong immunity. Measles vaccine confers temporary immunity in only some cases. No one knows how long this temporary immunity will last. Many people who have been vaccinated for measles later contract measles in outbreaks. That doesn't happen after having the wild infection.
Also, women who have had wild mumps as children go on to have significantly less ovarian cancer in adulthood than women who were vaccinated in childhood. Scientists explain that the antibodies created by the body after the vaccine are different from those created after wild infection and that only the latter work to combat the later development of ovarian cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/
Pertussis outbreaks are being caused by the vaccine for two reasons - 1) it doesn't work or it works for a very short time (months to a few years if at all) and 2) the vaccinated become asymptomatic carriers able to infect others. Excerpt from the FDA Nov 13 press release about their baboon study:
"This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease."
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm
Natural pertussis infection, which is usually mild in older children and adults (or used to be before widespread use of the vaccine - the CDC reports that the vaccine has likely increased virulence of pertussis similar to the way that antibiotics increase virulence of bacteria) results in at least decades of immunity (one medical estimate - 30 years).
"The only doctor who generally agrees with you is Dr. Wakefield."
First of all, there are people among AOA readers (and the general public) who are strictly against any kind of vaccination. Others are calling for better vaccine research and strict oversight over what is now a completely unregulated industry. Most in both camps that each contain no shortage of medical doctors and scientists, want the corrupt CDC stripped of their authority over vaccine research.
"Consider - he had vaccines ready to go once he discredited the existing vaccines. His motivation was money."
That's ridiculous. If Dr. Wakefield's motivation was money, when, along with his colleagues, he was presented with the choice of reversing his professional opinion by signing a paper saying he was mistaken, OR refusing to back down which meant losing his lucrative position as a top star academic gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital, he definitely, along with most of the 12 other authors on the Lancet case study, would have signed the paper and backed down. He didn't because he is a real doctor, dedicated to serving patients. The way to make money is not to buck the system and align yourself with children poisoned by government officials and their pharma partners. Look at who made the money here. When asked what his professional opinion of the MMR was - and he was certainly not only entitled to have a professional opinion but it was his duty to have one - he said that he preferred that children receive the three live virus vaccines, for measles, mumps and rubella, separately and spaced apart. It was his professional opinion that more research was needed on the MMR. It is the scientists role to have a professional opinion, not to say what stakeholders in government programs want them to say. But because he didn't toe the line, choosing to protect children over the UK's vaccine program, they went after him and he lost his license. To this day he never backed down and is still fighting in any way he can to serve patients.
"Now it is just pettiness as more honest researches pointed out the (many) flaws in his argument."
What are you talking about?
Posted by: Linda1 | April 22, 2016 at 06:43 PM
RTP
Instead of looking at 150 year old data that has zero relevance today try looking at the recent analysis of the effect of vaccine programs in Holland Effect of vaccination programmes on mortality burden among children and young adults in the Netherlands during the 20th century: a historical analysis http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(16)00027-X.pdf Our historical time series analysis of mortality and vaccination coverage shows a strong association between increasing vaccination coverage and diminishing contribution of vaccine-preventable diseases to overall mortality. This analysis provides further evidence that mass vaccination programmes contributed to lowering childhood mortality burden.
The problem with this story is it is not supported by clinical or biological evidence Unfortunately for you Ted it is time and time again, look at the reduction in Meningitis C mortality since the introduction of this vaccine, or look >30,000 measles cases in Europe in the past few years, the vast majority not immunized with MMR. Why don't you look at the incidence of measles infection in the CHS graph that you quote, you'll see there was no decline in the number of cases until vaccination programs started
Posted by: Eindeker | April 22, 2016 at 05:59 PM
Robin, all you have is a bunch of melodrama. Why don't you look at the statistics of smallpox deaths in the UK in the 19th century and compare them to deaths from other infectious diseases. And remember, only smallpox had a vaccine.
The 99 per cent figure is from government sourced data - www.childhealthsafety.com/graphs we didn't make it up. Although the WHO does make up measles deaths numbers in the developing world to make their vaccine programs look good.
And Asian nations have high vaccination rates. As does Africa. They don't help. Infant and child mortality trends were improving before their vaccine programs and there was no improvement in the trend after.
And there are plenty of other doctors who agree with us - not that the opinions of doctors are infallible at any rate.
Posted by: Rtp | April 22, 2016 at 04:44 PM
Exercise in disinformation. I AM old enough to remember some diseases before vaccines. The friends that died did not appear to have a decrease in mortality. You yourself do NOT ANSWER the question - why, after 1000 to 5000 years did the mortality of these diseases decrease by 99%. The obvious answer is THEY DIDN'T Polio did not decrease in the UK after sewerage (a disease that is spread largely by waste). Bear in mind the uk had sewerage form the 1870's. Small pox vaccines were first live cow pox infections injected. This was long before anti-biotics, long before sewerage, long before any modern medicine. The only way you can explain this, unless you accept that vaccines work, is by claiming witchcraft. Further, bear in mind vaccines work by stimulating the immune system EXACTLY as a live infection does, but without a huge risk of death. You may like to consider that ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Queda also push this line - that vaccines are a conspiracy related the the wester military world. The only doctor who generally agrees with you is Dr. Wakefield. Consider - he had vaccines ready to go once he discredited the existing vaccines. His motivation was money. Now it is just pettiness as more honest researches pointed out the (many) flaws in his argument. SHAME on you all. And in response to the declining by 99% death, why are south east Asian nations with low vaccination rates still dying of these entirely preventable diseases. Sometimes things are just what they appear to be, and not part of some huge conspiracy that everyone buys into except the chosen few.
Posted by: Robin Kelly | April 21, 2016 at 10:28 PM
Bob and others, if you want to utterly obliterate the "vaccines are a miracle" story this is what you say:
The purpose of the polio vaccine was to bring about a reduction in total rates of non-trauma paralysis and crippling. It failed.
The purpose of the rubella vaccine was to bring about a reduction in total rates of congenital defects. It failed.
The purpose of the measles vaccine was to bring about a reduction in total rates of encephalitis and deafness. It failed.
The purpose of the Hep B vaccine was to bring about a reduction in total rates of liver cancer/disease. It failed.
The purpose of the Hib and Prevenar vaccines was to bring about a reduction in total rates of meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis. They failed.
The purpose of the diphtheria/pertussis vaccines was to bring about a reduction in acute respiratory infections. They failed.
The purpose of the mumps vaccine was to reduce sterility. It failed.
The purpose of the rotavirus vaccine was to reduce gastro deaths. It failed.
References
Rubella and congenital defects: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5701a2.htm. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8935557_The_Metropolitan_Atlanta_Congenital_Defects_Program_35_Years_of_Birth_Defects_Surveillance_at_the_Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention
Polio and paralysis/crippling:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206817678372895&set=a.1750128025376.2087895.1004117169&type=3&theater (before you say “but this is just a facebook site” it uses the following WHO data)
extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx and http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(3)321.pdf (see data for total AFP in India and other developing countries in 1996 and again in 2014) as well as http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v18n6/v18n6p20.pdf and http://www.census.gov/people/disability/ publications/sipp2010.html (Table A-4) (for disability rates). And http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.mtKZKgMWKwG/b.5184189/k.5587/Paralysis_Facts__Figures.htm (Around one in 50 Americans have some paralysis and around 40 per cent of those cases are due to disease).
Diphtheria/pertussis and acute respiratory disease: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804877 and http://www.pharmacytoday.co.nz/news/2015/may-2015/05/respiratory-hospitalisations-keep-climbing-despite-healthcare-improvements.aspx
Hep B vaccine and liver cancer/disease:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224838 and http://news.sky.com/story/1418422/dramatic-rise-in-liver-disease-deaths
Hib vaccine and meningitis/pneumonia/sepsis. http://www9.health.gov.au/cda/source/rpt_2.cfm... (look at meningococcal disease (invasive) and pneumococcal disease (invasive)) and because of the dismal failure of this vaccine it was inevitably followed by further attempts to vaccinate people against meningitis supposedly caused by other strains (eg Prevenar) showing that abject lunacy (doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result) is the standard procedure for vaccination policy experts. Further information here https://avn.org.au/hib/
Measles vaccine and encephalitis/deafness. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870605/ and http://www.hear-it.org/35-million-Americans-suffering-from-hearing-loss
Rotavirus vaccine and gastro deaths:
From 1985-1991, pediatric deaths in the US from diarrhea from ALL causes numbered around 300 per year:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7563485 ALL causes. Total in 2010: 520 pediatric deaths due to intestinal issues that cause diarrhea
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Vaccine fascists will be up to their eyeballs in rationalisations after you give them this.
Posted by: rtp | April 21, 2016 at 07:58 PM
So does this win the credibility war? It's my impression they have not won it; that, to the contrary, they are rapidly losing credibility and that's why they have to keep trying so hard. The pro-vax lobby runs on money and power, not credibility.
Posted by: Rae | April 21, 2016 at 03:39 PM
Our current vaccine industry survives today because it was created in the culture. The state of the controversy reflects society's wishes and beliefs. A wish for a miracle against disease, and a belief that medicine can provide it.
The vaccine philosophy (vaccines are safe and effective) is perpetuated only through social manipulation. The trend toward realizing this, as in the author's 9 items, is proof of the right direction in winning against them at their own game.
We will win this vaccine battle in the people. Not the government and not science, as it is defined today.
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | April 21, 2016 at 03:09 PM
One more comment...
In total keeping with Ted's assessment of the situation, CA legislators vote to keep Californians in the dark about VAERS and the NVICP:
AB-2832 Immunizations: vaccine injury information http://ow.ly/4mSQus
Failed to pass Assembly Health Committee on 4/19/16
Votes Recorded: http://ow.ly/4mSWyj
04/19/16 (FAIL) Asm Health
7 aye 9 noes 3 no vote recorded
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Ayes: Burke, Dababneh, Lackey, Maienschein, Patterson, Steinorth, Waldron
Noes: Bonilla, Campos, Chiu, Gomez, Roger Hernández, Nazarian, Rodriguez, Santiago, Wood
No Votes Recorded: Olsen, Ridley-Thomas, Thurmond
~~~~~~~
Video Archive: Assembly Health Committee - Apr 19th, 2016 http://ow.ly/4mT001 AB 2832 starts at 4:05:04
California Assembly Committee on Health - http://ow.ly/4mSWKs
Members - http://ow.ly/4mSWQB
Posted by: Laura Hayes | April 21, 2016 at 12:07 PM
What a BRILLIANT piece, Ted!
Sharing far and wide now.
Thank you!
Posted by: Laura Hayes | April 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM
And don't forget, if something like VAXXED gets inserted into your planned April PR and propaganda campaign to immediately focus on the next big viral threat!
ZIKA!!
Quick before the public reads about the doctors in Brazil who think microencephaly is due to the new pesticide and larvacide in mass use this year...
Declare it's official - the authorities have definitively linked the birth defects in babies to Zika virus. Please someone save the children with a new vaccine.
in other words: DISTRACT the public with another disease outbreak fear that only a vaccine can save.
Posted by: Stop Vaccine Injury & Censorship | April 21, 2016 at 09:20 AM
"The vaccine story is a great story! No question. “Vaccines are a miracle of modern medicine.” “Vaccines have saved millions of lives.” “The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.” The problem with this story is it is not supported by clinical or biological evidence. But when you have a good story, you don’t need evidence."
It is no accident that vaccines are often referred to as "miracles" .. and .. the vaccine story has become such a great story ... it has achieved the same worshippers as other major religions.
Who needs "science" .. when having absolute "faith" in the scientists is enough?
Posted by: Bob Moffit | April 21, 2016 at 08:43 AM