Vaccination - Split from Microchipped Babies

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[eye_of_the_storm]

I was speaking to a lady who works with children who have been damaged by vaccines / "minor brain damage" ... one of the possible side-effects...

One of her clients had 3 children with adverse reactions... they finally made the connection... didn't vaccinate their 4th child...that child is healthy.

There are a number of factors that contribute toxicity overload.

Breastfed babies for example are less inclined to have strong negative reactions as the breast milk works to counter the damage... formula fed babies don't have this added protection.

Who is to say the general population hasn't had their natural IQ potential dropped by 5 to 10 or more points?

Even cutting the cord early on a newborn baby can cause brain damage...

Edited March 8, 2015 by eye_of_the_storm

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[dust]

You have someone who's trying to halve the deaths of children, spending billions to save lives in a dozen different ways you've found a video that cuts and pastes to reverse its true meaning.  The Gates speech, a Ted's talk, which outlines ways to save lives is twisted to mean the opposite.  Despicable.

 

Yes. That video pissed me off.

 

Taomeow, you're an intelligent person. That was an incredibly unintelligent thing to post.

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[Seeker of Wisdom]

There wouldn't be a stampede without vaccination... because most of us would have died terribly in early childhood. You don't have to look back far to see what happens without vaccination. It's all there in black and white.

 

Are people over-vaccinated? Probably. Is vaccination a basic human right? Definitely.

[thelerner]

I don't know what this means, but I notice in much of the anecdotal evidence against vaccines (in this thread for instance) there is a tendency to say; We found 'only 3 Amish kids who got the vaccine they all have autism' or '3 of her 4 kids got vaccinated, they all got some disease'.  Statistically that seems wildly unlikely.   Thus there's either more to the story, ie a genetic propensity or urban myth, wildly unlucky or something else. 

 

People who believe in vaccines know that there is a rate of serious side effects, depending on the vaccine of 1 (or a few) in thousands, and that the overall safety of the public is worth that price/risk.  

 

What kind of problem rate do people who are against vaccines think there is?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

^^^ the fact is whatever side effects are going on, they aren't anything like as bad as a high enough rate of infant deaths from preventable diseases that people would literally have more children because they knew some would die.

 

This is how people conduct family planning in places without vaccination, seriously. They literally decide to have some more kids so they are more likely to have at least one reach maturity.

 

In what twisted reality is that really better than some people having vaccine side effects?

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"People who believe in vaccines know that there is a rate of serious side effects, depending on the vaccine of 1 (or a few) in thousands, and that the overall safety of the public is worth that price/risk. "

-----

 

They do not "know".

This is what they are told.

 

People are told very many things, and they believe them.
What else is the media for, if not to manage people's beliefs?

 

Then they walk away with those beliefs and defend them as if they are real - war statistics, reasons things happened, etc.

 

Do we need to wonder if we are ever lied to using the media?

 

Where are people reading "facts" about vaccines? Fox News? HBO? National Geographic? Vanity Fair?

 

Vaccine injury, like nursing home mistreatment, surgical mistakes, drug reactions - do anyone think doctors and hospitals wrestling with malpractice claims even want to report these at all? Do people think doctors are even required to report all of these?

 

-----

"What kind of problem rate do people who are against vaccines think there is?"

-----

 

I don't know about what various groups and demographics believe, but here is one source of information - the program set up to limit vaccine injury lawsuits and protect the manufacturers from that process:

 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

 

And here is a quote:

 

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events."

 

Note that THIS is the data that pro-vaccine propaganda is using to say adverse events are statistically rare.

 

Since the people who run it admit that it "receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events", then anyone leaning on this to "inform" people about vaccine safety is not showing the whole truth at all.

 

Here is another link:

 

http://www.nvic.org/reportreaction.aspx

 

And a quote:

 

"Although this law requires doctors and other vaccine providers to report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths and serious health problems following vaccination to VAERS, it is estimated that less than 10 percent, perhaps less than one percent of all vaccine-related health problems are ever reported to VAERS."

 

Here are 2 more links from same web site:

 

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Memorial.aspx

http://www.nvic.org/Forms/vaccine-failure-wall.aspx

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[ralis]

Re:

-----

"People who believe in vaccines know that there is a rate of serious side effects, depending on the vaccine of 1 (or a few) in thousands, and that the overall safety of the public is worth that price/risk. "

-----

 

They do not "know".

This is what they are told.

 

People are told very many things, and they believe them.

What else is the media for, if not to manage people's beliefs?

 

Then they walk away with those beliefs and defend them as if they are real - war statistics, reasons things happened, etc.

 

Do we need to wonder if we are ever lied to using the media?

 

Where are people reading "facts" about vaccines? Fox News? HBO? National Geographic? Vanity Fair?

 

Vaccine injury, like nursing home mistreatment, surgical mistakes, drug reactions - do anyone think doctors and hospitals wrestling with malpractice claims even want to report these at all? Do people think doctors are even required to report all of these?

 

-----

"What kind of problem rate do people who are against vaccines think there is?"

-----

 

I don't know about what various groups and demographics believe, but here is one source of information - the program set up to limit vaccine injury lawsuits and protect the manufacturers from that process:

 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

 

And here is a quote:

 

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events."

 

Note that THIS is the data that pro-vaccine propaganda is using to say adverse events are statistically rare.

 

Since the people who run it admit that it "receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events", then anyone leaning on this to "inform" people about vaccine safety is not showing the whole truth at all.

 

Here is another link:

 

http://www.nvic.org/reportreaction.aspx

 

And a quote:

 

"Although this law requires doctors and other vaccine providers to report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths and serious health problems following vaccination to VAERS, it is estimated that less than 10 percent, perhaps less than one percent of all vaccine-related health problems are ever reported to VAERS."

 

Here are 2 more links from same web site:

 

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Memorial.aspx

http://www.nvic.org/Forms/vaccine-failure-wall.aspx

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

 

The problem with your narrative is one of not understanding how science works. The purveyors of the anti vaccination movement focus on the small amount of uncertainty regarding side effects. There is always a small uncertainty regarding a particular vaccine, which may have an unexpected effect. E.g. if a lay person reads from the PDR regarding side effects of the measles virus vaccine, it may cause an alarming response, but the PDR is a reference and as far as I know does not contain a statistical base for each drug. The adverse reactions are always small in number relative to the general population. http://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/attenuvax?druglabelid=1350

 

I suppose it is much better for such diseases such as bubonic plague and small pox to run rampant, in your world view?

Edited March 19, 2015 by ralis

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"The problem with your narrative is one of not understanding how science works. The purveyors of the anti vaccination movement focus on the small amount of uncertainty regarding side effects."

-----

 

My "narrative" has nothing to do with any of that, nor with "how science works".

 

Although I might as well mention that I worked for the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, explaining chemogenomics, bioinformatics, and drug targetting to recent graduate recruits. That has nothing to do with what my post was about, however.

 

Did you actually read the post of mine that you quoted?

 

I merely pointed out the VAERS database that most mainstream media sources use to cite vaccine injury statistics is only showing, by the government's own admission, a "small fraction" of them.

 

-----

"I suppose it is much better for such diseases such as bubonic plague and small pox to run rampant, in your world view?"

-----

 

My world view might be interesting to some people, but my post had nothing to do with my or anyone else's beliefs.

 

The post was about sources of information, and relevant to any person's view on the subject.

 

It isn't a "for" or "against" issue.
It's really just about access to facts.

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[ralis]

Re:

-----

"The problem with your narrative is one of not understanding how science works. The purveyors of the anti vaccination movement focus on the small amount of uncertainty regarding side effects."

-----

 

My "narrative" has nothing to do with any of that, nor with "how science works".

 

Although I might as well mention that I worked for the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, explaining chemogenomics, bioinformatics, and drug targetting to recent graduate recruits. That has nothing to do with what my post was about, however.

 

Did you actually read the post of mine that you quoted?

 

I merely pointed out the VAERS database that most mainstream media sources use to cite vaccine injury statistics is only showing, by the government's own admission, a "small fraction" of them.

 

-----

"I suppose it is much better for such diseases such as bubonic plague and small pox to run rampant, in your world view?"

-----

 

My world view might be interesting to some people, but my post had nothing to do with my or anyone else's beliefs.

 

The post was about sources of information, and relevant to any person's view on the subject.

 

It isn't a "for" or "against" issue.

It's really just about access to facts.

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

 

Providing access to NVIC, which is a anti vaccination site, engages in so called research that is not peer reviewed, not factual, but is based on anecdotal evidence, not science.

 

The quote below from your recent post denotes a broad generalization by using the terms 'they', 'people', which implies the unquestioning acceptance by whomever, which is insulting to persons who take time to think critically. 

 

 

 

Re:

-----

"People who believe in vaccines know that there is a rate of serious side effects, depending on the vaccine of 1 (or a few) in thousands, and that the overall safety of the public is worth that price/risk. "

-----

 

They do not "know".

This is what they are told.

 

People are told very many things, and they believe them.

What else is the media for, if not to manage people's beliefs?

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Providing access to NVIC, which is a anti vaccination site, engages in so called research that is not peer reviewed, not factual, but is based on anecdotal evidence, not science."

-----

 

In this case, all the link shows is that they agree with the US Government's VAERS Database web site, which claims that:
 

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events."

 

Very few of the media sources that people are seeing that promote vaccines are based on any "science" whatsoever.

The supposed "rarity" of adverse vaccine reactions, for that one example, is based on a government database that, by the government's own admission, represents "only a small fraction" of such events.

Is that "science"?

 

In terms of actual "science", try this look at the "science" behind vaccine promotion:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

 

Of course, this link isn't about "peer-reviewed science".

 

It's about lawsuits in Federal Court against a vaccine manufacturer which has disregarded such a thing:

 

"The first court case, United States v. Merck & Co., stems from claims by two former Merck scientists that Merck "fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act]."
 

According to the whistleblowers' court documents, Merck's misconduct was far-ranging: It "failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment describe herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing."
 

These fraudulent activities, say the whistleblowers, were designed to produce test results that would meet the FDA's requirement that the mumps vaccine was 95 per cent effective. To the whistleblowers' delight, the judge dismissed Merck's objections to the case proceeding, finding the whistleblowers had plausible grounds on all of the claims lodged against Merck."

 

And that is some of the "science" behind vaccine promotion.

 

If there is solid science verifying the efficacy of vaccines, why do these manufacturers need to lie to the public?

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[dust]

 

You have someone who's trying to halve the deaths of children, spending billions to save lives in a dozen different ways you've found a video that cuts and pastes to reverse its true meaning.  The Gates speech, a Ted's talk, which outlines ways to save lives is twisted to mean the opposite.  Despicable.

 

Yes. That video pissed me off.

 

Taomeow, you're an intelligent person. That was an incredibly unintelligent thing to post.

 

Prove it with what you know first hand from independent sources and I'll bow to your unimpeachable research methods and your vastly superior intelligence.

 

I wasn't knocking your intelligence or claiming mine is superior, and you know that. I was saying that I think you should have thought twice before posting such obvious propaganda.

 

Prove it...? I think all we've proven so far is that nobody is really able to "prove" anything on this topic...but I will comment on that video.

 

Yes, Gates wants to lower population growth. But a bit of research as to why...?

 

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014#MYTHTHREE

 

The fact is that a laissez faire approach to development—letting children die now so they don’t starve later—doesn’t actually work, thank goodness. It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is because the women in these countries tend to have the most births, too. Scholars debate the precise reasons why, but the correlation between child death and birth rates is strong.

 

It's quite logical. You can see it everywhere. The most prosperous countries, the most healthy wealthy people, end up having fewer children, whereas the poorest end up having more.

 

Look at the UK, where the native population (i.e. not counting immigration) has been declining for decades. Then look at China, where over the last 2 centuries tens of millions of people have died from war and famine and drug addiction, with swathes of the population cut away in the S-J War and the GLF, where the vast majority of people have been living in poverty for decades -- and what's the population growth been like?

 

 

edit:

 

My point is made like this: every nation has seen population growth over the last few hundred years. Innovation in agriculture, the growth of transport networks, better medicine and more knowledge about hygiene, etc -- all of these things have meant that people are generally living longer. But it is in those nations where the people have lived more healthily, and to a higher age, where the population growth has slowed down; conversely, in the poorer nations, those with more poverty and worse education, populations have continued to increase despite having less food and worse hygiene. This is not because people are healthy, and living to old age more frequently. It is because people have more children when they know there's a chance that half of them will die before they even get a chance to attend school.

 

I don't know if I can prove that vaccinations have anything to do with this, but I am confident that they played a part, and I am equally confident that Bill Gates wants nothing but to improve the lives of people in worse-off parts of the world.

Edited July 23, 2015 by dustybeijing

[vonkrankenhaus]

Just thought I'd share this article, which have emerged as part of the debate in California about removing vaccine exemptions:

 

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/04/30/harvard-trained-immunologist-demolishes-

 

This article, plus the one showing that the UK government lied to citizens for 30 years, and the one showing that Merc is being sued for fraud over its MMR vaccine - this stuff is hard to ignore -  is there anyone who still believes in the vaccine hoax?

 

http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/10/the-vaccine-hoax-is-over-freedom-of-information-act-documents-from-uk-reveal-30-years-of-coverup/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[blue eyed snake]

just some information

 

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/07/7th-dead-doctor-found-among-five-slain.html

[thelerner]

I spent like 50 seconds looking at just the first case.  That all it took to definitively know there's no conspiracy for the first where the killer knew the family for years.  I guess I could look into the others but why waste my time.  I understand the desire for conspiracy here, but it doesn't exist. 

 

No one needs to assassinate antivacciners, its been debunked already, imo and thankfully for most society.  Any violence would be silly and counter counter productive. 

Edited July 23, 2015 by thelerner

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"No one needs to assassinate antivacciners, its been debunked already, imo and thankfully for most society."

-----

 

What is it that has been "debunked"?

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[thelerner]

Re: -----

"No one needs to assassinate antivacciners, its been debunked already, imo and thankfully for most society."

-----

 

What is it that has been "debunked"?

 

-VonKrankenhaus

wearing white after May.

[vonkrankenhaus]

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164794

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4065774/pdf/BMRI2014-247218.pdf

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/048422_flu_shot_scientific_fraud_controlled_trials.html

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mumps_vaccine_False_Claims_Act.html#

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/86-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[thelerner]

I would only add that I hope people will spend time investigating both sides.  Consider the sources of information and follow the best science. 

[SonOfTheGods]

If immunizations work well, then the few who don't want them, should not be able to infect those who already had theirs.

On the other hand, if the immunizations are not fool proof, then does their ineffectiveness still outweigh the risks?

 

Also- if we believe that life is an illusion, and we are in control- then that must be extended in all areas of life.

Those who were infected with various dis-ease during pre- immunization era, chose to live in that era.

If we are going to believe, we must believe at all times, just not at our convenience.

 

I see this as more of a "control tactic" by big government and pharmaceutical companies- and to see how much they can push and get away with.

Eventually all humanity will be "online" one way, or another

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Consider the sources of information and follow the best science."

-----

 

 

http://e-patients.net/archives/2012/03/former-nejm-editors-on-the-corruption-of-american-medicine-ny-times.html

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[thelerner]

Re:

-----

"Consider the sources of information and follow the best science."

-----

http://e-patients.net/archives/2012/03/former-nejm-editors-on-the-corruption-of-american-medicine-ny-times.html

Correct: you'd have to largely throw out belief in modern medicine to be on the anti-vaccination side.  God help them if they ever get things like rabies shots or need an antibiotic. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by thelerner

[dust]

Miseducated religious people who think vaccinations are a threat:

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/3/pakistan-arrests-parents-for-refusing-polio-vaccination.html

Frustrated officials turned to police to deal with parents influenced by some clerics who decry government vaccination campaigns as a tool to weaken Islam

 

 

Nigeria beats polio:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33650543

Nigeria had struggled to contain polio since some northern states imposed a ban on vaccinations in 2003.

 

 

India beats polio:

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/01/how-india-won-over-polio-drop-drop-20141178138210376.html

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has officially declared India polio-free...

...this hard-won war against polio is validation that decisive political will and effective partnerships between government and agencies like WHO, Rotary clubs and UNICEF can bring about tangible changes with far-reaching consequences.

Edited July 26, 2015 by dustybeijing