A Fact-by-Fact Response to Vaccines 101: Too Much Too Soon?

There’s an article circulating from the scientificparent.org that I’d like to go over as I’ve seen it popping up a lot. I admit I was impressed by the article: It’s well-written, well-resourced, doesn’t call parents “ignorant” and doesn’t even mention Jenny McCarthy… That’s progress!

However, when it comes to the facts, there are some things that are lacking.

The Immune System: Antigens, Antibodies, and Allergies

The Immune System and Antigens

First off, the article does a great job explaining what antigens are. This is important… Parents should know and understand the components of vaccines! Antigens in a vaccine are the weakened or killed virus, bacteria, or toxoid which antibodies are produced against.

The article goes on to talk about how antigens work with the immune system. The mistake, however, is assuming that vaccines affect the immune system in the same way as pathogens that we come across naturally in our daily life.

This is the first, and probably the most important, red flag in the article:

And the great thing is that it doesn’t matter to your immune system how you became immune (either by getting sick and then getting better or through a vaccine), immunity is immunity. The benefit from acquiring immunity through a vaccine is that your child never gets the illness, or has any of the associated risks from the illness, and they don’t pass the illness along to anyone else.

Our immune systems are far more involved than a one-step system. They do not just launch antibodies in response to a foreign invader. It matters how the invader got there, and in which way the body is primed to respond to it. When we are exposed to disease, our immune system gets to work. Pathogens enter in through the mouth, nose, eyes, and openings in the skin. They pass through the body’s natural defenses: the mucous membranes, tonsils, thymus, lymph nodes, vessels, and spleen are all important in helping the body to mount a defense against disease.

Vaccines, however, bypass these natural defenses and create an imbalanced immune response. This is why immunity is not immunity. While most disease we encounter provides lifelong protection, vaccines are not always effective and do not confer lifelong immunity.

The Immune System and Allergies

Unfortunately, it’s not just the antigens that are bypassing the body’s natural defenses. All of the ingredients in the vaccine are bypassing the body’s natural barriers as well, hindering our body’s ability to absorb and clear them slowly.

Parents today are all too familiar with the meanings of the words “allergy” and “anaphylactic”. But did you know that the concept of allergies and anaphylaxis did not even exist before vaccines? The European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology notes the first time that the concept of an allergy was realized and how vaccines were affecting the immune system in a strange way that had never been seen before:

Meanwhile, the process of industrialization of Europe and
North America and the new antitoxin parenteral treatments
and vaccines caused new diseases and strange reactions that
physicians could not explain.
The journal continues to explain the development of the theory of an allergy through an experiment in which rabbits injected with horse serum developed increasingly strong reactions with each injection:
In other words, an increased specific sensitivity followed repeated injections of a foreign protein that was primarily nontoxic.
The article continues on:
Theobald Smith noted in 1903 that guinea pigs used to standardize diphtheria toxin (injected with mixtures of toxin and horse serum) often died when injected several weeks later with normal horse serum.

In a 1906 published article, this reaction was given a new name for the first time: allergy. The 1906 article notes that the exposure of the body to a substance resulted in antibodies, and that these could be protective against disease, or harmful to the body by causing a hypersensitive reaction with symptoms and signs of illness.

So we see that the theory of the imbalanced immune system when a substance bypasses the normal immune barriers is not a new idea. While the diphtheria toxin was injected intending to create an immune response to protect against diphtheria disease, the immune system took the components of the injection as a whole and created an immune response against the horse serum. The body had an abnormal, hypersensitive reaction to the horse serum, an otherwise harmless ingredient.

Antigens Aren’t the Problem

I get tired of articles like this reassuring parents that there are less antigens in vaccines now than ever before and how we are exposed to antigens every day and our immune system can handle 10,000 at once and therefore vaccines are safe!

I wish we would stop talking about antigens so much and start talking about…

aluminum phosphate, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, 2-Phenoxyethanol, aluminum hydroxide, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), sodium chloride, thimerosal, gelatin, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B, yeast protein, aluminum salts, bovine serum albumin, neomycin, sucrose, purified capsular polysaccharide, amorphous aluminum hydroxphosphate sulfate, amino acid supplement, polysorbate 20 (Tween 20), formalin, phosphate buffered saline, MRC-5 cellular proteins (from aborted fetal cells), aminoglycoside antibiotic, phosphate buffers, disodium phosphate, dihydrate, sodium dihydrogen, insect cell and viral protein, bacterial cell protein, L-histidine, sodium borate, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant, monobasic sodium phosphate, monobasic potassium phosphate, potassium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium taurodeoxycholate, ovalbumin, mercury, sodium, chloride, beta-propiolacton, egg proteins, CTAB, kanmycin, octoxynol-10 (Triton X-100), a-tocopheryl hydrogen succinate, hydrocortisone, gentamicin sulfate, sodium deoxycholate, host cell proteins, baculovirus, Triton X-100, residual MDCK cell protein (canine cells from a female adult Cocker Spaniel), other cell proteins, MDCK cell DNA, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide, B-propiolactone, phosphate-buffered saline solution, monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed porcine gelatin, arginine, dibasic potassium phosphate, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), polymyxin, betapropiolactone, nonylphenol ethoxylate, sorbitol, sodium phosphate, hydrolyzed gelatin, recombinant human albumin, fetal bovine serum, other buffer and media ingredients, urea, monodium L-glutamate, human albumin, sodium bicarbonate, potassium phosphate, residual components of MRC-5 cells (including DNA and protein), sodium phosphate dibasic, succinate buffer, isotonic saline solution, phenol, streptomycin, residual calf serum, polygeline (processed bovine gelatin), human serum albumin, potassium glutamate, sodium EDTA, bovine serum, chicken protein, chlortetracycline, amphotericin B), amino acids, dextran, Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (sodium chloride, magnesium sulfate, ferric (III) nitrate, sodium pyruvate, D-glucose, concentrated vitamin solution, L-cystine, L-tyrosine, amino acids solution, L-glutamine, sodium hydrogenocarbonate, phenol red), calcium carbonate, xanthan, monosodium L-glutamate, bovine calf serum, monobasic, EDTA

Hint: NONE OF THE THINGS IN THIS LIST ARE ANTIGENS.

Why do we insist on pretending that antigens are the only components in a vaccine when we are talking to parents? Do we really expect to dumb down the information that much and get away with it?

Here is what the current schedule actually looks like compared to past schedule when you look at the entire vaccine, not just antigens. The current schedule has gone from a few vaccines given in one dose to 14 vaccines given in 60 doses between the ages of 0-6. While antigens in this number of vaccines have been studied, individual ingredients given in today’s schedule has not been studied (especially not in the form of injection), and the entire schedule of ingredients as a whole has never been studied.

1-poster-vaccine-schedule-printed

The amount of antigens and preservatives is not the point.

The point is:

All of these ingredients.

All of these ingredients combined.

All of these ingredients combined and injected.

All of these ingredients combined and injected 60 times.

All of these ingredients combined and injected 60 times into a baby.

While the number of antigens in vaccines have gone down, there are still other ingredients in vaccines that our children are being exposed to in toxic levels.

Chickenpox

I’ve seen an increasing drive in the past year or two to scare parents about chickenpox. The upcoming generation of parents has never seen chickenpox. The vaccine became available in 1995, and vaccinated children are now growing up and having their own babies. Now they are having babies of their own (and not passing maternal antibodies on to those babies) and they are eating up the media push that chickenpox is dangerous and all children need to be vaccinated against it.

The revelation that I had chickenpox as a child will soon make children gasp and ask, “You had chickenpox as a child… And you survived!?” Yep, just like almost all other healthy children. The public’s shift in perception to viewing chickenpox as a dangerous, scary childhood illness of the past reminds me of how people viewed measles in the 1960s (a common, childhood disease; nothing to panic over) compared to now.

Back to the article, which states:

Before the chicken pox (varicella) vaccine was introduced, about 100 children died every year from chicken pox. This may not seem like a lot. But if it is your child, it is the only one that matters.

First of all, it was not 100 children that died every year from chickenpox. 100 was the total number of deaths from chickenpox, in all age groups, out of about 4 million cases in the U.S. each year.

Before the chickenpox vaccine, the total risk of dying from chickenpox was 1 in 60,000 cases. Most deaths were adults and children with compromised immune systems… People who today are unable to receive the chickenpox vaccine anyway.

Broken down by age, the death rate for chickenpox was:

  • Children aged 1-14 years: 1 death for every 100,000 cases
  • 15-19 years: 1 death for every 37,000 cases
  • 30-49 years: 1 death for every 4,000 cases

You can view these statistics for yourself from the CDC Pink Book.

Since 2010, there have been 22,619 adverse events reported following vaccination against varicella (chickenpox). 937 of those cases were serious, including reactions such as anaphylaxis, convulsions, Guillain-Barre syndrome, cases where the patient stopped breathing, systemic lupus, encephalitis, meningitis, new onset type 1 diabetes and other autoimmune diseases, and other serious reactions. There have also been 46 deaths reported in this same time frame.

The problem with reported adverse events from vaccination is that they are severely underreported. It is estimated that the true number of vaccine reactions is between 10 to 100 times higher than the reported number.

Whether the number of actual deaths is 46, 460, or 4,600, it is inexcusable. What matters is that it is your child.

So what about those with compromised immune systems? The ones we are protecting from chickenpox by all getting our vaccine?

Unfortunately, chickenpox rash and fever are common side affects of the chickenpox vaccine. Shingles can also be caused by the chickenpox vaccine. A recently vaccinated person who develops chickenpox or shingles from the vaccine can shed the vaccine virus and infect others. It is recommended that those who have been recently vaccinated who develop symptoms avoid contact with those who are a high risk for complications, such as those with compromised immune systems. Most doctors do not properly inform parents of the risks of their recently vaccinated child spreading chickenpox to others through chickenpox or shingles infection.

Breakthrough infections also occur very frequently in those vaccinated against chickenpox. A breakthrough infection occurs when the vaccine is not effective enough to prevent the disease in the person who was vaccinated for it. More than half of all reported cases of chickenpox in 2010 were breakthrough infections, according to the CDC.

“Prevent the disease completely with a vaccine”? Not so much.

Combination Shots and Spacing Out Vaccines

The article continues by addressing a question about the safety of combination shots and whether it might be safer to space them out. The answer given to this question:

The short answer, and again this is counterintuitive, is that it actually increases your child’s risk of experiencing an adverse reaction to a vaccine if they are given one at a time.

In some vaccines, we’re able to combine the antigens for multiple viruses or bacteria into one shot. This allows us to actually give not just fewer total antigens but smaller amounts of each antigen, as the multiple components of the vaccine work together to improve the body’s immune response.

This entire quote confuses me. We’ve already established that antigens in vaccines are safe and are not the main concern, so to double back and say it is safer to give less antigens is somewhat of a moot point.

That aside, there is absolutely no evidence that supports the claim that children are at a greater risk of adverse reactions if vaccines are given one at a time. In fact, both the CDC and the World Health Organization state that the effectiveness of a vaccine does not change based on if it is given in combination with other shots or as an individual shot.

The CDC, however, does state that certain combinations given together can cause fever and occasionally febrile seizures.

In fact, research shows that waiting until 15 months or older to give the first dose of measles vaccine increases the effectiveness of the vaccine and provides greater protection for children. Studies show that children given the first dose of measles vaccine between 12-13 months of age have a 5 times higher risk of contracting measles than children given the vaccine at age 15 months or older.

Aluminum in Vaccines

The last question apparently posed in this article was about aluminum and mercury being injected “into the bloodstream”.

While it is true that aluminum is abundant and naturally occurring, that does not make it safe to inject into our babies’ bodies.

First, lets address why aluminum is even in vaccines.

Aluminum is put in vaccines as an adjuvant. Because antigens in vaccines are weakened or killed, they are not strong enough to catch the attention of the immune system on their own. An adjuvant is something used in a vaccine to alert the immune system. It gets its attention. How does it do this? The body recognizes it as foreign and attacks it. This stimulates the immune response against the antigen in the vaccine as well. The point of aluminum is that it is not supposed to be in the body, therefore its presence alarms the immune system into a fight response.

Ingestion Vs. Injection

In their new book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, Paul Thomas, M.D., and Jennifer Margulis, Ph. D., sum up the dangers of injected aluminum in vaccines beautifully:

A healthy gut prevents ingested aluminum from being absorbed into the body. As the digestive process breaks it down, the aluminum that does enter the blood-stream enters gradually over several hours.

When aluminum is injected intramuscularly, the exposure happens all at once. When several aluminum-containing shots are administered at the same time, a baby can be getting as much as an entire milligram (1,000 micograms) of aluminum.

If the baby is able to shunt this much aluminum out of his body, then the high exposure in the short amount of time should not cause lasting harm to his brain or body.

But if the baby cannot rid his body of aluminum-for whatever reason- then the results can be devastating.

Only 1% of aluminum in food or breast milk is absorbed into the bloodstream once it is filtered through the digestive tract. However, vaccines bypass the digestive tract and 100% of aluminum in vaccines is absorbed into the bloodstream at once.

A 2009 study in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology examined infants’ exposure to aluminum from vaccines and breast milk during the first 6 months of life. The study specifically examined injected aluminum rather than ingested aluminum, and found that infants are often exposed to and retain higher amounts of aluminum in vaccines than when exposed through breast milk. It also examined aluminum and mercury exposure through thimerosal together and found that both were neuro-toxic and can kill motor neurons. It also found that aluminum absorbed enterally (through the digestive system and gut) was likely eliminated from the body much faster than adjuvant aluminum because “a longer elimination is one of the very functions of adjuvants”.

Mercury in Vaccines

The article continues on to address mercury in vaccines, noting that there are two different types of mercury. For the purposes of the rest of this post, “thimerosal” will imply ethylmercury, which is the type used in vaccines. The Journal of Pediatrics (2001) states:

Limited data on toxicity from low-dose exposures to ethylmercury are available, but toxicity may be similar to that of methylmercury. Chronic, low-dose methylmercury exposure may cause subtle neurologic abnormalities.

In other words, a “different type” of mercury does not mean a safer type. Although ethylmercury does not necessarily build up in the body as methylmercury does, that alone does not make it less toxic upon exposure. And indeed, the Material Safety Data Sheet on Thimerosal doesn’t make it sound like something that should be injected into a baby’s body.

A 2012 study published in the Journal of Toxicology found that ethylmercury from thimerosal is a mitochondrial toxin in humans, leading to cell death. It notes that in someone with a mitochondrial disorder, “a mitochondrial toxin can be life altering or life threatening”. (Some of you may be familiar with the name Hannah Poling, who received compensation from the government after her vaccines triggered her mitochondrial disease, causing severe autism.)

It’s important to note that thimerosal was never banned from vaccines. Its removal was merely a suggestion given in 1999 by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service.

The influenza vaccine was recommended for all babies ages 6 months and up starting in 2004, to be given yearly for all age groups. Babies get their first two doses at age 6 months and again at 7 months, and yearly after that. The influenza vaccine approved for under age 2 is the inactivated influenza vaccine, which contains 25mcg of mercury/0.5-mL dose in the multidose containers.

According to the CDC the single-dose influenza vaccines are “preservative-free”.

Inactivated influenza vaccine that does not contain thimerosal as a preservative has <1 mcg mercury/0.5-mL dose or <0.5 mcg mercury/0.25-mL dose.

These vaccines are called preservative-free even though they contain trace amounts of mercury.

Babies are now getting 8 doses of influenza vaccine before age 6.

You can see more about what thimerosal dose to the brain and discussions in government hearings about its safety at the C-Span website,  here.

The last point I want to address in the article is this:

Additionally I need to clarify one important misconception about vaccinations. It’s important to know that when we vaccinate a child we are not injecting things into their bloodstream. Vaccines go into the skin or muscle and the body then responds to them there. They are not injected into a vein or artery.

While it’s true that vaccines are not literally injected directly into the bloodstream, they are absorbed into the bloodstream after injection. Some vaccines are injected into the muscle; these are absorbed quickly into the bloodstream. Others are injected into the fatty tissues, these are absorbed into the bloodstream over a period of 24 hours.

Qualifications for Vaccine Research

I’ll end with this note: I am not a medical professional. I do not have a medical degree. As such, this article is not intended to be used as medical advice. Consult your doctor if you have medical questions.

But DO use this article to remember this:

You do not have to be a medical professional to research and learn about vaccines for your children. You do not have to have a degree. You do not have to be a scientist. This information is available to you, and you are capable of researching and learning.

Here is what qualifies you to research, question, and learn more about vaccines.

You are:

  • A parent
  • Not a parent
  • A college-educated person
  • A person with no college education
  • Curious
  • Interested in learning more
  • Skeptical about the media’s representation about vaccines and disease
  • A human being with rights and choices over your own body

Don’t assume your doctor’s facts are correct because they hold a degree. Check your resources. Check your facts. Research, research, research!

Advertisements

64 thoughts on “A Fact-by-Fact Response to Vaccines 101: Too Much Too Soon?

  1. I’m glad you admit, although at the very end if your editorial, that you are NOT a medical professional or a scientist. Don’t you think that the years and years of doctoral education that doctors go through and the years of medical research study on this very subject mean that they are far better qualified to process the risks of doing nothing as apposed to vaccination? Well I DO!
    I’d much rather my 3 children receive vaccinations than the disease. In fact I have experienced both. My oldest, now 31, had chicken pox as a child where as his two younger siblings received the vaccine when it first came out. My oldest had a bad case..horrible pox all over, itch, fever, and very ill. He missed school, was isolated, and miserable! Not to mention all the time off work we had to take to nuse him. Yes, he survived but still has some scars from the pox.
    My younger two had a shot of vaccine as children and a booster as teens. Never got sick and as an added bonus now don’t have to worry about getting shingles as adults later in life. I don’t see the down side here.
    I’d rather my kids skip measles, mumps, and rebella infections, the natural way of getting immunity, and have a vaccine shot. A slight fever, your own bodies reaction to the shot, is much preferable over the actual illness. Very few children have serious side effects to vaccination and the EXPERTS..aka doctors and research scientists, have weighed the risks of actual disease to risks of vaccination and vaccination wins hands down.
    Show me an actual MEDICAL JOURNAL article that says otherwise! You can’t. It doesn’t exist.
    I had the measles as a kid and was EXTREMELY sick. My children can and have avoided that illness and more. I’m so old I carry a small scar on my arm from being given the Small Pox vaccine. Wear it proudly.
    Listen to your medical doctors people!
    This every advice is at the end of this article…” Qualifications for Vaccine Research

    I’ll end with this note: I am not a medical professional. I do not have a medical degree. As such, this article is not intended to be used as medical advice. Consult your doctor if you have medical questions.”
    No doubt as a legal attempt to not be sued over what looks like informed information but isn’t.
    Nona G. RN, BSN
    By the way, I wasn’t a nurse until my kids were well more than half grown and vaccinated. I ASKED my DOCTOR for guidance and vaccinated them. Now that I’m more informed with my nursing education and experience, I have NO regrets! Three strong, healthy, smart and good looking adults are the result. Mission accomplished!

    Liked by 3 people

    • I am an RN/BSN as well. The only vaccine education that I received is that we should give them to patients and get them ourselves. Also important to note is that Doctors do not go through “years of training on this subject” as you say. This is a big misconception.

      If you do a little investigating on your own, you will find that there is a HUGE number of vaccine-injured people (many are children) in our country. There is even an entire court system set up for them, including a special fund (Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) set up which has awarded over $3 BILLION to vaccine-injured individuals and families.

      It is wonderful that your children didn’t have any reactions. Not everyone is so “lucky”. It is also important to look at the correlation of auto immune issues and the rise of the number of vaccinations. There are a lot of things that concern me about vaccines, safety being one of them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Actually, physicians spend very limited time in medical school studying the topic of vaccines and far less on immunology. They are indoctrinated on the subject, and most do not spend any time in the research aspect of medicine at all. Much like physicians, nurses have also been indoctrinated to believe that vaccines are 100% safe and effective. These are falsehoods as anyone in the medical profession can attest that no pharmaceutical nor medical procedure is EVER 100% safe. It is not a one size fits all and should not be treated as such. It is medically unethical to insinuate so. I might add that there are many physicians and nurses who are opposed to vaccines and/or the current recommended schedules. Great for you that you feel that it is the right decision for your children, many others do not. The rate of incidence of disease in this country despite the lack of recommended boosters in adults makes me far less concerned despite the fear mongering and propaganda perpetuated by the pharmaceutical companies. The science in not clear as the United States fails to conduct proper research study on the long term effects of vaccines and the current schedule, and most studies that have been researched and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Conflict of interest much?
      *Side note: I too, am a highly educated medical professional with two children. One that was vaccinated on schedule until he had a reaction to his 4 month combination shots. Thank God, he was not permanently harmed as many unfortunate babies aren’t as lucky. My daughter is not vaccinated. Both are healthy as horses. I encourage a heathy immune system by good dietary practices, vitamins, rest, and exercise, and they are both the healthiest in their classes. Our physician, an M.D. fron the University of Michigan has advised us on the risks of vaccines and the concerns over safety and efficacy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Apparently you can’t comprehend what you read either. There are many many children and now adults who have issues due to the vaccines. Compromised immune systems, autoimmune diseases and Dr. Don’t get schooled in vaccines we take science and biology classes and idiots like you have no idea what in fact the vaccines actually do to the body. Take some medical classes before you sit in judgement about what was presented to you. Specifically microbiology and learn something.

      Like

    • Doctors do not receive information on vaccinology.. Only immunology & immune function separate from how vaccines function. Docs are told vaccines are safe & effective, no questions asked… This is how to use them.

      Like

    • I would add to the article to address her claim:

      “As fellow pediatrician Dr. Jaime Friedman has explained on this blog, your pediatrician is not allowed to be paid by a pharmaceutical company to promote a drug or product. We aren’t allowed to accept any form of compensation, including goods, services or even a free lunch from a pharmaceutical rep. Additionally, big pharma makes most of their money off drugs that are patented (meaning only one company can sell the product). The patents on most early childhood vaccines expired decades ago, so pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to push them on doctors, even if they were allowed to. I am firmly not in the pocket of big pharma.”

      Here is a link to her payments from pharma:

      https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/1230814

      And addressing vaccines as a source of low income for pharma:

      https://www.ft.com/…/93374f4a-e538-11e5-a09b…

      Like

      • However, doctors can receive incentive payments from their insurance companies for vaccinating children “fully”. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, for instance, offers doctors $400 per “fully” vaccinated child. If a parent, after careful research, feels the risk of one or more of the vaccine outweighs the benefit, and wants to decline it/them, the doctor must forego the $400. That is a problem. The dangling “incentive” puts a doctor’s bottom line at cross-purposes with looking at vaccines and their risks/benefits objectively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPG97Y_jkCI

        Liked by 2 people

    • VACCINE BEAT #2 – What Doctors Learn About Vaccines-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wslrY5IBNb0

      You spent a lot of ink (so to speak) saying really nothing. The article didn’t say don’t vaccinate you children. That’s your choice. It’s providing a critique to another paper which is saying basically vaccinate your child. If you trust your Dr-OK. I find that people who protect this much over a choice that they feel is absolutely right-are standing on shaky ground.

      Like

    • Did you actually say that having a vaccination was the natural way of getting immunity, nothing natural about vaccinations, and yes your children will more than likely get shingles when they are older because they do not have lifetime natural immunity like I do, cause yep I got the chicken pox and I survived!!!

      Like

    • Wrong, so many false statements. I will address one. Giving your child the chicken pox vaccine gives them the virus. It will not save them from shingles, but actually makes it more likely to get it. You need to educate yourself before spouting off nonsense.

      Like

  2. At some point you have to trust 99% of the medical community, 99% of the scientific community along with people who can read and understand scientific data. Your lack of understanding has resulted in you reading sections of research and review papers and drawing inaccurate medical conclusions which you share with the world whilst stating they should not take this as medical advice. I spent 5 years studying for 2 science degrees at university, one being in biochemistry and we spent almost 6 months learning how to interpret data from research papers accurately and objectively. So I can categorically say, having read your sources, that you have misunderstood most and not taken into account the scope of scientific data on the subject for the other. You have, as we in the scientific community call it, ‘cherry picked’ your data i.e. you have chosen the data you felt fit with your preconceived notions. So yes, if you want to research, do that, but at least leave your obvious bias at the door.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dorothy, I trusted my medical doctor with my first child and he suggested that I NOT vaccinate for the first year and then to only do DTaP and Hib. He told me that he did not think the others were necessary nor safely tested. I just wanted to let you know that there are MANY medical doctors that have spent the time researching and have concluded that not all vaccines are safe. The medical and scientific community do not agree on the vaccine issue.

      There are 3 topics that concern me:

      1) Every vaccine that is created earns a pharmaceutical company 3 billion dollars a year. That’s a lot of money and “puts up a red flag” for me.

      2) Vaccines are the only products in the U.S. that do not have liability. You cannot sue for injuries or death. But that is only in the U.S. Around the world, there are law suits because of serious injuries and deaths because from vaccines. In Spain over Gardasil. In Japan over Gardasil. The flu shot was taken off the market for under five in Australia after deaths and injury. Prevnar was banned in China. Pfizer’s vaccination program was banned. France just pulled Rotavirus off their schedule after infant deaths and injuries.

      3) SB277 was passed in California making it mandatory to receive all vaccines. This means that a parent can no longer freely choose a medical intervention. On a liberty standpoint, SB277 violates personal freedom.

      Common sense and my ability to reason has caused me to look much deeper into these issues and I hope that others will do the same.

      Remember in the 50’s, there used to be ads with doctors smoking cigarettes? We all know how that turned out.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Laws like SB277 protect everyone, including those who are unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, or those (rare) individuals who have only partial protection after full vaccination. You can still choose not to vaccinate, it just means you are at the same time choosing not to send your child to public school. Easy.

        Know of any other laws that violate personal freedoms? How about seat belt laws- do you object to those?

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s not even kind of the same thing. Can you point me to the hundreds of clinical studies showing cigarette smoking is safe? How about operating on patients with dirty hands- where are the papers touting the safety of that practice? Your comment says to me you have no reason to accept any legitimate scientific explanation because it *might* be wrong. In that case, we will have to agree to disagree.

        Like

      • Re: 1) The fact that a business makes money on a product is NOT a red flag that it is somehow suspect or dangerous. Water companies charge money for their product. So do companies who bottle oxygen for patients. So maybe you’d better stop drinking water and breathing. Just to be safe. You don’t have proof that the water companies aren’t hiding evidence that water and oxygen are deadly. What a ridiculous line of reasoning you’ve made here.

        Re: 3) You’re not telling the truth. You have that law almost completely wrong.

        You don’t understand what you’re talking about. Might as well start hyping Arnica and crystals while you’re at it.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you very much for continuing the conversation in a respectful manner, and providing perspective on the strengths and weaknesses in the assumptions, logic and claims in the original article. The knowledge development process is better for it. The commenters above who grant you nothing in terms of a contribution of information and make blanket dismissive statements reveal themselves as party-line non-thinkers. They are more interested in defending a “position”, than delving into the nuances of a very complex topic. Those who stand on “consensus” as a stand-in for knowledge, violate a basic tenet of science. Ask Semmelweis and Alfred Wegener about that. Or the doctor who changed our view of how stomach ulcers form. “Consensus” is the refuge of social skeptics (as opposed to authentic skeptics) who should know better.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Consensus among the scientific community, and among doctors with respect to the medical field, remains our “best bet” in terms of developing policy, guidelines, and best practices. Consensus has the advantage of removing bias, but I agree it does have the weakness of being susceptible to the bandwagon effect, politics, and money. As a scientist, I absolutely love that resistance to the “accepted model” remains, but as a pediatrician I must do the best for my patients by adhering to what, to our best knowledge, has been shown to be effective.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Excellent article. Wish more people would be open-minded to the FACT that vaccines are harmful. There’s a plethora of information supporting just that, from REAL doctors. I hope their children don’t react severely, although that may be the eye opener they need. Sad world we live in.

    Like

  5. The 3 first comments really surprise me. The article was posted less than 16 hours ago, but everyone above states that the author of this information has “cherry picked” research information. How could the 3 persons above hand down such a judgement when it is obvious that their own comments could not have possibly reflected careful research into the studies that were sited above. Each of the links sited above would take an average person days, or even weeks, to check into. Come on people, compassion, understanding, doing the real work and looking at the studies (REALLY looking at them) should come before you throw out comments like the ones above. Sheesh.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Joelle, educated medical and scientific professionals are required to stay abreast of current developments in the literature. That means keeping up with the research on a daily basis. They probably don’t need 16 hours to read this and know the sources cited are not credible, because they already are familiar. There is something to be said for that education… we don’t take everything that is published at face value. Does the author of this article know how to read a study and pick out design flaws or errors in analysis? I doubt it. Just because something is published, doesn’t make it a good source of information- much like the above post.

      Liked by 1 person

      • And among the educated medical and scientific professional community, there is disagreement on the safety of vaccines. If there are disagreements among those that we trust, who do we trust?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Not everyone’s opinion matters when there is a scientific consensus. The body of (best) evidence is overwhelmingly in support of vaccination, as its benefits FAR outweigh the risks. I understand that as a parent (I am one, too) you want all the info so you can make the best possible decision for your children. In most cases, the choice is clear that vaccination is that choice. There are always exceptions, as some children and even adults are medically unable to receive vaccines, but it is everyone’s public duty to protect those that are vulnerable by immunizing themselves.

        Liked by 1 person

    • “Each of the links sited above would take an average person days, or even weeks, to check into.”

      None of these arguments are particularly new. Thimerosal, for example, has been studied to death for a long time now. People *have* spent weeks digging into the research surrounding thimerosal, so it’s no particular surprise that they’re already prepared for this debate. Likewise, most of the article is either recycled arguments or information so basically wrong that it doesn’t take weeks of science to know better.

      You’re absolutely right, you *should* really look into this stuff. I already have. I also paid attention in biology class. “Looking into it” also means understanding what makes a reliable source and being discerning and critical of the sources you find. For instance, you don’t get to make an argument that an anti-vax opinion is scientifically grounded and support that argument by linking to a different opinion-oriented blog. The anti-vax movement is supported on nothing: it props itself up with circular references that have all the appearance of consensus but in reality is a game of telephone running in a loop refusing to acknowledge new information from outside the loop.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Great article! I’m going to save it to my desktop and share it. One thing I wanted to mention is that an antigen is not just the disease pathogens in the vaccine, but is ANYTHING injected into the bloodstream, ANYTHING that provokes a response from the immune system. So the aluminum, mercury, ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, antibiotics, foreign proteins from the cell culture, are ALL antigens which can cause autoimmune disease or an excessive inflammatory response which causes vaccine encephalitis.

    Like

  7. Liz – you are speaking in sweeping terms of a wide variety of products called collectively “vaccines” as though they are all the same. In fact, each disease/vaccine pairing has its own particular set of PROVISIONALLY acknowledged risks and assumed benefits. The picture continues to change as more science is done. For instance, 10 years ago science had not yet produced a significant body of studies pointing to a connection between some vaccines and the development of various auto-immune conditions. Now science has produced such a body of studies. (See the textbook – Vaccines and Autoimmunity). No real scientist uses the phrase “scientific consensus” in any kind of conclusive manner. The word consensus is meaningless in terms of science.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I respectfully disagree. It’s true that almost nothing in science is ever truly settled, but without the concept of consensus, we would never be able to move past hypothesis to theory.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Remember when the consensus was that smoking was safe and hand washing wasn’t necessary for doctors? Consensus isn’t always right, it’s just what majority believes…not very scientific, imo.

        Liked by 1 person

      • And without challenges to “consensus”, we’d be mired in a multitude of misunderstandings about the how the world works that seemed worthy of “consensus” last year, ten years ago, fifty years ago, etc.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. “Vaccines don’t affect your immune system the way diseases do.” Yes, they do, that’s the point. The vaccines contain dead, dying, or deactivated viruses, parasites, and bacteria, which cause the exact same immune response because they’re the exact same pathogens. The only difference is that the pathogens won’t infect you, so you don’t get sick, and the immune response is shorter – because you don’t get sick.

    “Vaccines don’t give you life-long protection; natural disease exposure does.” True, vaccines do not give lifelong immunity. Most of the diseases you get vaccinated for, like measles, are most dangerous to developing infants. An adult case of measles will suck, but you won’t go deaf or blind. In any case, you can always get a booster – something they recommend for many diseases, like tetanus. Regardless, natural disease exposure does not give you life-long immunity, either. You probably won’t notice, though, because most of these diseases are already rare enough (thanks to vaccines) that you’re probably not going to get exposed again outside of the time you’re still immune. This is especially true of children, who are usually exposed more than adults because of things like school classrooms full of children, and their general lack of basic hygiene (hence why pink eye is so common in schools).

    “Chickenpox isn’t so bad.” Most people who got measles lived. Hell, most people who get ebola live. Isn’t modern medicine awesome? That doesn’t mean I want to risk getting infected with ebola, or measles for that matter. What’s your basis for comparing how bad a disease is? The black plague? Yeah, measles might not be scary compared to the plague, but it’s still decently likely to kill you – and that’s assuming you’re completely accepting of the other possible consequences of measles. Likewise, chickenpox is even less scary than measles, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t nasty consequences. Following this logic is like saying “Most people who drive in cars don’t get into accidents, so there’s no point in wearing your seatbelt.”

    “Same old argument about mercury etc.” Thimerosal is only used as a preservative in vaccines in the United States for all of two or three vaccines, only one of which is given to adolescents (not children, certainly not infants), and only as an alternative vaccine for those who can’t get the usual vaccine for various reasons usually related to allergies. Whether or not thimerosal was actually banned is irrelevant: it’s not used. There was never any evidence that it was harmful, but nonetheless it has not been used for some time now. Even most adults will never get a vaccine with thimerosal, so it’s pointless to complain about children getting one – they won’t. Move on, find some other conspiracy theory, this one is long dead.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Amen.

      The lack of basic logic blows my mind.

      I went to school with some idiots and some brilliant people. I also went to school with medical professionals that studied more within fields of research than others. Some squeezed by some really knew what they were doing. Sadly the majority graduated. Do people know what their grades were in various subjects? Nope. Yet we all hear their opinions.

      I graduated with multiple degrees within the medical field, drilled with learning how to discern research and data. I was the student body president of the medical radiology program, graduated Suma Cum Laude pre bachelors in medical radiology & Magna Cum Laude from MD Anderson Cancer Center.

      Like a lady working within the medical field mentioned in here, I’ve seen people die regardless the vaccines received. Blaming it on a vaccine is not data, it’s hearsay. What is usable data is that nurse is required to be vaccinated more than any child. She’s alive and able to work in a hospital due to her having tons of vaccines. Yet she complains of the death she’s seen.

      Let’s get real. People die, children die. Tens of thousands. I have to spoon feed this in vague terminology as people upset with vaccines want blogs supporting their cause over legitimate researchers. FYI, not personally reading and deciphering research data with a nonbiased eye is lowbrow and not legitimate research. You have to find the truth regardless the articles journey. Its false research when it leads through the article. Papers and writings that warrant horrible grades and lead to conspiracy. Yet so many love to quote those papers.

      So here it is. Data from thousands of articles that nonbelievers will refuse to read show kids died at alarming rates for years prior to incredible modern medicine, modern vaccines. Now, literally millions more can and are able to live due to modern vaccines. There, in logical accord, will be more children with issues as more children are able to live compared to years ago.

      A reaction is interesting. Aside from the fact bad reactions have lead to more research and better vaccines and cures, they (reactions) are classified as ANYTHING that happens after injection in the real world scenario or research scenario. Here’s what that literally means. If I am able to take part in a study and my friend takes part, a teacher takes part, a child takes part, 1000 people + take part, everything is recorded in their life post injection. For how long? Some days, some months, a year, longer, etc. Whats recorded? Not what they ate or who they slept with the most part, not who all they came in contact with at schools or grocery stores, etc. So when we go in to get questioned, after wandering an infested city, questions are asked and things are recorded.

      • have you felt sick in the past 3 weeks?
      A: well yes, I think it was from some bad food because I felt better 24 hours later.
      Recorded: yes, individual felt sick within last 3 weeks.
      • Have you felt nauseated in the last 3 weeks?
      A: well yes, I told you I think I had food poisoning.
      Recorder: We can’t speculate on weather or not it was food poisoning, recorded: yes, felt nausea.
      • (Asked to person #975 who had seasonal allergy issues) Have you experienced any sneezing?
      A: Yes…lots of ragweed
      Recorded: yes, experienced sneazing.

      etc…
      Final research read (published commercial): may cause nausea, vomiting, and sneazing. (Or) has been reported to cause sneazing, vomiting, and nausea.

      If there are elder participants that happen to have a heart murmur you’ll hear “may cause heart problems”

      Someone (this vastly limited, self adviced his readers nOt to take his advice as a medical advice blogger) ought to read the research on… no, go by the hospital and meet people virtually paralyzed on half their body in agonizing unforgiving pain for weeks, repeatedly, feeling and wishing they were dead. And what, might you ask, do these adults have? Shingles. It’s not innocent, it’s not simple. It has caused deadly pain and ruined lives. I’ll let you read on weather or not it has caused death. I’ve met people I know personally and those hospitalized from something now preventable by a simple vaccine given to stop chicken pox. If you get them before you get the vaccine it’s a bit too late.

      Please be smart enoughvto realize you’re gambling no matter your choice to vaccinate or not vaccinate. But the house has already proven vaccinating prolongs life, improves life, extends life, & gives life to those that never would’ve lived otherwise. So even if it has or does cause issues in a large number of people it causes a lesser harm to the public in comparison to those that think they’ve figured out how to beat the house and refuse to vaccinate, lowering heard immunity and reintroducing nearly eradicated diseases to the public.

      The house is the majority following vaccine schedules. Not big pharma. As said by others, people make millions selling water, it doesn’t mean it’s bad and we should still drinking it. There are things and cases where water has killed people, telling the public to get educated and scaring them with the small percentage just increases the deaths and suffering when more quit drinking water. This is such a mess.

      Wesley Franks, BSBA,RT(R),ARRT,CMRT

      Like

    • Wait, whhhhaat?? The 1st paragraph you state that vaccines are as good as getting the disease, but the next one you stated a booster maybe needed. Well, if it was as good as getting the disease why in the heck would you need a booster? You state that people would get the disease and not even know they had the disease bc of vaccines, but not natural immunity? Sorry, but that is absurd.
      And since you got on the topic of basic hygiene, most kids get sick bc they need to build their immune system….just like getting the disease (or vaccine)…OH MY GOSH, see what I did there. Use your very own belief system and flipped it.
      This seat belt analogy is getting a little worn, so pick another. And since we were talking about chicken pox, I agree it would suk, and the plague probably sucked (btw, hygiene is how we beat that one) as well. But being sick sux and death is not good no matter if you wear a seat belt or not, get vaccinated or not, or get hit by a meteor flying from the sky. So, nobody likes being sick, and I believe most would agree with that. Show me the independent research of the pox varicella, vaccine versus an unvaccinated. (Side note, interesting to see what happens with the shingles with vaccinated individuals)
      Now since you stated Thimerosal is not used in vaccines, you just 1 sentence earlier stated it was used in 2-3…so which is it? And since you brought up the fact that it shows zero evidence of causing issues, I guess you don’t read research and aren’t up to date with what is happening. The cdc did the research and buried it. Search “whistle-blower in the cdc vaccine research”.
      See, the crazy thing is when one calls out using names like “conspiracy” it makes it hard to argue points. You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’ll call you an idiot, bc I used you very own words (in a short read btw) to show what you are.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Who is writing this?? If it is anyone besides a doctor that has trained 10s of 1000s of hours then it’s irrelevant. Please, tell me what you do for a living and I’ll do my “research” online and see if I become better at your job then you.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Good question.

        What kind of doctor? A general doctor, a heart surgeon, a neurologist, an orthopedic surgeon, a dentist …. or how about an immunologist or an Infections disease specialist. All doctors…not all required or skilled with this research.. but some are incredibly well versed and have saved lives solely on their wisdom in researching what this blogger is not versed in. Joining them are those skilled and knowledgeable in research studies of microbiology, and anesthetics.

        Like

      • Radiology101s, how about the doctor who recommends the vaccines? Like, oh, a pediatrician or family practice Doctor, since most people never ask any other doctors their opinion. Way to derail a conversation. Only an immunologist could possibly be considered “qualified” by title alone, and even so, immunology was not even a science until after the smallpox vaccine was created. Immunology from the beginning has been associated with vaccines. It might be useful to understand how the immune system works without that slant. Especially since we are now learning so many new things about our immune systems, like proof that the blood/brain barrier being nearly 100% impermeable is a myth (and finding heavy metal build up in the brain) or that babies in utero grow in a “sterile” environment is incorrect. We are also just beginning to learn why babies are born with “immature” immune systems. It’s not a mistake, it’s because those first six months to a year a baby’s immune system is learning the difference between itself and “other.” Breast milk helps provides that information over time while protecting baby from diseases the mother has immuNity to, and it appears that vaccine immunity does not transfer to baby either in the womb or through milk as well as when mothers actually acquired the live version of the disease. Maybe supporting breastfeeding is the answer and still vaccinating, who knows, but the point is that the new science is fascinating and challenges assumptions we have made about how our immune systems work, and the vast majority of doctors know nothing about any of it.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Just wanted to thank you for the point by point narrative addressing the original article. I was very frustrated by reading the original article and how things were glossed over or just downright misrepresented. But, a lot of people are sharing the original article on Facebook. So, having this post to share as a response saves a lot of time. THANK YOU! And, while I’m sure you already do this, don’t let the trolls get to you. 🙂 Your writing here is appreciated. Blessings to you. (Note to pro-vax people tempted to post responses: hateful comments will not be responded to, so save your time and energy attacking someone else.)

    Like

  11. LOVE LOVE LOVE!!!

    Also,During the first year of life, a baby is unable to scale an effective immune response to any disease because a prime immune reaction would damage his/her brain. What does this mean? The baby’s immune system is unable to regulate the amount of TH1 white blood cells it produces to react to a general virus or bacterium. The thymus gland that controls the immune system is not mature until after the age of 2. The thymus controls T1/T2 immunity and T memory cells. It can’t “remember” a vaccine antibody until it’s mature. That’s one of the reasons why doctors give SO many shots. Having said this, this is the most logical scientific reason not to vaccinate.

    PS. If you read her entire website, it pretty laughable. She even claims that fluoride is completely safe. She is very much spoon fed by the CDC and Pharma.

    #vaccinefreefamily #hopenotdope #truthseekers

    Liked by 2 people

    • Going off your claims all babies would have died of all the diseases they were / are vaccinated for, and all babies would have brain damage since the beginning of vaccinations. Add to this measles, polio, you name the vaccine, would’ve increased unlike all the data gathered from independent researchers worldwide in hundreds of thousands of studies conducted on millions of individuals since the mid 1900s

      Like

  12. I’m disappointed you didn’t spend more time discussing dihydrogen monoxide, which is far and above the most dangerous part of the vaccine. Many medical journals and government agencies have expressed the dangers of too much but we still put it in our vaccines!

    Like

  13. Thanks for this knowledgeable response. The original article was definitely setting off the ‘dumbing down’ alerts for me. One additional point is that doctors do, in fact, profit directly from having fully-vaccinated patients as noted in this article. I verified the blue cross payment schedule referenced with the NVIC who confirmed it to be accurate to the best of their knowledge. https://wellnessandequality.com/2016/06/20/how-much-money-do-pediatricians-really-make-from-vaccines/

    Liked by 1 person

  14. This 2004 American Assoc. of Family Physicians (AAFP) newsletter http://www.aafp.org/fpm/2004/0300/p45.pdf
    entitled, “Getting rewards for your results. Pay-for-performance programs” lists over 35 insurance programs that incentivize key areas of their practice. A couple of bullet points:
    “KEY POINTS
    • Thirty-five health plans covering some 30 million patients now offer pay-for-performance programs.
    • Participating physicians receive an average of 10 percent of annual income by meeting specified quality measures.”
    These insurance providers included Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, California, Michigan, etc. I assume this list has grown since this publication.
    The Michigan program http://thephysicianalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-BCN-BCBSM-Incentive-Program-Booklet.pdf
    details indicate there is incentive to encourage mammograms, smoking cessation, bmi testing, etc., with obvious positive impact. However, in addition to penalizing doctors financially whose patients choose to delay initial infant vaccines beyond 42 days, there are penalties for allowing a patient to change cholesterol or blood pressure medications within the year in which the doctor is being measured. So, the next time you or a loved-one experience side-effects and wonder why the doctor won’t let you try another, you may want to question his or her motive and ask yourself whether it’s in your own best interest.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Hello

    There are some errors in the discussion about aluminum adjuvant. Dr Thomas also made mistakes about aluminum adjuvant.
    1) oral absorption of water-soluble aluminum is about 0.1-0.3%, not 1%. Some aluminum compounds like Al lactate have unusually high absorption of about 0.8% but this is not typical.

    2) Not correct to say that “100% of aluminum in vaccines is absorbed into the bloodstream at once.”

    Al from vaccines does NOT appear in the blood. Al adjuvant is made of AlOH or AlPO4, which have very low solubility. Blood Al measurements after vaccines in humans show NO increase in blood or urine (see Movsas study).

    Low solubility is necessary for the Al to function as an adjuvant.

    These facts do NOT mean Al adjuvant is safe. Al adjuvant is dangerous because it remains in the body in particulate form for months or years. The particles travel around the body (carried by white blood cells), into the brain, liver heart, spleen and other organs.

    For these reasons, Al adjuvant can cause delayed toxicity and brain damage. The danger of Al adjuvant is insidious. it can cause brain damage months or years after injection. But the danger has pretty much nothing to do with the level of dissolved aluminum in the blood.

    3) The statement is misleading: “But if the baby cannot rid his body of aluminum-for whatever reason- then the results can be devastating.” The al adjuvant is not eliminated on any reasonable time scale. People unaffected by Al adjuvant still have it in their bodies. Nobody knows the reason why some are harmed and some are not, but it does depend on where the Al adjuvant particles travel in the body. If they travel into the brain, they can damage the brain.

    See vaccinepapers.org for detailed articles on these issues:

    http://vaccinepapers.org/debunking-aluminum-adjuvant-part-1/

    http://vaccinepapers.org/debunking-aluminum-adjuvant-part-2/

    Like

  16. Pingback: A Fact-by Fact Response to Vaccines 101: Too Much Too Soon?

  17. “Not everyone’s opinion matters when there is a scientific consensus. The body of (best) evidence is overwhelmingly in support of vaccination, as its benefits FAR outweigh the risks.”

    This is by far the most self-serving statement ever made. You sound like someone from the inside. Are you an insider? So the world is now subjected to Science by Consensus? What happened to science? And by the way Consensuses can be PAID for now days as recently reveled here-
    How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
    In a statement responding to the JAMA journal report, the Sugar Association said that the 1967 review was published at a time when medical journals did not typically require researchers to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require financial disclosures until 1984.

    This is one of the things President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the United States about in his Farewell Address. Science being BOUGHT & CONTROLLED BY CORPORATIONS (science by consensus)

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. January 17, 1961.

    It’s not Science by Consensus, it’s Science for Sale and has been a long time. Corporate incest is everywhere. Here’s an example of Vaccine Industry incest:

    Regarding corruption surrounding the recommendation of influenza vaccines; there are no restrictions with regard to conflicts of interest for the employees of the CDC or for those of the FDA (Kuehn, 2010). Each employee of either agency is allowed to own stock in drug companies. There is of course the revolving door. The most blatant example of revolving door corruption may be the action of the former director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding. Gererding blocked the CDC’s planned retraction of their recommendation for HPV vaccine after significant numbers of girls had died or been rendered paralyzed by the HPV vaccine. Soon after blocking the retraction, Gerberding was offered and took a position at Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, the world’s best selling HPV vaccine, as head of Merck Vaccines Department (Reuters, 2009). It is a level of corruption that we would expect to see in only third world countries. ( Kuehn, B. (Feb 3, 2010). Office of Inspector General: CDC Lax in Policing Advisors’ Conflicts of Interest. The Journal of the American Medical Association303. 5 412)

    In 1993, the Comprehensive Childhood Immunization Act was signed into law by President Clinton. Among the various provisions of the law is one that provides for between $50 and $100 to be paid by the CDC to school districts for every ‘Fully vaccinated’ child in their district. Here again, we see the opportunity for corruption. Vaccine manufacturers, their shareholders, including government employees, and school districts have the opportunity to make money for themselves, or for their departments. Certainly employees of school districts won’t be ‘getting fat’ on the CDC’s $50 to $100, but clearly there is a greater likelihood that they may lose their job due to cuts if the coercion to have students vaccinated ceases.

    -Voices for Vaccines: 11 Facts Show How it’s a Propaganda Ploy for Emory University, CDC, and Big Pharma: http://vactruth.com/2014/02/19/cdc-and-emory-university/.

    Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists,
    Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits:
    David L. Lewis PhD (Author)

    Here are a couple of other truthful consensus science that were for sale:
    -PROOF Chesterfield Cigarettes have no adverse effects on nose, throat, sinuses: https://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=TOKc6TNwlj4.
    -The cigarette preferred by doctors: https://www.youtube(dot)com/watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE
    -Academic Hall of Shame: ‘Monsanto Mafia’ scientists named, exposed for pushing GMO agenda in exchange for grants, favors and gifts:
    -www.independentsciencenews(dot)org/science-media/the-puppetmasters-of-academia-ny-times-left-out/
    -http://www.naturalnews(dot)com/051114_Kevin_Folta_Monsanto_Mafia_GMO_propaganda.html
    -AIDS researcher charged with fraud for falsifying data:
    http://www.cbsnews(dot)com/news/aids-researcher-charged-with-fraud-for-falsifying-data/.
    -What pushes scientists to lie? The disturbing but familiar story of Haruko Obokat: http://www.theguardian(dot)com/science/2015/feb/18/haruko-obokata-stap-cells-controversy-scientists-.

    -“It is simply no longer possible to believe the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I
    take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

    “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

    Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, and no secret is revealed.” [1]
    A full transcription of the speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961 and an analysis of the edited version on the net that contains the secret society portion can be found at: http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/jfk_speech_transcript.htm

    Eisenhower & Kennedy knew decades ago that Science was being bought by corporations and this is where the Science of Consensus meme is making it’s move. This is the argument that has been used by supporters of Climate Change and now is being used for vaccines.

    so which would you prefer. Informed Consent, which is a Federal Law on a product (vaccine) so you can make an informed choice or have someone tell you like they do now “the science is settled-vaccines are safe” or vaccines are safe because a bunch of researchers say so without proper long term testing. Science by consensus.

    “evidence is overwhelmingly in support of vaccination, as its benefits FAR outweigh the risks.”
    Please provide the evidence that substantiates this claim. Please provide science based studies, not epidemiological ones.

    Like

    • Am I an insider? What does that mean? I do not work for a pharmaceutical company. I have a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences and conduct research on infectious disease in an academic setting (in a lab that actively supports an ongoing vaccine effort). GASP! Now my opinion on the subject of vaccines will suddenly not matter at all to you. Does that even make sense? That you should hold your opinions, those of vactruth.com, and naturalnews.com, or ancient youtube videos of advertisements over those of scientists who have dedicated their life to the primary research that you are requesting I provide to you? I find it unlikely you will read any of the studies I might link. But here is one that is certainly germaine to this conversation: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/upshot/vaccine-opponents-can-be-immune-to-education.html

      Like

      • First of all you sound like a troll. This is the invoke authority move. Also do you think providing an article from a MSM newspaper is convince considering if you can be honest, the entire MSM is owned by the pharmaceutical industry. The ” I find it unlikely you will read any of the studies I might link” is just an excuse. Link the studies. I have probably read them. While you are linking the studies maybe you can answer some questions:
        -Do you have a Independent double blind placebo based controlled study on the effectiveness of a vaccine?
        -Do you have a science based study that provides scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating? Remember last year the CDC admitted the Flu vaccine was ineffective because the virus mutated. How is this prevented?
        -Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the muscle or fatty tissue giving access to the bloodstream, enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?
        -Can you provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

        Like

      • Ok- I will provide citations and do my best to answer your questions. I’m not a troll- if you actually want scientific information I will happily provide it. Sorry for the delay, btw.

        Q: Do you have a Independent double blind placebo based controlled study on the effectiveness of a vaccine?

        A: Please define independent. Here is a published trial that meets your requirements (except the undefined term “independent”): http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/240028
        While they do exist, placebo-controlled trials rare for the primary reason that scientists have a code of ethics to which they must adhere. It is a major ethical concern to give patients placebo rather than a vaccine in the case where an existing vaccine is available, because you are putting the patient at risk for disease unnecessarily. Studies with that kind of ethical concern will not be approved. Here is a review article explaining the situation, and proposing some solutions to that problem. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157320/

        Q: Do you have a science based study that provides scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

        A:This is a very interesting question. It’s actually true that a vaccine may not completely prevent the emergence of a new strain. Here is a paper discussing the phenomenon with the malaria parasite, though, not a virus. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001368
        But who here claimed that vaccines prevent pathogens from mutating? The claim that vaccines are better for treating disease is still true- we reduce the number of hosts for a pathogen, which dramatically reduces its opportunity to replicate, mutate, and evolve. Antibiotics only work after the pathogen has infected, (and replicated, and possibly already been spread) and if the entire course of drugs is taken- an order with which often many patients fail to comply. If this is your main problem with vaccines, fine. But vaccines remain our best technological advance against infectious disease, even if it is imperfect. And scientists are actively trying to solve this problem by adjusting their vaccination strategies.

        Q: Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the muscle or fatty tissue giving access to the bloodstream, enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

        A:There are a great many inoculation routes one can choose for a vaccine. There are a lot of considerations one must address when designing any vaccine- inoculation route is certainly a big one for many reasons, including efficacy. One must strike a balance between all the reasons you might chose IM over SubQ, or oral, for example. Try this paper for more info: Effect of vaccine administration modality on immunogenicity and efficacy. Zhang L, Wang W, Wang S.Expert Rev Vaccines. 2015;14(11):1509-23. doi: 10.1586/14760584.2015.1081067. Epub 2015 Aug 27.

        Q:Can you provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

        A: Absolutely- remember small pox? See this: From smallpox eradication to the future of global health: innovations, application and lessons for future eradication and control initiatives. Tomori O. Vaccine. 2011 Dec 30;29 Suppl 4:D145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.09.003. Epub 2011 Dec 18.
        Also, eradication of Rinderpest from cattle populations was accomplished through vaccination.

        Hope this helps.

        Like

Comments are closed.