Justin Kanew Interviews Brian Deer on "Get it Got It Good" (2 of 4)
By justin Kanew
As a quick reminder, this is the 2nd of 4 interviews. The first was with Del Bigtree, producer of Vaxxed, which you can listen to here if you haven't yet.
In this next one I wanted to talk to someone who feels differently about the controversial topic of vaccines and autism than Del does, so it seemed there would be no more diametrically opposed viewpoint than that of Brian Deer.
I know I don't have to tell most of you Brian is the investigative journalist who accused VAXXED director Doctor Wakefield of fraud in a series of Sunday Times articles and initiated the investigation that got Wakefield's medical license revoked in England years ago. He's the source of much controversy and many strong feelings, and Brian himself has strong feelings about Wakefield, so I wanted to hear directly from him what his thoughts were about the topic and why.
So here's that interview:
I'd also like to address the fact that in the comments section I've seen people wonder if I'm some sort of "plant" sent from high above to hurt the case against vaccines, which I assure you I will swear on a stack of any kind of holy book you may read I'm not.
I've also seen people question how this interview happened. It's simple really- Brian's email is public on his website, I emailed him, and he responded (see photo at the top of this post.)
I'm not sure if that will help put those concerns to bed, but if not I think you'll find the episode shows we are anything but in league together. I look forward to hearing more from you about it.
I should also say that in the 2 days since the first interview posted, I've found myself the target of ire from both sides. Anti-vaxxers are angry that my wife and I still plan to try to find a safe way to vaccinate our baby girl, while pro-vaxxers are angry that by doing these interviews I'm giving a platform to the makers of Vaxxed and like-minded anti-vaxxers.
It's been heated, but it's ok. I can take it. I'm a big boy. I knew this was a contentious comment, and I expected to hear a lot of
The good news is through the anger there have also been calmer, well-meaning people on both sides who seem genuinely interested in educating me and sending me links that help make their points. Both sides have sent links to scientific studies - pro-vaxxers seem genuinely convinced theirs prove beyond a shadow of a doubt vaccines don't in any way cause autism... and anti-vaxxers are sure they don't.
I'm trying to read all of them. Please keep them coming. Even the ones that come angrily.
To be clear: The ONLY thing I care about here is finding out the truth.
Frankly, I would PREFER for that truth to be that vaccines are safe, and never cause autism, and we're free to pump doses into our daughter without inhibition. But the more I dig, the more elusive that feeling of freedom seems to get. I still have questions, and I still plan on asking them, no matter how many people that upsets.
One of the most concerning things I've learned is about the existence of the United States Vaccine Court, and the fact that it has paid billions to families of vaccine-injured children, including Hannah Poling, who also has an autism diagnosis the government insists is not what she was paid for. But in the 3rd episode, coming early next week, I talk to Lou Conte and Mary Holland, 2 parents behind a concerning Pace University study that shows Hannah Poling is not alone.
Episode 2 is embedded above, but it's also live on iTunes here: https://goo.gl/nXkFPI
Look forward to your comments and your thoughts on all of it.
Justin Kanew is a writer-producer in Los Angeles who was also a 2-time contestant on "THE AMAZING RACE" on CBS with his best friend Zev-- the first ever Amazing Race contestant on the autism spectrum. He lives in Encino, CA with his wife Nicole, a BCBA, and his recently born daughter Kaia. He also hosts "GET IT GOT IT GOOD", a podcast that was recently #16 on the iTunes News & Politics" chart. Subscribe to it here: https://goo.gl/nXkFPI And follow him on Twitter here: @justin_kanew
Did you watch the video???, give her free rein and watch the result, this woman is not a credible witness about anything except micropaleontology, giving her the benefit of the doubt...
Evidence (from England & Wales) well try these for starters:
Impact of Haemophilus inflenzae b vaccination
Impact of meningitis C vaccination
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470612/Table_8_Invasive_meningococcal_C_infections_lab_reports__England_by_age_group___epi_year.pdf sorry, no graph on this one but vaccination started in 1999, that's laboratory confirmed cases Tim, just for the avoidance of doubt.
Tetanus, well you can compare the incidence in German casualties in WW2 who were not immunized and UK & US troops who were, I'll leave you to Google that Tim, or if you want a clinical trial try this: •A double blind, randomized, controlled trial in rural Colombia showed that tetanus toxoid administered to women of childbearing age reduced neonatal tetanus cases by 100% compared to controls.
Posted by: Eindeker | June 07, 2016 at 03:08 PM
@ Eindeker ah, evidence-free snarky criticism: that's the ticket, that's the way to make your case! Geez... Wake up, open your eyes, look at the facts.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinions?
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 07, 2016 at 12:44 PM
Hans ( & Cia)
You are really quoting this woman as a serious source of information on anything, apart from micro-fossils, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkVpy1BfV2g
Cut to 6:40 where she's given free rein to air her views, unlike her companion who Veira tells to shut up 7:40.
She's condemned out of her own mouth, with no prompting, all she's good for is to serve as a model of supreme arrogance and total indifference to the suffering of others, (eg vaccination of any kind causes autism..)
As Mr McEnroe said years ago "You cannot be serious" Tim
Posted by: Eindeker | June 06, 2016 at 07:30 AM
The US’s health regulators have been hiding data that establishes that vaccines have been causing autism and neuro-developmental disorders, a whistle-blower claims. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has been forced to release documents that reveal that vaccines increase the risk nearly eight times.
Under Freedom of Information legislation, the CDC has released data that “proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with thimerosal exposure,” said CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten. Thimerosal is a preservative that contains mercury included in most vaccines until 1999 in the US, and is still used in small quantities in many flu shots today.
It appears that the 7.6 times raised risk was known throughout the CDC, and a 1999 paper referring to it was published only after it had been approved at the highest levels of the organisation.
Posted by: Hans Litten | June 06, 2016 at 04:25 AM
cia parker :
“For all contributors to vaccine debates: the fact is that about 30% of published orthodox medical research actually links the observed illnesses and serious organ damage and deaths occurring after any and all vaccines to the administered vaccines.
There is no need for any new research, just for reading the existing research. “
Posted by: Dr Viera Scheibner | July 24, 2015 at 11:32 PM
Posted by: Hans Litten | June 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
For Justin, please watch:
"Published on Jun 4, 2016
My daughter suffered a severe adverse vaccine reaction that I never thought was possible. Her Pediatrician never told us this sort of reaction could happen. We trusted him when he said vaccines were safe. That she would only have a sore spot on each leg and MAYBE a fever. Most parents go into their child's well visit blind, not knowing any better trusting their doctor when they tell them not to worry. Nothing will happen. I knew vaccines were dangerous but I never knew how dangerous they really were until I experienced what I did the afternoon of Sept 14, 2011.. It is so important to understand that when the package insert says SIDS they mean SIDS!"
Posted by: Linda1 | June 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
Unvaxxed children ARE healthier as a group than unvaxxed children. The question is only one of free and informed choice. Parents who for whatever reason believe that it is worth the risk of vaccine reaction to try to get vaccine protection for them from one or more diseases should surely have the right to do so. Maybe they (we) are afraid of tetanus or meningitis and don't think the vaccine is more dangerous than the risk of the diseases, and they may be right, maybe they had a niece or a neighbor who died of the flu, or measles, or whatever. I think we should fight for the right to choose or reject vaccines and let the passage of time and the collection of more evidence change or leave unchanged people's beliefs on the diseases and vaccines.
Posted by: cia parker | June 04, 2016 at 01:16 PM
For those who still promote the flu and pertussis vaccines (or any others) :
The research demonstrates conclusively that unvaccinated children enjoy far superior health when compared to those vaccinated. Unvaccinated children experience almost no incidence of autism, autoimmune disorders, asthma, allergies, diabetes and other common childhood diseases which have reached epidemic proportions in recent years.
One of the most comprehensive studies is an ongoing comparative survey by German homeopathic physician Andreas Bachmair. Bachmair is conducting an independent study comparing the health of vaccinated to unvaccinated children with 17,461 participants.
This research has found a significant increase in the following diseases in those vaccinated: asthma, allergies, bronchitis, otitis media (ear infections), hay fever, herpes, neurodermatitis, hyperactivity, scoliosis, epilepsy, autoimmune disorders, thyroid disease, autism and diabetes. Furthermore, Bachmair discovered three other studies which substantiated his findings. To see the chart with the comparison in diseases, visit this link provided by the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice.
Posted by: Sophie Scholl | June 04, 2016 at 12:37 PM
@greyone, or anyone who is knowledgeable on the NVICP:
"For a vaccine to be covered, the category of vaccine must be both recommended for routine administration to children by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and subject to an excise tax by Federal law."
Does that mean that under the law for any vaccine given to adults (like influenza vaccine) to be covered for injury in adults it has to also be recommended for children? Is it even consistent with the intent of the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act" to cover injuries that occur in adults? But maybe the program or HHS has incentive to cover adults anyway, despite the miserly conduct towards so many severely injured children as we've seen?
With the recent increase in payouts largely to adults injured mostly by flu vaccine, I've been speculating with a twist to the stomach that the program is trying to keep awareness of the risks down and faith in the program up in the general adult population while mandates for everyone are the next agenda.
And with a further twist, I can't help suspecting that an annual excise tax on largely the entire population (as is the case with the flu vaccine) is a powerful incentive (on part of some in government) and that maybe (in routine years) it has been and will be used for purposes other than the compensation program.
With or without that being the case, with hundreds of new vaccines in the works will we see all or some group of children declared in need of every single newly approved vaccine in some way or other (even when the vaccine seems mainly applicable to adult conditions) with the seemingly boundless capacity to expand recommendations demonstrated to date? Or will they find a need to change the law to apply to any recommended vaccine (or treatment to be labelled vaccine) in the future?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 03, 2016 at 11:21 PM
Your distinctions (1,2) looks ok, but surely it follows that Wakefield is therefore anti vaccine policy? By your definition his being defined as purely anti-vaccine seems a non-sequitur.
Posted by: Eddie Unwind | June 03, 2016 at 08:25 PM
Look at this! I tried to go to the Cool Springs Family Medicine Facebook page to see what was going on and comment, but it's been taken down too! And I found a shill summons to attack both the article and their FB page:
June 1 at 7:05pm •
Shill army! This family practice clinic near Nashville is now openly saying vaccines cause autism. Would love help in letting them know how irresponsible they are. http://www.csfmed.net/no-more-vaccines-at-cool-springs-fam…/ and https://www.facebook.com/Cool-Springs-Family-Medicine-161…/…
Posted by: cia parker | June 03, 2016 at 07:32 PM
It is extremely sinister. As you said, the page where it used to be at the Cool Springs page is now just blank. There's a hit job piece on it that was reprinted at many websites. I finally hit "cached" under one of the google suggestions, and got the original piece, that already had dozens of comments just a day or so after it went up. You're right, someone got to them for the temerity of criticizing this medical practice for having the temerity to say that vaccines can cause autism, and used some sort of coercion to get them to shut up and take it down. Here's the original, now cached, short piece:
log » No More Vaccines at Cool Springs Family Medicine
No More Vaccines at Cool Springs Family Medicine
May 31, 2016
"We will no longer be administering Vaccines at Cool Springs Family Medicine (CSFM).
1. Because they can cause Autism – yes, I’ve had 15 years’ experience in taking care of ASD kids, that’s a lot of vaccine injury stories from moms. Don’t tell me that they are making it up or they are just reaching for an explanation, or that it was a coincidence or that they are just too stressed, or that they are uninformed. All of those arguments are stupid.
Don’t quote the single study by the CDC that shows that MMR is not linked to Autism. One of the authors of that paper, Dr. Thompson, said that the data was falsified and the study manipulated. So, with this information and the lack of studies that prove the safety of combined vaccines, I can do no harm, so I’m out.
2. Polysorbate 80, Aluminum, formaldehyde, animal DNA with viruses, and many other ingredients in vaccines, are not good to inject into babies. Think of cancer, and autoimmune disease.
3. Epigenetics is a new science that explains exactly why, not every child is going to react the same way to vaccines, and sacrificing the few, for the many is not acceptable. Actually, if you understand the science, which many mothers with vaccine inured children do, you can see that it is actually many are at risk and are asked to be sacrificed for the few.
4. We can do better. Right now, it is a whole lot cheaper to propagate a multi-million dollar campaign to promote vaccines and hide behind the vaccine injury protection act, than it is to develop a safe vaccine program.
5. Gardasil? Are you kidding me? It is not safe. Just read the package insert and if you are still not convinced, those that developed cervical cancer or neuroimmune disorders or other complications from the vaccine would be glad to talk to you.
6. Vaccine development began in earnest in the 1930’s. Genetics, Epigenetics, the role of environmental toxins on the immune system, is much more recent than that. Guess what? We know a lot more now. Isn’t it time to incorporate that knowledge into the development of safe vaccines?
7. Dr. Andew Wakefield’s research was properly defended and vindicated 4 years ago. The Lancet paper stands: There is a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism.
8. The argument that we will be thrust into the dark ages if we suspend the vaccine program is nonsense. There are many arguments against this, but, to make it simple, we are in the dark ages. We have a plague of autoimmune diseases including Autism. There is a plaque of Acquired Immune Dysfunction (ring a bell?).
Listen, I know I have been a little tongue and cheek about this, but really, I could wax on for a long time on any one of the 8 points that I brought up, and I’m sure I could list a lot more. I am not going to do that in cyperspace, I am not going to engage in internet battles, but, just as I have always done, as is my responsibility as a Family Physician, I will be an advocate for each of my patients as best as I know how. Also, I will always continue to respect the informed choices my patients make."
Now only to be found at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o35jdu8lWoYJ:www.csfmed.net/no-more-vaccines-at-cool-springs-family-medicine/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Posted by: cia parker | June 03, 2016 at 06:47 PM
You address an important point: what do we mean when we say anti-vaxxer or pro-vaxxer. Each can have different meanings depending upon the context.
Lets start by listing two possible meanings for the word vaccination:
1) The science and technology of vaccines (independent of economics and politics).
2) The government medical system and policies that dictates the vaccine usage amongst the population (that cannot be questioned nor discussed).
Maybe their are other meanings, but these two came to mind.
So, for example, Andy Wakefield will say he is pro-vaccine (definition #1), but in my mind he is anti-vaccine (definition #2).
Its important that we anti-vaxxers (definition #2) recognize the distinctions, or else the pro-vaxxers (definition #2) will continue to confuse us by claiming that they are not pro-vaxxers (definition #2), but pro-vaxxers (definition #1).
Posted by: Francis Weibel | June 03, 2016 at 05:39 PM
Jenny Allen , seriously you are still talking about the flu vaccine.
How can this be ? I am questioning your honesty now .
Cochrane says 0.5% efficacy or less . And you know this because I have repeatedly told you this .
You know that themiserol is toxic at nanograms (Dr Frank Engley) because I have told you that too .
So can you pls explain to me how you can still be pro flu vaccine ?
However you keep writing here about the flu vaccine and how you support it so therefore I encourage you to continue to take it . Very fed up with your flu vaccine views .
Posted by: Hans Litten | June 03, 2016 at 05:26 PM
O. M. G.
Yesterday I posted a link to a doctor in Tennessee, who after going to the Autism One conference, decided that his family medicine practice would no longer administer vaccines. I printed a copy of the blog post yesterday "No More Vaccines at Cool Springs Family Medicine" dtd 5/31/16. This was reported by Erin Elizabeth Mercola at Health Nut News.
I just now checked and the page is BLANK and it is no longer listed in the "Recent Posts". It's just gone except for the title remaining in the search at the top of the screen.
So frightening. What kind of a country do we live in?
Posted by: Linda1 | June 03, 2016 at 04:56 PM
I am certain that Salk's polio vaccine stopped the polio epidemics in the '50s.
There is no evidence that it did. I don't want to post another lengthily comment because AOA has been very generous to let us do so, so here are links to some very revealing data.
-Pesticides and Polio: A Critique of Scientific Literature:
-COMMON (CHEMICAL) POISONS THAT CAUSE POLIO Eleanor McBean
-Is The Public Health Law Responsible For The Poliomyelitis Mystery? by Ralph R. Scobey, M.D. Syracuse, N.Y. From Archive Of Pediatrics (May, 1951)
-DDT Poisoning A New Syndrome With Neuropsychiatric Manifestations
What then can cause Polio?
an extract from the book Fear of the Invisible by Janine Roberts
DDT was banned in 1972 however West explains:
-DDT production increased mostly for export out of the US.
DDT began to be replaced with OP pesticides. Phase-out towards 1968
(cancellation of registration of DDT).
The public perception of DDT went from 'safe' before 1951 to 'cannot use around dairy farms', must be properly labelled. Dangers began to become obvious, and farmers woke up re methods of usage.
Note on my site the declining DDT found in lipid testing of US citizens throughout the 1950s.
This means DDT was being consumed less. By not using in milk products, children were not getting DDT as in 1945-1955. 1951 marks the DDT/polio Senate hearings AND the decline of polio.
DDT was just one major organochlorine, note the rise and fall of BHC conforming perfectly with polio.
-Strebel et al 1995, The New England Journal of Medicine, 332(8):500-506.
Reviews more current literature and adds some of its own observations. They point out that intramuscular injection within 30 days of immunization with oral polio vaccine increases the risk of vaccine-induced paralysis. At least 86% of paralysis cases were caused by injection and the higher number of injections correlated to higher frequency of paralysis cases.
“During the Salk vaccine difficulties of the 50’s and 60’s an epidemiologist at New York State health Department concluded that if each infant had to travel two miles to get a shot there would be more disabilities caused by vehicle accidents than what the Salk vaccine itself would have prevented, to say nothing of therapeutic misadventures. (Letter to the New York Times, June 21, 1996, by Dr Herbert Ratner.)
Smoke, Mirrors, and the “Disappearance” Of Polio
Polio and lemmings
There continues to be no proof that a polio virus exists so until that can be proven-you can't say a vaccine wiped polio out. No disrespect to Dr. Yazbak.
Posted by: Danchi | June 03, 2016 at 04:51 PM
Reading these comments, what struck me in the resentments to being tagged antivaxxers. This led me to reflect on what exactly is an antivaxxer, or, more specifically, what pro-vaxxers are getting at when they brand us with the term.
Is an antivaxxer someone who has concerns, be they rational, or irrational as pro-vaxxers would have us believe, about vaccines? Reflect though that the vast majority of the population, which would include many pro-vaxxers, have not kept up with their adult boosters. Surely this would indicate having reservations about vaccines. Yet, such folks are not denigrated for their 'irrational' stance; they're simply left alone. Belief then is not the defining factor that separates pro-vaxxers and antivaxxers.
I think to get at what it really means to be an antivaxxer, we should start by considering what provaxxers want. Whether out of selfish gains, or a sincere belief that vaccination is a good thing, provaxxers desire to protect or promote the vaccination program. To this end, pro-vaxxers are resistant to openly criticize the program. It's almost as if it's an unwritten rule. Sure you will have the odd tame concession from provaxxers, such as, vaccines are not 100% safe or effective. Yet, telling, they are always followed up with assertions, promoting or defending vaccines. A provaxxer will tell us that because vaccines are not 100% safe, it's all the more important that everyone who can be vaccinated get vaccinated to maintain herd immunity. Still, you will never, ever, obtain a damning indictment such as a provaxxer claiming that he is a member of the majority who have not kept up with his flu vaccines, because, frankly, he finds them ineffective and unnecessary.
An antivaxxer, on the otherhand, and even if he is inclined to support vaccination will never hold back his criticism. And essentially then, an anti-vaxxer sin is not his belief, but expressing it. This of course, raises an interesting point. The anti-vaxxer in being forthcoming, and honest about his beliefs can be seen as having more virtue that the pro-vaxxer, who is secretive and dishonest about his beliefs. Perhaps then we should all start embracing our antivaxxer tag.
Posted by: Greg | June 03, 2016 at 04:47 PM
We think we know things. We are sure that polio has been put to bed.
Then out of the blue we run across some one, some where that some strange disease has effected them. For several years now there have been some children effected with the 68 or something virus.
But 10 years ago I ran across a little girl in a wheel chair, at a chicken festival and they said out of the blue she caught a entro virus that started out like a cold and then became paralyzed, but they had no name for it. Just a virus. I would have thought polio.
My childhood friend's grand baby just caught foot, mouth hand disease or what ever you call it. It looks pretty much like chicken pox to me.
This winter there was a bunch of 'em over at the University of Kentucky that came down with some kind of -- I forget the name they called it - -- but it was swollen salivary glands - -- you know -- Mumps is what we called them. They went on about it for weeks and then finally one of news casers said - mumps..
And when I was a young mother, and had my kids get the actually DPT - not that acellular but the real bad ass - stuff -- And the community was 96 % vaccinated; At the same church we attended - there was also a little red headed girl, who had caught pertussis when she was only three days old. So she was damaged - kind of awkward on her left side, sweet, and some ways smart - obsessed -- well autism.
Then I have had people in the community that have kids break out in a rash and I swear it looks like measles to me.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 03, 2016 at 04:04 PM
Liz Ditz recently posted this factual error on the vaccine compensation program.
"I want to correct Mr. Kanew here. The program covers all vaccines, not just those given to children."
I want to correct Liz Ditz here.
"For a vaccine to be covered, the category of vaccine must be both recommended for routine administration to children by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and subject to an excise tax by Federal law."
Posted by: greyone | June 03, 2016 at 03:54 PM
The short story for polio in the 1950's is that it peaked with peak DDT usage and declined with reduced DDT usage. Evidence suggests DDT was causal, because (1) DDT exposure can mimic polio symptoms, and (2) DDT affects blood sugar, and low blood glucose makes polio infections much more likely to cause paralysis.
The early polio vaccines had major issues and actually caused many cases. Recent oral polio vaccine campaigns in India have dramatically increased the number of paralyzed people, and this is causal, because the one province that didn't vaccinate did not see any increase. You can start with http://www.naturalnews.com/035588_polio_vaccine_India_paralysis.html
It would be wonderful if you read Dr Humphries' book, Dissolving Illusions, about the history of vaccines. What actually happened is very different from the media/medical myths and propaganda. Then we could have a discussion and be on the same page!
For an overview, you can read http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/
For polio, there is an online excerpt from the book, at http://jeffreydachmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Suzanne_humphries_dissolving_illusions_disappearance_polio.pdf
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 03, 2016 at 02:25 PM
I am certain that Salk's polio vaccine stopped the polio epidemics in the '50s. As soon as a community was vaxxed with it, the outbreaks stopped, in community after community. Dr. Yazbak has testified to this, having been a part of the effort himself. Sabin's oral vaccine from 1963 on, was somewhat more effective, being live and ingested orally, like the natural infection, but in very rare instances could itself cause polio, which is why it's no longer being used in the First World. But both were very effective.
There has been no polio in the US since several Amish children were infected by an Amish man who had gotten the oral vaccine in the Netherlands and came back to the US., about ten years ago, but there were no bad outcomes. Before that, the last case in the Americas was in 1979, in Peru. If you look at the WHO charts, you'll see that in country after country, as soon as they started vaxxing, formerly high rates started going down, eventually to very low or zero.
I understand about the Cutter incident, the Simian Virus, rare paralysis from the oral vaccine, and a small number of severe reactions caused by both vaccines. I understand that EV-68 is a polio-like virus which caused much the same effects as classic polio two years ago. I don't think it's a good idea to take even the small risk of a severe reaction by getting the vaccine now. But I recognize that if a lot of people don't vax (and I don't think they should at this time), then the virus may reappear in the US, and then we'll have to rethink it. I think the homeopathic remedy lathyrus sativus is a good preventive and a good treatment for polio, and would be preferable to the vaccine if it works as well as it did in Argentina in an outbreak several decades ago. I would always prefer a safe alternative to getting the vaccines which are so often dangerous.
But that being said, I don't believe that we still have as much polio as ever, it's just being diagnosed as something else. I don't believe it. Some say that modern polio is misdiagnosed as aseptic meningitis, I guess because of the flulike symptoms common to both. But aseptic meningitis is self-limiting, mild, and does not cause paralysis, so it really doesn't matter and I don't think it's true that polio is being misdiagnosed as it. Polio is a reportable disease, meaning that whenever it's suspected, that doctors have to report it by law. And they do tests to see if there are polio antibodies in the blood. If there are, and no vaccine had been received, then it was polio. If there aren't, it wasn't. Guillain-Barré can also cause paralysis, usually temporary. But again, blood tests would be done. And I simply don't believe that doctors everywhere are frequently deliberately misdiagnosing polio as something else to keep up faith in the vaccine. They might as well do what they do in a measles outbreak and use it as an excuse to make everyone get the vax again, sell a lot more vaccine. Whenever an issue like this comes up, there are always going to be people trying to make a name for themselves by looking for ways to disagree with the commonly-held beliefs. But it's not scientific and it's not rational. I do not belong to that camp. I understand how corrupt the CDC and WHO are; they didn't use to be, but now they are. But I don't believe that everything they have ever said or continue to say is false because it comes from the world of conventional industry-governed science. Natural immunity IS better than vaccine immunity, but I don't think that living naturally, without ever using allopathic drugs or vaccines, is always the best course for everyone. And when you make it us against them, so that everyone on our side has to believe that the diseases were never that bad, they've just been made out to be bad by the corrupt members of Team Vax in order to sell vaccines, that is so incorrect and irrational, so disrespectful of the countless millions who have agonized and died of infectious diseases, so religious in orientation, that it repels me.
I am not naïve on this subject. I read Dan and Mark's book about vaccines, and I don't think it is as good as Randall Neustaedter's The Vaccine Guide. Dan and Mark's book, for example, comes down recommending the pertussis vaccine, which I think is bad advice. The vaccine is very dangerous and the disease relatively mild for those past the first few months of life. The vaccine is ineffective in all infants because their immune system hasn't developed enough to respond correctly, and often ineffective in those of all ages who get the new acellular vaccine, while the disease just isn't bad enough to justify the high chance of getting asthma (one in nine), allergies (one in three), seizure disorders (one in twenty), SIDS, or autism from the vaccine.
While WHO has been mounting huge vaccine campaigns in the Third World for at least fifty years, many agencies have spent billions of food aid and other types of aid to these poor countries. It is not a question of giving up the vaccines and concentrating only on food aid and helping them to learn to provide for themselves with local resources. It has been tried extensively, and saved many lives, but the problem has in no way been solved, and there are always millions of new people needing to be fed. I don't have the answers, but I know that if vaccination programs in the Third World stopped, millions of children would die from VPDs. I would rather see them give everyone homeopathic prophylaxis than vaccines. And I really recognize that I don't have the answers. I don't want to see anyone die of hunger or disease enabled by hunger, but I also don't want to see populations doubling every few years. I don't want to throw vaccines out of the equation until we have a plan better than just letting them die. They have not reached Fraser's crossover point at which vaccine injuries clearly outnumber lives saved by vaccines. But of course I would require free and informed consent to the vaccines in every case in which vaccines are offered.
Posted by: cia parker | June 03, 2016 at 02:13 PM
"the polio vaccine stopped the epidemics."
No it did not. There is absolutely no data that confirms that. Polio is live and kicking under different names. In 1958, the CDC formally adopted the “Best available paralytic poliomyelitis case count” or BAPPCC:
“Cases must be clinically and epidemiologically compatible with poliomyelitis, must have resulted in paralysis, and must have a residual neurological deficit 60 days after onset of initial symptoms. .. the BAPPCC does not include cases of nonparalytic poliomyelitis, of those in which paralysis is more transient. The original purpose of developing these criteria was to omit cases possibly due to enteroviruses other than polioviruses.”
People who showed polio like symptoms that previously would have been diagnosed as Polio were now being diagnosed as: adopted the “Best available paralytic poliomyelitis case count” or BAPPCC: adopted the “Best available paralytic poliomyelitis case count” or BAPPCC: Spinal Apolexy, Inhibitory Palsy, Intermittent Fever, Famine Fever, Worm Fever, Bilious Remittent Fever, Ergotis, ME, Post-Polio Syndrome aka GBS and EV-D68. Coxsackie virus and echo viruses can cause paralytic syndromes that are clinically indistinguishable from paralytic poliomyelitis. Polio is more than paralysis or being encased in an iron lung. The question is always asked what happened to the iron lungs? Doesn't that prove Polio has been eradicated/cured. No, it doesn't. The iron lungs were replaced by oxygen tents and than respirators. So if one contracts one of the above illness and has breathing difficulties-you'll likely to be put on a respirator or the little oxygen nose plugs. Today, If you object to taking the polio vaccine and you get symptoms that are consistent with polio--it is usually called "polio." If you have been vaccinated and you get "polio", it is called meningitis or one of the other names. However today with the lie that the vaccine wiped out polio-the CDC, who makes the call on what an illness is to be designated will not call it polio because that would revel they have been lying for decades.
The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced, and the
there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. Cases of polio increased after mass inoculations. US and Europe Polio rates had abated to 47% & 55% respectively before the Salk Vaccine. Europe never purchased the Polio Vaccine and Polio abated completely on its own. Distribution and administration of the Polio vaccine in the US caused Polio cases to rise 700%.
Here's an example of what happened when the vaccine was distributed in the US:
Polio cases rose about 300 to 400% in these 5 places that made the Salk vaccine compulsory by law:
-North Carolina: 78 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 313 cases in 1959.
-Connecticut: 45 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 123 cases in 1959.
-Tennessee: 119 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 386 cases in 1959.
-Ohio: 17 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 52 cases in 1959.
-Los Angeles: 89 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 190 cases in 1959.
By 1960, the Salk vaccine had proven to be so hazardous and ineffective, that the Journal of the American Medical Association (February 25, 1961) carried an article admitting that, "It is now generally recognized that much of the Salk vaccine used in the U.S. has been worthless."
In his statement submitted to the House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Health and Environment, 94th Congress, Dr. Thomas E. Baynes (Assistant Professor of Law at Nova University Law Center, Fort Lauderdale, FL, under a contract with HEW, CDC, No. 39204) reported to our elected officials that:
" In 1949, a polio vaccine was only a dream.now that dream has turned into a nightmare.
The extent of litigation from vaccine injuries in humans had been minimal until the advent of the Salk and Sabin vaccines. Resultant litigation from vaccine injuries will require a reevaluation of current efforts to immunize vast numbers of people from communicable diseases."
“In about 95 percent of polio cases, infection from the polio virus causes no symptoms or serious effects. In about 5 percent of cases, the polio virus manifests in a mild form (abortive polio) with flu-like symptoms, in a non-paralytic form (aseptic meningitis) or in a severe form called paralytic polio. People who have minor or non-paralytic forms recover completely. …”
I can post more numbers where the Polio vaccine increased the number of Polio cases and the fact that many states rejected using the vaccine-countries outside of the US also rejected also. Providing this info would take several pages. What I discovered years ago is far more interesting:
It has never been proven that a POLIO Virus exists. The gold standard of virology is the image of a virus that has infected a human cell. Jon Rapport goes into a lot of details about this. Janine Roberts touches on it in her two book: Fear of the Invisible and The Vaccine Papers. The best information on this is at this website:
Poliovirus Isolation: No Evidence: http://harvoa.org/polio/ostrom.htm#jump1
Dr. Stefan Lanka explains what the images online of the Polio virus actually are:
The "isolated" polio viruses are artificial particles, generated by suction of an indifferent mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum. Its structure (no characteristic structures) differ clearly from the ones of the "viruses" in the cells. Here the information is essential that a biochemical characterization of those "isolated" viruses, although "isolation" is claimed, has never been published anywhere nor has anybody even claimed such a characterization.
The Polio vaccine was stopped because it was causing Polio:
In 1976, Dr Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used in the 1950's, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost exclusively in the U.S. from the early 1960's to 2000) was the “principal if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since 1961 (Washington Post,September 24,1976). The virus remains in the throat for one to two weeks and in the feces for up to two months. Thus, vaccine recipients are at risk, and can potentially spread the disease, as long as fecal excretion of the virus continues ( American Academy of Pediatrics, Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases:1986(Elk Grove Village, Illinois: AAP):284–5.
-In February 1992 the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio in the United States (Strebel PM., et al. Epidemiology of poliomyletis in U.S. n 1992, one decade after the last reported case of indigenous wild virus associated disease, Clinical Infectious Diseases CDC, February 1992:568–79). In fact, according to CDC figures, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 was caused by the oral polio vaccine (CDC reference above) Authorities claim the vaccine was responsible for about eight cases of polio every year (Institute of Medicine. An evaluation of poliomyelitis vaccine policy options.IOM Publication 88-04(Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences,1988). However, an independent study that analyzed the government’s own vaccine database during a recent period of less than five years uncovered 13,641 reports of adverse events following use of the oral polio vaccine. These reports included 6,364 emergency room visits and 540 deaths (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), Rockville, MD. & IOS. The Polio vaccine coverup COPV Vaccine Report: Document #14. www.ios(dot)com/~w1066/poliov6.html)
Public outrage at these tragedies became the impetus for removing the oral polio vaccine from immunization schedules (Strebel PM., et al. Epidemiology ofpoliomyletis in U.S. one decade after the last reported case of indigenous wild virus associated disease, Clinical Infectious Diseases CDC, February 1992:568–79)
The Polio Vaccine that is being distributed to Third World countries has created a new strain of Polio and thousands of cases of Non Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis that are consistent with the doses given. The increase has occurred in India, Africa, Syria, Pakistan and a few other regions of the world.
A Man Shed Live Polio Virus In His Stool For 28 Years
Vaccine did not eradicate or eliminate Polio.
Posted by: Danchi | June 03, 2016 at 11:26 AM
Cia Parker, and every body else:
Mark and Dan has put a lot of work into a book that list each vaccine and given the plus and minuses for each one and explains about each one. It would be the biggest help for parents during the vaccine years.
Polio - The three viruses are no longer out there to catch.
Diphtheria which is caused by a bacteria; the worse outcome for that disease; when it causes lots of mucous forming membrane in a person's throat is because the bacteria is infected - itself with a virus.
It is a very good book that I think might not be a bad baby shower gift.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 03, 2016 at 09:00 AM
Dear Tim Lundeen & Cherry Misra,
Thank you both very much for your concerns about my health, I appreciate this. Cherry I am so sorry about your problems with mercury amalgams. I've had all mine since around the age of seven or eight, or more than 60 years to put it in perspective. In those days childrens' molar teeth were filled with mercury amalgam as soon as they appeared. Thankfully my later wisdom teeth were impacted and removed whilst still in the gums. Later, my dentist crowned 3 filled teeth, although there is still some amalgam visible beneath the crowns. My remaining molars had some amalgam drilled out and replaced with quartz based fillings. Much nicer and hopefully ameliorating the effects of the mercury. In the UK, quartz fillings are now 'the norm' on the NHS for children, and thank God for that!! I am not yet 'demented' and have other health vulnerabilities which are far more likely to kill me first!! Tim, your flu vax links are useful and appreciated and I hope other 'oldies' will inform themselves about all the issues surrounding these vaccines, but remember, we are all campaigning for INFORMED CHOICES.
Linda1- No need for apologies! I'm very thick skinned about personal criticisms, and long ago made a personal decision NOT to take any internet ad hominem comments to heart, particularly from persons who don't know me from Eve. I think it's very important to publicly debate ALL the issues surrounding vaccines, and respect opposing views.
Justin - Thank you very much for getting Brian Deer to agree to a debate. If he called you a 'crook', then you can be sure you are on the right lines!! He called me a 'belching sow', which I found very funny. What he has said in the past about John Stone is unprintable! Has he created any difficulties about publishing a transcript of the interview? Brian Deer HATES having his own words used against him.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 03, 2016 at 06:31 AM
Dear Jenny Allen- Please please do not leave mercury-silver amalgams in your teeth. That is the mistake I made and bitterly regret. I became mercury toxic after one botched dental appointment in which I inhaled and swallowed a lot of mercury. That was four or five years ago. I am still recovering. I know I am lucky to be alive and I have had to cope with one medical disorder after another. Now I have high blood pressure, that I expect to normalize someday and I am slowly getting the mercury fillings removed using the best biomedical techniques I can figure out for myself here in New Delhi. That is going to take a total of about 3 years to complete. It can be done much faster in the U.S. with the help of a good biological dentist. Just last November I was suddenly struck with the realization that I no longer had brain fog. It was wonderful to have my mind working well again. Jenny , you need your mind. Get rid of the amalgams, chuck out the flu shots. Never eat fish. Learn to be healthy. There are so many ways of staying healthy. No one need ever live with dementia from mercury and no one should. Dont sit back and let the AMA and the American Dental Association take your mind from you .
Posted by: Cherry Misra | June 03, 2016 at 05:15 AM
Posted by: Linda1 | June 03, 2016 at 12:06 AM
This quote is taken from the recent Anne Dachel, Lou Conte post from the William Thompson transcripts:
"And, you know, I’ve tried to share with you as much information as possible. And if you say you spoke to me, I promise you, everyone will paint me out to be the bad guy, and they’ll dig up stuff. And I’ll become the story about why I’ve become the next Brian Hooker and can’t be listened to."
I think "they'll dig up stuff" (and as we see with Dr. Wakefield, they'll make up stuff) is a major parameter of what guides policy that many do not understand when they make judgements of character or of what is going on.
Maybe most in our unelected (that is largely unaccountable to us) agencies have good principles, but I think there are too many assuming or hoping that vaccines "save lives" and hoping that also means saving more lives than they take, taking shelter in "consensus," while there are a few who have no scruples in promoting some agendas (or have very powerfully motivating control files in the hands of some with no scruples in promoting some agendas). I think the censorship and bullying with regards to vaccination often translates into a desire to believe all that much more that they are important, rather than consider what else might be indicated by such tactics.
For me I prefer to see informed consent happen. I suspect most will want to practice alternatives to vaccination for health and disease prevention or treatment under fully informed conditions, or the closer we get to informed consent as possible.
And I want to believe that under a true free market in healthcare, physicians that actually make the best and honest health recommendations will be awarded best by market forces (rather than by ordering unnecessary procedures, taking some time to get to a correct diagnosis, or prescribing treatments that don't cure, just manage, or lead to added prescriptions for side effects, all ok as long as they don't rock the boat), but I think it will take a culture of viewing healthcare providers more as consultants and the responsibility for outcome less on their shoulders and more on those making the choices under the freedom to choose, though there has to be liability for fraudulent recommendations.
I also think assistance in providing healthcare would have to be a voluntary act too and hopefully lend to a better form of oversight than "board certification" and industry set protocols. Before government involvement in healthcare raised the costs, emergency care for those who couldn't pay was generally provided, and various groups set up their own payment systems to help each other cover expenses as they arose, so I don't think it's too optimistic or regressive to want to cut out in a major way the major industries controlling and channeling our choices currently and allow individual choice.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 02, 2016 at 10:25 PM
I know that vaccines are not safe. But the polio vaccine stopped the epidemics. In all probability, if Tina had gotten the vaccine, she wouldn't have gotten polio, and she would have been able to live a normal life. If the polio vaccine was associated with causing autism, it would be an easier discussion, but as far as I know, it isn't. Tina was the only one I ever knew who had had polio, because everyone else in our generation had gotten the polio vaccine. There are always a lot of unknowns, but if half the people on my block were dying of something there was a vaccine for, then we'd get the vaccine and worry about everything else at a later time. I think we should educate, but then let people decide for themselves. Not force vaccines, but not compel anyone who wants them to go without them either.
Western Europe (except for the UK) has a MUCH lower rate of autism than we do, something like the three in 10,000 children that we had in the '70s. And they have always given the basic vaccines, but not the large number we do. I think most Third World countries only give the most basic ones, because they can't afford any more, which is good. I think it's risky to say that any number of children crippled by polio or dying of tetanus or polio (or measles, I hate to say it, but it does kill a lot of children in the Third World) is better than having any disabled by vaccines. We're shell shocked as a result of the huge number of vaccines given routinely here, starting the day of birth. It might be good to research attitudes toward vaccines, incidence of autism, and incidence of other kinds of vaccine damage in Sweden or Italy (and I remember Valentino Bocca), to get a feel for the societies in between Pharmageddon in the US and UK, and the Third World.
Posted by: cia parker | June 02, 2016 at 08:27 PM
And CIA PARKER.
I understand why you are naïve - cause I find for many years I have been pinching myself about all this too. But as a fellow traveler on this earth and - we know each other for these past few years - and thus you are a friend - but you are being naïve, in a lot of ways.
My son by the way - after his vaccine reaction -- when it came time for his fourth one - did have just the DT.
I had been lied to before that though by the doctors -- those are the guys low on the ladder - I was told that I had no choice - I had to get them all together before that terrible reaction . Liars they be .
Posted by: Benedetta | June 02, 2016 at 07:44 PM
You said: " I think this is going too far. I do not believe that every agency and every public official is corrupt and does nothing but lie about vaccines and disease."
what does it matter when the TOP - Heads of the agency are corrupt and lying and willing to ruin careers and human beings that go - LOL -- as you say too far. Although you did not mean it like that. .
There has been a lot wrong, terrible wrong for a very long time. Back in the 70s when the pertussis vaccine was just horrible (and still it) The head of the CDC did not do a study for 40 years to help decide if there were more damages from the vaccine than the illness.
It is hard to wake up but yeah the CDC and the NIH and IACC, and Tom Insel and Offit and on and on are just that. IT is terrible, it is corrupt, it is evil.
And we have been asleep for a very long time when it comes to that.
Third world countries; WHO came in after the Haitian earthquake and they the workers they brought with them brought with them cholera. They came from countries in which cholera was endemic. These countries do not take the cholera vaccine cause there is no safe cholera vaccine. They all cause celiacs, Dr. Fansano wrote in his article that appeared in the Scientific American Magazine some years back that he had tried to make a cholera vaccine for 20 years and failed, and he was now turning his attention to celiac sprue and gluten sensitivity.
WHO then turned around and vaccinated every Haitian they could get their hands on with the cholera vaccine - knowing what it did.
On top of that; so much money in donations poured into the country and the Haitians had hope. Then after a few months - every one left, help left, they discovered that there was no money to be found -- nothing had gone to help them in any way. It was gone too. Remember The Clinton Foundation? Hmmmmm It was one of the big guys that came down to Haiti setting up accounts to collect those donations.
You keep in mind just how much they now lie to us - they have no shame.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 02, 2016 at 07:37 PM
The Third World is not going to develop at all if the First World does not assist it.
The US is the third world. we have all the elements of it. If TPTB want to assist the third world, as they call it, they need to utilize the natural resources of the regions to elevate the standard of living of the people in those countries. Close to a million people die daily across the African Sub-Continent. Western medicine has been there plying the country with drugs for decades. It hasn't stopped the daily death count and the health of the people isn't the best. Korea, 1 child in 38 is autistic after a mass MMR campaign in early 2009. What the numbers are today is unknown because of the current political climate. That's a result of Western interference. Cuba on the other hand autism rate is 1 child in 60,000 because they don't have Western style medicine or interference from the WHO, CDC, Gates foundations and the other criminal elements that are suppose to be helping people. Africa currently has a MMR push going on and I would bet money that in 5 years or less there will be an increase in Autism in Africa-if the increase hasn't already began.
If the Western World was really interested in improving the quality of health, wealth & life in the Third World, do what was done in the West. Improved sanitation systems, build reservoirs for clean water, help the people to grow their own nutritious foods using clean water, build in home toilets, that connect to municipal sanitation systems, basic pre-natal care that doesn't include vaccines, develop a program like WIC to supply for free foods to children & Moms, supply basic vitamin supplements to families like Vitamins full range of B's, C D3, E, A (which is a Measles preventative), iodine, magnesium, selenium, sulfur. There are all sorts of things that can be done that doesn't require vaccines, which has never been proven to reduce childhood illnesses in third world countries.
Posted by: Danchi | June 02, 2016 at 06:40 PM
Have you read John Perkins' book, "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man?" This was one of the first books I read after my awakening re the vaccine issue.
First World countries have done more to subvert the abilities of Third World countries to rise above their poverty, etc., than anything else we could possibly say we've done that's positive.
Posted by: Bayareamom | June 02, 2016 at 05:41 PM
I'm not being religious. It is my opinion that it is impossible to do a risk benefit analysis of current vaccines because all of the information required to do such an analysis is not available - on purpose. We don't know how many people got cancer and died from the polio vaccine. Your friend, Tina, could have been a victim of DDT + polio, but even if it was only polio, if she had gotten the vaccine, she could have been one of the many who died of cancer from the SV40 in the vaccine. Polio vaccine was not safe. Lots of people from our generation and the next two generations died young from cancer. SV40 was isolated in many cancerous tumors and is thought to pass to the baby during pregnancy so it affects more than one generation. Polio vaccine is responsible for seeding the human population with a cancerous simian virus. Not safe!
No vaccine is tested for carcinogenicity. There has been an explosion of all kinds of cancer - in fact, there are many more cases of cancer than there ever were of diphtheria. Is there a connection between vaccines and the rise in cancer incidence, even in children? I told you - I want to know how many people are locked away in institutions and buried in graveyards because of the DPT vaccine. I want to know why the Russians were so convinced that the DPT was dangerous that they changed their schedule and decreased the potency of their vaccine. We don't have all the facts. It could be that even for them, even during an outbreak, that the vaccine does more harm than good. We don't know because the scientific community has been dishonest and has not done the analysis. If they have, they have not shared it with the public. The injured are hidden. They are not considered. So I'll ask again - How many people get sick or die because of the vaccine?
Posted by: Linda1 | June 02, 2016 at 05:31 PM
Re diphtheria in Russia:
"The recent Russian epidemic was caused, we were told, by low levels of childhood immunity (WHO, July 1993). But the majority of cases were in adults who had gone through a compulsory vaccination system that mandated 5 injections of diphtheria vaccine. According to the old philosophy, these people should have been immune for life. They now realise that immunity to disease requires 2 things: repeat exposure to antigen, and a healthy, stress-free body."
"In the USA, they are at last admitting that there are several other factors involved in the Russian diphtheria epidemic. This is because high level transmission between adults was demonstrated in groups characterized by overcrowding, low hygiene levels, and high contact rates e.g.: the homeless and patients in neuropsychiatric hospitals (Vitek and Wharton). One important factor conducive to increased bacterial transmission was the deficient or lacking public health facilities, including routine access to functioning faucets for hand washing. "
"The myth that vaccination is the primary factor that eliminated diphtheria worldwide is highlighted by the evolving situation in Russia (and other countries) today. Graphs of diphtheria from any country show what are called 'epidemic cycles'. The latest Russian cycle is the normal duration for cycles seen pre-vaccination era; so to say that vaccination has stopped diphtheria in Russia is highly debatable. The Lancet (1996) reported that in 1995 the Ukraine had re-vaccinated the entire population and that diphtheria continued unabated. The vaccine was tested and found to be fine."
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 02, 2016 at 05:16 PM
@Jenny Allen re "submitting to an annual influenza vax".
Flu shots actually increase your chances of getting sick: http://vaccinepapers.org/influenza-vaccine-immune-suppression/
Flu vaccines are not effective in people over 65: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-shots-may-not-protect-the-elderly-or-the-very-young/
Flu shots can cause Guillan-Barré syndrome, which is the most common injury paid by the NVIC: http://vaccineimpact.com/2016/vaccine-court-stats-on-injuries-and-deaths-betray-governments-position-on-vaccine-safety/
If you are going to continue to get flu vaccines, please make sure you get the single-use vials, which don't contain mercury!
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 02, 2016 at 04:26 PM
The Third World is not going to develop at all if the First World does not assist it. Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel is a wonderful, fascinating book about why the Third World, despite having people just as intelligent as people anywhere else, has failed to develop as much as the First World. I don't think he addressed colonial exploitation as a factor at all. Germs played a prominent role, as did geography: European farm animals can't survive in the tropics, and neither can many food crops of temperate climates. There are a lot of reasons, but it is what it is, and I think it's time to stop blaming Westerners for all of the problems of the developing world. Over-population is a big factor, and, again, that's just the way it is: if people don't use Western birth control, and they do use Western medications and vaccines, then their populations will explode as they have done, and most people will be sickly and malnourished. Is it our fault that we have enabled their populations to increase beyond their ability to sustain them? Yes. Would it have been better to let them cope as they always have and suffer from contagious disease, famine, and untimely and frequent death? I don't know. It goes against the grain for compassionate Westerners to say that or refrain from action, but there is no ready solution for the problem.
Linda, you seem to be saying that you'd be willing to send food, but if hundreds of thousands are dying from diphtheria, tens of thousands from tetanus, tens of thousands are crippled with polio, you wouldn't be willing to sell them the vaccines that would prevent these deaths, because you think that the vaccines would damage many of them. Is that what they would choose? Is that not a form of exploitation? Maybe if they don't control their population numbers, that would be the way to go, but it is a very cruel way. It has always been Nature's way of controlling the population, by killing the weakest from disease and hunger. Is it the best way? I don't know, but I think you should consider whether that is what you are saying you think would be the best course of action.
Everyone agrees that there was a huge diphtheria epidemic in the USSR twenty-five years ago. Are you saying that you think it was not as big as official figures have said it was? Do you have reliable alternative figures supporting your contention that diphtheria is just not a big problem in the world today, are you saying that it never was, or that it just isn't now and wouldn't be under any circumstances? That it wouldn't be even if no one vaxxed for it? The countries in the former USSR mounted a huge campaign to vaccinate everyone: do you think that it had no effect and that the epidemic would have completely disappeared regardless, even though it looks as though it had been the mass vaccination campaigns which stopped the epidemic at that time?
I think this is going too far. I do not believe that every agency and every public official is corrupt and does nothing but lie about vaccines and disease, and I do believe that in some situations and places, vaccine protection from some of the VPDs is a good thing to promote and enable. I would still allow for individual choice. Of course it might have gone the other way. My roommate Tina might have gotten the polio vaccine and maybe had a bad reaction to it (although it is one of the safer vaccines). Instead her parents were afraid of the vaccine, did not give it to her, she got polio and had her legs paralyzed by it for the rest of her life (she's still alive, but she's still crippled). Her parents made the wrong choice, but it's impossible for anyone to never make a wrong choice. All we can do is research and think a lot about the vaccine decision before we make it, which is what Justin and his wife are doing. But I don't think we should be dogmatic about it. That makes us akin to the pro-vaxxers, not allowing for differences in time, place, diseases, vaccines, and many unknown variables. It makes it easier in some ways to take a stand one way or the other, all or nothing, but that is a religious position which I don't think is appropriate to take on this issue.
Posted by: cia parker | June 02, 2016 at 03:04 PM
In the third world where people are stressed, starving and don't have basic sanitation, refrigeration, and access to good medical care, of course they're going to get sick and die. You ask if I think that vaccination should be withheld from the third world. I think the first world should stop exploiting the third world so that it can develop already. I think if we send them any medicines, we ought to make damn sure that they are medicines that are good enough for our own people, and that they are tested thoroughly for safety and efficacy. As it stands now, no vaccines are known to be either safe or effective because our entire medical industrial complex is corrupt to the core. We do know that there are known and potentially unknown contaminants, including carcinogens, in addition to the long list of toxic ingredients. So, yeah, I would send food and water and shelter, infrastructure and medicines known to be therapeutic (I do not include vaccines in that class of drugs) - all according to the recipient's wishes and nothing more. In other words, I would not force my culture or idea of what it is to be "developed" and "successful" on any other people or country. Re tetanus toxoid - I think a lot of serious adverse reactions develop over time that are not attributed to the vaccine.
That article you posted is interesting (http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/181/Supplement_1/S10.full)
I see Melinda Wharton among the authors. Isn't she a CDC scientist who is one of those accused of fraud? We need to take that entire report with a giant grain of salt. Who knows what the facts are? If their reporting of diphtheria is anything like their reporting of measles, that article is highly suspect. The authors give a list of reasons for the diphtheria outbreak. Among them is poverty, exposure to the cold (lack of fuel), malnutrition, transiency and a decrease in vaccination in the 1980s in that part of the world because parents and *the medical community* didn't trust the vaccine program because of their experience with DPT injuries. I have to ask - how many and what kind of injuries? How do the DPT injuries compare in number and severity to the injuries from the diphtheria outbreak? They report 155,000 cases and 5,000 deaths over an 8 year period in a vast geographic area:
"In 1990, epidemic diphtheria reemerged in the Russian Federation, with most cases among adults . During 1991–1993, the epidemic spread rapidly, and by the end of 1994, all of the Newly Independent States (NIS) and the Baltic States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) were involved . The epidemic peaked in 1994–1995, with an average annual incidence of 17 cases/100,000 population and a peak incidence of 73 cases/100,000 population in Tajikistan in 1995 (table 1, figure 1). From 1990 through 1998, >157,000 cases and 5000 deaths were reported by the countries of the former Soviet Union, representing >80% of diphtheria cases reported worldwide. Three-quarters of the cases were reported from the Russian Federation. This was the largest diphtheria epidemic since the 1950s, the beginning of the era of widespread diphtheria immunization...."
"Use of Td was partly driven by overestimation among Soviet physicians of the risk of pertussis vaccine complications. Physicians' fears of other adverse events from vaccination led to delays in initiating immunization beyond the first year of life due to an extensive list of contraindications to immunization that was expanded in 1980 far beyond internationally accepted conditions . In the 1986 immunization schedule, the school-entry booster dose was dropped, resulting in an increase in the interval between booster doses. Support for immunization programs slipped in the 1980s due to an altered public perception of the risks and benefits of immunization. While many previously feared childhood diseases had been nearly eliminated, the perception of risk had increased, fanned by an anti-immunization movement that emerged after the political liberalization of 1985."
What was the cause of the anti-immunization movement? It is important to note that Tajikistan, where the highest number of cases occurred, also was undergoing civil war at the time.
"In Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, and Ukraine, the proportion of diphtheria cases in people ⩾15 years old ranged from 64% to 82%. Adults 40–49 years old had extremely high incidence and death rates; in some countries, this age group accounted for nearly half of all deaths. Older adults (>50 years of age) had relatively few cases. School-age children and adolescents also had high incidence rates, especially in the Russian Federation; however, these age groups had low death rates, with fatalities primarily occurring among children who had not received a primary vaccination series ."
Vaccinated children were among the infected and some of them died? The article says that the fatalities were *primarily* among unvaccinated. Not solely? Adults over age 50 had few cases. Is that because they had natural immunity?
"Factors that contributed to these differences in age distribution probably included larger average family size, with more children in the southern countries (e.g., in Tajikistan, 40% of the population is <15 years of age, compared with only 22% in Ukraine); greater immunity to diphtheria among young adults in the southern countries due to persistent circulation of toxigenic strains in the 1960s and 1970s; and regional differences in surveillance ."
By "circulation of toxigenic strains, are they referring to natural immunity?
"In areas where the sex distribution of cases was studied, women accounted for a majority of adult cases and had sharply higher incidence rates. In Kazakhstan, 63% of adult cases were among females . In three Russian regions in 1994–1996, women 20–49 years of age had a cumulative incidence of diphtheria of 82 cases/100,000 population, compared with 47 cases/100,000 among men of that age , and in Moldova, women ⩾20 years of age had incidence rates 2- to 3-fold higher than those for men of the same age . A similar pattern was seen in Ukraine ."
Is that because when medical care and supplies were limited, men took priority? Or were men better nourished?
"Case fatality ratio (CFR)
Due to the lack of diphtheria antitoxin and delayed treatment, the CFR was very high (>20%) in some countries at the beginning of the epidemic. In 1994, the CFR (excluding Estonia, from which no deaths were reported among 10 cases) ranged from 2.8% in Russia to 23% in Lithuania and Turkmenistan. Since 1995, the international community has provided antitoxin and antibiotics, and the CFR decreased on average to 5%–10%. In Russia, where diphtheria antitoxin was always available, the CFR was ∼3% . Variation of CFRs may also be caused by regional differences in surveillance: Less severe cases of illness are more likely to be reported in some countries than in others due to differential availability of laboratory resources and access to medical care ."
So the fatality rate was high in some places simply because of lack of medical care. That inflates the mortality rate of the disease. I am not at all minimizing the problem, but it has to be looked at in proper context. You implied that there is probably a 50% mortality rate across the board. That's not what this article says, even without good medical care.
"The emergence of an epidemic clone of toxigenic C. diphtheriae, biotype gravis, was demonstrated in the Russian Federation. Isolates of the epidemic clone were first documented in 1987 and accounted for an increasing proportion of the strains isolated from cases in sentinel areas as the epidemic progressed ."
I have no idea what the significance is of the emergence of an "epidemic clone". I'd like to know though.
"Diphtheria cases are much more likely than carriers to transmit the organism . Evidence suggests that a large proportion of the disease among adults may have been transmitted from ill or asymptomatic children and that children played an important role in amplifying the overall epidemic, even in countries where most of the cases were reported among adults."
Most of the cases were in adults. Transmitted to them by ill or asymptomatic children? Vaccinated or not? I have to point out too that prior to the outbreak Russia had decreased the number of vaccines from 4 to 3 and the antigen was also less in the new formulation, so doses were also less potent. But, the children for the most part didn't get sick? It was mostly the adults.
"...in almost all affected countries, severe disease was more commonly documented among unvaccinated cases than vaccinated cases."
And there it is:
"Increased adult susceptibility
A critical factor in permitting this epidemic was the accumulation of large numbers of susceptible adults AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE WANING OF VACCINE-INDUCED IMMUNITY AND THE DECREASED OPPORTUNITY FOR NATURALLY ACQUIRED IMMUNITY . UNLIKE DURING THE PREVACCINE ERA, ADULTS WERE NOW SUSCEPTIBLE AND COULD BOTH CONTRACT AND TRANSMIT DISEASE."
"In the NIS epidemic, OUTBREAKS WITH ADULT-TO-ADULT TRANSMISSION OCCURRED IN INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS characterized by crowding, low levels of hygiene, and high contact rates. These settings included military units, neuropsychiatric hospitals, and concentrations of homeless people [31, 38]. However, clusters of cases were rare in routine work settings, and the carrier rates among adult contacts of cases were usually low."
Finally, again note the less than optimal response to the vaccine in adults in their 40's and 50's. It doesn't look like they even tested the vaccine (in these studies) in those older than 67:
"While the immunization strategy was primarily developed from review of available data, several immunogenicity studies were also done in the NIS in 1994–1996 to help guide the strategy. The first study was done in Kiev, Ukraine, between March 1994 and June 1995 among 488 workers (18–67 years old), using Russian Td vaccine containing 5 Lf of diphtheria toxoid per dose. This study found that 89% of vaccinees had diphtheria antitoxin titers ⩾0.1 IU/mL after one dose, and 92% had titers ⩾0.1 IU/mL after two doses administered at a 30-day interval. However, only 71% of persons 40–49 years of age achieved titers ⩾0.1 IU/mL after one dose, and 78% achieved such titers after two doses . In Odessa, Ukraine, a study among 341 adults (17–63 years of age) found that the proportion with diphtheria antitoxin titers ⩾0.1 IU/mL rose from 57% to 92% after a single dose of Td with 2 Lf diphtheria toxoid per dose (Pasteur-Mérieux-Connaught, Lyon, France) . Only 79% of adults 40–49 years of age had titers ⩾0.1 IU/mL. In Georgia, 248 persons (18–59 years of age) were studied following receipt of Td containing ⩽5 Lf during late 1995. After one dose, 82% of vaccinees overall but only 66% of vaccinees 40–59 years of age had diphtheria antitoxin titers of ⩾0.1 IU/mL . In studies in the Baltic countries in 1996, single doses containing either 3, 6, or 12 Lf were administered to 2315 adults. Overall, 81% of vaccinees had diphtheria antibody levels >0.1 IU/mL after vaccination. No clear differences were seen in the antibody responses to the different doses, but antibody responses were lower overall (15%–69%) among persons 40–49 years of age ."
Thanks, Cia, for pointing to this paper. I don't think it tells the whole story and I think it raises more questions than it answers. Bottom line for me is that until the science, the vaccines and the industry they come from are cleaned up, I don't think they should be offered to anyone. By focusing on the disease and not on the medication and the adverse effects of the medication, we can't know if the cure is worse than the disease. They only tell 1/2 the story (or less) here. How many DPT damaged individuals are buried in their graveyards and are in their institutions and homes cared for by exhausted family members around the clock? That's only part of the puzzle. We also need to know how many individuals were harmed by the multi country vaccination campaign instituted to combat the epidemic. That information also is missing.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 02, 2016 at 01:21 PM
This is a story out this morning about a baby born in NYC (his mother had been in Honduras, I think) with microcephaly and his mother had tested positive for exposure to Zika. I think it's very likely that the virus has mutated and is now causing microcephaly in some of the women exposed to it in the first trimester. It is also very likely that, like rubella, possibly like polio, exposure to something else, like pesticides or insecticides, is necessary to allow the virus to have devastating effects in many cases. Not certain, but looking increasingly likely.
I don't think that WHO employees randomly made up figures for the contagious diseases reported all over the world. Even if they are sometimes inflated, it is also true that most of the children in remote villages would never even have seen a doctor, even if they were mortally sick and died of the disease. I think it is beyond dispute that vaccines have saved a lot of lives, in the Third World recently, and in the First World decades ago. Even if many cases of polio paralysis are now diagnosed as something else, which seems unlikely in most cases, as I think the blood of patients undergoing paralysis would be tested for polio antibodies, it is not the same now as it was nearly a hundred years ago. We don't have polio outbreaks causing parental fear and avoidance of swimming pools and beaches, leaving a number of paralyzed children in their wake. Even acknowledging that most people exposed to polio got permanent immunity without ever having symptoms of paralysis, it was still numerically a lot of people paralyzed.
I think rather than saying that all vaccines are bad and useless and have never done any good, it would be better to say that they are potentially disabling or even fatal, and then do a risk/benefit analysis, for each child/adult and each vaccine, bearing in mind that the large number of vaccines given now and the large number frequently given in one visit, are what has caused the most damage. Mercury in any amount should be avoided, of course, and vaccinating young infants. Heather Fraser wrote of a crossover point: formerly few vaccines were given, the diseases were common and devastating, and obvious severe reactions were rare. Now, with a large number of vaccines and doses, and few cases of disability or death from the infectious diseases, we have crossed over to the point at which vaccines are doing more harm than good at the population level. Each parent should know this, research it, and decide what to do. People living in the Third World are in a more difficult situation, and should consider what life for children was like when they themselves were small and what it is like now, and make the vaccine decision, but they really haven't crossed over to the point at which it is clear that vaccines are doing them more harm than good. And in the case of a resurgence of any of the diseases, the case would change in whatever country it occurred. I would not get any more vaccines for me or my daughter now, but if there were an epidemic again in the US of polio or diphtheria, I would probably get the vaxxes for both of us. I actively hope that she gets measles, mumps, and rubella, and would never let her get the vaxxes or the MMR under any circumstances.
Thank you, Jenny, for recounting your family's experience of contagious disease. I'm sorry for the suffering you and they experienced. I said the other day that my neighbor got pertussis as a child, before the vaccine, and her sister got smallpox (in 1928 when it was no longer dangerous). Of course she, I, and her five children all had measles and chickenpox. My great-grandmother had many members of her family die of TB: her mother died of it when she was twelve, her father died of it when she was eighteen, several of her siblings died of it, and the family doctor said she'd better move from Posen, Prussia, to a warmer, drier clime or she was going to die of it too. And she went to Houston shortly after her father died, then to Austin, then to Taylor, Texas. And she died very old, many years later, not of TB. My great-grandfather's mother and four of his siblings all died the same year of spinal meningitis, 1862. My father had malaria in Reserve, Louisiana, when he was twelve, in about 1936. I said the other day how upset my mother was all her life when she thought of a neighbor boy in the '30 who had died of diphtheria, despite every doctor in town being called in to try to save his life. A college roommate had been crippled by polio which she caught when she was three: she told me that her parents had been afraid to get her the vaccine and, as a result, she was crippled by polio. She told me a couple of years ago that she can no longer even use the crutches and braces I knew her to use, but only a wheelchair now. My father remembered how a patient with tetanus came to his father's office (in the yard at Reserve), with horrifying symptoms, and died of it.
This is the other side, the reason that vaccines have become universally given all over the world. There is no easy way to make the decision. Well, in developed countries, it probably is, unvaxxed children are healthier, and we no longer have epidemics of the dangerous diseases. Vaccines are a tool which should be used carefully, but if they are, they can save and improve life rather than degrade it, as is now happening in developed countries which routinely give so many vaccines.
Posted by: cia parker | June 02, 2016 at 12:19 PM
I always look forward to your wisdom filled comments. I apologize for being offensive. I hope you can forgive me.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 02, 2016 at 10:10 AM
WHO's reporting of disease stats is basically science fiction - as are Doctors Without Borders*, and the Gates genocidal organizations. Why? Simply because all the players involved believe once a vaccine is given (like the polio vaccine) then any type of transient or permanent paralysis HAS TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN POLIO, because off course they dogmatically/stupidly believe vaccines are perfect. A perfect example of WHO's idiocy is the fabricated hysterical pandemic of SARS back in 2003/2004 which faded abruptly away when medicos stopped treating suspected cases with extremely toxic, strong doses of antiretrovirals and corticosteroids --POOF! -- SARS mortality evaporated. Frankly, the present Zika hysteria is just as fabricated (as many have also written).
*Doctors Without Brains, in my estimation.
Posted by: david m burd | June 02, 2016 at 08:28 AM
"With all due respect Ronald .. maybe I am misconstruing your comments .. are YOU really suggesting someone .. (JUSTIN) .. admittedly interested in "understanding vaccine safety" .. should limit his "investigation" .. only to those who have NO "differing opinions" on the link between vaccines and autism? "
You are misconstruing my comments. I endorsed having people with different perspectives on the vaccine safety issue debate. The debates would be most informative about vaccine safety if they had the real experts involved representing the relevant biomedical disciplines.
There are tremendous gaps in the vaccine safety literature, and that point has not been hammered home to the (global) public. Read my previous post on Bexsero, and some of my posts on the warning labels that accompany other vaccines. The official government evaluation documents and warning labels tell you all you need to know about the safety of these vaccines. Surveying the vaccine safety literature provides the final nail in the coffin. Vaccine safety, in the short and long-term, has yet to be demonstrated!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 02, 2016 at 06:44 AM
@ Cia Parker "While all vaccines can disable and kill, I think one problem is that most of us haven't seen the ravages of some of the diseases. I know a lot of people get around that problem by denying that any vaccine has ever prevented any disease in anyone. I don't think that is true. "
Approaching my 8th decade, I can certainly verify the dangers of some diseases vaccinated against. My husband caught diptheria and hepatitis and survived. My late brother in law was badly deformed by polio. In those days patients could spend years in an 'iron lung'. My mother spent 2 years in a sanatarium after ontracting Tuberculosis. These diseases were greatly feared by parents and there's no question, at the time they were killers. These days, with more modern treatments and interventions, these diseases are no longer the death sentences they once were.
Myself and siblings all caught Whooping Cough, (Pertussis) and my infant memory is of us all walking about 'whooping'! I don't think my parents bothered about calling out a doctor, although he visited when we all got German Measles(Rubella). I believe doctors only got involved with notifiable diseases, and at the time I don't think Pertussis was on the list, but both measles were. I contracted the other measles during a time when my mother was in the sanatorium and I was 'farmed out' to a relative. I have no memory of a doctor being involved.
Needless to say we all survived all those childhood diseases, and 'mother nature' later ensured my breast fed babies were protected during their first year of life. Parents then had mumps and german measles parties, to ensure their children got these diseases in infancy when they are almost always benign. I never met or heard of any child who had been damaged by measles, although parents were aware of adult mumps damage and Rubella damage during early pregnancy, hence the parties.
Linda 1 was very critical of me on an AoA threat for submitting to an annual influenza vax. Yes, I am aware it's not very effective, contains mercury, and the original H1N1 vaccine Squalene adjuvent caused widespread problems. But you see, I am also aware of the dangers of contracting flu at my age, and have made an informed choice. It's MY body after all. If I get dementia from the mercury, I have enough assets not to be a burden on society (one of the criticisms levelled at me), and anyway, as soon as my second set of molars came through, they were filled with mercury amlgem, which I still have, along with most of the molars!
That said, I am vehemently opposed to injecting children with mercury via vaccines.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 02, 2016 at 05:41 AM
Just listened to the interview with Deer -- it's excellent! So great for this worm (aka "investigative journalist") to come out from under his rock into the daylight. Love how you interspersed his decrepit nonsense with rebuttals from Dr. Wakefield, parents, and other sources.
Looking forward to your next interview with Louis Conte and Mary Holland on the vaccine court.
Posted by: Twyla | June 02, 2016 at 02:33 AM
Justin: Thank you very much for what you are doing with this series, and welcome to this wonderful community. I’ll never forget the birth of my daughter, the most amazing thing I’ve ever witnessed, and so I understand much of what animates you in regard to the care of yours. Dan, also thanks; you’re totally cool. My daughter was born just months after the passage of the NCVIA, so was old enough to escape much of the onslaught of the mercury-laden mayhem in infancy that followed. She shows no signs of injury, but all vaccinations produce injury. It is a testament to the amazing resilience of the human body that many children can largely recover from the assault that pharma, the AAP, and the CDC perpetrates against them. Like Linda 1, Laura Hayes, and others, I am completely opposed to vaccination, considering it to be crude, contaminated, 18th century quackery that has done great harm and little good throughout its history. Part of me would ban them, but the greater part of me refuses to tell other people how to live their lives. This is what I would do: First, immediate implementation of a mandatory surveillance system for vaccine injury, with mandatory training of all physicians and nurses in what to look for and how to report them, with loss of license as penalty for failing to report. Public service announcements on TV and in newspapers concerning vaccine injury, and what the legal options are for parents. Immediate overturning of the NCVIA, restoring full liability to manufacturers for vaccine injury. Mandating that parents be fully informed of all vaccine side effects and disease incidence before physicians and nurses are allowed to vaccinate their children. Disallowing anyone outside a medical setting and anyone without a medical or nursing license from giving vaccinations. Remove the CDC from everything having to do with vaccine safety and implementation, including the now mandatory VAERS. Remove from the FDA approval for vaccines. Set up an independent agency, governed by a board which includes a significant number of parents without ties to industry, government, or academia to take over these functions. These measures will ultimately lead to the demise of vaccination, for it is a thoroughly bankrupt, corrupt, and dangerous enterprise which is destroying our nation one child at a time, and wouldn’t survive the glaring light of truth.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | June 01, 2016 at 10:17 PM
I just looked at the WHO charts again. Even if you don't think the WHO has ever been honest in its reports, anyone who has spent time in villages in the developing world, Doctors Without Borders, missionaries, etc., has seen how many people, especially children, die of infectious diseases. Brazil in 1980 had 4,646 cases of diphtheria, only 12 in 2015; 1,342 cases of polio in 1980, 0 in 2015; 3,098 cases of tetanus in 1980, 9 in 2015. Nigeria had 1,768 cases of diphtheria in 1990, 0 in 2015; 816 cases of polio in 1990, 57 in 2015; 3,015 cases of tetanus in 1980, 0 in 2015. Viet Nam had 1,730 cases of diphtheria in 1980, 15 in 2015; 1,741 cases of polio in 1980, 0 in 2015, 628 cases of tetanus in 1980, 360 in 2015. Sweden, a developed European country which had been vaccinating for about as long as we have, had 4 cases of diphtheria in 1980, 1 in 2015; 0 cases of polio in 1980, 0 now; 4 cases of tetanus in 1980, 0 in 2015; the UK had five cases of diphtheria in 1980, 1 in 2015; 0 polio in 1980, 0 polio 2015; four cases of tetanus in 1980, 0 in 2015.
The reason why it has been many decades since those in the Western world had much diphtheria, tetanus, and polio was because we have been vaccinating for many decades. The reason so many people in the Third World were still getting these horrible diseases as recently as 1980 is because they did not yet have widespread vaccination programs. Now that they do, they no longer get them.
I understand and agree that vaccines cause neurological and autoimmune disease, etc. The question is whether we are going to say that those in the Third World should just go back to the suffering from contagious disease that they had just thirty-five years ago because we think they're better off without vaccines. Would they agree that they're better off without vaccines? I'm not making any argument for vaccines like measles. I'm against it, but would let them make their own choice. But tetanus, polio, and diphtheria are terrible diseases which I would not wish on anyone. Do we have the right to say that they may not prevent a thousand cases of diphtheria because we may know statistically that the vaccine would cause twenty cases of autism and four cases of seizure disorder? Diphtheria still has a high mortality rate even in First World countries with the best of care, I think in Third World countries it would be around half the children who get it.
I think the vaccine question is complex, there is no risk-free choice. Again, is it a good thing to save the lives of a million children in the Third World with vaccines in a world without food, shelter, or jobs for them? Is it a good thing to let them go through the natural diseases without vaccines and let a lot of them die, because it would strengthen the gene pool? Do we have the right to decide or is that a colonialist attitude? Is there any country which would be willing to go back to the disease rates of 1980?
Posted by: cia parker | June 01, 2016 at 09:52 PM
Re "From 1990 through 1998, >157,000 cases and 5000 deaths were reported by the countries of the former Soviet Union, representing >80% of diphtheria cases reported worldwide. Three-quarters of the cases were reported from the Russian Federation. This was the largest diphtheria epidemic since the 1950s, the beginning of the era of widespread diphtheria immunization."
So this worst-case scenario is about 550 deaths per year, in a poor, effectively third-world, country. Compare this with the millions of kids injured every year from vaccines, and the thousands of deaths every year from vaccine-induced-SIDS and other vaccine trauma, and tell me which is better. Further, the mortality rates from ALL infectious diseases were falling dramatically (exponentially) prior to vaccine introduction in first-world countries, and would have fallen to effectively zero without the vaccines -- just as scarlet fever has disappeared without a vaccine.
We don't need vaccines for good public health. What we need is to reduce the toxic load for our kids, starting with not vaccinating them.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 01, 2016 at 08:21 PM
Correction. I said:
"And isn't it 1 in 5 children that now have a seizure disorder?"
It's 1 in 20 under age 5:
"Epilepsy happens more in children than it does in adults. It affects about 1% of the general population - one out of every 100 people. About 5% of children younger than 5 years old have epilepsy. That is about one in every 20 children under 5.
This number does not include children who have seizures caused by a high fever. These kinds of seizures are different from epilepsy. They are called febrile seizures. They either happen only once or only when your child has a fever."
Posted by: Linda1 | June 01, 2016 at 06:28 PM
Any chance you could invite Senator Pan to a debate with someone who supports vaccine choice?
Posted by: Greyone | June 01, 2016 at 06:13 PM
I just found this about the diphtheria epidemic in the URSS:
"From 1990 through 1998, >157,000 cases and 5000 deaths were reported by the countries of the former Soviet Union, representing >80% of diphtheria cases reported worldwide. Three-quarters of the cases were reported from the Russian Federation. This was the largest diphtheria epidemic since the 1950s, the beginning of the era of widespread diphtheria immunization."
They eventually got it under control by vaccinating everyone, and the article recommends the dT or just d.
Posted by: cia parker | June 01, 2016 at 05:57 PM
I know that about half of American children have been severely damaged by vaccines (counting asthma and allergies). I said that for those in the developed world, vaccines are clearly more dangerous than the vaccines (as a group). But I wouldn't prevent a parent from choosing the vaccines: if I prevented him from getting his child the measles vaccine, for instance, even though I'm certain that in the vast majority of cases, measles is a relatively mild, beneficial disease, some children are going to die of measles if they don't get the vaccine. It's not my call to make, I can only tell people what I have learned and what has happened to my family because of vaccines.
The tetanus vaccine is very effective. I think a lot of those on our side feel the need to deny the efficacy of the vaccines to make it easier to tell people they shouldn't get them. The polio vaccine was also clearly effective in stopping the polio epidemics. I know and agree that 90% of people got polio subclinically and got permanent immunity, that another 10% just got flulike symptoms and then recovered. Only a fraction of one percent went on to be crippled by polio. But that was still a lot of people numerically, including my roommate Tina. So I wouldn't try to ban vaccines, again, I'd educate and let parents make the choice.
Diphtheria could easily come back: it came back in the ex-Soviet Union twenty-five years ago and killed a number of people. They think it was because of the poverty, hunger, and cold in the wake of the destruction of an empire, but it still meant a lot of suffering and death. My mother had a neighbor in the '30s, a little boy who died of diphtheria: every doctor in town was called in to try to save him, but he died anyway, choked by a diphtheric membrane across his throat. For the rest of her life she choked up whenever she mentioned him. I don't think the vaccine was 100% effective: no vaccine is, but the WHO chart for Pakistan shows that in 1980 many thousands of children got diphtheria, and probably at least half died of it. And now there's almost no diphtheria in Pakistan. You could say it died out here naturally, and that the vaccine played little or no role, and I'd have to say that we don't have enough information to say. But it was still going strong in the Third World until the vaccines were introduced, as late as 1980, and then it disappeared. I'm sure it's true that it, like all vaccines, has caused a lot of vaccine damage. But again, we don't have enough information. The disaster took off when so many vaccines were introduced. It might well be that if children were only routinely given the DT after two years old, and, if, polio came back here, the polio series, that vaccine damage would be minimal. The polio vaccine seems to be the safest of any of them, although the tetanus vaccine (without mercury) is said to be very safe. The DT is thought to be less reactive than just the T. We would have to see what happened. I would not give the pertussis or measles vaccines, in the developed world, the diseases just aren't very dangerous for any but the youngest newborns, who can be protected in other ways.
I have put up sources in the past supporting the contention that the diphtheria, tetanus, and polio vaccines were effective. I think the next step is to say what you would do if one or more of them came back and a lot of people died or were crippled from them. Would you permit parents to choose the vaccines? If children only got those two or three vaccines, there would be very little vaccine damage, and potentially a lot of lives saved.
In 1940, the incidence of Hib meningitis was very low, but had quadrupled by 1968, probably because of the DPT introduced in 1948: the pertussis component depresses immune function for at least a month after the shot. I really don't know if the D and T do. So it might well be that if children didn't get the DPT, that the incidence of Hib meningitis would be very low. Again, we need more information.
But it's also true that most Third World children are malnourished and die easily from any infection. What would you do about them? It would be better for the herd just to let them get natural measles etc., but worse for the weak, malnourished individuals. Would you just let Nature take its course with them, survival of the fittest? I really don't have a strong opinion on that, I guess I think it's better to do what is better for the herd, but then I think about the poor, sickly children, and take the other side. I think all the paralysis in vaxxed children in India is probably because they were overvaxxed, some of them have gotten the polio vaccine in pulse vaccine campaigns ten or more times by the time they're five.
Wouldn't you have to give every country the best and most accurate information available and let them decide on their vaccination policy (respecting parental choice)? Malnourished children die in great numbers of meningitis, pertussis, rotavirus, measles, mumps, chickenpox, tetanus, and the flu, unlike children in the developed world.
Posted by: cia parker | June 01, 2016 at 05:48 PM
Anti-vaxxers are angry that my wife and I still plan to try to find a safe way to vaccinate our baby girl,
Actually Justin, the correct way to say that is "Concerned parents of vaccine injured injured children, are trying to warn about the risks of making the same horrible mistake with your baby girl".
The fact that your default term for us is anti-vaxxers, gives away your game.
Posted by: Barry | June 01, 2016 at 05:31 PM
Consider that any vaccine can trigger serious food allergies and/or autoimmune illness, and that we have no way to predict who will be affected, and tat these outcomes are always much more serious than the vaccine-targeted illness. Just this is enough justification to ban vaccines.
Then please read vaccinepapers.org from beginning to end. I hope we will agree that all vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant are extremely dangerous. I trust we already agree that all vaccines containing mercury as thimerosal, even in trace amounts, are extremely dangerous.
Then consider multiple vaccines, such as the MMR. The evidence is very clear that these combinations are much more dangerous than single vaccines. Infanrix (6-in-one) kills infants every year all by itself.
Then consider vaccine contamination. There is no third-party testing, and manufacturer testing appears to be extremely limited. Contamination with retrovirus will have unknown long-term consequences. Contamination with mycoplasma could be a major driver for chronic ear infections and autism. Contamination with other toxins can cause catastrophic results.
Then consider age of first vaccination. There is good evidence that this causes infant immune systems become dysregulated, and the vaccines are much more dangerous, if vaccination is done before the age of 3 years. If our goal is to "do no harm", we should ban vaccines for under-3s regardless of anything else.
To think that some vaccines might be helpful is misguided.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 01, 2016 at 04:42 PM
You know I appreciate your many contributions here on AoA...however...two things today regarding one of your recent comments:
One, the WHO is no more trustworthy than the CDC, NIH, FDA, or any other agency that recommends and promotes vaccines, so to quote stats from it is akin to quoting stats from the CDC...or Merck for that matter...i.e. they can't be trusted.
Two, it pains me to think that you would espouse vaccines for those in Third World countries...especially because of what is often reported as their poor nutritional status (can't say the nutritional status of Americans is anything to be admired these days...we might have the calories...in great excess, for that matter...but not the nutrition...and the calories are loaded with pesticides, chemicals, and genetically-modified organisms...each being the antithesis of "nutritional"). Those with "poor nutritional status" are even less likely to handle the barrage of toxins and resulting inflammation from vaccinations than those whose nutritional status supports and equips the success of their immune and other bodily systems.
However, even if those in Third World countries had good nutritional status, it would still pain me to think you would espouse vaccines for them. Vaccines are NOT the way to protect people from diseases they might encounter, or the way to help to make their health robust. There is NO proof that vaccines do either, and as a matter of fact, there are now mountains of proof that they do the opposite.
Invading, tainting, poisoning, altering, and destroying one's immune, nervous, cognitive, and GI systems via the unnatural mechanism of vaccination is wrong on every level.
If national and international entities, like the CDC and WHO, and self-proclaimed "charitable" (choking as I write) organizations, such as The Gates Foundation, had any intention of "helping" the "less fortunate", they would focus ALL their energies on providing clean water (which involves the digging of wells), proper sanitation, nutrient-dense, organic foods, and natural antibiotics (e.g. oregano oil) to the "less fortunate". Additionally, they would invest in helping them to start organic and sustainable farming and ranching operations so they would be able to produce that which they need to survive. But instead, they perpetuate and exacerbate their "less fortunate" status by poisoning and exploiting them in endless ways.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | June 01, 2016 at 04:30 PM
In the interview Brian Deer acknowledges that some children who became autistic might not have if they hadn't gotten a particular vaccine. But on the other hand, Deer says that parents are lying, greedy and stupid, and the bulk of parents are just jumping on the bandwagon (presumably because they are lying, greedy, stupid in some combination). Deer just knows that the bulk of these parents are wrong. How can he know?
It's interesting that Deer brings up slipperiness. Dr. David Lewis's Science for Sale has a great illustration of that trait in Deer, to wit: Synagro, a manufacturer of sewage sludge fertilizer, published false allegations against Dr. Lewis which it was forced to retract. When Dr. Lewis incurred Deer's ire, Deer republished the withdrawn allegations on his website, which drew the attention of Dr. Lewis's attorney. In response to that attorney, Deer wrote: "....However, as I say, the links are dead. I have records showing that they were dead a long time ago, if not always. If you look at the source code carefully, you will see that the 'f' has been omitted from 'pdf'. Thus, the links wouldn't have worked."
What Deer didn't apparently know was that Dr. Lewis's attorney had been archiving Deer's website for some time and could prove that the "f" had been removed shortly before Deer sent that email. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about Brian Deer?
(The "carefully" is a nice cervine touch.)
Posted by: Carol | June 01, 2016 at 04:23 PM
I forgot to mention that Crohn's Disease, which was (according to Dr. Toni Bark) formerly seen only in adult Ashenazi Jews, is now commonly seen in American children. And isn't it 1 in 5 children that now have a seizure disorder? One in 6 with neurological problems?
I believe that the vaccine program has been a dismal failure that needs to go the way of bloodletting.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 01, 2016 at 04:21 PM
@ Dan, Ronald and Justin
Dan posted to Ronald's previous comment:
"must you be so querulous"
Yes! There is a substantial difference between an interview series whose main objective is to understand vaccine safety better (Justin's purported objective), and an interview series whose main objective is to hear from different people associated with the vaccine-autism linkage controversy. The latter appears to be Justin's de facto objective. If he were to state that up front, than I have no issues with the people he is interviewing.
Apparently .. Ronald admits to being "querulous".. because he believes there is a substantial difference between a "series of interviews" .. whose main objective .. (JUSTIN'S) .. is to "understand vaccine safety issues better" ... and .. "an interview series .. (RONALD'S supposed "de facto objective) .. whose main objective is to "hear from different people associated with the vaccine-autism linkage controversy".
With all due respect Ronald .. maybe I am misconstruing your comments .. are YOU really suggesting
someone .. (JUSTIN) .. admittedly interested in "understanding vaccine safety" .. should limit his "investigation" .. only to those who have NO "differing opinions" on the link between vaccines and autism?
Ronald .. my friend .. we should WELCOME any opportunity to "hear" the opinions of the "pro-vaxxers" .. because .. THEIR opinions defy both .. science and common sense.
In any event .. Justin responded:
"Honestly what i would love to hear personally, and I'd be happy to mediate, would be a conversation between someone on the anti-vax/pro-safe fax side (like a James Lyons-Weiler) and someone on the pro-vax side (like a Matt Carey) who understand or at least can speak on the science of it all better than I or Brian Deer can... but when I proposed to Matt on twitter he didn't seem interested in that (which seems to say something in itself). But I would volunteer to try to help conduct that conversation, if there were any takers."
Justin .. my friend .. you are going to find what we at AoA have learned decades ago .. NO ONE .. your example of Matt Carey being your own introduction to the "inexplicable phenomenon" where the PRO-VAX side absolutely REFUSES to participate in "speaking to the (vaccine) science of it all?
You will NEVER have a "pro-vax expert" agree to participate .. in ANY "conversation" .. whereby YOU can "mediate" the concerns of someone from the "anti-vax safety" side .. who is present .. with the opportunity to immediately respond to the well-rehearsed .. carefully constructed .. "pro vaccine talking points". NEVER.
Why THEIR reluctance .. because the "science of it all" .. cannot stand scrutiny by ANYONE who has taken the time and made the effort to learn what a SHAM it all is.
Welcome to AoA.
Posted by: bob moffit | June 01, 2016 at 04:13 PM
Appreciate your more detailed explanation of your choices. Understanding vaccine safety better is still a laudable goal. Your idea on having two scientists with different perspectives debate each other is a good one.
To give you some idea of how deficient are the vaccine safety studies, I have appended the essence of a previous post on the Bexsero vaccine. Keep in mind who performs these 'tests'; they reflect the 'most favorable' results.
PREVIOUS POST ON THE BEXSERO VACCINE
There are typically five phases of testing/trials
The pre-clinical phase tests the vaccine on animals; e.g., mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, perhaps non-human primates. Phase I involves testing in a small group of usually healthy persons for the very first time. Phase II involves testing in a larger group, with the option of including non-healthy people. Phase III involves an even larger group, with more effort expended (in theory) on effectiveness and possible undesirable effects. Phase IV involves post-licensing trials on thousands of people to: define its safety, effectiveness, long-term undesirable effects, test the vaccine in certain high risk sectors of the population like children, the elderly, people with liver and kidney diseases, and find new uses (indications) of the vaccine.
In the pre-clinical case of Bexsero, for example, it was tested on rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and monkeys
The clinical trials involved increasing numbers of human participants.
Some salient statements from the above Bexsero report:
"THERE WERE NO STUDIES ON GENOTOXICITY AND CARCINOGENICITY, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH APPLICABLE GUIDELINES"
"The primary endpoint of studies contained within this dossier is to determine the proportion of subjects with hSBA titers equal to or above the threshold of 1:4 against each of three reference meningococcal serogroup B strains."
"Although the immune responses measured by SBA are expected to be protective, NO EFFICACY DATA ARE AVAILABLE. This does not preclude the granting of the marketing authorisation based on immunogenicity data."
I would recommend reading the above report to ascertain what other safety measures were not examined. Some of the missing safety measures are stated; are there others that are not stated? In addition, there are no long-term safety studies listed in the report or in any of the other vaccine clinical trial studies I have examined. In my eBook (https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/53714), I identified some papers showing medium- moderately long-term impacts from vaccines. Since that time, in parallel with my posting of some comments on AoA, I have found studies that address the potentially protective nature of childhood infectious diseases from more serious chronic diseases later in life, and that raise the concern that vaccines could remove this protection.
The latency period for lung cancer from smoking is on the order of two-three decades. The latency period for certain cancers from EMF radiation is from one to two decades. I have seen reports of other cancer latencies up to five decades. There are chronic diseases that tend to strike in the 60s and 70s, like Alzheimer's and dementia. To what extent have vaccines contributed to these diseases? Insufficient time has passed to identify 1) serious diseases resulting from most vaccines (assuming serious tracking is being done for these vaccine-disease relationships) and 2) the latency periods associated with these vaccine-disease combinations.
Long-term safety tests in rodents and small animals may not extrapolate to humans. Such tests would have to be done on humans for maximum credibility, or possibly on primates most related to human beings, such as chimpanzees. At a minimum, such tests would involve five or more decades. Given the usual pressure for accelerating the approval of vaccines, the above time-scales for long-term safety tests are completely incongruous with approval times.
Even with the shorter-term tests, such as contained in the above report, how credible are the data? Have they been duplicated and triplicated by independent sources? Have all the adverse effects been tracked and reported?
One final point. What are the demographics/characteristics of people who volunteer their children for these clinical trials? Are they representative of our society? When I posted comments about unethical drug trials on AoA, including trials that had been off-shored, the participants tended to be from the most vulnerable sectors of society: the poor, the institutionalized, etc. Many times, they did not provide 'informed consent' before participating in the trials. Is this true for the multi-phase vaccine trials? I can understand a parent with a potentially terminally ill child volunteering for a drug that has not completed the full testing protocol; the options are not great in either case. Why would a parent with a healthy child volunteer to participate in a trial of a vaccine to potentially prevent a historically mild childhood infectious disease, when the adverse effects of that vaccine are completely unknown? What are the incentives here?
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 01, 2016 at 04:10 PM
First let me say that the health of our nation has never been worse Our mortality and morbidity and fetal mortality are very high and it is largely because of vaccination. More than 50% of our children have at least one horrible chronic condition requiring medication. Second, most adults are not immune to diphtheria and tetanus. We don't know if diphtheria would come back or if it died out naturally. Most of our population are no longer farmers working around horses, so I doubt that tetanus is as much of a concern as it once was. But even so, Dr. Humphries explains that the vaccine can't protect against tetanus anyway. She explains the mechanism of infection and says that it is impossible for the vaccine to prevent it (she also explains how to treat it if it happens and she doesn't minimize how terrible tetanus is). Polio is another big question. There are many more cases of autism and other horrible chronic diseases today, including respiratory diseases and paralysis with other names, than there ever were of polio. Polio at one time was a mild infection that most didn't have a problem with. The polio vaccine is known to have infected the US population with at least one carcinogenic simian virus. Do we have any reason to believe that the vaccine is free of infectious or other contaminants now? I think not. We have tiny infants on psych drugs for crying out loud. We have a brand spanking new childhood cancer industry opening it's doors on every street corner nationwide (right next door to the ubiquitous infertility clinics that weren't there 40 years ago). Our schools now have to have a supply of Epi-pens for the first time in our history.
Hib was a new vaccine in the 1990s and I can't remember exactly what it empowered, but the use of that vaccine caused other organisms to become more virulent. Same with pneumococcal. Gardasil is a disgusting scam that has killed and maimed. What else? Oh, how could I forget measles, mumps and rubella. No good reason for a mumps vaccine if children get the mumps in childhood. Vaccine doesn't work anyway. As you well know, Merck is currently in court re that. Vaccine strain of measles is found in the gut of sick, autistic children. Not acceptable. Pregnant women vaccinated in childhood cannot protect their infants that are too young to be vaccinated. We don't know how long the measles vaccine lasts, if it provides any protection to recipients at all. That's just the beginning. Rubella is so mild that there is no reason to inject anyone with it and risk arthritis and the other potential side effects. If a young girl doesn't have it by child bearing age, then maybe she can deliberately be given a mild case without being injected, and quarantined (at home) for the time that she would be infectious. Pertussis vaccine, whether the old DPT or the newer iterations, is deadly. Period. And it causes a carrier state. Cocooning my *ss. And, I know you know that pertussis vaccine causes asthma. And African studies show a significantly higher mortality rate among girls who received the DPT than those who didn't. Does that apply to our population? Who knows! Our scientists are busy doing gazing studies. The safety of vaccines is not to be questioned.
If we stopped vaccination altogether, there would be kinks to be worked out, but the bottom line, for me, is the Golden Rule:
If I see my neighbor walking into the oven thinking they're going to take a shower, do I let them? If they claim to *know* it's an oven, they have a *right* to go in?
Posted by: Linda1 | June 01, 2016 at 03:25 PM
Have you seen this counterpoint of Dr. Boyd Haley vs. Dr. Profitt?
Dr. P. has always notoriously refused to debate anyone from our side, and yes, it does make you wonder.
Posted by: cia parker | June 01, 2016 at 03:25 PM
It just struck me that I don't know why I said the pneumococcal meningitis was rare. It was not, and it could be very dangerous and even kill a lot of babies and small children. It's meningococcal meningitis that has always been rare. I think, though, that breastfeeding prevents all kinds of meningitis the mother was ever exposed to, and for many years after weaning, vitamin C treats it, and all the meningitis germs are common in the environment and in everyone's respiratory tract, without ever causing problems. I wouldn't let my child take any of the meningitis vaccines, and the vaccines are very dangerous, but I wouldn't prevent parents who chose them from getting them for their children.
While all vaccines can disable and kill, I think one problem is that most of us haven't seen the ravages of some of the diseases. I know a lot of people get around that problem by denying that any vaccine has ever prevented any disease in anyone. I don't think that is true. If you look at the WHO figures in the link I put up this morning, it's clear that vaccines have prevented millions of cases of often very lethal diseases in the Third World. Well-nourished people in the First World with access to modern hospitals if the need arises are in a different category. For us the vaccines are clearly more dangerous than the diseases, but if the more dangerous diseases came back, I think we'd have to reconsider our position, at least regarding vaccination for the most dangerous ones. Of course I'd leave it up to the parents' choice, but surely no one would want to see tens of thousands of children a year die from diphtheria when there was a vaccine which would have prevented these deaths, and many parents who would have chosen it. I think there's a danger of making anti-vaccinism into a religion as well as the pro-vaccine religion.
Posted by: cia parker | June 01, 2016 at 03:17 PM
Congratulations on your baby girl! And thank you for your reporting although, I had to sanitize my computer speakers after Brian Deer's voice came through them. I'll send you the bill. Kidding of course, there were actually somethings in this piece that I had heard for the first time, so thanks again.
No one has mentioned this yet so I just wanted to get it in, you may want to look in to MTHFR screening. I'm certainly no expert and no doubt the brilliant people here could point you in a better direction than I, but it may be something you and Mrs Kanew find useful.
Posted by: annie | June 01, 2016 at 02:59 PM
@ Twyla .. like you .. I wholeheartedly agree that Justin deserves our great appreciation for "taking on this controversial topic and enduring the slings and arrows from both sides". Amen to that.
With great respect .. I would mildly disagree with your comment that Justin "does not have an iron in the fire" .. only because .. as I understand it .. Justin has just become a father for the first time .. and .. therefore .. JUSTIN HAS AN IRON IN THE FIRE .. HIS MOST PRECIOUS CHILD.
I DO AGREE with the rest of that particular comment .. where you so accurately stated a particular scenario that causes so much of my own ANGER .. which is .. when others .. such as .. Foxnews Greg Gutfeld and Dina Perino .. to name just TWO of many, many more .. who have NO IRON IN THIS PARTICULAR (VACCINE) FIRE .. (THEIR OWN CHILDREN NOW FULLY GROWN OR NOT YET HAVING GRANDCHILDREN) .. RANTING ABOUT THE "STUPIDITY" OF TODAY'S PARENTS WHO ARE RELUCTANT TO SUBMIT THEIR PRECIOUS CHILDREN TO THE GAUNTLET OF TODAY'S APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED ...INSANE ANY COMMON SENSE STANDARDS .. VACCINE SCHEDULE.
Predictably .. these two .. and .. legions of despicable "pundits" just like them ... having "no skin in the game themselves" .. routinely .. arrogantly .. smear TODAY'S parents .. (JUSTIN) .. with the broad brush of being "anti-science" .. comparing them to holocaust or global warming "deniers" .. self-righteously wrapping themselves in the specious claim a "consensus of science" has decided .. for all time .. vaccines are "safe and effective".
I applaud ANYONE .. (Justin I am hoping you continue to read our comments) .. willing to STAND AND DELIVER .. against the predictable SLINGS AND ARROWS that are sure to follow ANYONE WHO DARES QUESTION THE SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VACCINES.
Posted by: bob moffit | June 01, 2016 at 02:47 PM
Hear, hear to everything Linda1 has said so far on this thread!
I have written, both here in the comments section on AoA a while back, and to my email group, that at this point in time, knowing what is known, I consider it to be overt child abuse to vaccinate a child, and medical assault to vaccinate anyone of any age. As such, it is my opinion that stringent criminal penalties should apply to all who manufacture, approve, recommend, mandate, push, sell, and administer vaccines.
It is time to speak the full, unadulterated truth...not half-truths and lies of omission which perpetuate and exacerbate the propaganda.
NOT ONE MORE PERSON SHOULD BE VACCINATED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. No one should be injected with the known ingredients in vaccines, and goodness only knows what the unknown ingredients are. No one should have their immune system permanently violated, tainted, and altered in such unnatural, detrimental ways.
I argue for banning vaccine mandates as the bare minimum starting point, but I have also publicly stated that I support banning vaccines...today...period. They are 100% unproven, known to be dangerous and potentially fatal, force one to forfeit the many benefits of contracting diseases naturally, and are a barbaric practice deceitfully sold as protecting and inducing health, both of the individual and of the community. As we are seeing, vaccines have the exact opposite effect, and therefore, it is flat-out wrong for anyone to be vaccinated at this point in time.
Justin, as one who has run an ABA program for over 20 years now for our most severely vaccine-injured child, I wanted to tell you that every tutor/consultant who has worked for me (the ones with whom I've remained in contact) who has gone on to vaccinate their child, despite all that I have shared with them, with even just one vaccine, has deeply regretted it and has their own horror story to tell...including failure to thrive, near death (2 of them), Tourette's, ASD, extremely premature puberty, and more. Needless to say, they have not continued to vaccinate after that...but oh how I wish that they, and THEIR CHILD, didn't have to learn the hard, suffering kind of way...and ways that will now continue to manifest over the course of their child's entire lifetime, because there is no way to stop and undo the series of cataclysmic events that has been unleashed via vaccination.
Vaccinate your precious daughter, and you, too, will join the ranks of the parents of the vaccine injured- vaccine killed. No one escapes vaccine harm...no one. I urge you not to sacrifice your daughter to such senselessness, Justin.
Book recommendation for you: "What About Immunizations? Exposing the Vaccine Philosophy" by Cynthia Cournoyer.
A few of my articles for you and your wife to read:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/05/laura-hayes-open-letter-to-ca-legislators-and-governor-jerry-brown-re-sb277.html#more (Who should be injected with vaccines once their ingredients are examined?)
"Disney, Measles, and the Fantasyland of Vaccine Perfection" by Laura Hayes
"I Have Decided to Vaccinate My Child Because..." by Laura Hayes (Don't be deceived by the title! Written just before the CDC Whistleblower's admissions, so those are not included.)
"The Baby Food is Organic...the Shots are Not" by Laura Hayes
Posted by: Laura Hayes | June 01, 2016 at 02:24 PM
i think "crooked" is taken as a nickname.
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | June 01, 2016 at 02:15 PM
We need more information, but until we have it, vaccines should be a choice. I believe that vitamin C for everything, A for measles, D for flu, would prevent most complications, but I haven't seen a large scale study and so am not sure. I believe that homeopathic prophylaxis would offer safe prevention of the dangerous diseases, and the studies I've seen are persuasive and should be seen by all parents, but I'm not positive yet that that's the answer.
I don't think it would matter if the childhood diseases just came back, and they would prove beneficial to most. And eliminate vaccine damage from them. I'd try to make sure all parents knew how to prevent them in very young or immunocompromised children, and how to treat them with vitamins, herbs, and homeopathy, certainly antibiotics when appropriate and the appropriate medications for things like asthma and diabetes. And know the symptoms which would demand immediate allopathic care. But I think that if everyone stopped vaccinating, that polio, diphtheria, tetanus, and rubella would come back. I'd need more information before saying that Hib, pneumococcal, and meningococcal meningitis would come back, and the last two have always been rare. And when that happened, most people would want vaccine protection for their children from them, and it would be wrong to deny it to them.
Posted by: cia parker | June 01, 2016 at 02:08 PM
Thanks for all the feedback as always... Brian has since called me a "crook" on twitter, for whatever that's worth.
Ronald, i must admit my choices of interviews weren't entirely carefully thought through. To explain how they came about- it started with wanting to talk to Del (and Doctor Wakefield) after seeing the movie, then to Brian Deer as a counterpoint... Next (coming soon) will be a conversation with Mary Holland and Lou Conte to hear about the vaccine court and from parents of vac-injured kids, and finally one with Dr. Seneff because I hadn't talked to a scientist.
I'm not claiming that's a perfect list. I would gladly talk to more people- i just worry 4 is already a lot for the audience. Honestly what i would love to hear personally, and I'd be happy to mediate, would be a conversation between someone on the anti-vax/pro-safe fax side (like a James Lyons-Weiler) and someone on the pro-vax side (like a Matt Carey) who understand or at least can speak on the science of it all better than I or Brian Deer can... but when I proposed to Matt on twitter he didn't seem interested in that (which seems to say something in itself). But I would volunteer to try to help conduct that conversation, if there were any takers.
And of course I'm happy in general to talk to any doctors/scientists at any point, even if it doesn't turn into a fully produced episode (these things take quite a bit of time).
In any event, thank you all for listening and for the links.
Posted by: justin kanew | June 01, 2016 at 02:05 PM
Thank you! Another effective and educational compilation.
"Something like 3,000 neurological disorders manifest in that period of life..." So I guess we were just blaming infections (that we now do our best to prevent with "safer" infection-like exposures, completely disregard the "tiny" amounts of immune and neurological pollutants that also come along to artificially rev up an immune response or because we can't get them out...they can't possibly do a similar type of harm) and probably blows to the head, etc, for a natural developmental process that we're now just beginning to notice just happens anyway?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | June 01, 2016 at 01:30 PM
"must you be so querulous"
Yes! There is a substantial difference between an interview series whose main objective is to understand vaccine safety better (Justin's purported objective), and an interview series whose main objective is to hear from different people associated with the vaccine-autism linkage controversy. The latter appears to be Justin's de facto objective. If he were to state that up front, than I have no issues with the people he is interviewing.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 01, 2016 at 12:40 PM
@Linda1 -- I completely agree: vaccines are so harmful that they should be illegal. If I was a doctor, I could not and would not ever give a vaccine -- it would be a violation of my medical oath to "first do no harm".
We need to refocus our medical system on effective treatments for illness, so that the vaccine-targeted diseases are not scary. For people who have done the research and know to use Vitamin A/D/C and liposomal Vitamin C, none of these diseases are a concern right now.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | June 01, 2016 at 12:31 PM
ronald, must you be so querulous? give the guy a break. brian deer is a perfectly good place to start if you want to understand the world of the vaccine safety debate. deer demolished wakefield, which demolished the last vestiges of mainstream resistance to vaccine zealotry. yet deer is a fraud and he falls apart under examination. vaccine safety belongs under the cheap suit theory of investigative journalism -- pull on any thread and the whole thing unravels. let a hundred flowers bloom, to quote chairman mao. -- dan
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | June 01, 2016 at 12:26 PM
You still haven't addressed the main discrepancy between your supposed objectives for this interview series, and the capabilities of the people selected for interview. How does Brain Deer, as well as the lawyers, reporters, etc, fit in to a discussion on vaccine safety? Where are the immunologists, neurologists, pediatricians, epidemiologists, etc, who could contribute something useful to addressing the supposed objectives of your interview series?
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | June 01, 2016 at 12:18 PM
If it is any comfort, I never thought you were a plant. Figured you were like me , many years ago when I first started looking into vaccines, sure that the definitive science that showed vaccines were safe was out there; that I could read a few studies and be home in time for tea. Didn't work out like that .
So; a good place to start,
What the federal government and CDC recognize as vaccine injuries.
So if someone tells you, vaccines are safe and "can't" cause brain injury, death etc, you know they have either done zero research, or they are lying to you, neither of which in my opinion makes them very credible.
Interesting to see the limits on injuries the government is willing to recognize as a table injury; for some injuries, if they occur on day 5 post vaccine, they count; day 4 and you are out of luck...
I also wonder how many vaccine injuries get missed; how many people, for example, know that arthritis can be a side effect of the MMR?
Here is a case of a child who survived all her vaccines up until the second MMR. Her parents successfully introduced a law in New Jersey allowing blood draw proof of immunity as an alternative to a second MMR shot.
Don't know whether you prefer case histories, peer reviewed studies, or both?
Have a new baby girl coming into our family soon. Mom is pro vaccine. Just hoping the baby will be fine. At least, statistically, girls are less likely to get autism.
Posted by: Hera | June 01, 2016 at 12:17 PM
linda -- very glad to have your comments and please don't take my ruminations as criticism. -- dan
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | June 01, 2016 at 12:16 PM
I don't know if this was already suggested to you, but I want you to get a copy of the book, _The Virus and the Vaccine_. https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Vaccine-Contaminated-Cancers-Government/dp/0312342721/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=
By two journalists, it is the story of SV40 in the polio vaccine. In case you heard of this, it wasn't just in the 1950s-60s either. The book tells how Lederle laboratories produced potentially contaminated oral polio vaccines into the 1990s. The massive corruption that you are seeing with the MMR didn't start in the past ten years. There is a long sordid history. BTW, the CDC had a page about SV40, admitting to its past presence in polio vaccines, but saying that there was no evidence that the contaminant caused harm. I saw the page when it was up. Sometime later, it disappeared, although there are folks who saved it.
This book is required reading for you, ok?
There will be a test!
(kidding, but please get the book)
There are many good books that you could and should read, but I had to tell you about this one.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 01, 2016 at 12:08 PM
Just to be precise Wakefield's name appears as the first name and Walker-Smith's as the last - the first, second and last names in a study are by convention the important ones (Simon Murch, who also went on trial at the GMC, was second). Wakefield counts as the lead author and Walker-Smith as senior author (correspondence was to Wakefield). However, Walker-Smith could be said to have even greater responsibility for the data since he took the patient histories (bar one). While High Court justice Mitting was not bending over backwards to be helpful to Wakefield when he heard Walker-Smith's appeal he made nonsense of the core claims of the GMC and Brian Deer that the paper was not "an early report" based on reviewing data for patients seen and treated on the basis of clinical need as stated, and instead based on a protocol for a study commissioned by the Legal Aid Board. This was either the clumsiest misunderstanding or a fabrication.
Posted by: John Stone | June 01, 2016 at 11:50 AM
I apologize if I came across as criticizing AOA's position. This is just where I am at this point. I usually aim for what is right rather than what may be possible. That's just me. I am not good at comprising on some things. I also have little patience for labeling GMOs and the other too numerous to count toxins in the food supply. The policy is that if it is on the label, it is a person's right to choose. What good is a label to a person who is illiterate? Or a person with an IQ of 80? For that matter, in order to safely navigate a supermarket in 2016, one could use a PhD degree in nutrition. I also have no patience for black boxes on killer pharmaceuticals, as though the black box makes the fact that the drug is extremely dangerous, ok. What good is the black box to the patient lying in a hospital bed having the drug delivered in a little paper cup or syringe (sans label and black box) that was ordered by a doctor without the patient's input? And even when people do see the black box, are they equipped to understand what it means and to evaluate their options?
We are a society that allows people to harm themselves for corporate (and government) good. Marijuana? Not allowed, even to treat illness in some places, even though in some cases it is proven safer and more effective than pharmaceutical alternatives. But, once pot is set up as profitable to the state, then and only then is it added to the list of *choices* that people can make.
Vaccines, in my mind, should not be a choice. They have been proven to be dangerous and destructive beyond what can be considered acceptable. I understand if you, as a journalist, do not agree or join my perspective. It's just where I am. I have no tolerance for the great lie anymore.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 01, 2016 at 11:48 AM
Thank you again, Justin, for taking on this controversial topic and enduring the slings and arrows from both sides!
Please be aware that in addition to "pro-vaccine" and "anti-vaccine" there are those in the middle who believe that vaccines can play a role in disease prevention but that our current program is corrupted and way out of balance, and that consumers/parents must have the right to make choices, and that we can't just keep piling on more and more vaccines with no understanding of unintended consequences. It is not good science nor good medicine to ignore vaccine injures, dismiss them as coincidence, and not understand injury causation and treatment. It is not good science nor good medicine to only look at communicable disease rates and not at increasing rates of serious chronic immune and nervous system disorders - as Mark Blaxill and Barbara Loe Fisher wrote many years ago here: http://www.ageofautism.com/mark-blaxills-atlanta-man.html
I haven't listened to the Deer interview yet but look forward to it. It is wonderful that someone who does not have in iron in the fire is looking into and writing about these issues. So often it is only the parents of vaccine injured children who are aware and skeptical, and almost everyone else is complacently blinded by the constant hum of, "Vaccines proven safe and effective, diseases dangerous, Science has spoken, obey the Experts."
Posted by: Twyla | June 01, 2016 at 11:48 AM
David Burd, Justin wrote ""Frankly, I would PREFER for that truth to be that vaccines are safe, AND never cause autism…" He did not site, ""Frankly, I would PREFER for that truth to be that vaccines are safe, i.e. never cause autism…"
The word "and" implies that safety issues in addition to autism are being discussed.
Posted by: Twyla | June 01, 2016 at 11:35 AM
Justin--Thanks for your efforts here. You are clearly a seasoned professional ready for this battlefield. Since you're open to links, here are a few I would suggest.
1. This one is to the original court decision in the matter of Professor John Walker-Smith v General Medical Council of Great Britain. Walker-Smith was the lead author of the now-villified "Wakefield Study," which should correctly be called the "Walker-Smith Study" since he was the lead author. Walker-Smith was (and still is, to my knowledge) the world's leading expert on pediatric gastroenterology. He had the personal resources to appeal the GMC's witch hunt. Walker-Smith not only won his case; the judge issued a stinging rebuke to the entire proceedings of the GMC, in effect exonerating Walker-Smith et alia, including Wakefield.
High Court Decision: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html
AOA's reportage: http://bit.ly/1IxUTgZ
2. This one is to a recent (today) article about Andy Wakefield's take on "herd immunity." He makes a critical distinction between "natural herd immunity," which humans enjoyed before mass vacccination programs, and "vaccine herd immunity" and its dangerous effects.
Here it is: http://healthimpactnews.com/2016/herd-immunity-examined-natural-immunity-in-the-pre-vaccine-era-versus-modern-vaccine-immunity/
Finally, please ask for and search for *any* data on the long-term effects of today's vaccination schedule or any vaccination, for that matter. Justin, there aren't any. I hope you and your wife take that into consideration before injecting your child with these crude, filthy medicines that are the product of a rapacious, callous industry. Better yet, ask Andy Wakefield or Del Bigtree how or if they would vaccinate their two-year-old.
Posted by: David | June 01, 2016 at 11:23 AM
Justin; I majored in microbiology.
Microbiology books told me that all vaccines had the potential for harm, but my professors - especially the ones that had one foot over in the nursing department - said differently.
I worshipped my professors -- My sin.
So I understand, I really do. Then we had that scary diphtheria that killed teenagers and that scary polio every summer -- And when your wife if carrying a child inside her womb you worry about that parasite that cats carry - and you worry about is her immune system good enough not to contract rubella and is it good enough to give immunity to her new born for a few months so it won't get whooping cough.
Vaccines seems great.
Then as time goes on - many, numerous things happen and they are not great but horrible.
It is hard. But I tell you one thing- the boosters and giving too many vaccines equal to - the worse out comes of the disease.
So we turn to statistics - how often does the worse out comes come along from a disease - vs - how often does the worse out come or even minor outcomes come along because of vaccines. ( I mentioned minor cause asthma and an auto immune diseases is in there too- and are minor serious)
I want grandchildren until I think of the vaccine stuff and I say - Oh well -
I am sorry you are in this position.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 01, 2016 at 11:14 AM
I think that the question of vaccines is a hard one when it comes to malnourished Third World countries. I found this site the other day, and it's interesting. It has the disease incidence for most countries in the world down through the years, for instance, Pakistan had 14,000 diphtheria cases in 1980, and I'm sure most of them were fatal, but now has almost zero.
Peter Aaby did a study in Africa which found that, although the measles vaccine DID save a lot of lives, that those children who got natural measles and recovered (the vast majority, even there) had only a ONE-FIFTH of the deaths in subsequent years from all causes as those who had either gotten the measles vaccine or had not gotten natural measles. So weak children benefitted from the measles vaccine (although there are still dozens of other diseases they continued to be at risk from), as they likely would have died had they gotten measles, while stronger children benefitted a lot more by having gotten natural measles, which improved the functioning of their immune system in non-specific ways. Which just goes to show what a complex and difficult issue it is.
I think many of the vaccines really do save a lot of lives in developing countries, while I'm also sure that a lot of the children there, as here, are vaccine-damaged. I would rather see homeopathic nosodes used widely in the Third World: cheap, easy to store and administer, and, many studies have shown, very effective. I was surprised when I read The Solution that different nosodes had been administered by the governments of Cuba and Argentina, among others, to hundreds of thousands of children, and were very successful. Who knew? I'm sure it's another aspect of the Pharma hold on the news media that this has not been widely broadcast.
I accept that malnutrition and impure water are huge issues contributing to disease in the Third World, mosquitoes, too. But unless these countries have a different plan to deal with disease outbreaks which kill tens of thousands of children, the way they did in Europe and the US in the nineteenth century, I don't think they can give up vaccines. And that is said by a true vaccine hater.
Posted by: cia parker | June 01, 2016 at 11:11 AM
Dorit Reiss; Said she was pro-vaccine safety -- Don't she know that will ruin her career as a pharma troll! LOL!
Posted by: Benedetta | June 01, 2016 at 11:04 AM
I thought that since your daughter was two months old, that you had probably already given her the recommended vaccines, and that she had had hep-B, DTaP, Hib, polio, Prevnar, and rotavirus. If you have, then I'm glad she's OK, but please remember that, while it's always dangerous to give vaccines, even when the kids are older, that it's especially dangerous for infants, and that many infants have horrible reactions or even die after having weathered the two-month vaccines all right. If you check out VAERS reports, there are many infants who have been disabled or died after the four, six, twelve, or eighteen month old shots. If you're keeping her at home and being careful of who you expose her to, and if she's breast fed, then she's already getting the best and safest disease protection possible. And please look at the book The Solution, by Kate Birch and Cilla Whatcott, on homeopathic nosodes to prevent all the diseases on the vaccine schedule. All are available, but the authors only recommend eight of them. It's a safe choice, unlike vaccines.
Posted by: cia parker | June 01, 2016 at 10:54 AM
Anti-vaxxer is, of course, a label which is used not only against people who are completely against vaccination, but people who question any part of it - ironically, on the basis his own cautious steps Justin has now become an "anti-vaxxer" (so, welcome Justin). Part of the vaccine lobby game is to demand that you accept everything and on time or you are against them, and this of course is purely their fault: they have made it totalitarian. A further instrument is the multi-vaccination - which was a key reason for the attack on Wakefield back in 1998 - because the option of picking and choosing and spacing was just not what they wanted. Involved is not only the ptb ensuring compliance but total intellectual subordination of the citizen to whatever they decide. And in practical terms there is also now a severe limits to selection even where they have not made it compulsory - another thing which may also be frustrating Justin as he seeks to find a moderate course.
Incidentally, I was amused/outraged to read Dorit Reiss purporting to be pro-vaccine safety the other day. If that was the case she would be listening respectfully to parents who report adverse consequences rather than automatically trashing them - what a joke!
Posted by: John Stone | June 01, 2016 at 10:32 AM
Linda1 -- outlawing vaccines is unlikely to happen. publicizing their dangers, the greed and corruption behind the current CDC schedule, and the need for parental choice based on a much more open flow of information, are more immediate and, i hope, attainable goals. an advocacy journalism outfit like AOA is much better positioned to push for that rather than outlawing vaccines as our mission, although, again, it's a position I respect and understand. Reading about that young man in Australia is enough to make me never want to take a risk on a vaccination myself or with anyone I am responsible for. So I'm with you, i just don't think a campaign to outlaw vaccines is the only way to go here. at the moment we seem to be gaining on the vaccine injury deniers (when looked at from the proverbial 30,000 foot level) and we are all looking for that weak spot that will blow the whole thing wide open. -- dan
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | June 01, 2016 at 10:17 AM
The more I learn, the more I think that vaccination is a form of extreme abuse that should be outlawed. Extreme sounding viewpoint, I know. But if we know that SIDS started with the DPT, and if we know that genetic expression is up and down regulated by vaccination, and if we know that in Africa, mortality is higher among baby girls vaccinated with DPT, just a few of many, many examples of the harm done, why should we as a society allow any child to take that potentially fatal bullet, I mean, syringe? Should it be a parent's choice to harm their child? Is it really choice when parents who don't know what you or I know or who are adequately fooled or confused by the medical industrial complex *choose* to vaccinate? I don't think so. If it's dangerous, it's dangerous and shouldn't be done.
I understand being tolerant, but I can no longer keep quiet about the obvious, that so many are not able to see through the smoke and mirrors. Vaccines do much, much, much more harm than good.
Posted by: Linda1 | June 01, 2016 at 09:55 AM
@Justin Kanew "Anti-vaxxers are angry that my wife and I still plan to try to find a safe way to vaccinate our baby girl."
Anti-vaxxers is the name given by our enemies to ANYONE who dares to question vaccine safety and efficacy. We are also 'cranks' 'quacks' 'flatearthers' and 'loonies'.
It saddens me when persons on this site criticise and denigrate those of us who are prepared to vaccinate our children selectively, having researched the pros and cons of individual vaccines. Congratulations on your baby girl Mr Kanew. You and your partner are acting very responsibly by deliberating over which vaccinations to give her. I would most certainly ensure your daughter does not receive multiple vaccines at one sitting. This may mean several trips to the clinic, but is safer. I am also very concerned about vaccines which contain more than one live virus. I am not sure if 'singles' are available in the US, but I am lobbying in the UK for single measles and rubella vaccines, (the latter girls only), to be available as a parental NHS choice. The mumps MMR component has proven to be a disaster, for teenagers who contract the disease after the vaccine wears off. Mumps is almost always benign in infancy and I believe girls have generally milder symptoms. I am fervently praying the HPV vaccine will be banned worldwide long before your daughter becomes old enough to receive it. I would be very careful about Hep B vaccine, totally unnecessary for babies, with the exception of parents who are addicts and share needles, or risk infection with multiple sexual parters, or work in a diagnostic blood lab.
Other parents will give you advice regarding the other vaccines on the US? child schedule, but of course, the final decision will be yours as parents. Good luck with that.
Regarding Deer's utterances. I had to laugh at his comment about vaccines being unprofitable for the phamaceutical industries. Yeah Right!! Let's 'follow the money' -a Deer soundbite.
MMR vaccine manufacturers GSK, recently did a deal with Novartis, in order to get hold of their Meningitis B vaccine, which was almost immediately 'rolled out' for all UK babies up to a year old. John Stone wrote an AoA article explaining how vested interests sat on the UK child vaccination panel and 'pushed' this decision, even though the vaccine was originally intended for older children.
CEO Sir Andrew Witty, who presided over several GSK bribery and corruption scandals, the most recent in China, reassured shareholders about the benefits of 'profitable' vaccines , including the acquired Novartis Hep B vaccine. Perhaps Brian Deer would like to tell us who or what pays for HIM? As far as I can see his website is is only visible means of income. It's a long time since Deer wrote any UK press articles.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 01, 2016 at 09:23 AM
just to say i'm really glad to have justin on board. we are a big tent and the voice of someone with a young child and a lot of questions is exactly the kind of person we want to include in the conversation. just to make the big tent point, we also embrace those who are firmly against vaccination for any number of reasons. that's the point of informed consent and choice. -- dan
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | June 01, 2016 at 09:19 AM
Justin, you say:
"Frankly, I would PREFER for that truth to be that vaccines are safe, and never cause autism, and we're free to pump doses into our daughter without inhibition."
You do not understand it's NOT JUST about autism. A multitude of medical professionals and learned parents have long documented the massive toxic assault via the Immunization Schedule on infants (remember: at birth, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, on and on) directly causes a gruesome list of permanent, chronic disabilities such as various seizures including epilepsy, asthma, diabetes, autoimmune damages including lupus, very serious allergies (i.e. peanuts the most obvious), dramatic learning disabilities including ADD &ADHD, cancers including lymphoma, massive mitochondrial damage (frequently fatal), a multitude of brain and nerve systems' damages (as dramatically manifest in older children and adults by the HPV vaccines such as Gardisil. The list goes on with rare conditions not seen until the last 30 years. A terrible truth is the approximate 3,000 directly caused annual SIDS deaths (it's actually much higher but the Medical Cartel is playing games by claiming/guessing thousands of deaths are caused by accidental bed-sharing suffocation).
You have got to understand newborns cannot possibly be tested to see what vaccines' toxic components (called excipients) will be terribly dangerous. AND, there's always unknown (and untestable) contaminants. AND, ethylmercury of 25 micrograms is STILL in flu, tetanus, some other vaccines, and many of the child vaccines have "traces" of mercury (that cannot be removed) of actually scores of billions of mercury atoms.
The autism spectrum as catastrophic as it is, is but the tip of the iatrogenic iceberg. You have a long way to go IF you really care.
Posted by: david m burd | June 01, 2016 at 08:41 AM
Just to add that among the many accusations levelled at Wakefield, one such claim - that he was 'in it for the money' - has documented, easily accessed evidence to the contrary. A memorandum from the Royal Free dated 20th May 1997 states that 'Mr Wakefield is unhappy with the fact that the school has not formally accepted the research funding and has asked that the funds be returned to the solicitors.' It continues, and makes plainly evident that Wakefield was never going to and never received a cent.
Here's a link to the document (you'll need to scroll down a bit): https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com
Incidentally, the site itself - CHS - is definitely credible, and worth a good look. For one, it was quoted as a source by Dr Helen Rataczak in a peer reviewed paper (Journal of Immunotoxicology), much to the chagrin of certain pro-vax extremists.
Posted by: Eddie Unwind | June 01, 2016 at 08:14 AM
"Brian is the investigative journalist"
You're giving Deer credentials he doesn't deserve.
THE ACCURACY AND PATHOLOGY OF THE PAPER HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED and still isn’t to this day.
“Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, says that the journal's conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children's records and the claims in the Lancet paper…”
-“Who Can Say?” -- Journalist Who Alleged Wakefield Committed Fraud Backs Off Key Claim. From Article:
Brian Deer, the British journalist who claimed researcher Andrew Wakefield committed fraud by linking the MMR vaccine to autism, now admits one of his key allegations against Wakefield may be flat-out wrong. Yet he insists it's no big deal -- that it does nothing to undercut his claim that Wakefield is "an elaborate fraud."
“Not one of the children were reported on truthfully. Wakefield lied again and again,” journalist Brian Deer said in his post on Saturday, referring to Wakefield 12-child case series published in the Lancet in 1998. But in the same post, Deer acknowledged that, contrary to his previous reporting, he is now unsure whether Wakefield falsely changed the timing of the MMR shot to put it before the autism symptoms began in a key case.
“Who Can Say?” -- Journalist Who Alleged Wakefield Committed Fraud Backs Off Key Claim" http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/03/who-can-say-journalist-who-alleged-wakefield-fraud-backs-off-key-claim.html.
Judge Lord Justice Mitting, was scathing about the GMC's 'superficial and inadequate' examining of Deer's evidence, and stated much of it was just plain WRONG!! The Judge stopped short of accusing Deer of making things up, but we can draw our own conclusions. Deer's response on his web page and on Matt Carey's LB/RB blog was to accuse the Judge of 'inexperience' - VERY unwise!! In the UK, Judges are inviolate. Deer plainly regards himself as an expert on the law, as well as an expert on
histopathology, science, medicine and anything else you can think of. (AOA)
Posted by: Danchi | June 01, 2016 at 07:02 AM
Have to say Justin I think you did really well all considering. I love Deer's "he's slippery like that" part, coming from someone who slides every day to work. Ironic, the conspiratorial undertones of Deer, that despite Wakefield declaring (in the Lancet) that more tests need to be done, he already 'implies' a connection etc. I would have thought such cautioned implications not merely commonplace in such contexts, but under the circumstances, absolutely understandable and even morally imperative.
Despite that Deer clearly has much experience in covering his slimy tracks - and all those onboard with his brand of 'logic' - he ultimately comes across as a man, well, who has much experience in covering his slimy tracks, and not much besides.
Posted by: Eddie Unwind | June 01, 2016 at 06:59 AM