Lethal Injection: The Story of Vaccination

1.4k
5.03
12345678910
Ratings: 5.03/10 from 78 users.

Storyline

Lethal Injection: The Story of VaccinationFrom the author: The definitive look into the history of vaccination. From cancer, to autism, to the purposeful sterilization of innocent people around the globe, find out why all of these things are perfectly legal according to U.S. CODE - why the government considers you no different than cattle in their own law.

When I started this project almost three years ago I, like so many researchers before me, got pulled into the same old quotes and statistics surrounding the history of vaccines and of vaccination.

And while these are important factors to consider regarding the vaccine industry, the true nature of the term vaccination is now completely and utterly foreign to what my previous misconception of that word was.

Before we can begin to comprehend just what the word vaccination really means we must first break down into simple terms what the purpose of a vaccine is.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • http://www.facebook.com/georgina.whitby Georgina Whitby

    I really like Top Documentary Films and the diversity of views that it presents - but this film is purely and simply a presentation of fraudulent pseudoscience and dangerous medical misinformation. The person who created this film shows a classic Schizophrenic misinterpretation/ decontextualization of language (listen their rant on the term "anti-body") which suggests their misinformation comes from paranoia and delusion rather than malicious intent - however unless the host of this website suffers a similar illness, there is no excuse for perpetuating such dangerous misinformation.

  • wald0

    If you want to show me that a vaccination is bad for my health or causes infertility then please do so by scientifically breaking down the vaccine and showing me exactly how and why it does what you say by using the scientific method. If you can't do that you simply have another conspiracy theory and nothing more. Simply showing me how a medication that prevents fertility in horses could also be called a vaccine means absolutley nothing, its simply a way of SUGGESTING that a vaccine COULD be harmful, not that they are harmful. Were are the cases of people being infertile due to vaccination, were are any cases that conclusively link vaccination to harmful outcomes? Were are the double blind studies and journal publications? This is psuedo-scientific fear mongering for conspiracy theory nuts in my opinion. I have no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt and that many of the newer designer meds out there are dangerous, but vaccines have vastly impproved the quality of human life- period. My dad remembers when we didn't have vaccines for deseases like polio, ask him if he thinks it was a good thing. It is hard to deny that many deseases such as polio were all but eradicated by the use of vaccines. This conspiracy theory has been around long enough for them to conclusively prove that vaccines are harmful, for them to have specific cases to site were vaccines have been conclusively linked to harmful results- but they choose instead to dissect U.S. legal code and compare horse medications to vaccines- that should tell us something.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Georgina,

    I agree, it is pseudoscience and complete medical misinformation, and I'm thus guilty for perpetuating this doc.

    However, lot of commentators will challenge the content (@Waldo already did a great job) and hopefully expose the misinformation in it.

    Plus I hope that lot of people who are already aligned with the reasoning behind this doc, will be confronted with intelligent and rational explanations of why they're possibly wrong.

  • tariqxl

    In that case help to educate by not simply saying its rubbish and throwing insults like most people on the internet. Pick out points and explain the truth as you understand it.

  • usedtobesupermom

    The links and documentation are in this. He shows it.

  • over the edge

    i tried . i really did. made it twenty or so minutes in and wow.the presenter tries to infer some evil plot by highlighting particular words "fertility management" or feigning shock when humans are called animals and so are pests.

    could vaccines be safer? yes could they be more effective? yes will vaccines be developed that have less side effects? yes but not getting recommended vaccines leads to outbreaks and the suffering and death of others. there are those who are either allergic to the ingredients or have a condition(s) that prevents safe vaccination and they rely on the rest of us to get vaccinated to keep them relatively safe. if you wish to know about a vaccine read the peer reviewed articles (in their entirety) or review the medical communities (as a whole) stance on the particular vaccine.instead of getting medical advice from some from some random poster such as myself or some conspiracy theorist

  • blaxparx25

    Just what, exactly, does the USGS have to do with vaccines? Do they vaccinate rocks or what? This doc is pseudoscience.

  • dewflirt

    My spidey senses are telling me this is troll science :/

  • robertallen1

    As usual, your spidey (read down to earth) senses are playng you true. For an in-depth study on vaccine scares, you might want to try "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cindy-Duncan/100000879215657 Cindy Duncan

    another bogus story that has been disproved over and over again folks the guy who started this scare was a con artist

  • Achems_Razor

    maybe the authors of lethal injection are Jehova Witness, vaccinations were forbidden up to 1952, and now they are a personal conscience issue.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cindy-Duncan/100000879215657 Cindy Duncan

    my moms 2 brother died one of diptheria and the other pertusis my mom saw her little brother fall off his chair dead

  • robertallen1

    As I advised Dewflirt, you might want to try "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.

    P.S. Your last sentence is not reading as I think you intended it to as the clause "such as myself" might be taken to apply both to conspiracy theorest (which I know you aren't) and random poster (which I know you are). Suggest "from some random poster such as myself or some conspiracy theorist."

  • PaulGloor

    Oh dear god... the first 20 min is nothing but pro lifer projectile vomit.
    I would like to see some scientific data on that cancer/vaccine link though, it is reasonable considering viruses cant replicate until they invade a cell and hijack its functions.
    I can see the possible complications of using squaline, but really, does it always have to be a government conspiracy ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dstammel David Stammel

    This website is called "top documentary films" why is this on here?
    it's a piece of garbage. The narrator clearly has no clue what he's talking about. Don't waste your time. I'm only listening to it because it's humorous.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    Vaccines work, they eradicated smallpox and polio. I don't understand why this was posted on here, it's not a documentary, it's disinformation.

  • over the edge

    Fabien L'Amour and David Stammel
    while i agree that this doc is "disinformation." or"a piece of garbage." a lot of people do not. if documentaries such as this one are only viewed where people who already agree or are likely to agree then they will never hear the counter arguments. this forum is a great place to expose these misleading ideas. also for those of us who try to argue against these lies it allows us to sharpen our arguments and see the thinking process (or lack of) of the other side. please see Vlatko's earlier post

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    I understand your reasoning Vlatko but aren't you worried you give credibility to this nonsense by posting it on TOP Documentary? There is nothing in there that makes it TOP in my humble opinion. You also spread access to that disinformation by posting it, I am worried you might boost the google ranking for that video just by reposting it.

    A google search for The story of vaccination puts that result #1. It is BY NO MEAN a story of vaccination but the analysis of a pseudo-scientist. Someone with poor judgement might actually think it is true and reject vaccination. Also, what percentage of viewers will read the comments? I just think it's a bad idea to give it any additional publicity...

  • robertallen1

    Perhaps it was posted to reveal allow the anti-vaccinationists to reveal themselves for the ignoramuses and liars they are.

  • robertallen1

    You might also want to look at "Expelled," "The War on Health" and "Programming for Life," two more idiotic documentaries on TDF. While I see your point, it's worse to let these people drivel on with impunity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    I would suggest a BIG WARNING IN RED stating the "facts presented as science in this video" have not been peer reviewed and are mostly opinions or purely untrue, just to make sure it is understood it is pseudo-science garbage.

  • robertallen1

    Isn't the idea to have the viewer decide for himself?

  • as_above

    I don't see a problem with this doc if you disagree with it vaccinate your kids if you agree don't simple as that.

  • over the edge

    as_above
    "if you disagree with it vaccinate your kids if you agree don't simple as that." no it isn't that simple. of you do not vaccinate your kids you are not only putting them at risk but everyone else they come in contact with.

  • as_above

    Every one has their right to their opinion whether other people agree or not,however if you think your privy to all information on any matter that may be a mistake.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    I know a woman that blame the autism of her child on vaccines thanks to such documentary. The problem is the first symptoms of autism are close to some major vaccines for kids so many will do the correlation. Having a guy presenting such nonsense and say he is a researcher that spent 3 years on it might give it an aura of truth it by no means deserve. Some parents trying to explain the death of their child might even think it is 100% right and spread the misinformation.

  • robertallen1

    Right--and run the far greater risk of placing them in danger if you don't

  • as_above

    so you suggest people shouldn't have the right to make the choice?

  • Achems_Razor

    The doc already says, "from the author."
    Vlatko offered a good disclaimer, any more said might present a bias on his part.

    I am sure docs of this nature people can put two and two together.

  • as_above

    No one lives forever do you wish to always live in fear?

  • robertallen1

    Everyone has a LEGAL right to his opinion, but not to child endangerment. You're the one who's making the mistake.

  • robertallen1

    And that is just why we have all these counters.

  • robertallen1

    When it comes to their children, absolutely not.

  • as_above

    Every parent makes those choises every day life is full of them you make them for your children and others for theres

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    Here is the deal with children vaccination. You view that nonsense and decide not let doctors vaccinate your kid. He contracts a deadly disease then gets in contact with other kids that haven't yet been vaccinated for that disease. So you kid dies and several other die too because you believed the nonsense in a video a guy made in his basement.

  • robertallen1

    As for the genesis of claims of autism in children due to vaccines, you might want to read "Bad Medicine" by Ben Goldacre.

  • over the edge

    as_above
    "so you suggest people shouldn't have the right to make the choice?"not at all. i do suggest they make an informed choice after reviewing the studies and opinions of the experts.

  • robertallen1

    I think we'd both be happier if more people could put two and two together.

  • robertallen1

    No. That's why I got my flu shot three weeks ago.

  • as_above

    i am not siding one way or another just saying every one makes their own decisions call it evolution.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    Evolution? If you want pure evolution, say no to all vaccines, medicine and medical treatments. Let the battle between germs and immune system run it's course like in nature. Of course you will have to accept a 40 years old life expectancy and high infantile death. I side for modern medicine including vaccines. Heck, I'd be long dead if I vouched for pure evolution.

  • as_above

    Let me know when you find the perfect source of information then maybe we can start making perfect decisions.

  • robertallen1

    Preventing your children from being vaccinated constitutes child endangerment, a CRIMINAL ACT. If any one of your children come down with the disease against which they should be vaccinated, you are guilty of not only child endangerment, but also at the very least reckless endangerment, CRIMINAL ACTS. If any one of your children die from the disease against which you prevented them from being vaccinated, you are guilty of MURDER and not only should you do considerable prison term, but any other children should be removed from your care.

    Your thoughts might at least give the appearance of intelligence if you learned to spell.

  • as_above

    Im having a philosophical conversation with you nothing more

  • robertallen1

    No, evolution has nothing to do with it.

  • as_above

    and there is the possibility that we don't know everything and we could be doing the wrong thing we at one time thought the earth was flat.

  • robertallen1

    Evolution merely describes the process in which life changes; it doesn't prescribe it. Of course, there is a great side benefit, its use in immunology.

  • over the edge

    as_above
    now you are being unreasonable. the best source for information is the experts in the field of study. how about making the best decision you can based on the evidence?

  • robertallen1

    When it comes to vaccines, the best source of information is the MAINSTREAM medical profession.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    There are scientific proof and practical proof vaccines work. Prevalence of several diseases has severely decreased thanks to vaccines. Polio, Smallpox, rabbies, you only have to look at pre-vaccines prevalence of these diseases to see we are doing the right thing.

  • as_above

    I see my point isn't being seen ,the point is your born into life having to decide for your self with what you know and that is an imperfect process

  • as_above

    We are having two different conversations here.

  • over the edge

    as_above
    lets cut to the chase shall we? list the top two or three pieces of evidence you base you decision concerning vaccination on. if you cannot i will consider you a troll

  • robertallen1

    I don't know which country you reside in, but in the U.S., small pox has been completely wiped, so completely that one case is considered an epidemic, the same for a number of other diseases such as bubonic plague, polio and scarlet fever. So, we must be on the right track.

    Sick people believe the earth is round and so do healthy ones. There is even a Flat Earth Society composed of both the sick and the healthy (and I don't mean mentally). So whatever you believe in this regard has nothing to do with solubrity and hence this discussion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    You say you aren't siding with one side or another. I take it you don't side for or against vaccines, isn't it the topic at hand or you have 2 sides unrelated to the documentary???

  • robertallen1

    And my point and the point of several others is that you can do no better than consult the MAINSTREAM experts, especially in medicine.

  • robertallen1

    When it comes to vaccination, middle-of-the-roaders are just as bad as those who opt against it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    Agreed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    It's partially correct. Good science is getting closer to the truth with every discovery. It's not like we will go back to the earth is flat and at the center of the universe. Some observations might be wrong but there are evidences that are verifiable facts that can be reproduced over and over. Vaccines eradicated several diseases, it is scientific and a fact. That is all I will add to this discussion, I have better things to do then discuss reality ad nauseum.

  • robertallen1

    And that's one of the justifications for vaccines; they are repeatable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ragin.redneck.7 Ragin Redneck

    Giant load of unsourced BULLSH*T quoted in this documentary. Sad that the conflictinator conspiracy nonsense has spread to such a vital field as vaccinations.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ragin.redneck.7 Ragin Redneck

    There is a ton of evidence to refute virtually every claim made by this documentary. A ton, I'm pretty sure that the actual weight of the documents would be close to that. The original claim that vaccinations cause autism was put out in the lancet many years ago and has since been entirely refuted by the scientific body. The doctor who MADE that claim was found to have been taking kickbacks from a company trying to make competing vaccines. What annoys me MOST is that there is not ONE SINGLE citable source that has not either been investigated for fraud or prosecuted for malpractice quoted in this entire film. It is truely sad that people believe this nonsense.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000631933465 Fecioru Florin

    WOW! is this painful to watch...

  • robertallen1

    You must be referring to the MMR scandal and Andrew Wakefield who was stricken off the medical roster because of it. There's a fine on article on this on Wikipedia as well as a detailed chapter in "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.

  • sknb

    If you don't vaccinate your children you are endangering others. Anything that tells you otherwise is bad science.

    This video is such a load of crap.

    I like to watch these kind of videos though because it shows me how people can convince and manipulate others who are ignorant of science.

    And yeah, there are too many people.

  • Jack1952

    I tried to watch this doc but I kept falling asleep. You would think the reek of this bovine excrement would have prevented this from happening, but, apparently not.

  • xxconspiracyxx

    Fabien L'Amour @ you mean like when the scientists told us that we should put fluoride into our water, then 25 years later we find out it effects our bones, kidneys and all other sorts, good old USA, whos to say that the vaccinations are correct and not doing damage? I myself haven't had any vac's in my life and i get a cold no more then anyone who has, and to this day i refuse to have any,
    But saying that, my son has had all his jab, because of a previous comment below I would not forgive myself if something were to happen, i'm a hipocrit really when i think about it,

    Kind of driffting off the subject, do you know about the gerson's theory? cure to cancer and other diseases, doctors wont reccommend it because it's not "mainstream" science but facts show it works, what would you do if you had cancer? go with what the doctor says and poison your body of radiation, or follow the path of nature and allow your body to heal it's self, who do you trust?

    also
    Conspiracys have it that vaccinations have ways to control fertility, i am a conspiracy theorist but this is for upto you to decide, it's "suppose" to help reduce and help control the population, you can ignore this and choose not to reply but it is a theory.

  • robertallen1

    Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture. National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)"A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation (2007). There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma. Other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.[ McDonagh M., Whiting P. et al, A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation, 2000. However, like anything else, excessive doses can have deleterious effects. So get your facts straight.

    As for Gerson therapy, from Wikipedia, attempts to independently check the results of the therapy have been negative. A group of 13 patients sickened by elements of the Gerson Therapy were evaluated in hospitals in San Diego in the early 1980s; all 13 were found to still have active cancer. An investigation by Quackwatch found that the Institute's claims of cure were based not on actual documentation of survival, but on 'a combination of the doctor's estimate that the departing patient has a reasonable chance of surviving,' plus feelings that the Institute staff have about the status of people who call in." A 1994 article in the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine attempted to follow 39 Gerson patients in Tijuana. Patient interviews were used to confirm the existence and stage of cancer; most patients were unaware of the stage of their tumor and medical records were not available. Most patients were lost to follow-up; of the patients successfully followed, 10 died and 6 were alive at their last follow-up. Review of this study pointed out its obvious flaws, including the majority of patients lost to follow-up, lack of access to detailed medical records, and reliance upon patients for disease stage information; the authors themselves regarded the results as unclear.

    The American Cancer Society reported "[t]here is no reliable scientific evidence that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States." In 1947, the National Cancer Institute reviewed 10 claimed cures submitted by Gerson; however, all of the patients were receiving standard anticancer treatment simultaneously, making it impossible to determine what effect, if any, was due to Gerson's therapy. A review of the Gerson Therapy by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center concluded: "If proponents of such therapies wish them to be evaluated scientifically and considered valid adjuvant treatments, they must provide extensive records (more than simple survival rates) and conduct controlled, prospective studies as evidence." In 1959, the National Cancer Institute again reviewed cases of patients treated by Dr. Gerson. and found that the available information did not prove the regimen had benefit. Cancer Research UK states, “Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that Gerson therapy can treat cancer ... Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health.”

    So the facts are that it doesn't work and claiming that it does makes you a liar.

    "What would you do if you had cancer? go with what the doctor says and poison your body of [sic] radiation, or follow the path of nature and allow your body to heal it's self [sic], who do you trust?" Answer: In light of the ignorance you've displayed, how do you know that such a choice exists?

    My guess is that you haven't anything approaching a medical background which means that you are writing on matters of which you know nothing which makes you a dangerous ignoramus rendered even more pernicious by the intelligence of a conspiracy theorist.

  • robertallen1

    What renders all this more pernicious is that once these people (who never had much intelligence in the first place) have been brainwashed by these mountebanks, nothing, not even the most rigorous efforts of modern medicine, can dissuade them from their belief in this charlatanism which they try to pass on to suceeding generations.

  • WakeTen

    I have not watched the documentary yet. I have been pretty busy lately. I have read a lot of the comments though. I can only add my experience as a person. My experience being very different from most, I think. I am 25 years old. I have been a pro athlete for a number of years. I also graduated high in my class. I have never had a single shot in my entire life. No vaccinations, no flu shots, nothing. My parents are religious nuts though. I am highly educated (formally and informally) now and I do disagree with them heavily on most things. But, I have never had to go to the doctor because I was sick. I have seen the inside of a hospital many times due to broken bones, torn ligaments and so on from injuries due to my sport. But never because I felt sick. The most sick feeling I get is a lethargic feeling, so I might try to get another hour or two of sleep or something. That's only once or twice a year. I do eat very well and exercise heavily. I'm not saying vaccinations are bad or that they give you autism. But, I can say that I have never got one and life is pretty good. I do understand that true cognitive thought is looking at all the information that plays a role in what you are trying to understand. Like, possibly everyone else took the bullet for me by getting vaccinations and now there is no sickness around for me to catch and so on. I don't know the answer but I hope we work together to figure out fact from fiction on this subject. With the knowledge learned through dialogue from everyone that has facts or experiences regarding this subject, bias, money, and reputation aside, I hope it is used to build a better, closer nit world.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @WakeTen,

    It didn't occur to you that those who are vaccinated are protecting you too? You live in an almost sterile environment, where there are virtually no people who'll transmit diseases to you.

    Yes it is possible to be healthy without a single vaccination shot, but only in places where the majority is vaccinated.

    If you really want to test your "vaccination free" health you should move to a place where there are disease outbreaks, like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UY2E3EHXZ67CHLUVSBO6P23Z3M christophers

    Jesus Christ,you use Wikipedia as a source,how about reading some congressional testimony....1953 Fitzgerald report,testimony to a special Senate committee ....

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    I would give credibility to what you wrote if you cited some peer reviewed scientific research on the effect of fluoride on kidneys and bones from fluoridation of water. I am not talking some research on mice with mega doses of fluoride here, I am talking same dosage as is used in water fluoridation.

    You have to be critical, sometimes medias will distort an unrelated research to make a headline and when you scrutinize, the dosage or way of administration has nothing to do with what you will find is commonly used. I could prove that salt is extremely deadly if I wanted to distort reality, table salt has a lower lethal dose then several pesticides.

    Saying you didn't get vaccination and are healthy proves nothing in a mostly vaccinated population. You were lucky enough to not get exposed because you didn't come in contact with someone diseased, that's it. With the mobility across continents nowadays where a carrier can move pretty much anywhere around the world in 24 hours, I think vaccination is a must for kids and immuno-depressed citizens. I am pretty sure if a deadly strain of influenza like we had in 1918 did occur, you would be in line to get your vaccine. Up to 3% of the world population died of it. If you knew someone that died of it, are you seriously telling me you wouldn't want the vaccine?

    Has for the Gerson therapy, it has been peer reviewed and rejected. Feel free to try it if you ever have cancer yourself but I don't think it's a good idea to recommend it when proven treatments with radiation give you a better chance of surviving. I can't see scientifics and doctors going for extremely invasive radiation treatments if a diet can cure cancer but then I am not a conspiracy theorist that thinks people that took the Hippocratic Oath are cruel people that want to make me suffer or kill me.

  • robertallen1

    What's the matter with using Wikipedia as a source, especially since Wikipedia gives the sources it draws from? And all the sources are 50 years after the 1953 report.

  • Jack1952

    Your first link says nothing about any current outbreak of smallpox. It explains how they are prepared and what procedures would be followed in case an epidemic does break out. I repeat, in case an epidemic does break out. Nowhere does it say that an epidemic does exist.
    The link in your second comment to me comes from the vaccination council, which is an anti vaccination site. This quote comes your link "The last case of epidemic smallpox occurred on October 26, 1977 in Somalia." No cases since 1977. None. Zero. That is a fact. You provided the link that makes this claim. The headline of your link is not supported and is at odds with what it says in its own article.

    Read again what I said about polio. I said that polio only exists in places where Muslim fundamentalists refuse to be vaccinated against the disease. This is what it says in the link you provided.
    "The WHO said evidence indicates the virus is genetically linked to polio cases currently circulating in Pakistan, which borders Xinjiang. Pakistan has been affected by the nationwide transmission of the same WPV1 strain." An outbreak in China, in a province that borders Pakistan with the same strain of polio which is circulating in Pakistan. You do know that Pakistan is rife with Muslim fundamentalists. You verified with your link what I wrote about polio.

    Your links have strengthened my argument and weakened your position. Thanks for the facts which who have so graciously provided.

  • Jack1952

    If vaccinations are being used as a method of population control it hasn't been too effective. World population is over seven billion and growing. The only places where birthrates have gone down are the countries where people voluntarily decide the size of their families. They don't need secret sterilization projects to control birthrates. The people are doing it of their own choice.

  • robertallen1

    "Because smallpox was wiped out many years ago, a case of smallpox today would be the result of an intentional act. A single confirmed case of smallpox would be considered an emergency.

    Thanks to the success of vaccination, the last natural outbreak of smallpox in the U.S. occurred in 1949. By 1972, routine smallpox vaccinations for children in the U.S. were no longer needed. In 1980, smallpox was said to be wiped out worldwide, and no cases of naturally occurring smallpox have happened since."

    This is from your own goddam link. So it's you, not Jack, who should avoid calling things facts when they are clearly not. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • as_above

    Then i guess we need a new word instead of eradicated.other wise the word fact is fallacious.

  • robertallen1

    When one case counts as an epidemic, the word eradicated is just fine. We can do without your attempts at distortion.

  • Jack1952

    Nothing fallacious about the facts I provided and you verified. The facts are exactly as I claimed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    HPV isn't a mandatory vaccination so you might want to let her decide when she is old enough, it's not like the risk of death is very high. And then, I would ask for Cervarix since Gardasil may have had adverse effects on 2 women in their study.

    There is not much to go with though as your article states the following : "Shaw and Tomljenovic concede that the study has limitations: only two case studies and no control group." They also used "could" and "may" quite a bit which points to an uncertainty of cause and effect.

  • Jack1952

    Another factor to consider is the fact that cancer is not contagious. This makes it a personal decision. If the unthinkable does happen, she does not place anyone else at risk. My suggestion would be to amass all the information possible and then make the decision that would be in the best interest of your daughter and your family. This is a question that only your family should resolve and no one else.

  • xxconspiracyxx

    you are very rude rob, i've been scanning alot of what you right on here and you do nothing but attempt to belittle people and insult them, I think you need to reel your neck in sometimes and listen to other peoples opinion,

    "So the facts are that it doesn't work and claiming that it does makes you a liar"

    is rude, i'm not a liar, i work with people who have autism and i dont think i would be very good at my job if i was a so called liar, or bring up a son, for that matter, I just follow facts, documentation that I find, there's nothing wrong with that, just like everyone else here or on TDF,

    "My guess is that you haven't anything approaching a medical background which means that you are writing on matters of which you know nothing which makes you a dangerous ignoramus rendered even more pernicious by the intelligence of a conspiracy theorist"

    sigh... again with the insults, let me guess, your single, lonely and live on trolling the net, what makes you think that what you say is correct eh? it seems to me that what you say has to be the right way or nothing at all.

    get a life mate.

  • xxconspiracyxx

    thinking about it who needs vaccinations when you have the USA and Israel to control population.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    You can't possibly compare the death toll of all casualties from these 2 countries wars to the death toll of pandemics in history :

    100 000 000 died from Bubonic plague in Europe and Asia in 1338–1351

    More recently, 75 000 000 died because of influenza alone in 1918-1920. And the current death toll for AIDS is now above 25 000 000.

    The highest estimate for World War 2 is 75 millions and most casualties weren't attributed to U.S.A. and Israel but Russia, Japan and obviously Germany.

  • Jack1952

    It took a while but someone finally figured a way to get their anti American rhetoric into the mix. Conspiracy guys are incredibly predictable.

    Robertallen1 can be a little gruff at times and maybe he should tone down the personal attacks but he knows what he is talking about. He is well read and understands how facts are gathered and interpreted. He doesn't need me to defend him as I know he is quite capable of defending himself but I have had discussions with him in the past and I respect the fact that he researches thoroughly the topics in discussion.

    As for that Gerson therapy, it has been around long enough that there should be warehouses full of meticulous patient records. Records that would include independent oncologist prognosis's, daily patient progress reports and success/failure charts. In fact, the more effective the treatment the more likely these records would exist. That these records are not forthcoming says myriads about the effectiveness of the program. Until those meticulous records are produced and shows any success I place this therapy in the same league as Benny Hinn and his ilk.

  • robertallen1

    When you state that the facts show that Gerson "treatment" works, you deserve all the opprobrium that can be hurled at you. By putting out this baldfaced lie in an attempt to promote dangerous quackery. you deserve to be treated with nothing but contempt and derision.

    I'll take what mainstream medicine says over the statements of a pernicious ignoramus such as you who really has no facts to follow.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000086124307 Jack Hemsworth

    Jack Hemsworth In 1975...I made the decision not to vaccinate my future 5 children based on the freedom of information Act info available at the time
    36 minutes ago · Like

  • robertallen1

    For WWII, iI'm sure it was an accident, but you left out Poland.

  • robertallen1

    What gets my dander is when those like xxconspiracyxx try to spread their ignorance a la Benny Hinn by falsely stating, for example, that Gerson therapy has been proven effective when, as both of us have pointed out, the opposite is the case and not only is the opposite the case, but the "therapy" itself is dangerous. Then someone reads this garbage, believes it, doesn't seek mainstream medical treatment, but instead goes to one of these quacks--and we both know the results.

    It's amazing how those of the intelligence level of xxconspiracyxx respond to issues such as those posed in your second paragraph--it's the fault of the mainstream medical profession and big pharma who are in cahoots to suppress these "proven" "treatments." It never seems to occur to these quack rooters that If there were anything to Gerson therapy and the like, the mainstream medical profession and big pharma would jump at the chance to make medical history and, of course, a considerable and richly deserved profit.

    All in all, promoting bogus treatments is as contemptible as practicing them.

  • Jack1952

    And you should be thankful that your neighbours did vaccinate which meant your five children were never exposed to the diseases those vaccinations prevented. Those vaccinations still protected your children.

  • robertallen1

    In other words, his chidren got a free ride. The problem is what if they come in contact with an infected person.

    The problem with those like Jack Hemsworth is that they boast about their own stupidity and worse yet, hold themselves and at times their offspring out as poster children for anti-vaccination--and even worse yet, there are those who believe them.

  • cscott1986

    I can't believe the ignorance in the statements I have been reading. First of all every one has the right to choose what they believe. People over use the word science. Science does not mean fact. "Science" changes every day. Vaccines do cause injury and death. That is a fact. Ask the parents who have to watch their children suffer and try to convince them that it was worth it to save others. Absolute garbage. There is no proof that vaccines work or got rid of any of the diseases stated. I know a child who has autism because of the vaccine. Dr. Wakefield's study is completely credible and he is not the only one involved in these studies. Ask the parents whose children suffer because of the vaccine and received help from him. To completely suppress any evidence that they do harm is criminal and that is just what the medical community has done. There is no magic shot. There are many factors to the health of people or nations. To generalize it to say shots save the world is an absurd myth. Educate yourself on just the smallpox vaccine and you will see they had to stop it because it caused smallpox. To live in a world where people force their beliefs and their "science" is not a civilized world. I think I would be more worried about all of the childhood cancers and other diseases that should not be among the young. I would stop judging others for their decisions whether you believe them or not. We are all given the God given right to choose what we put in our bodies. We have to be responsible for our health and what we put in our bodies. You protect your body from disease by building health, not destroying it with poison. Every one must do the research for themselves and find their "truth." There are many false truths given to us through the media and they have fooled many. They have also hurt many.

  • Jack1952

    This presents the argument that vaccines causes autism in children. If all children are vaccinated then how can you link autism to vaccinations?It's like saying all children who breathe air are at risk of autism. Of course it's true...but isn't it a little misleading?

    It is the same with the suggestion made in this film that vaccines may cause cancer. Almost everyone has a vaccination of some sort. So this statement is next to useless. It also ignores the fact that cancer has been with us for centuries. Hippocrates thought cancer was caused by an excess of black bile in certain body parts. There were no vaccinations in ancient Greece so how could he have described something that is caused by vaccinations.

  • robertallen1

    Let's see about your Dr. Wakefield:

    Summarized from Wikipedia: Sources provided in article.

    Four years after the publication of Dr. Wakefield's paper in Lancet linking administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to the appearance of autism and bowel disease, researchers were still unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of a relation between childhood gastrointestinal disorders and autism. A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part and most of his coauthors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations. The British General Medical Council conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues, centering on Deer's numerous findings, including one that autistic children were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

    On January 28, 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the General Medical Council found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children. The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research. The Lancet immediately and fully retracted his 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC’s findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified. Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, with a statement identifying dishonest falsification in the Lancet research and is barred from practising medicine in the UK.

    To top it all, in the London Times of December 2006 Brian Deer reported figures obtained from the Legal Services Commission showed a payment of £435,643 in undisclosed fees to Wakefield for him to build a case against the MMR vaccine, payments which The Sunday Times reported had BEGUN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE LANCET PAPER.

    As a result of Wakefield's study and public recommendations against the use of the combined MMR vaccine, there was a steep decline in vaccination rates in the United Kingdom and a corresponding rise in measles cases, resulting in serious illness and fatalities.

    You'll also find more in "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.

    And this is what you're defending?

    Now let's see about you.

    "Vaccines do cause injury and death. That is a fact." So you know it's a fact, then there should be plenty of evidence to support it. So why haven't you produced any? In case you didn't know it, stating that something is a fact is assertion, not proof.

    "There is no proof that vaccines work or got rid of any of the diseases stated. " Does this apply to polio, rubella and small pox? And speaking of small pox, why is it that in America one case of this dreaded disease is considered an epidemic? Could it have anything to do with the vaccine which you claim actually causes the malady. Perhaps you should read up on Edward Jenner.

    "To completely suppress any evidence that they [vaccines] do harm is criminal and that is just what the medical community has done ." Once again, evidence, evidence, evidence, where is it? What's really criminal is when you and those like you make false and ignorant statements and someone with not a whole lot of brains or education takes you seriously and does himself and others considerable harm, all too often resulting in needless fatality.

    "I think I would be more worried about all of the childhood cancers and other diseases that should not be among the young." Are there some cancers and other diseases which should be among the young? Why do you just think this. Is there something in your statement that's raising some doubt?

    "I know a child who has autism because of the vaccine." How do you know it was because of the vaccine. Do you have the mainstream medical qualifications (the only type that count) to determine this. If so, what are they?

    "To live in a world where people force their beliefs and their 'science' is not a civilized world." Did it ever occur to you that what you call "science" has nothing to do with belief, but only hard evidence obtained through rigorous clinical testing?

    "There are many false truths given to us through the media and they have fooled many." This senseless oxymoron aside, once again, do you have the medical qualifications (the only type that count) to determine the pseudo from the genuine?

    In short, your ignorance is astounding and what you promote frightening.

  • robertallen1

    When you mentioned black bile, I could not help but note all the common words in the English language bearing witness to past medical beliefs, e.g., bilious (and its bigger cousin, atrabilious), humor (no longer used anatomically), heart (falsely thought to be the seat of the emotions--for the Romans, it was the liver), choler (and it's relatives cholera and melancholia [black bile]) and, of course, consanguinity, bood line and bad blood.

  • cscott1986

    You are like so many who will not look at what is in plain sight. You have a belief and refuse to believe anything that is said contrary to that belief. I never questioned vaccinations. It was not to be questioned. As in all ages there are beliefs that should not be "questioned." I have since opened my eyes and truly see them for what they are.
    As for Wakefield, he is an ethical man who truly cared about the children. He lost so much to question the "holy water" of vaccination.
    If you would stop being blinded and go to the source-to Dr. Wakefield -and to the parents of the afflicted children-you will find the truth.
    If you look into Brian Deer, you will be shown what an unethical man he is. You are trying to pay tribute to a false theory-one with many holes.
    The child who was injured after the vaccination was a healthy, intelligent boy, who after receiving his mmr vaccine lost his ability to speak clearly right away. He went downhill after that.
    Go ahead and put me down and others who do not believe in these concoctions of poison, or who question them. That is up to you, but you are so wrong.
    I am so thankful for men like Dr. Wakefield and others who are awakening to the dangers of vaccinations, and other dangerous practices. They are true men of honor and will not bow to the men who worship any false god or promote harmful practices. They will warn others and help those around them no matter what the cost.
    People who force their beliefs on others are the people who scare me.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MJZPGQFLNPWP6AWIF323OQU5JQ valerie

    Lost some credibility with me over abortion bias.

  • over the edge

    cscott1986
    you state "like so many who will not look at what is in plain sight". but you cannot provide reliable,repeatable demonstrable proof for your position.

  • robertallen1

    Right. Dr. Wakefield was so ethical and so true a man of honor that he's now ex-Dr. Wakefield, stricken off the medical roster for fraud and medical misconduct.

    Now let's take see how much ex-Dr. Wakefield cared about children. Obviously, I need to repeat from my previous post, On January 28, 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the General Medical Council found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children. The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research. The Lancet immediately and fully retracted his 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC’s findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified. Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, with a statement identifying dishonest falsification in the Lancet research and is barred from practising medicine in the UK.

    Now for your further deglutition. Writing in the Daily Mail on December 10, 2007, Rachel Ellis indicates that an extension of Wakefield's project caused life-threatening complications in one child who received substantial compensation in an out-of-court settlement.

    I can produce more.

    I am not the only one who has accused ex-Dr. Wakefield of unethical conduct, as has been extensively documented, so has the entire British medical profession--and the courts have upheld these charges. In addition, all of ex-Dr. Wakefield's libel suits have failed and one of them has been withdrawn. On the other hand, if you're accusing Brian Deer of unethical conduct, you'd better be able to prove it--and, quite frankly, I doubt if you can.

    "The child who was injured after the vaccination was a healthy, intelligent boy, who after receiving his mmr vaccine lost his ability to speak clearly right away. He went downhill after that." To be able to link the MMR vaccine to this child's loss of speech requires an extensive medical background, as does claiming that there are no benefits, only harm, to vaccination. Once again, what makes you think you are competent to adjudge vaccination as mephitic? And what makes you think that the parents of the afflicted children are qualified to do this either?

    Once again, you fail to understand that medicine is not a set of beliefs, but rather hard evidence obtained through rigorous clinical testing. Thus, trying to relegate the matter to the forcing of one's beliefs on others is not only beside the point, but is merely a cover- up for your wilful ignorance and support of the despicable, which is why you and others like should not just be put down, but stomped down. So you just keep posting and I'll just keep warning.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    I was talking about the countries that killed, not the countries that got killed ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    I am not a parent and not sure you are one being born in 1986 but I puzzle if a parent would rather risk having an autist child or risk having a child dying before he is 15 years old. The following stats are really cold blooded but here they are anyway.

    Odds of giving birth to an autist child = 1:150 in USA

    Infantile mortality rate in Pakistan = 65.14/1000

    Infantile mortality rate in Afghanistan = 121.63/1000

    Even if vaccines were responsible for autism, I would personally risk it.

  • Erjewi

    Jack1952: "It's like saying all children who breathe air are at risk of autism"

    There are two ways to establish causation.

    1st, not all children are vaccinated, some parents don't vaccinate their children. This group can be studied, though no government has ever done so as far as I know. Other corrolating factors can fairly easily be accounted for in such a study.

    2nd, if autistic symptoms statistically appear shortly after vaccination, then there's clear causation (even if all children are vaccinated, they are not all at exactly the same age, ruling out that a specific age causes autism and vaccines happen to administered just before that age coincidentally). Since vaccination is an event, not a constant condition like air, if something tends to happen after vaccination then vaccines cause that.

    Breathing air is correlated with autism but that does not establish cause, insofar as you don't spread your own facetious, and say causing someone to be alive, who happens to have autism, is thus causing their autism. Even in this latter case air is not a direct cause of autism, just a precondition.

    Vaccination causing disease is a very simple statistical case, accepted by the bio-tech companies which is why they seek total legal-hands washing and engineer non-liability paragraphs into law. The bureaucrats that enable and support them are also aware that vaccinations have side-effects, as any other chemical cocktail injected into the body; rather, they argue in their papers the benefits outweigh the risks: a few stupified children is a small price to pay for protecting the nation against the virus of falling profits.

    A counter example would be the recent study showing chocolate consumption is correlated to more Nobel prizes. Here it's difficult to show causation as eating chocolate is not a single event after which someone is statistically more likely to win a Nobel prize, rather chocolate eating and Nobel prize winning are happening sporadically throughout history without any clear connection between them. It could be simply that societies that could afford chocolate could also afford better education and leisure in which to pursue Nobel prizes. Or, it could be if the Nobel prize winners in a country happened to eat chocolate, this provided a good advertisement for chocolate and people in general ate more chocolate including future Nobel prize winners in a society likely to produce Nobel prizes for completely different reasons; i.e. it's the Nobel prizes that cause the chocolate eating.

  • robertallen1

    So your point is?

  • Jack1952

    I suppose I have to explicitly show you the evidence that says vaccines and autism are not related.

    The Canadian Paediatric Society and the UK National Health Service have concluded there is no link. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Cochrane Library all found no link between the vaccine and autism.

    The author of the original paper, Andrew Wakefield, has been discredited by the British General Medical Council who conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and lost his licence to practice medicine in the UK. He has twice tried to sue Sunday Times reporter, Brian Deer, for libel and lost. Brian Deer was the reporter who investigated Wakefield and exposed him for the fraud that he is.

    Wakefield's paper has been called one of the largest medical frauds in history. He currently lives in the United States where he does not have a licence to practice medicine.

    My facetious remark using the example of children breathing air make not be exactly accurate but it doesn't change the facts. There is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism and there is no reputable scientific evidence that supports it. You can quibble about my example all you want. That example was not meant to be taken as proof.

  • Jack1952

    I have heard of no scientific evidence that says vaccinations cause disease. Please direct me to any proof that can prove this link.

  • robertallen1

    Jack:

    Please do not forget that TWO YEARS BEFORE THE LANCET PAPER, ex-Dr. Wakefield received £435,643 (that's over one million U.S. dollars) in undisclosed fees from the Legal Services Commission for him to build a case against the MMR vaccine.

    As CScott1986 wrote just a while back, "I am so thankful for men like Dr. Wakefield and others who are awakening to the dangers of vaccinations, and other dangerous practices. They are true men of honor and will not bow to the men who worship any false god or promote harmful practices. They will warn others and help those around them NO MATTER WHAT THE COST." (emphasis gladly added)

  • http://www.facebook.com/mrbeeks Brian Keys

    Please reference your sources

  • robertallen1

    How about some real correlation and causation such as this tidbit: As a result of Wakefield's study and public recommendations against the use of the combined MMR vaccine, there was a steep decline in vaccination rates in the United Kingdom and a corresponding rise in measles cases, resulting in serious illness and fatalities. "The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists". N Engl J Med 364 (2): 97–9; Brian Deer, "Hidden records show MMR truth". Sunday Times (London), February 19, 2009; "Study linking vaccines to autism is 'fraudulent'". Time, January 6, 2011.

    The difference between you and Jack1952 is that Jack1952 knows what he is talking about.

  • Gary Flater

    Quote form Bildeberg Video " let the culling begin". Mass vaccination and mass murder. Gotta get that population down

  • robertallen1

    What are you talking about?

  • Jack1952

    Mass vaccinations have been around for over fifty years. When is this mass murder going to start? If mass vaccination is actually a mass murder strategy it hasn't been too effective. World population at seven billion and rising.

    Bilderberg meetings are closed to the public. How can you or I or anyone know what is being said in those meetings? Speculative nonsense and the fodder for conspiracy theorists who like to think that they have a special insight into the inner workings of our world. No need for evidence. Their special talents allow them to understand things that the normal lay person cannot. They are led by the likes of the loud mouth Alex Jones. Unfounded rants and wild accusations are the basis of their world view. Adults behaving as children.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    The Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders
    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University School of Public Health

    UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
    World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision Standard variants (Updated: 28 June 2011) Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    An interesting research on parental age and autism incidence :

    Advanced parental age and the risk of autism spectrum disorder.

    Firstborn offspring of 2 older parents were 3 times more likely to develop autism than were third- or later-born offspring of mothers aged 20-34 years and fathers aged <40 years (odds ratio = 3.1, 95% confidence interval: 2.0, 4.7). The increase in autism risk with both maternal and paternal age has potential implications for public health planning and investigations of autism etiology.

    3 times more likely! Now that points to a serious factor compared to the quasi non existent statistical difference between vaccinated and non-vaccinated kids.

  • robertallen1

    "That’s what I believe. I am not an expert. I have no case worth presenting in a court of law. There are hundreds of hours of research on the swine flu and related vaccines that I have not done and I am not going to do. It is just what I believe, listening to the people I respect, and in no small part because if you map out all the financial ecosystems around the issue and people and incentives involved, it seems to me to be the logical conclusion."

    So the person who wrote this article simply believes based, not on research which she refuses to do, but on those whom she simply respects (respect and qualification being two different things). And this represents the level of intelligence of the author which appears to be similar to yours.

  • robertallen1

    Who is Howard Wallack and why does he cite from non-peer-reviewed articles such as those appearing in Medicine Veritas (which as an indication of its reliability and ethics defends and praises ex-Dr. Wakefield) rather than mainstream medical sources?

  • robertallen1

    I'm impressed by the medical knowledge revealed in your last few posts. From your citations, it appears that you have a medical background. Am I correct?

  • DLIES

    it sounds like you know what your talking about. ive been worried about vaccinations because i just had a baby here in canada they pretty much make you get the flu shot if you have kids if you could direct me in some real scientific info and not just some one's opinion that would be a great help to me thanks

  • dj1970

    While you wait for Jack1952, I can suggest you read the comments from the oldest. There are some great links provided, that will give you real scientific info. The reason this website is the best, imo, because of the regular commentators. As you read the comments I believe you should be able to work out the informed commentators from the not so well informed, as you did ask Jack1952.
    @Vlatko. First time poster, long time reader/watcher. I do thank you sincerely for providing this website.

  • robertallen1

    I second dj1970's recommendation, but can't stress enough that you heed your pediatrician.

  • DLIES

    thanks for your help i dont wanna beleav miss info are some ones opinion which we all know happens much to often on the internet i need scientific facts when it comes to my baby p.s robertallen1 i just wanna make the best choice for my baby im just looking for info that the pediatrician cant provide

  • robertallen1

    And just what type of information can't your pediatrician or any other consulting physican provide?

  • nurseskickass

    It is important to also spell "were and where" properly in order for anyone to take you seriously.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    I have no medical background but I can understand medical scientific studies.

  • robertallen1

    You certainly had me fooled. I learn a lot from reading your posts. Keep up the good work.

  • a_no_n

    Basicly, if a playboy bunny is telling you something that every doctor in the world disagrees with, i think you can take it as read the playboy bunny is the one who hasn't got her facts right.

    Literally Jenny Mccarthy is the only person still seriously touting this anti-vaccine nonsense.

    The Scientist who first claimed Vaccines were harmful (A pathetic excuse for a scientist called Andrew Wakefield) was found to have falsified his findings in order to satisfy the rival vaccine company that was paying him to do the studies.

    Trust your doctor, he's responsible for everything he tells you and can be held to account if anything he tells you is wrong, and he has decades of serious scientific study backing up what he says.

    If you don't immunize your children, you're putting them, and everyone elses children in danger of dying a miserable and painful death.

    This is because of a thing called 'herd immunity'
    If we fall below a certain level of immunization rates, then the mortality rate goes up...One only has to look at areas of America where vaccination fear is prevailant...the rates of autism are exactly the same, but the rate of people contracting measles, whooping cough, rubella and all other sorts of nasty stuff has skyrocketed!

  • a_no_n

    No, a compelling argument against immunization would be a collection of peer reviewed studies proving Immunizations were harmful.

    No such studies exist! Well...actually one such study exists, but the Scientist behind it was a fraud who was caught out fiddling his figures to satisfy the rival pharmacutical company that was paying him to find those results!

  • a_no_n

    Isn't it Ironic that the conspiracy theorists terrified of a one world government are the ones arguing FOR big brother to be implimented so that groups like the Bilderburgs can have their private meetings spied on.

    the sheer short sightedness of some people is outstanding.

  • a_no_n

    The title of that article is "What i believe".

    That was as far as i read, because the title told me everything i needed to know...That the article will contain no evidence for beliefs stated (the difference between belief and knowledge is called EVIDENCE), and probably no sort of critical thinking either.

    No wonder you feel manipulated and wierd, you don't get your science from scientists...i'd be confused too!

  • a_no_n

    "Simple statistical case" HAH! there's no such thing!
    You've never taken a set of statistics in your life have you?
    You haven't taken a single variable into account!

  • robertallen1

    By the way, have you read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff?

  • a_no_n

    No but my local Skeptics in the pub group was given a talk by a statistician on Tuesday night that was very much in the same vain lol

  • saddest13

    Yes indeed... a most interesting read!

  • saddest13

    A really informative thread!
    I'm far from expert - all I know is that vaccinations almost cost us our first child, leaving me so paranoid that I delayed vaccinations for the second. Ultimately and with our GP's input, we went ahead without any problems.

    This leads me to my personal view - that the benefits far outweigh the risks involved. I cannot help suspect though. that the large drug companies have a vested interest [most probably contrary to public health].

    The real danger is our ignorance.

  • Erjewi

    I have studied math and statistics, and use statistic in my work.

    In my response I was refuting the idea that "all autistics breath air, therefore there's no way to prove vaccines cause autism". If you are trying to defend this original argument, I must kindly ask you to examine your own understanding of statistics.

    If you have issue only with my rebuttal but not my conclusion, I will explain my answer in further detail.

    In the structure of the argument in question, the "hidden assumption" is that vaccines are statistically correlated to autism but so is air, so "nothing can be proven".

    My response was not "doing the statistics on the problem" as I don't have the data, but refuting the above argument. I.e. causation can be established if "autism tends to follow vaccination".

    I simply point out that causation in this sort of statistical case is fairly straight forward as vaccines are localized events.

    Where causation is difficult to determine is in cases where B and A correlate, but neither follows the other in time (causation cannot be formulated without time). I.e. just 2 variables about a population neither following the other, In this case A may be caused by B, B by A, or some still unknown C may be causing both A and B. I use the chocolate - Nobel prize correlation as an example, where causation is typically erroneously inferred.

    Of course, to actually conclude one way or the other that vaccines cause ill health requires reading the studies done by independent researchers or pharma-researchers and evaluating there merits. For me, I think first principles are also valid to presume causation (i.e. I don't need a statistical study to presume jumping off a given tall object will cause injury); in this case we know vaccines have plenty of toxic substances, we know injecting directly into the blood stream will greatly amplify their affect, so it's safe to assume unwanted side-effects exist (as with any other chemical drug). I also point out that proponents of vaccines don't generally argue vaccines are without side-effects, but rather their "worth it".

    The potential side-effects of vaccines are also listed in their packaging; i.e. according to the manufactures own statistics, the vaccine causes ill-effects (except perhaps in cases where legislation has absolved all liability for the product, maybe they don't bother in these cases).

    The idea that vaccines are only good and no bad, is rather what the people want to believe, so they tend to so with a little help from our friends in marketing.

    Otherwise, accepting there are risks requires evaluating whether the risks outweigh the benefit for a given vaccine: probability of getting the disease, probability of the vaccine giving immunity (it's not guaranteed even according to the manufacturers), compared to the probability, magnitude and quality-of-life devaluation of the side-effects. Crucially any such analysis, results, in the least, for a demand to lower the risks as much as possible by removing as many toxic chemicals in the vaccine.

    Many of the chemicals in vaccines are there simply to reduce price, cheaper substitutes, kill bacteria from a cheaper unclean protein production processes, preservatives to increase shelf-life ect. Even if you believe the vaccine work, you can get a cheap toxic one, or a much less toxic fresh vaccine (which some independent labs can provide).

    The reasonable choice is to want a high a quality vaccine as possible, which would cost significantly more. This would reduce the consumption of vaccines considerably as money is just as valued as conformity in our culture, so if someone decided not to take the vaccine (or at least not dozens of them) to save money, as the 500 dollar vaccine is the desirable less toxic "cheek" vaccine, or that they want to hold out to get the good quality ones when they can afford them; it would be accepted socially. This would quickly lead to the normalization of not taking so many vaccines, the sky wouldn't fall, and vaccines could very well go out of fashion.

    If you look at outbreaks of deadly diseases of which there is no vaccine (SARS, ebola, etc.), you'll notice that they're contained fairly rapidly in any organized society and the threat to society as a whole is extremely small. The threat to society as a whole of injecting toxic and not perfectly understood chemicals and proteins in a not perfectly understood body, into everyone's blood stream, is relatively huge, regardless of your opinion of vaccine theories. Even if you are 100% convinced by the vaccine theories, you must still take into account the threat of some corruption of the vaccine administration process, from human error or some diabolical intent (see history).

  • a_no_n

    There is a way to prove Vaccines don't cause Autism...(besides the thousands of peer reviewed studies that prove it) Look at the southern states of America where Vaccine fear is most prevailant...The rates of autism are exactly the same, even with the drop in Vaccinations, but rates of measles, whooping cough etc have shot up! I can't help but feel that all the studying you've done toward the subject hasn't gone through any kind of mental confirmation bias filter...You're making a LOT of assumptions to come to your conclusions, which sound like they were pre-determined long before you started looking into the subject!.

  • robertallen1

    About three weeks ago, I had my flu shot; however, prior to the injection, the assistant asked me if I had any allergies. This is certainly one way to guard against any potential ill effects. For example certain people are allergic to dairy products, eggs in particular, and, as I understand it, eggs play a role in the production of vaccines. One way or the other, you did the right thing by consulting with your GP rather than listening to any of the all-too-prevasive quackery.

    Yes, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks; however, what you suspect is as nothing compared to what you can prove, but bear in mind that there are areas for improvement within the pharmaceutical as well as other large industries, all with vested interests.

    Let me just make a slight change to your conclusion: The real danger is our wilful ignorance.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=646681962 Robert Liddell

    Can someone please tell me what is exactly in a vaccine shot?

  • Erjewi

    You still don't understand my point.

    I'm only arguing against the statement "It's like saying all children who breathe air are at risk of autism. Of course it's true...but isn't it a little misleading?"

    I only "conclude" that this statement is bogus, as it confuses correlation with cause. I give two ways in which causality can be established, and point out that because vaccines are fairly localized events it's relatively easy to establish a cause if something tends to follow it. If A correlates with B, and B tends to follow A, then all else being equal, A tends to cause B.

    As a counter example, in the statement " southern states of America where Vaccine fear is most prevailant ...The rates of autism are exactly the same", is typical statistical trickery. Fear of vaccines doesn't necessarily mean less vaccine consumption, so this statement is totally empty.

    And even less vaccine consumption doesn't necessarily mean less consumption of the vaccine that may or may not cause autism. Lastly, maybe even with less consumption of all vaccines, the vaccines southerners take may cause more autism (be less quality) or southerners maybe genetically predisposed to more likely develop autism, or other things may also cause autism that southerners consume more. So all these variables would have to be accounted for as you yourself point out. That's the problem with only relying on correlation, it's very difficult to establish what is causing what. But when something statistically follows something else in time, causation is much easier to establish.

    A simple example is that windows break in the economy, and bats are swung in the economy. Do windows breaking cause bats to be swung? As long as we remain on only general observations of society (with no time component) then causation is difficult to establish (as causation depends on time). However, if we note that when bats are swung at windows, windows tend to break always after being swung at, then causation is much easier to establish that bat swinging can cause windows to break.

    The other point I make is that there are side-effects of vaccinations. I think this is fairly obvious, based on what we know on the ingredients in vaccines and what even the manufactures tell us of the side effects of vaccines.

    I then say that even if you believe that vaccine theory work, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary. And as soon as you do such an analysis, you'll at least want better quality vaccines that minimize toxins.

    Each disease is different, works differently, evolves differently, with different theories about how a vaccine might work for it. And each vaccine production process is different with different ingredients, quality control and risks associated with it. And each person's biology is different and may react differently to a given vaccine.

    What you'll invariably conclude if you have "gone through any kind of mental confirmation bias filter", is that you'll at least want a freshly made high quality vaccine without preservatives and whatever test is possible to see if the vaccine is compatible with your biology ... if you can afford it. If you can't you'll probably want to wait always a bit more until can. Result would be more choosy vaccine consumption (maybe all 20 aren't necessary), more demands about vaccine quality and data (manufactures only have to study side-affects on 2 weeks, which is just insane), and ultimately less vaccine consumption.

    Thus the vaccine debate is kept polarized, either you accept all vaccines all the time on principle and feel obliged to accept any vaccine proposed to you or your children or you're a religious or hippy nut, or conspiracy theorist, or irresponsible for endangering society, and can be ignored.

    My only point here is think for yourself ... but at least try to understand the difference between causation and correlation (and crucially that it's really, really easy, even to professionals, to confuse the two) before thinking you can conclude anything about what vaccines cause.

  • a_no_n

    VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM! The ONLY scientist that ever claimed they do was struck off for being a fraud!

    You're not thinking critically, you're arguing a conspiracy theory, and not even a particularly good one! There's more evidence for the loch ness monster than there is for Vaccines causing Autism!

  • robertallen1

    "Fear of vaccines doesn't necessarily mean less vaccine consumption, so this statement is totally empty." No, it's this illogical statement that is totally empty. Any behavioralist will tell you that humans and animals tend to avoid what they fear.

    Expecting everyone to conduct a risk-benefit analysis of vaccines is not only impractical, but assumes a level of training and ability inconsistent with reality.

    The best way to think for yourself is consult a qualified expert, in this case, your doctor who knows a lot more about the effects of vaccination than any haphazard independent research on your part will turn up and if the doctors says get vaccinated, get vaccinated.

  • Erjewi

    You still don't understand my point.

    My point was that "air causing autism" argument is not a valid argument, and represents a complete misunderstanding between causation and correlation.

    I say that there are 2 ways to establish causation between vaccines and autism, not no way to establish causation as the air argument implies.

    My second point is that vaccines have side effects; because of the ingredients and because of what the manufacturers tell us. Autism may or may not be among them, but there are plenty of other risks to choose from, both pointed out by the manufactures and other studies. So there is clearly a risk, and no apriori reason to assume the benefits out way the risk for a given disease, vaccine and person.

    My third point is that there little good data on vaccines because the proper studies aren't made. Short term studies by manufactures or independent studies that lack resources (long term studies take a lot of resources).

    I posit the interpretation that the proper studies aren't made because it would, at the least, lead to demand for higher quality vaccines, which would raise cost, raise critical thinking and decrease profit.

    To me it's fairly obvious that toxic substances injected into the bloodstream have ill effects. I don't need statistics to conclude that it's only reasonable to do if totally necessary. In the common vaccine, many toxic ingredients aren't necessary at all but are there simply to lower the price of the vaccine. It seems to me, that the reasonable decision, in the least, is to demand a vaccine that minimizes toxins, even if more expensive.

    But with such "non-toxic" vaccines being demanded would probably lead to less vaccine consumption and so less profits. This maybe the reason fresh vaccines are offered only by a few laboratories and fairly hard to find and the idea rarely talked about in the media.

    As for whether vaccine theory actually works (which is a totally different question of whether a given vaccine works without side-affects), the theory is possible. However, I have yet to see any statistical evidence that establishes causation of preventing disease in a strong way, for all the problems between causation and correlation I discuss.

    I also have yet to see an explanation or evident of why adjutants to "stimulate" the immune system would create anti-bodies only to the target proteins, and not other proteins that are benign (and so cause allergies) or proteins necessary for good bodily functioning. And without such reasons and evidence, such injections seem to have a lot of risk.

    Finally, I think the burden of proof is on the person who wants to inject me or my children, not up to me to prove that the injection is harmful.

    Give me solid proof that creating targeted anti-body production is possible without serious risk of creating unwanted antibodies, show me detailed long term studies about the side-affects (which even the manufactures admit do and "may" exist), and show me hard proof that other medical advances and nutrition aren't acceptable defence against disease; i.e. the vaccine benefits outweigh the quality-of-life risks.

    If you ask a doctor for this evidence, as I have, and receive something not filled with small sample sizes, small time scales, and vague statements, please post it for my benefit.

  • a_no_n

    Ok, hows this for evidence...in the 300 YEARS that we've been successfully using vaccines for, how come NONE of the things you're frightened about have happened? Some would think that perhaps after that long, aside with all the scientific data we have on it, if something bad was going to happen, it would have happened by now? pack in this pathetic special pleading for a cause that clearly has no basis whatsoever in reality!

    These ridiculous 'Gish Gallops' of bullsh1t don't do anything to hide the fact that you have nothing solid to base your claims on beyond mathematical theory...and correct me if i'm wrong, but maths isn't biology now is it?

  • Erjewi

    "Fear of vaccines doesn't necessarily mean less vaccine consumption"

    This statement is true, since one part of the population can very much fear vaccines, and let's assume, even without any data for the moment, that they take less vaccines. So the rate of fear of vaccines is up and in this group vaccine consumption down.

    However, another part of the population may tend to take more vaccines for one reason or another, thus total vaccine consumption can be even higher.

    So, data about fear rates do not allow us to conclude something about vaccine consumption rates.

    If you show data about actual vaccine consumption that would be different. However, even then there are plenty of factors that could raise autism rates in southern US, so you also need data that isolates all these factors, which takes a lot of resources, to finally have evidence that vaccines don't cause autism.

    My own person opinion is that what we know is that autism rates are going up. I suspect the underlying cause is the modern chemical stew people live in, which vaccines simply add to; but it would require proper, fairly deep research to find out exactly what chemical causes what disease, as everything is mixed up. We also know is that some chemicals amplify the toxic affects, or create new affect with other chemicals, so you need to also study every likely combination of chemicals (chemical corps often use the trick of studying only the primary ingredients, not the end product, knowing full well this is dishonest but also the chemicals have been specifically designed only to maximize harm together, such as in the case of pesticides, herbicides etc. where one chemical carries the toxic chemical into the biological system). But such real study would be costly and reduce time to market and increase costs, so the approach today is produce and sell the chemical as much as possible with a minimum of studies (and certainly no long term studies which would just waste valuable time and profits), and so consider the chemical innocent until proven guilty and stonewall any attempt to establish otherwise, and in the end admit the ill affect but claim the chemical is now so interwoven with the economy we all depend on it and continued production is worth the risk.

    However, we don't need to know exactly what disease is cause by what chemicals to know there's a serious risk, and so exposure to chemicals (most of which have never been studied at all) should be minimized.

    It's like if I blend 100 ingredients, one of which is poison, if people start drinking and dying of this drink, you don't need to know exactly what chemical is the poison to avoid drinking. The modern economy is similar but there's a blend of hundreds of thousands of chemicals. What we know is plenty of previously rare diseases are now common and increasing (i.e. people are drinking and dying). So I choose to drink as little as possible. What you do is your choice.

  • robertallen1

    And you can't get it straight, there are no studies linking autism to vaccine. As a matter of fact, those conducted for this purpose state the opposite. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

    "So there is clearly a risk, and no apriori [sic] reason to assume the benefits out way [sic] the risk for a given disease, vaccine and person." "I have yet to see any statistical evidence that establishes causation [of vaccines] of preventing disease in a strong way . . . " Really now. Why is it that in the U.S., one case of small pox constitutes an epidemic? What about the polio vaccine? Or is the efficacy of these two vaccines still up in the air as far as you're concerned? What about diptheria, rubella, bubonic plague and tuberculosis?

    Without evidence, whatever interpretation you place on what you claim to be the dearth of adequate testing of vaccines is worthless.

  • Erjewi

    If you've read anything I've explained about the difference between causation and correlation then you'd know that's not evidence.

    Yes, some disease rates have gone down in the past few hundred years since we've been using vaccines (for over a hundred years without microscopes, sterilization or sanitation).

    However, we've also had a dramatic increase of knowledge of how disease operates, tools to study and diagnose them, real effective quarantine, nutrition, anti-biotics, group immunity (most of the big plagues came from populations that had group immunity transferring the disease to a group that had no experience with the disease, which happened all the time at the start of the globalization process ... so after an epidemic with some time we can assume that group immunity will establish in the newly exposed population, a theory which there does exist plenty of strong evidence for diseases that came and went before vaccine or no vaccine was developed for) etc.

    Please show me a study that isolates all the above variables, not some hand waving about disease going down since vaccines.

    In terms of things working spot-on, we've had a dramatic increase of the "modern diseases" such as cancer, allergies, asthma, diabetes, etc. So far our the narrative is it's a "mystery" about why the increase. However, we know chemicals play a role in many of these diseases and the modern economy produces massive amounts of chemicals. Most independent researches point to these chemicals.

    For vaccines, the manufactures themselves and independent studies more-so show high correlation and causation strength for plenty of ill-effects of vaccines, many accepted without any controversy and listed on the package. However the "official" side effects are short term, and the idea is that they're nothing to worry about. They don't talk about long term effects ... but that's only because they haven't studied them.

    Since we know many of these chemicals, such as aluminium, don't break down in the body, we can assume there's long term effects just as significant as the short term ones.

  • robertallen1

    Whether they meet with your approval or not, there have been no studies showing any connection between vaccines and autism, except for the one conducted by ex-Dr. Wakefield--and we knew why he is now an ex.

    A fear of vaccination in a large portion of the population of a certain geographical area will engender a decrease in the consumption of vaccinations, a correlation with a direct cause having nothing to do with the magnitude of the fear factor in another geographical area. So taking this fear into account does allow us to conclude something about vaccine consumption rates in that particular geographic area.

    You make a lot of allegations, but offer no proof; hence, they are on the same level as your opinions, worthless.

  • Erjewi

    Yes, please post your evidence.

    When a single case is considered an epidemic, since the disease is feared and deadly, what happens? Quarantine, investigation into the possible source and tracking down everyone who might have contracted the disease and quarantining them etc. and the disease is quickly contained.

    If you contain every case of a disease it disappears relatively quickly. For instance, outbreak of deadly diseases that we have no vaccine or even effective treatment for like SARS, ebola, MRSA, other super bugs, have all been successfully contained. So why don't the same techniques work on diseases we do have vaccines for.

    Now, you take a non-deadly and feared disease that, precisely because it's not deadly isn't quarantined, like the flue and you find that vaccines haven't "eradicated the disease" (i.e. haven't produced artificial immunity) ... so you should take a flue shot every year, whether it's even supposed to work for this years flue or not so don't ask questions if you get the shot and then get the flue!

    The excuse of vaccine proponents in the case of the flu is that it just mutates to fast. But it mutates fast because it has plenty of opportunity to travel because we don't quarantine and most people don't think it's a big deal.

    And we haven't even thrown anti-biotics into the mix which are an incredibly effective tool against bacteria, especially in the early days before any bacteria resistance in the early days. Why don't anti-biotics get any credit for irradiating any of the diseases in question? Why can only vaccines be a possible explanation.

    Lastly, you claim early vaccines worked, even though they're production and administration contradict every basic standard of sanitation, sterilization and cleanliness we have today. Why were these vaccines needles (not disposable) exempt from communicating diseases?

    Though it should be noted the case of smallpox is special since the vaccine was giving people cowpox which happens to be less deadly but provides immunity to both cowpox and smallpox. This is not something similar to modern vaccines where only proteins are injected with immune system stimulants and it's assume effective immunity will be established since the body is stimulated to attack these foreign proteins (and not other proteins that may happen to be floating around as well), despite all the gaps of knowledge we have in how the immune system works.

    Smallpox is a special case where we happened to have a less deadly but immune giving version of the disease. There's no reason to assume that injecting proteins of other diseases provides immunity.

    I have said in my comments that every disease is different. This is my overall point that it's not a dogmatic issue, but risk-benefit analysis is required for every disease, vaccine and person. And that as soon as you get our of dogmatic "vaccines are good and save us" mind set, it becomes fairly obvious that injecting chemicals that in the vaccine just to increase shelflife and profits is crazy.

    And, as I say below, in my view the burden of proof is on the vaccine givers that for a particular person, in a particular point in time, for a particular vaccine, to show that the likelihood of getting immunity and the risk of getting disease, and the risk of long term (properly studied) side-effects or the risk of a "bad-batch" all balance out in the vaccine's favour. Likewise, it should also be shown that other strategies to manage the disease aren't as or more effective with less risk. So far, no one has provided such a general study (much less studying the consequences of difference individual biologies), but feel free to point to one.

  • Erjewi

    I still don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

    My first point is only about how statistics should be interpreted and what constitutes cause. The idea that "autistics breath air" has something to do with it, is a classic confusion of causation and correlation.

    Likewise, your statement "southern states of America where Vaccine fear is most prevailant ...The rates of autism are exactly the same" is not a sound argument to conclude vaccines don't cause autism (I don't say it does, I only say your argument isn't sound, as I'm only concerned on this level of sharing some knowledge of how statistical proofs should work, and the crucial importance between causation and correlation; and in this case infering things from proxi data; which is a rooky mistake at the rout of a lot of bad statistics ("obviously if there's B then there's C, or B is obvioulsy caused by C ... because everyone thinks so, is not good statistics), as the real data is often throws up surprises compared what we expect from proxi data; you accuse me of making assumptions, but it's you assuming at every turn).

    So, if you want your argument to be sound you must also say that this has in affect decreased autism rates. You must also then demonstrate that there's not something else about southern US, geographically, genetically, life style, other industrial chemicals etc. that might increase autism prevalence. I.e. you must rule out that vaccines cause autism, call it A, and B (or also C, D etc) also cause autism and that other causes have increased autism while lower vaccine has decreased it. Since you're only dealing with correlation, causation is hard to establish.

    Now, if we agree on what constitutes a sound statistical argument to establish causation we can discuss autism.
    Maybe vaccines cause autism, maybe not, or maybe they play a part. You must also consider the affects of vaccines the mother has taken, which may seem like too much rigour, but that's what science is all about and we know chemicals the foetus is exposed to have far larger affects, even at extremely small levels. So it's a large task.

    My own thoughts is that what is clear is autism and plenty of other diseases are going up, and chemical exposure is going up, and mass chemical exposure preceded these "mystery" diseases and there's plenty of non-mysterious diseases linked clearly to autism (generally when there's a work-place exposure as in these cases it's easier to find correlations and establish causation). It's extremely hard to link specific diseases to specific chemicals for all the correlation noise as stated above.

    For vaccines my view is that they first add to the chemical stew in people's blood streams and so augment these mystery diseases (but since there are plenty of other sources of exposure it's difficult to link strongly vaccines as "the cause"), and second that the targeted antibody for a specific protein probably generates plenty of other antibodies to attack proteins we don't want to attack, contributing to asthma, allergies, auto-imune diseases etc.

    So the strongest reasons to be sceptical, and not take vaccines lightly without thinking, in my view is the list of ingredients on vaccines. What possible reasons could we have to think injecting things like aluminium, squaline, formaldehyde will have only good effects and no bad effects?

    So again, the burden of proof is on the vaccine proponents. Please provide your evidence.

  • a_no_n

    You've explained nothing but technical statistical theory, You're neglecting the real world in favour of a fantasy land that functions purely on mathematics...it's quite fitting that your posts are so long, because they just end up turning into droning nonsense.
    At the end of the day, more people are dying in areas that don't vaccinate than do! and enough experimentation has been done to know the Vaccine itself is doing what it is supposed to be doing, without any adverse effect.

    It's a common misconception that numbers don't lie...As the banks have proved that little saying is utter bullsh1t...You can make numbers dance to any tune you care to play for them.
    to make the conclusions you've made, you have to ignore about 95% of all the data we have on vaccines and their history!

  • robertallen1

    Ever heard of Dr. Maurice Hilleman who is estimated to have saved over 200,000,000 lives through his vaccines and is now credited with saving over 1,000,000 lives a year, thus setting a record for the most lives saved by a single doctor.

    As a result of his vaccine for measles, "In 1958 there were 763,094 cases of measles and 552 deaths in the United States. With the help of new vaccines, the number of cases dropped to fewer than 150 per year (median of 56). In early 2008, there were 64 suspected cases of measles. 54 out of 64 infections were associated with importation from another country, although only 13% were actually acquired outside of the United States; 63 OF THESE 64 INDIVIDUAL EITHER HAD NEVER BEEN VACCINATED AGAINST MEASLES, OR WERE UNCERTAIN WHETHER THEY HAD BEENVVACCINATED [emphasis added]." Orenstein WA, Papania MJ, Wharton ME (2004). "Measles elimination in the United States". J Infect Dis 189 (Suppl 1): S1–3. "Measles in the United States, January 1-April 25, 2008." MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 57 (18): 494–8. May 2008.

    In addition, Dr. Hilleman developed vaccines for mumps, chickenpox, meningitis, pneumonia and the cancer-causing SV40.

    And while we're on the subject of vaccines, just why is small pox now contained so easily? Why is it that in 1954, there were 37,476 reported cases of polio and that in 1962, after the Salk and Sabin vaccines had been in place, there were only 910? Do you want to question these statistics or those pertaining to cholera, bubonic plague and rabies, all virtually eradicated through vaccination?

    "The impact of vaccination on the health of the world's peoples is hard to exaggerate. With the exception of safe water, no other modality, not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction and population growth." Plotkin S, Orenstein W, Offit P. Vaccines, 5th ed. Saunders, 2008.

    Now, where is your proof that the pharmaceutical industry is guilty of the malfeasances you allege, such as injecting chemicals into vaccines just to increase their shelflife and profits?

    Are your medical credentials and qualifications anywhere near Dr. Hilleman's? If not, who do you think you are to be dictating to the medical profession and to be claiming that vaccines do no good.

    Like those of your ilk, you're a disgrace and a dangerous one at that, for there are all too many ignorant people out there who, based on the sheer volume of your posts, will take you seriously.

  • robertallen1

    You're right, of course. But could I persuade you to change "mathematics" to "bad mathematics?" I just don't like to see a discipline as noble a good mathematics dragged through the mud of ignorance.

  • a_no_n

    that's fair enough, i'll yield to that.

  • Erjewi

    Can you please point to your source that estimates saving 200 000 000 lives, I assume all other potential causes of disease reduction would be taken into account. And considering that diseases aren't 100% lethal, this means that his vaccines alone must account for having prevented at least 1 billion life threatening diseases (20% is fairly high mortality rate, and remember we have to consider the mortality rate considering treatments that might be available), perhaps many more. You're talking about preventing 3 - 10 Spanish flue pandemics, depending on how lethal we consider the average prevented disease, all prevented by a "single doctor". Source please.

    "63 OF THESE 64 INDIVIDUAL EITHER HAD NEVER BEEN VACCINATED AGAINST MEASLES, OR WERE UNCERTAIN WHETHER THEY HAD BEENVVACCINATED [emphasis added]."

    This is a typical abuse of statistics. How many people are sure whether they have been vaccinated for a given disease? Especially if they get the disease in question. Though thank you for providing the source, I'll go through the paper when I have time.

    But more importantly, you're talking about 552 deaths and 763,094 in 1952. What was the long term affect of millions of vaccinations? How many deaths are estimated from them, and how many people have some long term quality-of-life (such asthma or allergies) that were caused by vaccines? Where's your long term study on these things? And are the risks of worth the benefits?

    That's what I'm talking about here, risk-benefit. You've claimed there are benefits that can only be explained by vaccinations. Even if I assume this is true, where's your long term studies of the negatives, and how do determine that the positives outweigh the negatives?

  • robertallen1

    There are two fine articles in Wikipedia, one on vaccines and the other on Dr. Hilleman, complete with sources. These should provide you with answers to the two questions posed in your first paragraph.

    Before I answer any more of your questions, I want to know your medical qualifications and on what you base your allegations concerning the pharmaceutical industry. One way or the other, you're not fooling anyone with your pseudo statistics which, as a_no_n has pointed out, do not gibe with reality.

  • robertallen1

    And there is also nothing linking vaccines to autism, except the fraudulent report of ex-Dr. Wakefield. As I was mentioning to another poster, about three weeks ago when I received my flu vaccine, the first thing the assistant asked me was whether I had any allergies. This is certainly a wise thing to do. And like most, I have felt no ill effects from the vaccine--as a matter of fact, I have felt nothing.

  • Erjewi

    You say aluminium from vaccines is nearly 50% increase 4 miligrams, in large impulses as from breastmilk, 10 miligrams. What is the effect of this aluminium from breastmilk? Does very slow dosing from breastmilk decrease change the effect of the aluminium? Does the fact that breastmilk is digested lead to a different path for the alumium than being injected?

    100x more for adults seems a lot, but body mass is also increasing and organs completing, and again it's all from digestion that may have less an affect than straight injection.

    So far my only point is that causation shouldn't be confused with correlation which most, if not all the comments supporting vaccination have done. If there is such rock solid long term studies, that have isolated all the variables and so establish vaccines and vaccines alone as some people seem to claim (or at least significantly), point to them.

    If not (since manufactures only have to study on 2 weeks, and little funding is available outside manufacturer based funding), then my point is we should think critically about the issue.

    "The quote above only reinforces what I've already said. You have no idea of what the purpose of the ingredients is and you cling to some sort of conspiracy world view."

    I never say there's a conspiracy. I say there's a lack of long-term data, a lack of risk-benefit analysis (we are meant to assume all vaccines should be taken all the time).

    I also say that an increase in critical thinking would lead to demand for better data (long costly studies), non-toxic subsitutes (long costly research programs), and thus higher prices. Corporations are well known to try to maximize profits, they're even obliged by law, it's not a conspiracy. So we can conclude to maximize profits phrama corporations should try to minimize worry about long term affects or toxic substances. If there economically rational that's what they'd do, and the claim to be economically rational to their shareholders. Do you have data to suggest otherwise?

    I say "So the strongest reasons to be sceptical, and not take vaccines lightly without thinking, in my view is the list of ingredients on vaccines", as according to cdc.gov, "Common substances found in vaccines include: Aluminum, Monosodium glutamate (MSG), Egg protein, Antibiotic, Formaldehyde, Thimerosal."

    CDC assures us that the "Chemicals are added to vaccines to inactivate a virus or bacteria and stabilize the vaccine, helping to preserve the vaccine and prevent it from losing its potency over time" which would imply to a lay person that it's needed for the vaccine to stay potent after injection, but it actually means it is just gives a longer shelf life to increase profits. So, if you accept that there's a non-zero risk associated with this (and imperfect knowledge implies a non-zero risk ... so unless you're omnicient), then if you're convinced you need a vaccine, the reasonable choice is to demand a shorter shelf-life, less toxic, vaccine and pay a bit more. But paying for freshly made vaccines that are more expense to decrease risk, would lead people, motivated to save money, to think harder about what vaccines would actually benefit them decreasing vaccine demand. When costs increase

    The myth that "the Vaccine itself is doing what it is supposed to be doing, without any adverse effect" as a_no_n believes, is far more profitable. So it's unsurprising some effort is speant to maintain the myth.

    "The very small amount of formaldehyde that is left over in the vaccines that are given to kids is less than the amount naturally found in children."

    Again, do we know the effects of the "natural" formaldehyde, do we know how the vaccines compare, and do we know whether the injestion paths differ?

    "some people can and will have problems with some of the vaccines (ingredients), but not because the vaccines are inherently dangerous."

    Right, it's just those people have something wrong with them, vaccines are perfectly safe ... I think what you mean to say is that we now for certain vaccines are dangerous for some people (just as many things are dangerous for some but not for others), and so, in the least, we should strive to establish tests to identify as far as is possible known biologies that are in danger of vaccines before injecting people with vaccines.

    And I think you mean to say, we should also thoroughly study, with serious resources, whether there are other people who have "problems with the vaccines" but we haven't yet made the link.

    Do you have data on these people with problems with vaccines, especially long term problems?

    The theory that vaccines may have something to do with allergies is simply a direct concequence of how vaccines work. The idea is to inject proteins we want immunity against, since these proteins are inactive in modern vaccines, the immune system must be stimulated to attack those proteins. There's no reason to believe that the process is exclusive to the protiens that are injected, if pollen proteins happen to be around why wouldn't the body be stimulated to make antibodies against those? From the bodies perspective both the injected protiens and the pollen or other normal protiens are benign and nothing to worry about (the protiens aren't doing anything and will be broken down by normal processes), so tricking the body to attack "those" proteins seems to create the serious risk that the body may attack other proteins as well.

  • Erjewi

    Ok, what about if you've never been tested for allergies?

    Would your nurse recommend you get tested first? Seems like a wise thing to do, seen as it's easy to test for allergies and may not be obvious otherwise (a lot of people mistake allergies for something else, or don't have enough contact with the allergen to notice) ... but it does cost some money ... thus increasing the cost of the vaccine.

    Likewise, other tests could be carried out to see what your biological reaction to the vaccine would likely be, to ensure your not one of the "problem people" you point out. Again, why not try to develop such tests ... except the money thing again.

    Now, if the risk is non-zero as you seem to agree, obtusely through acknowledging problem people, then what's your evidence that this risk is less than the risk of first getting the flu and second the risk/costs of being sick for a few days?

    As in, even if you assume the flu shot will protect you from this years flu (and not last years, or at all), how do you measure the risks associated with shot and how do you conclude that the benefit outweighs the risk?

    For instance, I didn't get the flu shot, and maybe got the flu this autumn, some sniffles for a few days. The cost was slight discomfort, if we assume it was the flu, would the non-zero risk of the flu shot have been worth avoiding this slight discomfort?

  • Erjewi

    Sorry I missed this comment before responding to your latest one.

    I don't, nor have, claimed to have medical qualifications. I claimed to have studied math and I use math and statistics in my job (I develop solar systems).

    The only strong points I've been making have been to point out obvious misuse of statistics and obvious confusions of correlation with causation. Something I'm qualified to talk about. I give my opinion on other things, such as the burden of proof on the person trying to convince me to inject things into my bloodstream. And burden of proof not just about historical things, but that in my individual case, for the disease in question, for my location, etc. the benefits of taking the vaccine outweigh the risks.

    I don't know what psuedo statistics your refering to. I haven't done any statistics here, just pointing out what needs to be established to draw a conclusion from statistics, and that the statistics that I've addressed don't draw the intended conclusions validly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    What kind of long term study are you asking for exactly? If you want a study that proves vaccines cause no side-effect to anyone on earth, that is utopia. No one ever asked for such a study for any medication before and it's impossible to accomplish. There is risk of adverse effects with any substance injected.

    Contamination is possible with anything ingested too, are we going to ask for a long term study on strawberries because a few people got sick after eating a bad batch?

    As long as the life threatening side effects are extremely rare, a vaccine is way safer then no immunity, especially for life threatening diseases.

    If a new deadly strain of influenza appears, I will be in the cohort for rushing a vaccine to market without long term studies of all possible side effects. When the option is die now or die later, most will go for the second choice...

  • robertallen1

    You heed what your doctor tells you. He's the one most knowledgeable about risk factors, not you.

  • robertallen1

    If you have no medical qualifications, then you have no business writing about what you consider the ineffectiveness of vaccines; you have no business dictating how clinical testing should be performed and you also have no business accusing the pharmaceutical industry of unsafe practices.

    As a_no_n has so cearly pointed out, none of your statistical nonsense has any basis in reality.

  • Erjewi

    Thanks for you source. I don't see where it says in wikipedia or which source defends your claim that Dr Hilleman has as a single doctor saved 200 million people.

    I have come accross this typical statement "Working on a hunch, he and a colleague found (after nine 14-hour days) that it was a new strain of flu that could kill millions. Forty million doses of vaccines were prepared and distributed. Although 69,000 Americans died, the pandemic could have resulted in many more US deaths."

    Notice it simply says "could have".

    As for hepatitis B, plenty of other measures were also taken to decrease incidence, so again it's difficult to establish causation.

    And without properly understanding what part, if any, vaccines played in decreasing diseases, all already on a downward slope for plenty of other reasons, and without detailed long term studies of the risk, it's impossible to do a cost-benefit analysis.

  • a_no_n

    hmm... ok i'll try and address all this point by point.
    1/ why do vaccinnes have side effects?
    a/ because Duh, everything has side effects! Even drinking water makes you spring a leak, and because the vaccine manufacturers are honest about what their product does!
    2/there are no long term studies.
    a/ it's been three hundred years! Everywhere vaccines have been dished out, cases of whatever specific thing those vaccines protect against drops...When it's happening across entire communities, how can you dispute it? To try and fob it off as people just washing their hands is frankly ridiculous!
    3/ Where is the evidence that risks are outweighed by the benefits?
    a/ thousands of children every year not dying from measles and whooping cough where there was once children dying of measles and whooping cough...so, everywhere!
    Now please, stop asking the same stupid questions in different ways, it's starting to get boring!

  • robertallen1

    What I notice is that although you admittedly have no medical background, you feel qualified to call into question the accomplishments of Dr. Hilleman, one of the most respected and revered immunologists in the history of medicine and that you also feel yourself qualified to comment on vaccines and vaccination in general. In other words, you place your medical "knowledge," especially about vaccines, on a par with the knowledge of professionals, i.e., those with education and experience.

    Did it ever occur to you that without a knowledge of what you're dealing with, in this case medicine, your so-called statistical methods are worthless? All that basically matters is whether the number of incidents of the disease go down after the application of the vaccine. Everything else is b.s., including your cost-benefit and risk analyses.

    Why don't you wake up? If vaccines were not effective, there would be a lot more small pox, diphtheria, influenza, bubonic plague and other scourges than there are in today's civilized world.

  • NaFaMod

    Havnt watched the doc. I believe there could be a link between vaccines and immune system problems. We have more kids now a days who have compromised immune systems due to bad diets, toxicity, antibiotics, etc. Giving a kid with a normal immune system a vaccine works fine and produces a predictable result. Giving someone whos immune system is already compromised can tip the balance and cause problems like excma asthma and allergies to occur or inflame.

    I really do believe the health of the general population is slipping. Maybe its just our supression of natural selection, prolonging weaklings who should be dead. I know because I feel like one of them, my whole life I have a cloud following me around, just causing me all sorts of problems like allergies, excma, asthma, depression, fatigue, and the list of problems is just growing longer and Im starting to slip, what makes it worse is I feel like im ignored. I sometimes think I would rather have a brain tumor or something tangible that would show up on a scan, such is my frustration. The psuedo scientists are the only people that actually take me seriously it feels like, but all the measures I have tried to get healthy have failed. But that could just mean I havnt encountered the right "pseudo scientist" because everyones got their own unique set of problems. Im open to any proper science aswell but the problem is I havnt found anything remotely encouraging.

    If all my s***- is caused by our modern lifestyles, and some think it is, as the increasing number of immune problems like excma, asthma, allergies would suggest, then our race is in for a big wake up call. Your complacency will be anihilated and the new era of science, once laughed at and labelled psuedo science will make you all recall with shame the ignorant stubborness that you once clung to and were blinded by. That would make me do the I told you so dance, but I dont really care, I just want to get healthy. The question is can the damage be undone.

  • Erjewi

    You still seem not to grasp the idea of sound reasoning.

    You say "nothing toxic in vaccines" one paragraph after saying "chemical traces found in vaccines are completely harmless".

    Even if we assume the toxic chemical (Aluminum, Formaldehyde, Thimerosal, Squaline to name a few) traces are harmless, they're still toxic chemicals; you can't then conclude there are no toxic chemicals in vaccines. It's also clearly false that these chemicals are only in "trace amounts", which means so small as to have no impact on the biological system.

    The whole purpose of the aluminium is to provoke an imune reaction, thus a strong impact on the biological systems and so clearly not a trace amount! If it's only in "trace quantities" why does the body react strongly, or at all, to it? What's your definition of trace: from how it's used in science?

    The answer is obviously that the aluminium is not in trace quantities, and has an effect on the body.

    What you're trying to argue is that there are only positive effects and no negative effects. To me it's obvious that, like any other chemical or drug, there are potential positive and potential negative affects, that will change from vaccine to vaccine and person to person. Thus risk-analysis is needed to weigh the benefits and risks. My point is that this data isn't produced to independent verification standards that exist in other sciences and there's no reason to expect less (no long term study I have seen has had a large and detailed sample base, and rigorously attempts to isolate all the variables that could confuse correlation with causation, such as the affects of other medical advances in the same time, quarantine procedures, and how the very fact of knowing a person or group is now vaccinated may shift diagnosis probabilities of doctors; these are all non-trivial statistical problems that would require many peer-review independent studies to arrive at good data, which is routine in other fields), and the burden to supply the data is on anyone trying to convince me to inject known toxic substances into my or my childrens bloodstream (if I came up to you in the street and offered to inject you with something, let's even call it a vaccine, would you accept without any strong independently reviewed data that has gone through a lengthy verification/refutation process?).

    Though thank you for providing a long term study on muffins ... though as I mentioned previously proxi data is a dangerous substitute for real data.

    There are 3 additional problems with your argument due to using proxi data:

    First, muffins are eaten, not injected. And we know plenty of other substances follow completely different pathways in the body whether eaten or injected.

    Or are you claiming that injecting a muffin into your bloodstream would have the same effect as eating it?

    Second, the individual dose levels from eating muffins and a vaccine maybe completely different. Many substances can be ingested everyday in relatively small amounts without (much) ill effects (say 1 beer) but ingesting 20 beers in a single time has completely different results.

    You've already pointed out that the dose from aluminium for babies is about 40% what they'd injest from breastmilk. There's no reason to assume that the result is the same from drinking breastmilk giving ver small doses over the day, for many days, and going through digestion, compared with injecting must larger doses at a time directly into the blood stream.

    Third, you must still take into account that the toxicity of aluminium maybe amplified by other chemicals in the vaccine. So a study of alumium alone (even assuming ingestion is an accurately proxi for injection, that a single strong dose is equivalent to small extended doses) does not allow us to conclude that it's administration has the same toxicity in vaccines, as it may interact with other chemicals in the vaccine. I've already pointed out that studying chemicals in isolation and not the mix in final product is a common trick.

    Now, I should stress that all of the above is about what consitutes valid reasoning (i.e. what conclusions validly follow from premises). Whether those premises (the supposed "studies" showing all vaccines totally harmless) are actually true is another matter I will address when we come to agreement on what criteria those studies have to fullfil to prove "the chemical traces found in vaccines are completely harmless" (though I can almost guarantee no study will support your point, as to say "vaccines" in a general sense are harmless is to talk of all vaccines ever made, all batches of those vaccines, and handling-injection procedures, even future vaccines that would be very difficult to study indeed; and this isn't splitting hairs, even if vaccine theory is correct that doesn't mean every implementation of the theory, and every production process, and every actual batch, is effective and non-toxic; arguing the theory is correct or even 100% proof one vaccine has had more benefit than cost, doesn't somehow transfer to all vaccines; this is another crucial piece to consider: each vaccine and each person/situation has to be evaluated, there's no shorcuts of "we assume vaccine A worked a few decades ago without risk, thus we can assume automatically vaccine B,C,D,E and F also work without risk" is not valid reasoning, even if vaccine A worked 120%, and extremely dishonest when people's health are at stake).

  • Erjewi

    Yes, I don't have a doctors degree. But if you've read anything I've said, I haven't evaluated any person's health nor any medical study, I've asked to see studies but so far recieved none with any real data supporting the claim "vaccines", as in all vaccines, are perfectly harmless.

    I have done 4 things:

    1. Point out cases of clearly erroneous reasoning. Do I need to be a doctor to apply basic rules of logic? Or should there be a critical thinking void around the subject of vaccines?

    2. I've laid out criteria of what a good statistical study would have to fulfill to prove that the benefits outweigh the risks for a given vaccine and person, and to a lesser extent I've addressed all the subject of all vaccines past and future, for the benefit of interlocutors such as yourself who seem to think there's data out there supporting the claim all vaccines are perfectly harmless, which you make. Now I don't say such rock-solid studies don't exist, I just haven't seen them, please share if you have them.

    3. I've given my personal approach to the issue. That we know the ingredients are toxic: A) we wouldn't normally be injecting them for fun, B) we know vaccines aren't guaranteed to work (there are plenty of cases of people getting disease they had a vaccine for), and C) yes we do know there are side-effects as the CDC and the manufacturers tell us so. So we need a real risk-benefit analysis for each vaccine and each person.

    In the least, my personal approach would be that if ever somoeone did convince me a specific vaccine is worth the risk, I'd demand a freshly made vaccine with no preservatives that minimizes toxins as much as possible, I'd also demand a test to see if my biology is compatible with the vaccine if such a test is possible. If these two further measures cost money, I'd seriously consider paying.

    Please tell me where in my approach I need a doctor other than to provide rock-solid data on vaccines and evaluate my biology?

    I.e. I see the burdon of proof being on the people that want to inject me with something. You seem to think I'm a paranoid radical. But it's mass injecting people with vaccines (no tests, few long term studies) that's the radical proposition, and if all vaccines are really as risk free and life giving as you say, there should be rock solid evidence, easilly available supporting that. If there's a measure of risk involved, then there should be not only rock solid data, but it should be easilly navigable, and there should be a medical culture of reviewing the risk in a transparent and fully informed way, and whatever tests to minimize risk for a given biology developed and administered before vaccination (instead of asking if someone has allergies, why not test them first?). My personal opinion of why the data and culture of critical thinking doesn't exist around vaccines is because it would reduce profits.

    4. I've also asked for solid data backing up the claims people are making. For instance backing up the claim Dr Hilleman has saved 200 000 000 people as a single doctor, meanding preventing single handedly 1 billion diseases with a 20 percent mortality rate, but have been given very few with real (not proxi) data.

  • Jack1952

    If you want absolute guarantees, I'm afraid that no studies will ever give you that. People die, all of us will die eventually. Since vaccines have not prevented our eventual demise, it does not mean that they have been ineffective in prolonging life. Since almost everyone in the western world has had immunization shots at one point in their life, you would think that your disaster scenarios would have been realized by now. In fact the opposite has happened. Life expectancy is at the highest it has been in recorded history. Child and infant mortality rates are at the lowest in history, especially deaths from contagious diseases. These are facts. The maladies that you have named, cancer, allergies, autism, diabetes, are not contagious diseases and are not generally bacteria driven. If you eliminate the contagious killers, smallpox, diphtheria, polio and others that were at one time the number one killers in the world the killers down the list will move up the list until, as vaccines effectively slow the more dangerous diseases, they become number one. That is inevitable.

    If smallpox, polio, whooping cough or any other virulent disease does show its ugly head in your neighbourhood, I would hope that you make sure that family is immunized and you don't wait around for vaccine manufacturers to complete studies of long term effects of their vaccines. You may find that the possible long term effects may be irrelevant, in light of the short term effects of not being immunized. It is no accident that the last cases of smallpox were in areas of the world that did not have immunization programs at the time...or that polio exists in areas of the world where people believe that vaccines are instruments of death being used against them from western cultures. If for some reason you did have to live in Pakistan for a time, I wonder what your feelings of the polio vaccine would be then. It is one thing to safely ponder hypothetical or possible side effects and quite another when the disease has been manifested down the street.

    Yes, the drug companies do make profits. So what? If my house is on fire, I don't question the fire fighters about possible exorbitant wages or their excellent retirement package. I let them do the job they are trained to do.

  • robertallen1

    "After the controversy [re Wakefield] began, the MMR vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom, from 92% in 1996 to 84% in 2002. In some parts of London, it was as low as 61% in 2003, far below the rate needed to avoid an epidemic of measles. Murch S (2003). "Separating inflammation from speculation in autism." Lancet 362 (9394): 1498–9. "By 2006 coverage for MMR in the UK at 24 months was 85%, lower than the about 94% coverage for other vaccines." McIntyre P, Leask J (2008). "Improving uptake of MMR vaccine". BMJ 336 (7647): 729–30. "After vaccination rates dropped, the incidence of two of the three diseases increased greatly in the UK. In 1998 there were 56 confirmed cases of measles in the UK; in 2006 there were 449 in the first five months of the year, with the first death since 1992; cases occurred in inadequately vaccinated children. Asaria P, MacMahon E (2006). "Measles in the United Kingdom: can we eradicate it by 2010?". BMJ 333 (7574): 890–5.

    "Mumps cases began rising in 1999 after years of very few cases, and by 2005 the United Kingdom was in a mumps epidemic with almost 5000 notifications in the first month of 2005 alone." Gupta RK, Best J, MacMahon E (2005). "Mumps and the UK epidemic 2005". BMJ 330 (7500): 1132–5. "The age group affected was too old to have received the routine MMR immunisations around the time the paper by Wakefield et al. was published, and too young to have contracted natural mumps as a child, and thus to achieve a herd immunity effect. With the decline in mumps that followed the introduction of the MMR vaccine, these individuals had not been exposed to the disease, but still had no immunity, either natural or vaccine induced. Therefore, as immunisation rates declined following the controversy and the disease re-emerged, they were susceptible to infection. "Mumps". Health Protection Agency. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
    "Measles and mumps cases continued in 2006, at incidence rates 13 and 37 times greater than respective 1998 levels. "Confirmed cases of measles, mumps & rubella". Health Protection Agency. 22 March 2007.

    If you feel like refuting any of the above, do so with peer-reviewed reports, not statistical double-talk, not empty what-if's, not with pseudo issues such as correlation vs. cause which is amply demonstrated in the above. My guess is that you can't do it not so much because do not have an M.D., but because you admittedly have no medical training at all and without it, you are incompetent to judge the logicality of any medical articles on vaccines or comment on the makeup and effectiveness of any of the vaccines discussed. therein. Without the required medical background, you cannot formulate anything approaching an intelligent statistical study, which is why your comments have no bearing on reality.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Erjewi,

    I don't want to undermine your long writings but I think the following will be sufficient:

    1. Toxicity is in the dosage. You can even poison yourself with an oxygen if you intend.

    2. Not all vaccines are injected. Some are orally taken. The same as the muffins and pancakes.

    3. You failed to grasp that chemicals in vaccines are in traces, which means in most cases harmless.

    4. You also failed to provide a source or evidence that proves that chemicals in vaccines actually do harm.

    5. This is not a philosophical topic, where you state your premises, deductions, your own criteria, shift the burden of proof, etc. This is topic where you should actually point us to studies, experiments, statistics etc. that support your view. After all you cling to conspiracy that someone is poisoning you.

    As @Jack said you want absolute guarantees, which is impossible.

  • Erjewi

    I have not said I haven't seen risk assessments. I've said I haven't seen solid long term risk studies. Long term studies are much more resource intensive, and much more difficult to identify any effects of the vaccine, and manufacturers aren't required to carry out such studies.

    It's very difficult because:

    - There are other medical advances and changes going on at the same time, that have to be accounted for (hand washing, quarantine, first aid practices, other preventative measures etc.).

    - The vaccine maybe have ill effect appearing in conjunction with other things. I.e. a vaccine maybe a cofactor in some ill effect. So it can be very difficult to measure what part the vaccines may play.

    -Diagnosis itslef is difficult. What is diagnosed as A may have been B, especially decades and centuries ago. Even today, lab diagnosis is not done very often, as it's expensive. So, how vaccination rates affect doctors diagnosis must also be accounted for. Since most sicknesses clearup by themselves, the doctors diagnosis in these cases can be highly influenced by psychological factors (it can also be a self feeding process where the more doctors diagnosis as A the more likely doctors are to diagnos as A, before accurate lab testing there is little dampening such a positive feedback loop; then when a vaccine is mass-injected the reverse can happen where doctors start diagnosing the same thing as B, thus proving on paper that the vaccine worked - not any conspiracy, just that if a doctor knows A has a vaccine for he may assume it's unlikely and so now diagnos B for the same symptoms, and if many doctors have the same tendency, then they all now seem to "verify" each other, strengthening the tendency).

    -Nutrition, fitness and general health changes will also change susceptibility to disease. I.e. if nutrition and general health is the major factor, then an increase in a diseases (let's assume 100% diagnosis accuracy) also fits with decreasing nutrition and health (which we know is happening).

    -Not to mention other environmental changes, for instance, not only outdoors pollution (decreasing in the west) but also indoor pollution (increasing) and the time spent outdoors and indoors (the latter increasing).

    You ask for my evidence. I don't see why the burden of proof is on me, and not the proponents of vaccines, and crucially any given vaccine (every disease and vaccine is different), or at least anyone who wants to inject me with something. I have already explained my argument to support this which is that if the burden of proof is on me then I must accept every injection offered all the time, and indeed any other chemical or drug, unless I find "evidence" to prove it's dangerous (which for many cases doesn't exist as no study has ever been funded).

    Why shouldn't we apply the cautionary principle when it comes to vaccines and demand multiple, highly funded independent long term studies? And not just on 1 vaccine, but on every vaccine as they are all different.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    I am beginning to hope you propose yourself as a volunteer for that long term study and fund it. Let's see how it would work to exclude all other factors.

    1) You get secluded in an autonomous bubble filled with the purest air possible to avoid any outside contaminant.

    2) You get injected with the polio vaccine.

    3) Anything you ingest is analysed for possible impurities and pathogens so it doesn't interfere with the study.

    4) Polio is then introduced in the bubble to see if the vaccine works.

    If you survive, you are kept in that bubble for the rest of your life to analyse if the micro dose of aluminium, Formaldehyde, Thimerosal, Squaline, etc. will cause you to develop some kind of disease or syndrome that can't be attributed to any other factor.

    Oh and I forgot, we also need a clone of you that don't get the vaccine, survives polio without it and receives the exact same treatment to have perfect proof. Then you repeat the process with more clones for every disease and the corresponding vaccine.
    But even then the results are only good for you, you then need a clone for every possible variations of the genetic code to get absolute proof.

    Such a study is absolutely insane and can't be done and won't ever be tried. No one is ever going to go through anything even remotely like that study to prove the effect of trace elements in anything.

    The best you can hope for is injection of trace aluminium, Formaldehyde, Thimerosal, Squaline, etc. without vaccine in animals and statistical studies on humans. If that won't convince you then nothing ever will because the testing that would is probably unethical and maybe even illegal. Medical scientists can't go around injecting thousands of people with placebo vaccines containing trace chemicals without medical reasons only to give you the study you are hoping for.

  • over the edge

    Erjewi
    you seem to take some things as true based on reasonable evidence then require unreasonable evidence where vaccines are concerned. you claim that hand washing, medical advancements and nutrition have an effect (and i agree) on our health without demanding that every possible combination and degree of these practices be subject to impossible studies.

    "Why shouldn't we apply the cautionary principle when it comes to vaccines and demand multiple, highly funded independent long term studies? And not just on 1 vaccine, but on every vaccine as they are all different." because by the time these studies could be performed the disease will have killed many and possibly mutated requiring a new vaccine and a new set of studies in a endless circle of death and study.

    "You ask for my evidence. I don't see why the burden of proof is on me, and not the proponents of vaccines," i never stated that the burden of proof lies solely with you. but even in the face of multiple responses to you from many posters you fail to accept the evidence presented. if i am wrong in assuming that you are looking for a two way conversation where both sides present a factual case backed by evidence and where reasonable demands/proof are presented by all parties then i will move on.

  • Erjewi

    @Fabien L'Amour

    Yes, I would definitely consider funding a long term, as independent as possible, study if I had crazy amounts of money some day, or was in some political positio to do so.

    But in the mean-time it is clear that a real risk-benefit analysis can't be made without such studies.

    For instance, there could not only be long term concequences but also intergenerational concequences, as well as second order risks we haven't yet talked about (some researchers have proposed that minimizing disease as much as possible, namely through hand washing and and being less dirty is what they looked at, may create problems because the immune system doesn't get excersize and so "discallibrates" in a sense; the result of the research was "dirt pills" to expose kids to new bacteria; so even if vaccines were 100% flawless, there could still be these kinds of second order risks in using them systematically).

    Both vaccine science, vaccine practice, group and individual biologies are all very complex things.

    So, I don't see why we should be scientifically lazy when it comes to vaccines, and should just accept assumption such as "vaccines are harmless".

    You seem to start to understand that the question of the risks of vaccines is a difficult and complex one ... and yes, what's true for one disease, vaccing and person may not be true for another! I encourage you to keep thinking in this direction and make a similar list of conditions on a statistical study, which is always more difficult than direct experimenation; then try to see if a study exists that meet your criteria of independence and takes into account all relatant variables.

  • robertallen1

    Again, what-if's and maybe's don't count.

    If you want long-range studies and intensive research, look up the Cochrane Collaboration. No one here is going to do your homework for you.

  • robertallen1

    In other words, when a new vaccine is concocted, wait a generation or two before applying it so that every possible (not probable) side effect can be tested for. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

  • robertallen1

    And Jack 1952

    Are you familiar with the Cochrane Collaboration?

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @robertallen1,

    Yes, I'm familiar. The studies listed in the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (the links I posted for @Erjewi) very often consult Cochrane Vaccines Field Register, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biological Abstracts, Science Citation Index, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website for relevant studies.

  • robertallen1

    Good. By laying out the individual studies synoptically and analyzing them, Cochrane saves time. So perhaps Erjewi might find them helpful, not that he will even look at them.

  • robertallen1

    Well, let's see your factual case backed by evidence, keeping in mind that maybe's and what-if's are evidence of nothing or if you have no evidence, perhaps you can help engender some by taking up Fabien L'Amours on his suggestion.

  • Herminatorn

    A great documentary!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    Several studies exist that meet my criteria of independence and take into account enough variables for me to understand the benefits far out weight the risks of not getting vaccines for contagious diseases. The CDC has a real-time surveillance system for adverse events. It's impossible to know how each individual will react to every vaccine but the serious side effects are extremely rare.

    Here are risks evaluation by the CDC on 2 vaccines :

    MMR
    Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
    1 in 1,000,000

    DTaP
    Acute encephalopathy
    0-10.5 in 1,000,000

    Compare it to the following odds of death in the U.S. :

    Lightning Strike
    1-in-83,930

    Earthquake
    1-in-131,890

    Dog Attack
    1-in-147,717

    I'd say vaccines are pretty darn safe when the risk of serious complications are smaller then the risk of dying from Lightning.

    If you are really worried about your kids safety that much, don't ever take them in a car or let them ride a bicycle, the odds of death are much worse then from vaccines...

  • Jack1952

    Your "dirt" pills are a type of vaccine. A vaccine introduces a less dangerous strain of a disease to your body so your immune system knows how to fight the more dangerous one if exposed to it later. The "dirt" pill does exactly the same thing.

  • Erjewi

    @over the edge
    I don't see where I require reasonable evidence for some things and unreasonable evidence for others.

    What I say is that there are medical advances or changes (i.e. what the medical community sees as advances), so any statistical study on vaccines has to try to take these changes into account. A study on the impact of hand-washing would equally have to try to take vaccines into account. However, in the case of hand-washing there's not only statistical evidence but direct experimentation and a clear mechanism (the bacteria on the hands can be observed to die in experimentation). In terms of the negative affects of hand-washing, they do exist (in a comment below I bring up the risks of being "too" clean).

  • Erjewi

    No, the dirt pills are not a type of vaccine. The reasoning behind the dirt pills is to keep the immune system excercised, not give a less virulent kind of disease.

    Also, vaccines are generally not live-virus vaccines. Modern vaccines (at least the one's I've looked at), use inactivated (i.e. dead) virus or bacteria material and then stimulate the body (i.e. attack it to provoke an immune response, what the aluminium is used for) in hopes of simulating the real disease and imparting immunity. It is this type of vaccine that I have been primarilly addressing.

    However, live-virus vaccines are not without their risks either, expecially second order risks of creating new diseases by spreading the "less lethal" virus so widely. I.e. if we can develop a less lethal strain, maybe nature can reverse the trick (not only for the disease in question but by passing genetic material to other diseases).

    For both types of vaccines, there are some diseases that even getting the real disease doesn't impart imunity. Which means in this case you can get and die from a disease you've previously got and recovered from. So it's not clear how simulating the real disease, either with live or innactive material, would somehow impart imunity where the real disease doesn't.

  • Erjewi

    "Since almost everyone in the western world has had immunization shots at one point in their life, you would think that your disaster scenarios would have been realized by now."

    This is another typical example of invalid reasoning.

    By your logic, there's no reason smoking is bad for the health, as no disater scenario has been reaslized for smoking either. In fact, people have been living longer since smoking became popular, so if anything smoking makes us live longer.

    Also I have never said results would be disasterous, so your striking at a straw man. My position is there are risks and so risk-anslysis is needed (for each disease, vaccine and person).

  • robertallen1

    As you admittedly do not have a medical education, especially in immunology and microbiology, how can you expect anyone to give any credence to anything you write about vaccines?

    Vaccines work and the statistics show it (and I'll bet you haven't even looked at the Cochrane Collaboration which I previously suggested). Whether you impart any validity to the statistics is of no consequence. What matters is that mainstream medicine (which is the only type that counts) does. So once again, how can you expect anyone to give any credence to anything you write about vaccines?

  • robertallen1

    Jack was talking about immunization (vaccination), not about smoking. "Since smoking became popular" does not give us a time period. Also, did it occur to you that due to all the scares and scandals affecting the tobacco industry people are now smoking less--not that this has anything to do with vaccines? In other words, you're comparing apples to cumquatts and employing the causation/correlation fallacy in a vain attempt to refute Jack. It doesn't wash.

    What makes you think that the medical/pharmaceutical industry isn't running risk analyses on these vaccines, especially in light of the information produced by Vlatko, Jack1952, Over_the_Edge and Fabien L'Amour in his last post? Have you gone through the Cochrane Collaboration yet? I doubt it.

  • Jack1952

    You seem determined that vaccinations are bad for you. You have given no specific reason why, except that there have been no studies done on long term effects and therefore you think that something is being hidden from us. You don't know what exactly and can't quite put your finger on it but you seem to believe it anyway. You have not shown anything specific or anything even close to being specific. It all seems based on hunches, inordinate fear and mistrust. I tell you that polio is wiped out in all areas of the world except those where people are afraid of the immunizations and you ignore it. Could you answer one question, straight out, yes or no. If you had to move to Pakistan where polio is still a problem, would you require your children to be vaccinated? Would the real threat of polio supersede the the vague threat of some long term danger that may or may not exist? Remember, polio vaccinations are not necessary in the west but Pakistan is a country where the threat of contracting this horrible disease still looms.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    Risk analysis for each person???
    Please define what kind of risk analysis you are suggesting is needed.

  • Jack1952

    I would like to add that the individual risk analysis that you are asking for is impossible at this time. The technology does not exist as yet. It is the hope of the medical establishment that someday this will be possible and that medicines will be tailor made for each individual. A long term goal and a laudable one but what you are asking for just isn't ready yet. In the meantime, we are forced to muddle along as best we can. Human health is a complex issue. It will be a long time before anything even close to a guarantee will be possible.

    Not everyone in the west smokes. Almost everyone has been vaccinated. Health risks associated with smoking have been well documented and is a leading health problem in our society. Smokers have been shown to have a lower life expectancy. Not so with those who have been vaccinated. All you have is a suspicion without any solid reason for your suspicions.

  • Erjewi

    Individual risk analysis is very much possible.

    Allergies would be one easy example. Is this technically impossible as you say, even with all our towers of sciense rallied to the cause? Or is it just technically unprofitable (allergy tests don't cost much, but it would still raise the cost of vaccine and cut into profits)?

    But more importantly there are plenty to go into a risk analysis that has nothing to do with a lab.

    For instance, new borns are regularly vaccinated for diseases that they have extremely small chance of getting. Also we know that growing babies and children are the most vulnerable to toxins, and developing allergies (which still no one has explained why stimulating a the immune system to attach the injected proteins wouldn't also likely stimulate it to attack other protiens that happen to be there).

    So just now vs. later for children is a basic risk assessment.

    Other risks are that I've mentioned are the cases of diseases that aren't lethal to a healthy individual. Do we need to accept any risk for a non-lethal disease?

  • Erjewi

    Ok, if you agree that risk analysis is needed (and so accept vaccines do have risks), there there is plenty to consider.

    I'll give a few examples.

    First the disease. Some diseases are known not cause immunity even if you get the disease. Tetanus is a good example. Tetanus is a bacteria that develops in a wound and creates a neuro-toxin. It's definitely something desirable to prevent. However, in a wound with dead tissue to feast upon, antibodies don't magically solve the problem; the white blood cells actually have to get to the tetenus bacteria and fight them. So, you can't get immunity to tetanus. So there's no reason to believe the tetanus vaccine gives anti-bodies magic powers, and indeed people vaccinated against tetanus get tetanus. What we can do against tetanus is clean the wound and give antiboitics if there seems to develop an infection (tetanus is a bacteria, so antibiotics work extremely well, and may be a large part of the reduction of tetenus cases and death, not vaccines). And indeed, the pharmacoprs don't even claim that the vaccine gives you immunity, they infact claim that it doesn't but somehow "fades away" which is why you need to get the vaccine regularly (i.e. anyone who get's tetanus after a vaccine, had the immunity fade away on them). Now, some people claim that though the vaccine doesn't give immunity, it does somehow help. I haven't seen evidence to suppor this, but I just want to provide an example of how diseases are different. Another example is the flu, we can get it every year. Even if the vaccine worked for one year, getting the real flu might build up better immunity for next year and remove any vaccine specefic risk (certainly fighting the real flu is the best practice for the body against fighting the real flu, and as we saw with the dirt study, the immune system needs excercise).

    Second, the vaccine. Even if there's 100% evidence one vaccine worked in the past, doesn't somehow magically extend to all vaccines. So obviously accepting all vaccines without question because "vaccines work" isn't reasonable.Another vaccine may simply not work (or be for last years flu), or have higher risks (difference ingredients; for instance, squaline may have mor risk).

    I go over some individual related risk assessments in the other comments.

  • robertallen1

    You write in such detail about disease and vaccination, but considering that you admittedly have no medical training, where does all your "information" come from, certainly not your background? In all your myriad contentions, you haven't provided one peer-reviewed source. So who do you hope to convince?

  • robertallen1

    From Jack1952, "You have not shown anything specific or anything even close to being specific. It all seems based on hunches, inordinate fear and mistrust." This post is a prime example.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    The reason for the absenceof immunity to Tetanus is not what you described. You can't build an immunity to Tetanus because very little of the potent toxin is required to cause the disease. On the basis of weight,
    tetanospasmin is one of the most potent toxins known. The estimated minimum human lethal dose is 2.5 nanograms per kilogram of body weight.

    The vaccine is made by chemically treating the tetanus toxin to render it nontoxic yet still capable of eliciting an immune response in the vaccinated person. You aren't immune to Clostridium tetani, you are immune to the toxin produced by the bacteria. The antibodies don't magically solve the problem, they attack the tetanospasmin that enters your bloodstream...

    Lifelong immunity is not guaranteed by natural infection for several diseases so I don't see why it should be the case for vaccines. Contracting pertussis will give you a protection of 4 to 20 years and the vaccine gives you a protection of 4 to 12 years.

    7 to 10 years immunity to Tetanos is way better then no immunity at all.

    For influenza, there are several strains and the virus mutates. Seasonal flu vaccines protect against the three influenza viruses (trivalent) that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. The viruses in the vaccine can change each year based on international surveillance and scientists’ estimations about which types and strains of viruses will circulate in a given year.

    Even when the viruses are not closely matched, the vaccine can still protect many people and prevent flu-related complications. Such protection is possible because antibodies made in response to the vaccine can provide some protection (called cross-protection) against different, but related strains of influenza viruses.

    Multiple studies conducted over different seasons and across vaccine types and influenza virus subtypes have shown that the body’s immunity to influenza viruses (acquired either through natural infection or vaccination) declines over time.

  • concernedmomto2

    Thank you for this documentary it only firmed up even more my decision to stop immunizations on my children after watching my son have a horrible but thank God not permanent reaction.... from being given one I did not give permission to. I cannot believe they are using aborted fetuses... that makes me sick to my stomach

  • robertallen1

    Unless you were instructed by your doctor to discontinue immunizations for your child , you've made a stupid decision.

  • Erjewi

    My point was that getting the real disease doesn't provide immunity. And yes, immunity from the disease would involve stopping the bacteria before they become a problem. In the real disease anti-bodies would be generated against both the bacteria and the toxins. And, if you don't develop immunity from getting the real disease, then we shouldn't expect simulating the disease or the toxins will provide immunity.

    My point of bringing up diseases of which there's no permanent immunity, was to point out that diseases are different from each other, and why each disease must be considered in itself (not all diseases and all vaccines together).

    I'm glad you agree with this fact.

    For, if there's no life-long immunity 2 things happen. Obviously it changes the risk-benefit assessment. Second, it makes it very hard to establish this temporary immunity satistically.

    Please site you sources if you want to establish a fact.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    CDC Pink Book Tetanus, you can google it, as linking need approval from a moderator. It's a 10 pages read so won't take much of your time.

    They even immunize after you had the disease because the toxin is extremely potent (well if you survived because even if you get treated, you still have a 10% chance of dying). After a primary series (three properly spaced doses of tetanus toxoid in persons 7 years of age and older, and four doses in children younger than 7 years of age) essentially all recipients achieve antitoxin levels considerably greater than the protective level of 0.1 IU/mL.

    They give 0.5 ml of Tetanus toxoid in each dose which is far more then the lethal dose for tetanospasmin hence the production of enough antibodies to destroy the toxin in subsequent infections.

    (You can google Tetanus Toxoid Dosage if you want source)

    Another interesting read will be found if you google :

    Prevention of tetanus during the First World War

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    You might seriously want to revise that decision for several vaccines especially tetanus which doesn't benefit from herd immunization and is easily contracted from rather minor wounds. It's fairly easy for a kid to have a wound contaminated with soil and the symptoms are extremely painful and can lead to death.

  • robertallen1

    I don't see any citations in this post or any of your others. So why are you demanding this of Fabien L'Amour?

  • Erjewi

    I completely disagree. I would recommend the following:

    You should first ask your doctor for short and long term studies on negative effects of the vaccine. You should then multiply that risk by the number of injections you'll need to stay imunized.

    You should then compare that risk to the risk of getting tetanus, for your country, for unvaccinated people.

    You should then compare both risks and make a decision based on critical thinking and not fear.

    If there are no long term studies or no high quality data to make long term studies, then you should try to evaluate this (i.e. try to attach a risk factor to this lack of knowledge).

  • robertallen1

    So you're saying that every time a vaccine is prescribed, you should conduct an in-depth statistical analysis on it. How idiotic! As if you have the qualifications, not to mention the time, to make an accurate assessment. If you don't do what the doctor who knows far more than you about vaccines tells you to do, why go to the doctor in the first place?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    Multiplying the risk by the numbers of shots is ludicrous. The risk remains the same for each shot. The risk studies are made for the whole course of the vaccine, not each individual injection. Actually, it's pretty clear the risk decreases for short term negative effects if you don't have any effect for the first shot.

    Long term studies are almost impossible to realize so I have no idea how you would come up with a risk factor attached to the lack of long term studies. How do you attribute a risk factor to something unknown? You invent some possible consequence then come up with imaginary numbers of negative effects then calculate a risk factor???

  • robertallen1

    This backs up what I've been saying: that for statistics and the mathematics behind them to be accurate and effective, you have to know what you're dealing with.

  • dewflirt

    If you weigh up the risks for unvaccinated people you are essentially relying on the fact that others around you are vaccinated. You are still protecting yourself with that vaccine. If everyone did the same as that, eventually you would reach a tipping point. With fewer people giving their children the MMR jags for example, the risk to children without it increases and so will the need for it. The risk also increases for those that can't (for medical reasons) get the vaccines themselves. By doing what you think is best for you and yours, you might be putting others in harms way. There is a fourteen year old boy at my daughters school who has cancer (fairly sure it's a form of leukaemia) and cannot attend because there are so many other kids there whose parents chose not to vaccinate.

  • concernedmomto2

    @people who keep writing me... please stop. I said I Stopped vaccinating my children, i did not specify what age, nor what ones they already had. none of your business. but I feel the need to say, they were both vaxd up to K (that was 22 injections of 4 viruses each. Enough is enough.

  • robertallen1

    Like you, Fabien L'Amour doesn't have any medical background, but the difference is that when asked to produced peer-reviewed articles supporting his statements, he does so, immediately and gleefully. You, on the other hand, either can't or don't.

    Fabien applies his medical understanding (which I suspect is a lot deeper than what he is willing to admit) to the material before him and as a result, his conclusions are consistent with reality. You, on the other hand, treat medicine (of which you are apparently ignorant judging from the many times you have been corrected) as if it were a classroom exercise in formal logic and statistical analysis and come up with a medico/statistical Disneyland.

    This contrast is what gives credence to Fabien and none to you.

  • Erjewi

    We're talking about tetanus, of which there is no "herd immunity" (tetanus is in the environment, it's not caught from other people).

    For other vaccines, second order risks of infecting people with copromised immune systems would be part of the risk analysis. Though, since there are relatively few people in this situation, it's unlikely that it would be worth putting millions of people at risk to protect a few people. Also, we know there are carcinogens in vaccines, so if these carcinogens are contributing to more cancer, it seems like a vicious circle if the reason to take the vaccines is to help people with cancer.

    So this often toted argument is meaningless. It may provide motivation to get vaccines and so increase profits, but doesn't somehow replace a long-term risk-benefit assessment of the vaccine.

  • robertallen1

    If you didn't want to be responded to, you shouldn't have posted.

    At least your children are vaccinated--and that's what's important. Bear in mind, that unless you have a medical background, you do not know more than your doctor.

  • robertallen1

    I notice that you did not mention the source of one of your rare citations, so I will make up for your deficiency.

    The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and despite its high-sounding name is not indexed by mainstream scientific databases such as the Web of Science or MEDLINE. Now let's find out why.

    First, the organization behind it. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons opposes, among other things, mandatory vaccination. Not only is the organization opposed to Medicare and Medicaid which it characterizes as evil and immoral, but also to mandated evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines as a usurpation of physician autonomy and a fascist merger of state and corporate power where the biggest stakeholder is the pharmaceutical industry. Other procedures that the organization opposes include abortion, over-the-counter access to emergency contraception and direct or de facto supervision or control over the practice of medicine by federal officers or employees.

    Now for the journal itself in which have appeared articles arguing, among other things, that HIV does not cause AIDS, that what it terms the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years and that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, the latter claim having been rejected by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization, among other mainstream medical associations.

    A 2003 paper published in the journal claiming that vaccination was harmful was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    You might want to read about the leprosy error promoted by this very same journal.

    This is an example of the quality of your sources!! And you call yourself a statistician--by the way, the article was written by Clifford G. Miller, Esq., obviously not a medical doctor--so why did the journal publish an article by him?

  • robertallen1

    "Also, we know there are carcinogens in vaccines . . . " Where is your peer-reviewed article supporting this?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    The average CDC annual incidence you list is for a mostly vaccinated population in U.S.A. so I don't see how it applies to your suggestion of coming up with a risk factor for non vaccinated population.

    I can't post the World Health Organization graph here but the numbers of reported case have been going down steadily worldwide since the 80's.

    The official coverage was roughly 25% back in 1980 and the number of reported infections was well above 100 000. In 2011 the official coverage was around 90% and the number of reported infections was around 10 000.

    I think it's pointless to further discuss Tetanus with you as you mix and match the information as you see fit. You suggest to figure the incidence for non vaccinated population to make a risks evaluation then use vaccinated population statistics to demonstrate the risk for tetanus is low...

    Show me the risk factor you come up with for non vaccinated populations and I will believe you are having a constructive discussion and are not trying to display unrelated statistics to prove you are right. There is no herd protection for Tetanus so it should be pretty easy to figure what the risk is for non vaccinated populations.

    The 2010 statistics from the WHO list the coverage for DTP1 at 98% and the coverage for DTP3 at 95%. So best case scenario, you need to substract 95% of the population to come up with numbers that somewhat reflect the U.S non vaccinated population for Tetanus.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    @ Erjewi : Also, if you can prove there are carcinogens in vaccines, let us know what the concentrations are and please demonstrate how the concentrations present increase the risk of cancer and which cancers are most likely to get triggered by them. You can't throw in "WE KNOW" without demonstrating it scientifically. If you can't, I suggest you edit your post and replace "WE KNOW" for "I BELIEVE".

  • robertallen1

    I believe you meant to respond to Erjewi. Is this correct?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    Kind off, I wanted to ad my request to your "Where is your peer-reviewed article supporting this?" request. It takes a while for a post to get sorted correctly, for a little while new posts show up on top.

  • Erjewi

    Yes, risk for unvaccinated people can be deduced from total figures if we know the ratio between the people vaccinated and unvaccinated who get tetanus.

    But, since there is no reliable lab test for tetanus it's difficult to know the real rates. As I explained it's extremely difficult to know whether unvaccinated people are at more risk of tetanus or simply more risk of being diagnosed as tetanus.

    So, I haven't found many studies trying to take this into account. The CDC stats I've found don't actually tell you the percentage of tetanus diagnosis is vaccinated or unvaccinated (though they do mention some are vaccinated). One statistic I found is:

    "During all of WWII, 12 cases of tetanus were reported by US forces. 33% were vaccinated."
    -Edward Mortimer, "Immunization Against Infectious Diseases," Science, Volume 200, (May 26, 1978), p.905

    In my calculation I said if we assune 25% of tetanus are from vaccinated people and that unvaccinated were twice as likely to die (20% rather than the average of 10%). Notice the key work "if".

    We can redo the calculations with different numbers.

    My point was not to do a complete risk assessment in a single comment, but to point out that even if we assume the vaccine is 100% effective, that's it's not zero-risk, so we must compare this risk to the chances of getting tetanus.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Erjewi,

    No you didn't point out any basic errors in reasoning. In fact you're the one whose reasoning is fallacious. To use @Robert's words you're just exhibiting classroom exercise in formal logic and statistical analysis and you're coming up with a medico/statistical Disneyland.

    For example, in lot of third world countries there are no significant medical advances, there is no better nutrition, not satisfactory sanitation, no good hygiene, but still major diseases are eradicated. How come? Sure having those things in place plays a role in the decrease of spreading the diseases, but even without them vaccines can do the job, which is solid argument against your position. Just saying.

    So, you didn't point out any fallacy, but you've actually revealed your own fallacious reasoning.

    Also your claim that there are no peer reviewed studies is incorrect. You need to read carefully. I've provided you with the source to almost 200,000 vaccine related studies. Just stop, think a little bit about that number and scroll down to check out the link.

    Several more of your arguments that fell apart were those about the Autism and the Aluminium. You've been provided with solid peer reviewed evidence that literally made your previous claims bogus. But you've decided to ignore those comments and you stretched the discussion further more with your philosophical acrobatics.

    You're also mentioning Formaldehyde and the Cancer Society which is misleading. Where are the vaccines mentioned there? You've just directly jumped to the conclusion that any amount of formaldehyde causes cancer. You seem failing to understand that the toxicity is in the dosage. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring compound in the air, in plants, in some foods.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Erjewi,

    No it is not common knowledge that any dose of a carcinogen, no matter how small, could cause cancer. It is just your own misunderstanding, for which you need to be corrected.

    Lot of carcinogenic substances are found naturally in air, water and food. Example: Formaldehyde. You breath, drink and eat carcinogenic molecules on a daily basis. By your logic every single human being on this plant should have been dead long ago.

    Edit added: For example, every single cell in your body for every second of your life receives a low dose of radiation from terrestrial and cosmic sources. Cells can repair themselves and live with low doses of radiation.

    Here is one different quote from the article you've quoted: "...a way to respond to public concerns is by generating carcinogenic risk values with LARGE MARGINS of safety." (emphases added)

    Basically since there is impossible to conduct experiments on millions of animals, they just expose few to extreme doses. If those animals happen to develop cancer, scientists ASSUME that there is no safe level for that substance and impose VERY LARGE MARGINS of safety.

  • sageebaby55

    For those of us who do not vaccinate nor poison our children with them either, we are not relying on other people's vaccines...we are relying on our uncontaminated immune systems. Herd immunity is something that only comes from natural immunity; not from vaccinating, which we are seeing more am more from the outbreak of diseases among the vaccinated populations/ Cancer kids can NOT be around children who HAVE been recently vaccinated; they can not even be around their siblings who have been vaccinated. I know, by 12 year old daughter was a cancer victim. That is when I started this long journey of the falsehood of vaccinations...

  • robertallen1

    Citing from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a publication held in ill repute by mainstream medicine, and rightly so as delineated in my previous post, lights the way to the deficiency of your information and the concomittant deficiency of your "thought." So I won't retract.

    If I want to learn about sphyllis, I'm not going to read an article written by an attorney; I'm going to read one by a medical doctor. If I want to learn about more about a certain statute, I'm going to read an article written by an attorney, not by a medical doctor. So your reliance on an article written by an attorney on a medical issue in a disreputable publication is an insult to the intelligence and a red flag pointing to deficient research-and I'm not going to retract.

    In short, if immunology followed any of your dictates and directives, we would still be fighting small pox, diptheria, tuberculosis, etc. today. So once again, I won't retract.

  • robertallen1

    There is a fine article on herd immunity in Wikipedia which, considering the ignorance of your statement, I suggest that you read. Also, on what do you base your statement that cancer kids cannot be around children who have been vaccinated? And while we're at it, what are your medical credentials?

  • Erjewi

    Yes, some third world countries have stayed the same. But many other's have had significant changes, such as china. So a world statistic must take these changes into account. The fact that some third world countries have remained similar doesn't mean all thirdworld countries have remained similar. Do you agree?

    Also if you look up Hans Roslins work, you may be surprised to see how much third world countries have changed.

    I've said there's no peer review studies that prove statement, "chemical traces found in vaccines are completely harmless" as some have said.

    I've also pointed out that if the aluminium was only there in traces, it wouldn't by definition provoke an immune response ... which is the purpose of why it's there.

    There's no peer review paper as the basic error in reasoning here is talking of all vaccines without limitations, so also future vaccines. It's difficult to study something that doesn't exist yet.

    It's fabien l'amour who stated "long term studies are almost impossible". I didn't say this statement was true, but mentioned it was possible to study long term. I never say there are no peer review studies on the topic of vaccines, rather I point out the need of risk assessment.

    As for the accusation:
    "classroom exercise in formal logic and statistical analysis and you're coming up with a medico/statistical Disneyland"

    I haven't used formal logic, which is expressed in symbols, and I haven't done any statistical analysis as I have no access to primary data to do such analysis.

    I've pointed out errors in deduction, where B is erroneously infered from A. And I've repeatedly mentioned that in an error of inference, the premises and/or the conclusions maybe by coincidence true even when the reasoning is false.

    People have repeatedly said vaccines are safe because A, where A doesn't prove vaccines are safe even if A is true. I

    For instance, disease rates today compared to disease rates in 1952 don't prove reductions in disease are due to vaccines (other medical advances, treatments and so on must be taken into account). Maybe other medical advances explain some or all of the reduction, so giving all the credit to vaccines means skewing risk-analysis considerably. Corrolation does not mean causation. A study would have to take into account other possible causes of reduced disease as well as the effects of vaccine rates on diagnosis. Then short ands long term studies on the risks of vaccines are required to compare with the efficacity of the vaccine and the risk of actually getting the disease; or, the potential benefits of getting the disease (some non-lethal diseases may actually promote long term health, so this must also be established).

    I have also never said "all vaccines are bad", as that would be the same catagory mistake as "all vaccines are safe".

    Rather, I've claimed that the burden of proof is on the proponents of vaccine to prove: for a given disease, vaccine, and person (i.e. take into account age group, past health, etc.) the benefits outweigh the risks. Since if the burden of proof was on me to disprove someone was safe then I'd have to accpetp all injections all the time (indeed any substance or act) until I had evidence it was harmful, which is an absurd situation (will you accept a injection from me of some unknown substance you are unable to prove is harmful? Probably not, probably you would argue that because you don't know what's in the injection you won't take the risk, even though you have zero evidence the injection is harmful; clearly the burden of proof was on me to show the injection is not harmful and beneficial).

  • Michelle Dudman

    if we need to reduce the population, then NOT vaccinating would be the way to do it...

  • robertallen1

    What it boils down to is that you don't know enough about medicine to be able to make anything approaching a competent judgment on the effectiveness of vaccines or to call into question the 200,000+ reputable vaccine-related studies alluded to by Vlatko--or are you claiming that the compilers of these studies did not know as much as you allegedly do about statistics and the inferences to be drawn from them and were thus incompetent to make a determination as to risk vs. benefit?

    Not once have you cited a peer-reviewed article (and claiming that you don't need to exposes the imbecility in all your posts). Instead, you cite several articles from a disreputable rag, the last written by an attorney, not an M.D. or even a Ph.D., whose qualifications, like yours, are unknown and questionable.

    Once again, if we followed your directives, we would still be fighting off small pox, bubonic plague, tuberculosis, diptheria, polio, etc. Now, just why is that?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    What I understand is you can't come up with any tangible numbers yourself but recommend to parents to do their own risk calculations instead of listening to the advice of medical scientists and doctors.

    It seems you are great at keeping your assumptions vague and change the topic to such nonsense as trace formaldehyde in vaccines as a long term risk factor but then provide long term work exposure as the proof formaldehyde causes cancers after years of exposition. Why people should include that unrelated information in their "homemade risks evaluation is a mystery to me.

    What you are saying is : "Follow my advice but I can't demonstrate my advice is correct with quantifiable verifiable information". How much of an advice is that? We should just go with what you believe but can't prove with scientific data? It's starting to sound like we should have blind faith in what you write and don't ask for real numbers...

    And when you can't crunch the numbers to show how your risk analysis should be done, you ask me to do it for you. Well tough luck, I will wait for your numbers as you are the guy that talks of statistics but can't produce anything that looks like valid mathematics.

  • Jack1952

    Although Vlatko has provided a link to 180,000 vaccine related studies, it is still not good enough. Long term, risk-analysis studies of vaccines are the only thing that would seem to satisfy you. However, I submit that the studies that you insist are vital would only satisfy you if the findings validated what you already believe. If these studies find that there are no long term risks involving vaccines, you would find fault with the methodology, the researchers, the statistics used....anything. The only evidence that will convince you is evidence that must follow your guidelines so completely that it becomes almost impossible to carry out. You have ignored, sidestepped and downplayed every point made. What is unfortunate is that you are an articulate individual, which I'm afraid may convince some that people that your unfounded ideas may have some merit. You are asking people around the world to play a dangerous game due to your perplexing fear of vaccines.

    Furthermore, it is you who is stating that vaccines present a health risk. The rest of us want to know why you think this and how you came to this conclusion. It is your position. Now prove to us that your position has some validity. I think that RobertAllen1, Fabien L'Amour and Vlatko have provided ample evidence to back their position. It is now your turn to provide the irrefutable evidence to back your ideas. The problem that you face, to your own admission, is that this proof does not exist. Lack of evidence is a clear indication that your case is extremely weak.

  • Erjewi

    Continuing with the theme of valid reasoing:

    "180,000 vaccine related studies, it is still not good enough [to establish vaccines are safe]."

    Obviously we need to have some idea of what these studies say and their quality before we can conclude anything about them. Maybe they all conclude vaccines are dangerous, maybe a mix: you'll have to read all 180 000 of them to give at least anectotal evidence they all support the use of all vaccines all the time, a claim which hasn't been retracted yet, and I'm arguing against if you've bothered to read my statements before going onto claim:

    "However, I submit that the studies that you insist are vital would only satisfy you if the findings validated what you already believe."

    Is clearly an ad hominem attack, described by wikipedia as "short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance."

    This ad hominem is all the more rediculous considering you know esentially nothing about me, and you've made this attack just after insisting I had no evidence for my own positions and haven't responded to criticism (which I have, and continue to do, yet when I point out an obvious fallacious argument, no one yet has retracted nor defended them).

    So please submit the evidence you have of my present and future psychological disposition that leads you to conclude how I would react to long term studies showing all vaccines are safe to data collecting and analysis standards found in physics for instance.

    What is unfortunate is that you are an articulate individual, which I'm afraid may convince some that people that your unfounded ideas may have some merit.

    This fallacy is not only an ad hominem but also introduces another fallacy called "begging the question", according to wikipedia "Such arguments are essentially of the form 'A is true because A is true' though rarely is such an argument stated as such."

    You presuppose that my ideas are unfounded to make your point against my character (i.e. I'm an unfortunate individual with a perplexing fear of vaccines only holds up if my views are indeed unfounded), yet as we saw you're only argument in there exists 200 000 studies, which as we saw above is Non sequitur "an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises" (see wikipedia).

  • Erjewi

    My argument was against Fabien lamours who said he didn't want to discuss US numbers for Tetanus (that I had cited) but rather ignore those numbers and look at world numbers, since 80, which he implied was. Making the same argument as he did for the US, but seemingly has abandoned.

    I pointed out that citing world numbers doesn't establish causation. Just as vaccine and disease numbers for the US since 1947 don't establish causation as other medical and nutritional changes are happening at the same time, likewise worldwide since the 1980's many changes have happened, China going through a very big change and with a very big population. So this corrolation does not establish causation.

    Again, not only does advances in hygene, wound treatment, antibiotics access etc. have to be taken into account, but also the affect of vaccine rates on doctor's diagnosis (tetanus cannot be confirmed by lab tests, but is diagnosed based on symptomes; so doctors possible influence by vaccine rates must be taken into account, and sociologists have the means to do so; maybe good studies already exist, my point is that they should then be taken into account).

    Only once other factors are accounted for can we say what component, if any, of the decrease is due to the tetanus vaccine. Then we can take that beneficial component and compare it to the risks of the vaccine (which not non-zero as, at the very least, fermaldihyde is present and any amount of carcinogen increases the risk of cancer a non-zero amount).

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Erjewi,

    I'm afraid @Robert was completely right when he said that you're just exhibiting classroom exercise in formal logic and you're coming up with a medico/statistical Disneyland.

    The link about the aluminium takes you to an abstract of a systematic review of the evidence presented by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. I guess in order to read the full study you'll need to sign up. But the abstract is more than enough.

    Quote: "We searched the Cochrane Vaccines Field Register, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biological Abstracts, Science Citation Index, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website for relevant studies."

    Basically they looked at almost every possible study ever done about aluminium in vaccines and presented the review. The question is what else do you want?

    BTW, you can start reading those 180,000 articles I gave you with the other link, and you can also read my comment about the formaldehyde.

    I was going to write a longer response but it is more than obvious that you're very paranoid about the vaccines, and no matter what we give as an evidence you'll just find your own personal reasons (not supported with anything except by your own logic) to disagree. Having said that I think further discussion will be futile.

  • robertallen1

    After reading your posts, no one has to presuppose yours ideas are unfounded. The proof is in the pudding.

    1. Did it ever occur to you that mainstream medicine is far better equipped than you to conduct risk management analyses and that it has been doing so for some time because it can do no otherwise?

    2. Did it ever occur to you that in light of your admitted medical ignorance, it is of no consequence whether these tests meet your standards?

    3. Did it ever occur to you how idiotic you sound recommending patients to conduct their own risk analyses, thus trying to second-guess their doctors.

    4. Did it ever occur to you that you are trying to reverse the roles of expert and layman?

    5. Did it ever occur to you that citing, not once but several times, from a disreputable source does ineed impugn your character?

    Whether you say so or not, vaccines are working and before you engage in further silly speculation and make any more ludicrous statements, I suggest that you delve deeply into a goodly number of the 200,000 mainstream studies alluded to by Vlatko.

  • robertallen1

    If you would like to find out whether the Cochrane analysts reviewed studies that looked at long-term events, if you wish to learn their definition of long-term risk, if you wish to find out anything about how their analyses were conducted, WHY DON'T YOU READ THE DAMN STUDIES INSTEAD OF JUST RUNNING OFF AT THE KEYBOARD?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=644961821 Fabien L'Amour

    For formaldehyde, stop bothering us with your imaginary risk and read this from the Official Journal of the American Association of Pediatrics :

    "Concerns about the safety of formaldehyde have centered on the observation that high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA and cause cancerous changes in cells in vitro. Although formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in several current vaccines (Table 5). Fortunately, formaldehyde does not seem to be a cause of cancer in humans,and animals that are exposed to large quantities of formaldehyde (a single dose of 25 mg/kg or chronic exposure at doses of 80–100 mg/kg/day) do not develop malignancies."

    "The quantity of formaldehyde contained in individual vaccines does not exceed 0.1 mg (Table 5). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for 2 reasons. First, formaldehyde is an essential intermediate in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of thymidine, purines, and amino acids. Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of formaldehyde in their circulation (approximately 2.5 ?g of formaldehyde/mL of blood). Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 mL/kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found naturally in an infant’s circulation would be approximately 1.1 mg—a value at least 10-fold greater than that contained in any individual vaccine. Second, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been given safely to animals."

    The formaldehyde present in you would stand more chance of giving you cancer then what you may receive in a vaccine if there was even a measurable chance of cancer at that dosage. So factoring in your imaginary risk of cancer from very low concentrations of formaldehyde, every human is at risk just because they are alive. That can't be assessed as a risk factor since it would be the same for everyone.

    Following are the Canadian authorities recommendations for the Influenza vaccines to protect people at risk. They did the risk assessment, I don't see why it needs to be redone by people without medical background at home. They don't vaccinate healthy adults unless they are in contact with susceptible populations.

    Recommended recipients of influenza vaccine for the 2012-2013 season

    People at high risk of influenza-related complications or hospitalization

    Adults (including pregnant women) and children with the following chronic health conditions: cardiac or pulmonary disorders (including bronchopulmonary dysplasia, cystic fibrosis and asthma); diabetes mellitus and other metabolic diseases; cancer, immune compromising conditions (due to underlying disease and/or therapy);
    renal disease; anemia or hemoglobinopathy; conditions that compromise the management of respiratory secretions and are associated with an increased risk of aspiration; morbid obesity (BMI?40); and children and adolescents with conditions treated for long periods with acetylsalicylic acid.

    People of any age who are residents of nursing homes and other chronic care facilities.

    People ?65 years of age.

    All children 6 to 59 months of age.

    People capable of transmitting influenza to those at high risk

    Health care and other care providers in facilities and community settings who, through their activities, are capable of transmitting influenza to those at high risk of influenza complications.

    Household contacts (adults and children) of individuals at high risk of influenza-related complications (whether or not the individual at high risk has been immunized): household contacts of individuals at high risk, as listed in the section above; household contacts of infants <6 months of age as these infants are at high risk of complications from influenza but cannot receive influenza vaccine; and members of a household expecting a newborn during the influenza season.

    Those providing regular child care to children ? 59 months of age, whether in or out of the home.

    Those who provide services within closed or relatively closed settings to persons at high risk (e.g. crew on a ship).

    I can't be bothered to look for other countries but that shows the Canadian recommendations are based on scientific evidence and the goal is to minimize the risk to susceptible populations. Actually, I got vaccinated for swine flu during the crisis and had to explain my mother had Hodgkin's lymphoma disease to get vaccinated.

  • Kateye70

    "...we must compare this risk to the chances of getting tetanus."

    As someone who almost died from tetanus as a four-year-old, I for one am purely thankful the vaccine exists, thank you very much.

    I was also happy to not contract malaria or any other of the tropical diseases I was vaccinated against before going to a third-world tropical country.

  • Jack1952

    I'll bet anything that you washed your hands while you were in those third world tropical countries. Mosquitoes are terrified of people that wash their hands.

  • Kateye70

    Pffft, wash hands! I was a kid. They were lucky to get me in the tub, although I certainly swam a lot.

    I ran barefoot behind "smokey joe," the mosquito fogger that cruised through base housing in the evenings, playing in the cloud of DDT with all the other kids. Mosquitoes were absolutely terrified! It's a wonder I haven't died from all the chemicals I Inhaled.

  • mycial

    Thank you, for this educational video it was needed. If you offered this on DVD I would pay any price this information needs to be out in the open. I refuse to get vaccinationed when martial law is declared in the States & they come into my house to take me & my family to the nearest FEMA CAMP I will lose my life that day. Thanks for this info. We must get the word out.

  • robertallen1

    So not only do you refuse to get vaccinated, but you're going to stand in the way of your family getting vaccinated as well. You are not only ignorant but the lowest of the low.

  • mladen from Croatia

    You are a wise man! Thank you for your work. Not only vaccines are covered with corporate lies and are made for profit, population control for progress of death culture, but you will find energy suppression even worse. Our modern civilization is based on available energy. Study Nikola Tesla works and you will find options for heaven on Earth (more than 100 years old inventions).

    I just wanted to say - you will never be alone.

    And for all the others who are opposed to the truth about vaccination - WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? YOU ARE ALL VACCINATED!

  • anonomyssy

    OMG, I see this is over 2 hours long...I could have read the USGS thing on horses in half the time this dude is highlighting and reading it to meeeee!!! TORTURE...I want to hear what you are saying...step it up already, I have stuff to do! Don't take hours to do what you can do in minutes... You are losing me. 20 minutes in and you are just reading to me...can't go on any more.

  • anonomyssy

    I'm sorry, but you need to relax. They are not coming to take you and your family to a FEMA camp. Please don't live in fear.

  • mycial

    The last time someone sent me a email on my comment "they called me stupid & ignorant" your very kind. But I'm having a problem with this topic. Do FEMA Camps exist? Our freedoms are being dismantled checkpoints. Peaceful protesters are being beat. Why do sheeple believe that one day Martial Law will be in effect. If people aren't prepared it will be hell. It took me some time to read THEIR AGENDA.
    Every second your thinking about someone's dreams your taking seconds from your own!

  • mycial

    I'm different then most people I'm able to see the forest & everything inside of it that most people can't see. After hearing about these camps I googled maps & there it was. Train railroads platform behind trees where you would never go. About 2:00am I heard a voice tell me to wake up & go online & type in the DEPOPULATION AGENDA I've never heard of the word depopulation but that morning it was an eye opener for me. I've went so far down this rabbit hole & seining people who look like us but aren't from here. The universe has life oh yes more than one.
    Every second your thinking about someone's dreams your taking seconds from your own!

  • robertallen1

    So you hear voices. You need to have this checked out.

  • mycial

    I need to have what checked out?

    Every second your thinking about someone's dreams your taking seconds from your own!

  • http://www.facebook.com/3113c31 Crystalrose McKay

    It is easier to be fooled, then it is to convince someone they have been fooled.

  • robertallen1

    Without evidence, this is no more than a smoke screen and makes you even more despicable.

  • ScouseBilly

    OMG I just clicked on your profile.

    I guess you took all your vaccines :)

  • robertallen1

    Yes, I did. Whatever the doctor prescribed--and that's makes me a lot smarter than those who didn't.

  • Michael Thomas?

    7 minutes of faulty semantics and my intelligence antibodies kicked in.

  • http://twitter.com/NSResponder John C. Randolph

    What a load of tinfoil-hat bulls*it. Vaccines have saved millions of lives that would otherwise have been lost to childhood diseases.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lyle.coulter Lyle Coulter

    unless you have really done any study relating to vaccines and their many forms and contents then all you can really express here is opinions. The fact that my attempted studies on this subject is met with closed mouths and classified files speaks volumes. Truth loves light and lies must hide in the dark places where nobody can see.

  • robertallen1

    You've said absolutely nothing. So how about specifics?

  • dekay49

    To all of you who believe the garbage that your governments are feeding you, and believe that vaccinations are a good thing, I invite you to do the following: inject an apple with these ingredients and feed it to your child. Keep in mind that this is only a partial list, there are many other ingredients
    in vaccines. Bovine cow serum: Extracted from cow skin. When injected causes connective tissue disorders, arthritis and lupus; also shortness of breath, low blood pressure, chest pain and skin reactions. Sorbitol: Synthetic sweetener which metabolizes very slowly and aggravates IBS and gastrointestinal issues. Gelatin: Derived from the collagen inside animals' skin and bones. Injecting gelatin poses the risk of infection from synthetic growth hormones and BSE infectivity (mad cow disease). Sodium chloride: Raises blood pressure and inhibits muscle contraction and growth. Egg protein: Vaccines are prepared in eggs (certainly not organic). May contain growth hormones, antibiotics, and salmonella bacteria. Thimerosal: A neurotoxic mercury which causes autism: There are 25 mcg in one average flu vaccine, and the EPA safety limit is 5 micrograms, so children who are vaccinated simultaneously with multiple* vaccines receive over 10 times the safety limit of mercury in one day. Human albumin: The protein portion of blood from pooled human venous plasma; when injected causes fever, chills, hives, rash, headache, nausea, breathing difficulty, and rapid heart rate. Injecting "pooled blood" can result in a loss of body cell mass and cause immunodeficiency virus infection, or contain SV40, AIDS, cancer or Hepatitis B from drug addicts. Formaldehyde: Highly carcinogenic fluid used to embalm corpses. Ranked one of the most hazardous compounds to human health; can cause liver damage, gastrointestinal issues, reproductive deformation, respiratory distress and cancer. Plus, formaldehyde has been known to fail to deactivate the virus the vaccine is intended to cure, thus enabling a live virus to enter your blood and infect your system. Phenoxyethanol: A glycol ether/chemical; highly toxic to the nervous system, kidneys, and liver. The FDA warns "can cause shut down of the central nervous system (CNS), vomiting and contact dermatitis" in cosmetics; imagine when injected into your blood. Aluminum phosphate: Greatly increases toxicity of mercury, so caution about minimum mercury tolerance is therefore severely underestimated. CDC scientists and all doctors are well aware of this. MSG (monosodium glutamate): When injected becomes a neurotoxin, causing CNS disorders and brain damage in children. MMMM sounds so yummy and healthy doesn't it? Heck after your kid eats that apple you might want to go get them vaccinated.

  • robertallen1

    Vaccinations are a good thing and the statistics prove it. Such a silly post (who would ever concoct a vaccine composed of all these ingredients) necessitates an inquiry into your medical background.

  • dekay49

    This following list of common vaccines and their ingredients
    should shock anyone.

    The numbers of microbes, antibiotics, chemicals, heavy metals
    and animal byproducts is staggering. Would you knowingly inject these materials
    into your children?

    Acel-Immune DTaP - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Wyeth-Ayerst
    800.934.5556
    * diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis
    adsorbed, formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, and
    polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) gelatin Act HIB

    Haemophilus - Influenza B Connaught Laboratories
    800.822.2463
    * Haemophilus influenza Type B, polyribosylribitol phosphate
    ammonium sulfate, formalin, and sucrose

    Attenuvax - Measles Merck & Co., Inc. 800-672-6372
    * measles live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin,
    chick embryo

    Biavax - Rubella Merck & Co., Inc. 800-672-6372
    * rubella live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin,
    human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

    BioThrax - Anthrax Adsorbed BioPort Corporation
    517.327.1500
    * nonencapsulated strain of Bacillus anthracis aluminum
    hydroxide, benzethonium chloride, and formaldehyde

    DPT - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis GlaxoSmithKline
    800.366.8900 x5231
    * diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis
    adsorbed, formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, and thimerosal,
    washed sheep RBCs

    Dryvax - Smallpox (not licensed d/t expiration) Wyeth-Ayerst
    800.934.5556
    * live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants,"
    according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense polymyxcin B sulfate,
    streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate
    glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle
    fluid from calf skins Engerix-B

    Recombinant Hepatitis B GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900
    x5231
    * genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the
    surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast, aluminum hydroxide, and
    thimerosal

    Fluvirin Medeva Pharmaceuticals 888.MEDEVA 716.274.5300

    * influenza virus, neomycin, polymyxin, beta-propiolactone,
    chick embryonic fluid

    FluShield Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556
    * trivalent influenza virus, types A&B gentamicin sulphate
    formadehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) chick embryonic
    fluid

    Havrix - Hepatitis A GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900 x5231

    * hepatitis A virus, formalin, aluminum hydroxide,
    2-phenoxyethanol, and polysorbate 20 residual MRC5 proteins -human diploid cells
    from aborted fetal tissue

    HiB Titer - Haemophilus Influenza B Wyeth-Ayerst
    800.934.5556
    * haemophilus influenza B, polyribosylribitol phosphate,
    yeast, ammonium sulfate, thimerosal, and chemically defined yeast-based
    medium

    Imovax Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463
    * rabies virus adsorbed, neomycin sulfate, phenol, red
    indicator human albumin, human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

    IPOL Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463
    * 3 types of polio viruses neomycin, streptomycin, and
    polymyxin B formaldehyde, and 2-phenoxyethenol continuous line of monkey kidney
    cells

    JE-VAX - Japanese Ancephalitis Aventis Pasteur USA
    800.VACCINE
    * Nakayama-NIH strain of Japanese encephalitis virus,
    inactivated formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (Tween-80), and thimerosal mouse serum
    proteins, and gelatin

    LYMErix - Lyme GlaxoSmithKline 888-825-5249
    * recombinant protein (OspA) from the outer surface of the
    spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi kanamycin aluminum hydroxide, 2-phenoxyethenol,
    phosphate buffered saline

    MMR - Measles-Mumps-Rubella Merck & Co., Inc.
    800.672.6372
    * measles, mumps, rubella live virus, neomycin sorbitol,
    hydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted
    fetal tissue

    M-R-Vax - Measles-Rubella Merck & Co., Inc.
    800.672.6372
    * measles, rubella live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized
    gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal
    tissue

    Menomune - Meningococcal Connaught Laboratories
    800.822.2463
    * freeze-dried polysaccharide antigens from Neisseria
    meningitidis bacteria, thimerosal, and lactose

    Meruvax I - Mumps Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372
    * mumps live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin

    NYVAC - (new smallpox batch, not licensed) Aventis Pasteur USA
    800.VACCINE
    * highly-attenuated vaccinia virus, polymyxcin B, sulfate,
    streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate
    glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle
    fluid from calf skins

    Orimune - Oral Polio Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556
    * 3 types of polio viruses, attenuated neomycin, streptomycin
    sorbitol monkey kidney cells and calf serum

    Pneumovax - Streptococcus Pneumoniae Merck & Co., Inc.
    800.672.6372
    * capsular polysaccharides from polyvalent (23 types),
    pneumococcal bacteria, phenol,

    Prevnar Pneumococcal - 7-Valent Conjugate Vaccine Wyeth
    Lederle 800.934.5556
    * saccharides from capsular Streptococcus pneumoniae antigens
    (7 serotypes) individually conjugated to diphtheria CRM 197 protein aluminum
    phosphate, ammonium sulfate, soy protein, yeast

    RabAvert - Rabies Chiron Behring GmbH & Company
    510.655.8729
    * fixed-virus strain, Flury LEP neomycin, chlortetracycline,
    and amphotericin B, potassium glutamate, and sucrose human albumin, bovine
    gelatin and serum "from source countries known to be free of bovine spongioform
    encephalopathy," and chicken protein

    Rabies Vaccine Adsorbed GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900
    x5231
    *rabies virus adsorbed, beta-propiolactone, aluminum
    phosphate, thimerosal, and phenol, red rhesus monkey fetal lung cells

    Recombivax - Recombinant Hepatitis B Merck & Co., Inc.
    800.672.6372
    * genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the
    surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast, aluminum hydroxide, and
    thimerosal

    RotaShield - Oral Tetravalent Rotavirus (recalled)
    Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556
    * 1 rhesus monkey rotavirus, 3 rhesus-human reassortant live
    viruses neomycin sulfate, amphotericin B potassium monophosphate, potassium
    diphosphate, sucrose, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) rhesus monkey fetal diploid
    cells, and bovine fetal serum smallpox (not licensed due to expiration)

    40-yr old stuff "found" in Swiftwater, PA freezer Aventis
    Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE
    * live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants,"
    according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense polymyxcin B sulfate,
    streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate
    glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle
    fluid from calf skins

    Smallpox (new, not licensed) Acambis, Inc. 617.494.1339 in
    partnership with Baxter BioScience
    * highly-attenuated vaccinia virus, polymyxcin B sulfate,
    streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate
    glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle
    fluid from calf skins

    TheraCys BCG (intravesicle -not licensed in US for
    tuberculosis) Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE
    * live attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis monosodium
    glutamate (MSG), and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)

    Tripedia - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Aventis Pasteur USA
    800.VACCINE
    *Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Clostridium tetani toxoids
    and acellular Bordetella pertussis adsorbed aluminum potassium sulfate,
    formaldehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) gelatin, bovine
    extract

    US-sourced Typhim Vi - Typhoid Aventis Pasteur USA SA
    800.VACCINE
    * cell surface Vi polysaccharide from Salmonella typhi Ty2
    strain, aspartame, phenol, and polydimethylsiloxane (silicone)

    Varivax - Chickenpox Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372

    * varicella live virus neomycin phosphate, sucrose, and
    monosodium glutamate (MSG) processed gelatin, fetal bovine serum, guinea pig
    embryo cells, albumin from human blood, and human diploid cells from aborted
    fetal tissue

    YF-VAX - Yellow Fever Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE
    * 17D strain of yellow fever virus sorbitol chick embryo, and
    gelatin

  • dekay49

    Enjoy your slumber. Bill Gates would love you, he wants to use vaccines as a means of depopulating the planet. Nice guy huh? Oh I almost forgot, statistics prove nothing other than someone has skewed their report to reflect whatever it is they are trying to convince you of.

  • robertallen1

    I wonder where you copied all this from. Once again, what is your medical and chemical background? In other words, what makes you think that you are qualified to assess the efficacy of these ingredients?

  • robertallen1

    Just as I thought, you have no medical qualifications so you respond with a groundless and irrelevant accusation against Bill Gates.

  • dekay49

    Hmmm very strange, I left a few comments on this documentary last night and now they do not show up. I wonder why that is? Has any one else had this problem?

  • robertallen1

    You sure do when it comes to evaluating vaccines or anything else of a medical nature. All you're doing is attempting to spread your own ignorance and this makes you not only contemptible but dangerous.

  • over the edge

    dekay49

    i see your comments i guess the problem is on your end. where there more than the four (five including this one i am replying to) ?

  • Beth Clark

    "Nothing is so firmly believed as that of which we know least."—Montaigne.
    and then there's vaccinations...
    "The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors--and certainly not by vaccines.....the decline...has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvements and especially of improved nutrition.Consider carefully whether you want to let yourself or your children undergo the dangerous, controversial, ineffective and no longer necessary procedure called vaccination, because the claim that vaccinations are the cause for the decline of infectious diseases is utter nonsense."--The Vaccination Nonsense (2004 Lectures)---Dr. med. G.Buchwald ISBN 3-8334-2508-3 page 108.

    Vaccinations are all about making money and culling the herds...In the last 20 years, over 145,000 children have died from an adverse reaction to vaccinations. In India, Bill Gates, an Eugenist which he doesn't deny...has paralyzed over 50 thousand children with their polio vaccination, just recently. In Africa, the mothers grab their children and hide from the "white coats", because they know it means either death or horrible reactions to the unproven, full of toxin, injections of garbage. In CA, 97% of the children vaccinated for whooping cough, ended up whooping cough. What's up with that? Did unvaccinated children give them whooping cough? How can that be? Didn't the vaccination protect them from whooping cough?

    Why would Medical doctors reject vaccinations? It is a well kept secret that medical doctors have been the greatest vaccination critics, there were 14 medical people on the board of the The National Anti-Vaccination League in 1936, and after a 100 years or so of smallpox vaccination, why, and this is one vaccinators can't answer, did a notable scientist of his day, Wallace, and many notable medical doctors Pearce, Collins, Creighton, Crookshank, Hadwen, Beddow Bayly, turn against their profession's holy creed, and become anti-vaccine? Perhaps they liked being persecuted, they tried to silence Hadwen by charging him with manslaughter. [See: Rex versus Hadwen manslaughter charge]. Ask yourself why someone, (eg Dr Mendelsohn), who was raised on vaccination would become a critic or opponent of vaccination?

    "Historically, doctors who have dared to change things significantly have been ostracized and have had to sacrifice their careers in order to hold to their ideas. Few doctors are willing to do either."--Robert Mendelsohn, MD (Confessions p 129)

    "Nearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate in children between 1860 and 1965 due to whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria and measles occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization against diphtheria" (Powles, 1973)."---Second Thought About Disease by Drs Kalokerinos & Dettman 1977.

    "I've been practicing for 40 years, and in the past 10 years the children have been sicker than ever."--Dr Doris J.Rapp, pediatric allergist.

    "Since people cannot be vaccinated against their will, the biggest job of a health department is always to persuade the unprotected people to get vaccinated. This we attempted to do in three ways, education, fear, and pressure. We dislike very much to mention fear and pressure, yet they accomplish more than education because they work faster than education, which is normally a slow process. During the months of March and April, we tried education and vaccinated only 62,000. During May we made use of fear and pressure and vaccinated 223,000 people."----.Dr John Keller

    The vaccines aren't safe unless you stretch the definition of "safe" to include death, numerous diseases, and serious brain damage!

    "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good."---Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine Control Officer and research virologist, US FDA

    "There have never been any safety studies done for any vaccine in use today that would meet the criteria of scientific proof. All we have are epidemiologic studies, which are indicators but not proof in and ofthemselves."--- [Oct 2004] Letter to the British Medical Journal by Harold E Buttram, MD

    There is plenty of evidence, science and doctors who will tell you that vaccinations are bogus, harmful and unnecessary. I guess, it's a way to weed out the not so bright, seeing how they can't figure out how dangerous they are, especially in this world of info on our computers.

    I would assume, that these same people who advocate for vaccinations, also embrace the other toxic protocols, from chemo to fluoride to mammograms. What a great way to thin out the herd.

    You can go on believing these pharmaceutical companies and the medical mafia or actually do your own research...

    "Today we have a system in which vaccine production by the pharmaceutical companies is largely self-regulated. Of course these companies are interested in profits from their products which, in itself, is not wrong. However, when arbitrary decisions in the mandating of vaccines are made by the government bureaucracies, which are highly partisan to the pharmaceuticals, with no recourse open to parents, we have all the potential ingredients for a tragedy of historical proportions."--Harold Buttram MD

    "Did you know that the research information contained in the Physicians' Desk Reference the pharmaceutical bible used by M.D.s is supplied by the drug manufacturers themselves? Did you know that the FDA approves drugs not by actually doing the testing, but simply by reviewing studies submitted by the drug manufacturers? Did you know that a drug manufacturer needs to submit only two studies showing satisfactory results to get a drug approved by the FDA even if there are even more studies showing the drug causes adverse reactions in an unacceptably high number of cases?
    Did you know that most of the articles discussing the efficacy of drugs that are published in medical journals are studies paid for by the drug manufacturer? And that often, as the New York Times reported last summer, the academic scientists listed as lead authors are often just "window dressing", to lend credibility to papers that are really the work of drug companies. The academic scientists' main role in such studies is to recruit patients and administer experimental treatments. The scientists or their universities are paid for this work."
    And did you know that a study conducted by USA Today found that more than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine had a direct financial interest in the drug or topic were asked to evaluate?

    At least 50 books have been written fairly recently that take apart vaccination (or one vaccine such as anthrax vaccine, TB vaccine, Diptheria vaccine, Swine flu vaccine, DPT vaccine, Polio vaccine,Hep B vaccine, or a vaccine ingredient such as mercury ) many written by medical doctors.

    Hey, the way I see it, if you want to shoot up yourself with aborted fetal cells, mercury, formaldehyde, insect DNA, and who knows what else they shoot into your body, then by all means, go at it, but wait until they start making them mandatory...because these sociopaths who run things, know they have to vaccinate, in order to cull the herd, dumb them down, and create a sick culture.

    The US as a whole, has never been sicker then now...allopathic conventional medicine is one of the main reasons for our decline...and vaccinations help guarantee the results.

  • Beth Clark

    that is so funny...

  • Beth Clark

    whooping cough was contracted by people who were vaccinated in CA...almost 97%. Are you telling me that the people who didn't get vaccinated, gave whooping cough to people vaccinated against it? Do you actually read what you post?

  • Beth Clark

    better yet try Vaccination Hoax Whale...

  • robertallen1

    Evidence? Source?

  • robertallen1

    I recall being re-vaccinated at puberty. The problem is that so many people posting on this thread grab on to an unusual case and blow it up all out of proportion. The other problem is that when asked for the source/evidence for their allegations, they not only cannot provide it, they become huffy about being asked to often trying to shift the burden of proof on to the interlocutor.

    Could you possibly take a look at a ten-minute documentary on You Tube entitled "Refuting Kenneth R. Miller on Chromosome 2" and give me (and, of course, everyone) your thoughts? I think it's a piece of crap, but I would appreciate the opinion of someone with more knowledge of biology than I have.

    Thank you.

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    I don't think I have more knowledge of biology than you. Anyhow I've looked at the video (for about 10 seconds or so) and I don't think I'll waste my time on it. It's a kid posting complete nonsense on YouTube.

  • robertallen1

    That's the way it sounds to me. I tried to get Epicurus to look at it, but no luck.

  • joe

    are you fooling?

  • joe

    I fell asleep 10 min in. but I still think vaccines are corporate bull$hit

  • Alaskies

    Wow the author of this documentary just all around sucks at life. He can't even convince simple minded people of his point using a very slow and easy to understand vernacular. Thank you very much TDF for putting this into the "Conspiracy" category, because that's exactly what it is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/elissa.sangi Elissa Sangi

    Read this.......

  • robertallen1

    Read what?

  • susan g

    Distort someones words much dekay48?

    Bill Gates was referring to the fact that if mothers vaccinated their children the children would have a much better chance of survival. Many parents in 3rd world countries have huge numbers of children hoping at least some of them will survive. If they knew their children were going to survive they wouldn't be so inclined to have so many children, thus reducing the population growth, a GOOD thing.

    But then I think you probably know already what Bill Gates REALLY meant by what he said. You have chosen willful ignorance instead of the truth. You will lie and distort in order to push your antivax agenda.

  • The_Common_Potato

    The documentarian probably also believes that tha Earth is only six thousand years old. He ought to find a skyscraper and throw himself off the top ... but at way less than 'free fall' speed. I'd suggest he uses a parachute: unlike conspiracy theories, they actually work.

  • Troy Bradley

    Go to about 12:25-12:30 in the "documentary", where he says he's looking up patents filed for vaccines/drugs to sterilize humans. Pause it while he's scrolling through the list and see what the abstracts actually say.

    He searched "human sterilization" and went through articles about making human drugs/vaccines using a sterile process, sterile solution, sterile equipment, etc., nothing about actually making any humans infertile.

    However, he states that the search results are "hundreds and hundreds of shocking US Government patents" implying that the US Gov't has already made hundreds of methods of making humans infertile.

    This dishonesty and deceit continues for the next 2 hours of the "documentary", so I would advise people not to take anything in this seriously, and if you have better things to do, don't even waste your time watching it.

  • susan g

    Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to depopulate the earth?!! Yeah right, because all evil doers tell the entire world what their plan is.

    Do you have any idea just how ridiculous that statement is? Of course I do know the genesis of it. Bill Gates made the statment that if they really do a good job of getting everyone vaccinated in poorer nations it would also lower the population do to mothers not having 12 children hoping 4 or 5 will survive. Because in poor countries where children aren't vaccinated against diseases they die from them. I'm paraphrasing it. But the anti-vaxers took this comment and twisted it into him saying he wants to depopulate the planet.

    Bill Gates has done more for mankind than people like you could ever imagine. He puts his money where his mouth is, all 36,000,000,000 billion of it. And just to be clear that's BILLION not million.

  • susan g

    Vaccines do not contain aborted fetuses. That is a myth spread by the anti-vax crowd.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    "The fact that certain vaccines are grown in cell strains derived decades ago from an aborted fetus is a concern for some. To understand such concerns, a standardized search identified internet sites discussing vaccines and abortion. Ethical concerns raised include autonomy, conscience, coherence, and immoral material complicity. Two strategies to analyse moral complicity show that vaccination is ethical: the abortions were past events separated in time, agency, and purpose from vaccine production."
    source: Science Direct

    Nowhere does she say it contains aborted fetuses.
    1i

  • Ivy

    The irony. Those who are in favor of abortion were born.

  • a_no_n

    and those in favour of banning it usually aren't pregnant...what's your point?

  • johnBas5

    Maybe he thinks superhero cartoons for eight year olds are documentaries about how things work?
    How the bad guys plan always gets explained.

  • Ivy

    and for you to criticize were born

  • Ivy

    If someone disagree, is because you are against having a child is your womb. No need to get pregnant in the first place then.

  • a_no_n

    is that meant to be deep or something? because it sounds dumb. it doesn't even mean anything...those words in that order do not make grammatical sense

  • Krista Jensen

    No need to suffer because crap happens either. If one is raped, for example, yeah, there was no need for the dude to rape, but there is no need for the victim to live with that reminder either. And if a condom breaks, or pregnancy happens by mistake? The statement "no need to get pregnant in the first place", makes absolutely no sense to me, because it can indeed happen simply by accident.

  • Ham_Eph3_19

    There are no accidents. Didn't you watch Kung Fu Panda?

    Just because someone uses something to keep from getting pregnant, doesn't negate the fact that they were partaking in a pro-creation activity. If they choose to have sex, then they are also choosing to rely on whatever is used to keep from getting pregnant. So if whatever they are using doesn't stop a pregnancy, then that's not an accident. It is a calculated risk. And by taking that risk, you accepted the responsibility if that risk played out.

  • christie

    Idon"t take vaccines and i have not gotten anything even during the supposedly spread of tubercolosis iam oding well i take vitamins , d3, milk thistle, probiotics, fish oil etc.Just take natural vit"s and stuff to build and keep a healthy immune system.

  • christie

    That makes you a sheeple!

  • christie

    You are right on about childhood cancers when i was growing up it was never so prevailent as today kids don't have to have it but they do because of parents who dont educate themselves on vaccines who only take the word of a doctor doctors are not god also of course our great government who approves of the deadly vaxs and the media of course.

  • jaberwokky

    No, not 'what', 'this'!

  • jaberwokky

    Oh ffs! Don't waste your time with this claptrap ... unless you really feel sorry for Michele Bachmann and are trying on empathy for size. Tis all in the suit that you wear I suppose.

  • Ragin Redneck

    FFS people who believe this nonsense are why the aliens wont talk to us

  • Wizzle

    For one thing, people in poorer countries aren't using that much CO2, so how could they even be included in the average user. Bill Gates himself isnt an average user. Cant imagine how much energy one of his many homes produce of CO2. If he was really worried about CO2, try living a more moderate lifestyle. Another thing how do vaccines lower the population if they save lives(not)? If Bill Gates truely cared for those poorer countries, why not help them with clean water, means to grow their own food, instead of spending BILLIONS on injecting them with poisons and live viruses. Majority of individuals that get these diseases are the vaccinated ones. Just because someone is vaccinated and just so happen to never get any of these deceases isnt proof that they work. There are plenty of non-vaccinated individuals that also never get these deceases. Just continue getting your facts from the mass media machine, because we all know theyre want whats best for us, as does the FDA...