Vaccine Wars Revisited

55 thoughts on “Vaccine Wars Revisited”

1. Vaccine-Related Deaths are Mounting
   I started this article with U.S. statistics. But as you can see from the UK example above, the information is relevant around the globe as vaccine deaths mount — in both industrialized and poor countries. According to The Hindu:
   “The concern over the increasing number of deaths among children following vaccination is not confined to India. Many countries have been facing this problem and the governments and the WHO have started addressing the risk factor with a view to enlarging its among larger sections of children all over the world.”
   As a final example, take a look at the poorest country in the world – Zimbabwe, where except for tetanus, vaccination rates are at 89 to 99 percent, meaning the country is almost fully vaccinated. If you click the link above, you’ll see that the number of vaccines they get have increased dramatically over the past 25 or 30 years.
   But if you click this link, you’ll also see that Zimbabwe’s infant mortality rate tripled between 1990 and 2010 – when the most vaccines were added to their vaccination schedule! Like U.S. health officials, Zimbabwe is explaining this away with things that have nothing to do with vaccines, such as lack of good hospital facilities and equipment. But it doesn’t make sense that there would be LESS medical care available in Zimbabwe today than there was 20 years ago.
   That’s why you can’t help but ask one more time whether there’s a common denominator in infant deaths that could explain this. And again, since vaccines are one common factor, I repeat: Would fewer vaccines administered to infants reduce the number of infant deaths, whether it’s in developed countries, where clean water and sanitation are not a factor, or in poor countries, where vaccines are being given in record numbers?
   http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/studies-show-that-the-countries-with-the-most-vaccines-have-the-worst-infant-death-rate/

2. The process by which vaccines are recommended to the public is pure and undefiled. Thank you.
   Conflicts of Interest
   WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”
   BMJ 2010; 340
   Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as “conspiracy theories.” Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter investigate
   …A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning…
   http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2912

3. Vaccines are always safe and effective. They should be mandatory. Thank you.
   Canada’s doctors told to halt swine flu vaccine batch
   GlaxoSmithKline has advised doctors in Canada to stop using a batch of its swine flu vaccine, amid reports of severe side-effects in some patients.
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8376534.stm
   British Public Workers Furious Over Vaccine Scandal Side Effects
   http://bimchat.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/british-public-workers-furious-over-vaccine-scandal-side-effects/
   Hundreds of public sector workers who claim their lives have been wrecked by vaccines say the Government has abandoned them.
   Up to 200 doctors, nurses, firefighters, prison officers, police officers, forensic scientists and binmen say they have developed serious physical and mental health problems after injections essential for their work over the past 10 years. All have given up their jobs and some are now 60 per cent disabled.
   Last night it emerged they are to miss out on payouts, prompting furore among campaigners. More than 150 MPs have lent their support to demands for a better deal for the victims. Olivia Price, of the Vaccine Victim Support Group, said: “These people have given their lives in the service of looking after others and this is how they’re repaid. They’ve lost their careers and are a burden to their families. It is very degrading.”

4. vaccines are safe and effective. thank you.
   Baxter Sent Bird Flu Virus to European Labs by Error (Update2)
   Baxter International Inc. in Austria unintentionally contaminated samples with the bird flu virus that were used in laboratories in three neighboring countries, raising concern about the potential spread of the deadly disease.
   The contamination was discovered when ferrets at a laboratory in the Czech Republic died after being inoculated with vaccine made from the samples early this month. The material came from Deerfield, Illinois-based Baxter, which reported the incident to the Austrian Ministry of Health, Sigrid Rosenberger, a ministry spokeswoman, said today in a telephone interview.
   The material was intended for use in laboratories, and none of the lab workers have fallen ill. The incident is drawing scrutiny over the safety of research using the H5N1 bird flu strain that’s killed more than three-fifths of the people known to have caught the bug worldwide. Some scientists say the 1977 Russian flu, the most recent global outbreak, began when a virus escaped from a laboratory.
   The virus material was supposed to contain a seasonal flu virus and was contaminated after “human error,” said Christopher Bona, a spokesman for Baxter, in a telephone interview.
   http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aTo3LbhcA75I&pid=newsarchive

5. I’m not surprised it sounded so intelligent to you, since all I did was restate everything you’d just typed in five little words which effectively summed up your copious-yet-empty replies, all of which managed to avoid addressing any of the counterpoints which have been made against you, despite the sheer amount of verbiage.
   (Although, I do admit the claim that 160,000 people per year are dying just from vaccines in Europe alone is a new one on me. Are there any graves left to bury people in over there, are they all being tossed in the ocean, or are they just burning them all? Is THIS the real reason atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and the oceans are turning into seltzer water???)
   Pro-tip: Once it’s been seriously called into question, simply repeating a premise or argument multiple times — reworded or not — doesn’t make it more true or believable. You have to actually ADDRESS the refutation and explain why it is wrong before repetition becomes effective again. Using documented facts instead of editorial writings in support often increases the chance your effort will be successful. (YouTube & advocacy rags? Probably not so much.)
   So, until you do address the counter-arguments, you might as well be typing “Blah, blah, blah blah blah…” because honestly, that’s really all I’m hearing from you at this point.
   P.S.: One of your last posts just said that “some vaccines are indeed essential, such as vaccines for polio and measles” — exactly the opposite of the position you started with on this thread. Can you seriously not see how little credibility your arguments have when you contradict not only observable reality, but yourself as well?
   Feel free to have the last word.

6. “Blah, blah, blah blah blah.”
   –the sum total of your intellectual capacity and the smartest thing you’ve said…

7. so much for the integrity of the medical press…
   “A comparison of agency-authored and traditionally authored publications …showed that … ghostwritten studies outnumbered traditional studies, were published in more prestigious journals by more published authors, and were cited by other researchers at a much higher rate.
   Such practices enable industry to formulate the appearance of ‘scientific consensus’.”
   Amy C. Brodkey, M.D., “The Role of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Teaching Psychopharmacology: A Growing Problem,”
   Academic Psychiatry 29:222-229, June 2005.
   “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.
   I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
   Dr. Marcia Angell, The New York Review of Books, Volume 56, Number 1. January 15, 2009
   Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.

8. ‘It seems you’re also one of the people that thinks Lyme disease can mimic a thousand other diseases and ignores autoimmune function instead. And all the sources are from naturopath activists, conspiracy forums, and people who think that people are against them.’
   –wow… it’s too bad name-calling doesn’t equate with critical thinking.
   actually, my source for the deadly nature of Lyme disease is Willy Burgdorfer, the name-sake of the Lyme disease spirochete who discovered it in a biowarfare vaccine lab after a CDC biowarfare officer (pharma consultant Allen Steere–who later led the disastrous Lyme vaccine trials) sent him ticks from the area surrounding another biowarfare vaccine lab 20 miles from Lyme, CT.
   BTW: The first man to culture Lyme disease spirochetes in a biowarfare lab now directs a biowarfare research lab at UC Irvine. And the scientist (Klempner) who wrote the fraudulent paper justifying Tuskegee-style treatment denial for Lyme disease victims (consistent with a vaccine marketing strategy outlined in a CDC paper written by a CDC/EIS biowarfare officer) directed the biowarfare research lab at Boston University). Klempner’s research was used by Gary Wormser, lead author of the infamously fraudulent treatment guidelines (found by state Attorney General of CT to be riddled with conflicts of interest)… surprise, surprise … Wormser is a biowarfare lecturer/pharma consultant/vaccine researcher who also led vaccine trials that resulted in tragedy and lawsuits…

9. Blah, blah, blah blah blah.
   I’m out.

10. Yawn.

11. “HIV wasn’t caused from ‘vaccines’. It was caused from the SIV virus that originated in chimps.”
    –and how about those millions of vaccines that were grown in monkey cell cultures, which the world’s leading expert on vaccines and monkey viruses laughingly says resulted in hundreds of millions of people being exposed to monkey cancer viruses in the vaccines… by the way they still can’t screen SV40 out of vaccines…
    Unique Strains of SV40 in Commercial Poliovaccines from 1955 Not Readily Identifiable with Current Testing for SV40 Infection
    http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/24/6103
    ‘Thus, low levels of archetypal SV40 may be difficult or impossible to detect in the 14-day screening cycles used in the manufacturing of poliovaccines. It should be noted, however, that different monkey kidney cells may have a different susceptibility to SV40 infection. Thus, it cannot be excluded that those used by the manufacturers of the oral poliovaccines might be sufficiently sensitive to allow the detection of low amounts of one 72-bp SV40 virions. However, it is also possible, that because of the obvious cytopathic and cytolytic effects induced by SV40 with two 72-bp virions, the subtle cytopathic effects induced in rare cells by one 72-bp-repeat virions would easily be missed.’
    CDC Sends Fact Sheet Linking Polio Vaccine to Cancer Down the Memory Hole
    http://www.infowars.com/cdc-sends-fact-sheet-linking-polio-vaccine-to-cancer-down-the-memory-hole/
    “The SV-40 virus is now being detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to conclude that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40,” Dave Mihalovic, a writer for the natural health news website Prevent Disease, reported.
    Indeed, information regarding SV40 contamination has been widely known for years. The question here is: why has the CDC decided to nix pages dealing with this blatantly obvious (possibly intentional?) snafu at the hands of the U.S. government?
    Mihalovic would also like to know “…how many other viruses and toxins are within current day vaccines that we’ll only find out about in a few decades?”

12. “The inescapable conclusion is that while the system may truly need an overhaul (and I do believe it may), it has not been a net detriment and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that efforts to promote the use of specific vaccines or vaccination in general are any more or less nefarious than the entire rest of the industry.”
    –US Death rate proportional to vaccine rate?
    Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
    The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
    Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss reports during three consecutive influenza seasons
    Was there a synergistic fetal toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season?
    GS Goldman
    Abstract
    The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season. The VAERS database was searched for reports of fetal demise following administration of the influenza vaccine/vaccines to pregnant women. Utilization of an independent surveillance survey and VAERS, two-source capture–recapture analysis estimated the reporting completeness in the 2009/2010 flu season. Capture–recapture demonstrated that the VAERS database captured about 13.2% of the total 1321 …estimated reports, yielding an ascertainment-corrected rate of 590 fetal-loss reports per million pregnant women vaccinated (or 1 per 1695). The unadjusted fetal-loss report rates for the three consecutive influenza seasons beginning 2008/2009 were 6…., 77.8 …, and 12.6 cases per million pregnant women vaccinated, respectively.
    The observed reporting bias was too low to explain the magnitude increase in fetal-demise reporting rates in the VAERS database relative to the reported annual trends. Thus, a synergistic fetal toxicity likely resulted from the administration of both the pandemic (A-H1N1) and seasonal influenza vaccines during the 2009/2010 season.
    http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/09/12/0960327112455067.abstract

13. Lead Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents & Young Girls It’s All A Giant Deadly Scam –
    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/lead-developer-of-hpv-vaccines-comes-clean-warns-parents-young-girls-its-all-a-giant-deadly-scam_012014#sthash.KVZKjreZ.dpuf
    Dr. Diane Harper was a leading expert responsible for the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies which secured the approval of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil™ and Cervarix™. Dr. Harper also authored many of the published, scholarly papers about the vaccines. She is now the latest in a long string of experts who are pressing the red alert button on the devastating consequences and irrelevancy of these vaccines. Dr. Harper made her surprising confession at the 4th International Converence on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia. Her speech, which was originally intended to promote the benefits of the vaccines, took a 180-degree turn when she chose instead to clean her conscience about the deadly vaccines so she “could sleep at night”. The following is an excerpt from a story by Sarah Cain:
    “Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States. In fact, 70% of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in a year, and the number rises to well over 90% in two years. Harper also mentioned the safety angle. All trials of the vaccines were done on children aged 15 and above, despite them currently being marketed for 9-year-olds. So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects from Gardasil™ alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and this number only reflects parents who underwent the hurdles required for reporting adverse reactions. At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines. The reported side effects include Guillian Barré Syndrome (paralysis lasting for years, or permanently — sometimes eventually causing suffocation), lupus, seizures, blood clots, and brain inflammation. Parents are usually not made aware of these risks. Dr. Harper, the vaccine developer, claimed that she was speaking out, so that she might finally be able to sleep at night. ’About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have HPV at some stage of their life,’ Harper says. ’Normally there are no symptoms, and in 98 per cent of cases it clears itself. But in those cases where it doesn’t, and isn’t treated, it can lead to pre-cancerous cells which may develop into cervical cancer.’”
    Although these two vaccines are marketed as protection against cervical cancer, this claim is purely hypothetical. Studies have proven “there is no demonstrated relationship between the condition being vaccinated for and the rare cancers that the vaccine might prevent, but it is marketed to do that nonetheless. In fact, there is no actual evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer. From the manufacturers own admissions, the vaccine only works on 4 strains out of 40 for a specific venereal disease that dies on its own in a relatively short period, so the chance of it actually helping an individual is about about the same as the chance of her being struck by a meteorite.”
    UPDATE #1: Since coming forward with the truth about the devastating consequences of the HPV vaccine, Dr. Harper has been victim of a relentless campaign attempting to discredit the validity of her claims. Harper was even misquoted by British tabloid The Sunday Express which printed a false story loaded with fabricated quotations attributed to Harper. In an interview with The Guardian, Harper makes it very clear about what exactly she said in order to protect herself from a potential lawsuit. In an interview with CBS NEWS, Harper clarifies her position, and once again makes it crystal clear just how devastating this vaccine can be: “If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last … we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” says Dr. Harper. “The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.” She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.
    “The risks of serious adverse events including death reported after Gardasil use in (the JAMA article by CDC’s Dr. Barbara Slade) were 3.4/100,000 doses distributed,” Harper tells CBS NEWS. ”The rate of serious adverse events on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year. Indeed, the risks of vaccination are underreported in Slade’s article, as they are based on a denominator of doses distributed from Merck’s warehouse. Up to a third of those doses may be in refrigerators waiting to be dispensed as the autumn onslaught of vaccine messages is sent home to parents the first day of school. Should the denominator in Dr. Slade’s work be adjusted to account for this, and then divided by three for the number of women who would receive all three doses, the incidence rate of serious adverse events increases up to five fold. How does a parent value that information,” said Harper.
    “Parents and women must know that deaths occurred,” Harper tells CBS NEWS. “Not all deaths that have been reported were represented in Dr. Slade’s work, one-third of the death reports were unavailable to the CDC, leaving the parents of the deceased teenagers in despair that the CDC is ignoring the very rare but real occurrences that need not have happened if parents were given information stating that there are real, but small risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil.” She also worries that Merck’s aggressive marketing of the vaccine may have given women a false sense of security. “The future expectations women hold because they have received free doses of Gardasil purchased by philanthropic foundations, by public health agencies or covered by insurance is the true threat to cervical cancer in the future. Should women stop Pap screening after vaccination, the cervical cancer rate will actually increase per year. Should women believe this is preventive for all cancers — something never stated, but often inferred by many in the population — a reduction in all health care will compound our current health crisis. Should Gardasil not be effective for more than 15 years, the most costly public health experiment in cancer control will have failed miserably.” Harper notes that her concern for the vaccine’s deadly side effects applies only to women in the Western world. ”Of course, in developing countries where there is no safety Pap screening for women repeatedly over their lifetimes, the risks of serious adverse events may be acceptable as the incidence rate of cervical cancer is five to 12 times higher than in the US, dwarfing the risk of death reported after Gardasil.”
    UPDATE #2: The National Vaccine Information Center HAS CONFIRMED two virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski have filed a lawsuit against their former employer and vaccine manufacturer Merck. NVIC writes: “The lawsuit alleges that Merck defrauded the U.S. for over 10 years by overstating the MMR vaccine’s effectivenes. The virologists claim in their lawsuit that they ‘Witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falseification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.” NVIC president and co-founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, warns of the disturbingly cozy relationship and overwhelming conflict of interest between federal agencies charged with vaccine safety oversight (such as the Centers for Disease Control) and vaccine manufacturers. Merck’s global vaccine sales total more than $20 BILLION A YEAR.
    As the world’s pharmaceutical giants continue to be driven less by moral accountability and more by profit and shareholder-driven bottom lines, we are going to see more and more products such as this vaccine which are marketed as “essential to one’s survival.” While some vaccines are indeed essential, such as vaccines for polio and measles, the HPV vaccine is a new beast entirely. To learn more about how pharmaceutical giants are putting profits ahead of ethics you need to watch FRONTLINE’s terrifying new documentary “Hunting The Nightmare Bacteria.”
    Dr. Diane Harper was a leading expert responsible for the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies which secured the approval of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil™ and Cervarix™. Dr. Harper also authored many of the published, scholarly papers about the vaccines. She is now the latest in a long string of experts who are pressing the red alert button on the devastating consequences and irrelevancy of these vaccines. Dr. Harper made her surprising confession at the 4th International Converence on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia. Her speech, which was originally intended to promote the benefits of the vaccines, took a 180-degree turn when she chose instead to clean her conscience about the deadly vaccines so she “could sleep at night”. The following is an excerpt from a story by Sarah Cain:
    “Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States. In fact, 70% of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in a year, and the number rises to well over 90% in two years. Harper also mentioned the safety angle. All trials of the vaccines were done on children aged 15 and above, despite them currently being marketed for 9-year-olds. So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects from Gardasil™ alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and this number only reflects parents who underwent the hurdles required for reporting adverse reactions. At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines. The reported side effects include Guillian Barré Syndrome (paralysis lasting for years, or permanently — sometimes eventually causing suffocation), lupus, seizures, blood clots, and brain inflammation. Parents are usually not made aware of these risks. Dr. Harper, the vaccine developer, claimed that she was speaking out, so that she might finally be able to sleep at night. ’About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have HPV at some stage of their life,’ Harper says. ’Normally there are no symptoms, and in 98 per cent of cases it clears itself. But in those cases where it doesn’t, and isn’t treated, it can lead to pre-cancerous cells which may develop into cervical cancer.’”
    Although these two vaccines are marketed as protection against cervical cancer, this claim is purely hypothetical. Studies have proven “there is no demonstrated relationship between the condition being vaccinated for and the rare cancers that the vaccine might prevent, but it is marketed to do that nonetheless. In fact, there is no actual evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer. From the manufacturers own admissions, the vaccine only works on 4 strains out of 40 for a specific venereal disease that dies on its own in a relatively short period, so the chance of it actually helping an individual is about about the same as the chance of her being struck by a meteorite.”
    UPDATE #1: Since coming forward with the truth about the devastating consequences of the HPV vaccine, Dr. Harper has been victim of a relentless campaign attempting to discredit the validity of her claims. Harper was even misquoted by British tabloid The Sunday Express which printed a false story loaded with fabricated quotations attributed to Harper. In an interview with The Guardian, Harper makes it very clear about what exactly she said in order to protect herself from a potential lawsuit. In an interview with CBS NEWS, Harper clarifies her position, and once again makes it crystal clear just how devastating this vaccine can be: “If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last … we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” says Dr. Harper. “The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.” She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.
    “The risks of serious adverse events including death reported after Gardasil use in (the JAMA article by CDC’s Dr. Barbara Slade) were 3.4/100,000 doses distributed,” Harper tells CBS NEWS. ”The rate of serious adverse events on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year. Indeed, the risks of vaccination are underreported in Slade’s article, as they are based on a denominator of doses distributed from Merck’s warehouse. Up to a third of those doses may be in refrigerators waiting to be dispensed as the autumn onslaught of vaccine messages is sent home to parents the first day of school. Should the denominator in Dr. Slade’s work be adjusted to account for this, and then divided by three for the number of women who would receive all three doses, the incidence rate of serious adverse events increases up to five fold. How does a parent value that information,” said Harper.
    “Parents and women must know that deaths occurred,” Harper tells CBS NEWS. “Not all deaths that have been reported were represented in Dr. Slade’s work, one-third of the death reports were unavailable to the CDC, leaving the parents of the deceased teenagers in despair that the CDC is ignoring the very rare but real occurrences that need not have happened if parents were given information stating that there are real, but small risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil.” She also worries that Merck’s aggressive marketing of the vaccine may have given women a false sense of security. “The future expectations women hold because they have received free doses of Gardasil purchased by philanthropic foundations, by public health agencies or covered by insurance is the true threat to cervical cancer in the future. Should women stop Pap screening after vaccination, the cervical cancer rate will actually increase per year. Should women believe this is preventive for all cancers — something never stated, but often inferred by many in the population — a reduction in all health care will compound our current health crisis. Should Gardasil not be effective for more than 15 years, the most costly public health experiment in cancer control will have failed miserably.” Harper notes that her concern for the vaccine’s deadly side effects applies only to women in the Western world. ”Of course, in developing countries where there is no safety Pap screening for women repeatedly over their lifetimes, the risks of serious adverse events may be acceptable as the incidence rate of cervical cancer is five to 12 times higher than in the US, dwarfing the risk of death reported after Gardasil.”
    UPDATE #2: The National Vaccine Information Center HAS CONFIRMED two virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski have filed a lawsuit against their former employer and vaccine manufacturer Merck. NVIC writes: “The lawsuit alleges that Merck defrauded the U.S. for over 10 years by overstating the MMR vaccine’s effectivenes. The virologists claim in their lawsuit that they ‘Witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falseification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.” NVIC president and co-founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, warns of the disturbingly cozy relationship and overwhelming conflict of interest between federal agencies charged with vaccine safety oversight (such as the Centers for Disease Control) and vaccine manufacturers. Merck’s global vaccine sales total more than $20 BILLION A YEAR.
    As the world’s pharmaceutical giants continue to be driven less by moral accountability and more by profit and shareholder-driven bottom lines, we are going to see more and more products such as this vaccine which are marketed as “essential to one’s survival.” While some vaccines are indeed essential, such as vaccines for polio and measles, the HPV vaccine is a new beast entirely. To learn more about how pharmaceutical giants are putting profits ahead of ethics you need to watch FRONTLINE’s terrifying new documentary “Hunting The Nightmare Bacteria.”
    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/lead-developer-of-hpv-vaccines-comes-clean-warns-parents-young-girls-its-all-a-giant-deadly-scam_012014#sthash.KVZKjreZ.dpuf

14. “in places where affluence, sanitation, personal hygiene and modern medicine might have been expected to eradicate or severely attenuate these diseases on their own — places like Japan… we have instead seen that a drop in vaccination rates correlates directly to increased levels of suffering, disability and death from these very diseases.”
    –Japan Withdraws HPV Vaccine Recommendation for Girls
    The Japanese government withdrew its recommendation to use human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in girls last week, citing concerns from the public about adverse effects, according to news reports.
    The announcement is in stark contrast to the pronouncement last week by health officials in the United States that vaccination rates in teenage girls should be increased after a study concluded that estimated vaccine effectiveness is “high.”
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/806645

15. Medicine Or Mass Murder? Guideline Based on Discredited Research May Have Caused 800,000 Deaths In Europe Over The Last 5 Years
    ‘Last summer British researchers provoked concern when they published a paper raising the possibility that by following an established guideline UK doctors may have caused as many as 10,000 deaths each year. Now they have gone a step further and published an estimate that the same guideline may have led to the deaths of as many as 800,00 people in Europe over the last five years. The finding, they write, “is so large that the only context in the last 50 years comes from the largest scale professional failures in the political sphere.” The 800,000 deaths are comparable in size to the worst cases of genocide and mass murder in recent history.’
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2014/01/15/medicine-or-mass-murder-guideline-based-on-discredited-research-may-have-caused-800000-deaths-in-europe-over-the-last-5-years/

16. The Evidence Gap
    Drug Makers’ Push Leads to Cancer Vaccines’ Rise
    NYT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/health/policy/20vaccine.html?_r=0
    In the United States, hundreds of doctors have been recruited and trained to give talks about Gardasil — $4,500 for a lecture — and some have made hundreds of thousands of dollars. Politicians have been lobbied and invited to receptions urging them to legislate against a global killer. And former state officials have been recruited to lobby their former colleagues.
    “There was incredible pressure from industry and politics,” said Dr. Jon Abramson, a professor of pediatrics at Wake Forest University who was chairman of the committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that recommended the vaccine for all girls once they reached 11 or 12.
    “This big push is making people crazy — thinking they’re bad moms if they don’t get their kids vaccinated,” said Dr. Abby Lippman, a professor at McGill University in Montreal and policy director of the Canadian Women’s Health Network. Canada will spend $300 million on a cervical cancer vaccine program.
    Merck’s vaccine was studied in clinical trials for five years, and Glaxo’s for nearly six and a half, so it is not clear how long the protection will last. Some data from the clinical trials indicate immune molecules may wane after three to five years. If a 12-year-old is vaccinated, will she still be protected in college, when her risk of infection is higher? Or will a booster vaccine be necessary?
    Some experts are concerned about possible side effects that become apparent only after a vaccine has been more widely tested over longer periods.

17. Authors of guidelines have strong links with drugs industry
    BMJ 2002
    http://www.bmj.com//content/324/7334/383.2
    ‘Most guidelines on clinical practice are written by experts with undisclosed links to the pharmaceutical industry, researchers from Toronto, Canada, say in an article in the journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 2002;287:612-7).
    In a survey of nearly 200 authors of 44 clinical guidelines, 87% of respondents admitted to financial links with one or more pharmaceutical companies. Over half of the authors had been paid to conduct research, over a third had been an employee or consultant, and two thirds had received fees for speaking.’
    Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking
    The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination
    ‘Lobbying and Presenting Policy Alternatives to Legislators. Merck engaged in direct lobbying to varying degrees in all of the states we studied. Merck proactively contacted legislators to discuss strategies to maximize uptake of Gardasil, either directly through company employees or by using local political consultants, prominent physicians, or public relations firms.
    Many respondents reported that company representatives proposed specific legislation, often drafting the bills and searching for a sponsor. In most states, their efforts focused on a school-entry mandate. Respondents pointed out that Merck’s activities were not unusual, although the public seemed to have been unaware that private companies played such a role in the legislative process. One commented, “Just about every vaccine mandate that we have lately has been the result, at least partially, of the drug industry’s efforts.”
    The intensity of Merck’s lobbying efforts varied across states. No respondents in California recalled Merck representatives directly lobbying legislators. Direct lobbying reportedly took place in New Hampshire, but only briefly, and not aggressively: “It was gentle,” a legislator recalled, “I suggested to them that [a school-entry requirement] probably wouldn’t have a lot of traction here, and that was it. They dropped it.” By contrast, in Indiana respondents consistently noted the high intensity of lobbying for school-entry mandate legislation. One respondent characterized it as a “feeding frenzy” designed “to convince us that this was the best thing since sliced bread.”‘
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/763324_3

18. information content of your post = zero.
    just your own un-informed, pharma-friendly opinion stated with pompous certainty using circular reasoning, much like the “evidence-based” [opinion-based] treatment guidelines that are killing people all over the world.
    Analysis of overall level of evidence behind Infectious Diseases Society of America practice guidelines.
    “Conclusions:  More than half of the current recommendations of the IDSA are based on level III evidence [opinion] only.
    Until more data from well-designed controlled clinical trials become available, physicians should remain cautious when using current guidelines as the sole source guiding patient care decisions.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21220656

19. Final thoughts (from me, anyway):
    After three days, the responses to the facts I have presented were met with:
    1) a statement so far out of left field it might have been in a different stadium,
    2) three separate re-statements of the same mis-direction/non-sequitur of “illnesses overall dropped, so we don’t need vaccines,” and
    3) an “if all else fails, smear the spokesperson” character assasination, which unwittingly took out the godfather of the anti-MMR movement as well, and left the science unadressed.
    It is my position, in light of the above and the facts presented, that anyone who seriously and truly holds the position that autism spectrum disorder and related maladies are in any way related to a specific vaccine, vaccine combination, or with vaccination in general, is clinging to a position incompatible with reality, and does so in spite of demonstrable, readily available facts. Further, they do so at the risk of perpetuating (and indeed exacerbating) one of the few genuine threats to public health remaining in the First World today — namely, the refusal to vaccinate against deadly, debilitating communicable childhood diseases.
    Whether such a person holds to this position out of ignorance, petulance, avarice, or overt malice I refuse to speculate on.
    Defense rests.

20. Can’t attack the science, so you take aim at one of it’s messengers? Nice shootin’, Tex.
    Check this out (Dr. Offit’s work speaks for itself, and I’m sure he has a mouth with which to defend himself, but I’m going to presume to speak for both of them here anyway):
    A) Dr. Offit’s work has always had coauthors that one must similarly find fault with in order to make any accusation of wrong-doing stick. The list is long; are you sure that they ALL are a part of this massive scheme to poison the public for no more benefit than their own pockets? And, btw, can evidence of improper gain be found on all of these people?
    Meanwhile, Mr. Wakefield did his “work” on his own (sorry, but after repeated evaluations, I just can’t help the editorial quotation marks) at the behest of a legal team suing for benefits from a vaccine manufacturer. No conflict of interest or possibility of corruption there, eh?
    B) Dr. Offit’s results have been found to be highly reproducible — and in fact they have been reproduced on many occasions in hundreds of studies done by thousands of researchers in study populations numbering into the millions. Wakefield’s one study numbered 12 subjects, his results were found to be fabricated in large part, and the results have yet to be reproduced anywhere in the literature.
    C) The primary accusation against Dr. Offit above (namely, that he pushed “dangerous” vaccinations on an unsuspecting public for profit) catches one Doctor Mister Wakefield full square as well, since Wakefield not only stood to gain from substantial fees provided by the attorneys he was hired to produce the data for in the first place, but also from his own line of vaccines (see GH05T’s comment above). Had Wakefield been successful over the long term, Dr. Offit’s ‘filthy lucre’ quite possibly may have ended up small potatoes in comparison.
    D) The problem of medical marketing resulting in doctor promotion of any given treatment or product (regardless of actual patient need) is by NO means limited to vaccines. The problem stretches to medications, procedures, specific equipment lines, diet & exercise recommendations/guidelines, even bariatric surgery promotion — the odds suggest that people even in the top tenth of a percent of BMI have a roughly 20-40 times greater all-cause rate of death in the year after such surgery (depending on the study one reads) than they do if they do absolutely nothing, and yet bariatric procedures are often marketed as a “last chance” for a “healthy life” for the “morbidly obese.”
    And yet, despite all of this potential for corruption, as a population we are living longer than we ever have, the diseases we die from are happening to us less often, and the ones that do kill us are doing so less frequently. The inescapable conclusion is that while the system may truly need an overhaul (and I do believe it may), it has not been a net detriment and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that efforts to promote the use of specific vaccines or vaccination in general are any more or less nefarious than the entire rest of the industry.

21. Right. So why is it irrelevant? Allow me to explain this in detail, since my comments above were apparently not clear enough:
    Conflating the rates of ALL communicable diseases with the rates of diseases for which there are routine vaccinations suggests that there is no material difference between those rates, nor between the factors which influence them. This therefore implies that because there are other, safer &/or more effective ways of dealing with many illnesses, there must also be other, safer &/or more effective ways of dealing with the ones against which we routinely vaccinate.
    The thing is, the latter premise presupposes that (1) vaccines are generally ineffective against the diseases they are intended to fight, and/or (2) that those same diseases are — without exception — easily prevented &/or treated in some other way. Both must premises must be examined before the point can be allowed to stand unquestioned.
    Contrary to (1), though, we have a century of data indicating the exact opposite — specifically, we have verifiable, reproducible data which indicate that certain diseases ARE effectively treated/prevented by vaccination, even controlling for factors such as race, gender, age, socio-economic status, environmental conditions, and so forth. Those data sets are not maintained by any single organization but by many dozens, most of which are unaffiliated (even by finances) with one another, sharing neither goals, nor management, nor staff. These data are widely available for examination and study to any who wish to do so.
    One example in support of (2) might be cholera; there is a vaccine for cholera, but it is not a required vaccine in the U.S. (that I know of) because the conditions under which cholera thrives have been all but eradicated in the First World. It is still a widespread disease in the Third World where drinking water supplies are routinely contaminated by untreated human/animal waste, but the disease does not readily pass from person to person directly, except under certain specfic conditions.
    But this very case shows exactly the problem with treating “all infectious diseases” as a proxy for diseases routinely vaccinated against: the primary mode of cholera transmission is NOT person-to-person (except via a normally indirect route; simply sitting in the room with a cholera patient is not going to put you at risk, and neither is caring for them provided certain standards of sanitation are met). In the case of the First World, modern solutions to sewage collection & processing, drinking water purification & distribution, and personal hygiene practices have solved the problem of the disease in the process of their collective implementation. Today, one may wish to take the vaccine if they’re going to Kenya (eg.), but really needn’t bother otherwise.
    Syphillis falls into a similar category: the disease is easily avoidable via behavior modification; now that the disease’s characteristics and symptoms are wel known, even most at-risk individuals will never catch the disease in the first place, let alone the general population; and much more importantly, syphillis is easily treated even with 1st generation antibiotics such as penicillin, a cheap, easily produced and widely available drug. Vaccines are again, as with cholera, simply not required — regardless of whether anyone tried to develop one or not, and regardless of whether those efforts were ethical or not.
    Having shown that there are in fact diseases treatable without vaccines, partially supporting point (2) above, we must now show that there exist NO diseases which CANNOT be treated in a similar fashion in order to grant the conflation of “all infectious disease” with those specifically targeted by the typical panel of childhood vaccinations.
    In this, however, the data are clear: in places where affluence, sanitation, personal hygiene and modern medicine might have been expected to eradicate or severely attenuate these diseases on their own — places like Japan, Australia, the UK, and even here in the U.S. — we have instead seen that a drop in vaccination rates correlates directly to increased levels of suffering, disability and death from these very diseases. Even now among the wealthy and (otherwise) well-educated populations of such exotic places as the State of Colorado, pertussis is surging at an alarming rate. (If you’ve never seen the effects of that disease, short- & long-term, I invite you to look it up to get an idea.)
    Further, the data clearly show that most of these diseases showed only slight decreases (or no decreases at all) in incidence or morbidity while all other infectious diseases were waning drastically during the 20th century, and only began their declines after widespread vaccination against these diseases was implemented.
    Thus, the point is shown to be false: overall rates of infectious disease cannot be used as a proxy for those which are vaccinated against, because the differences between the mechanisms of infection and the efficacy of treatments are not even similar, let alone the same.
    Thus, the factual point that the rate of “all infectious disease,” or of any specific disease (such as syphillis) dropped before most vaccines were implemented is entirely beside the point: it means absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand because you are comparing apples to pineapples — items which certainly sound similar, but really have not much at all to do with one another.
    Ergo, my characterization of your posts as “irrelevant.”

22. Irrelevant (see below).

23. Irrelevant (see below).

24. This response clearly shows the poster has either never been acquainted with reality, or that he and reality parted ways long ago and are no longer on speaking terms. Any assertion that the military somehow has an unlimited budget is simply false. It’s like saying electrons carry a positive electrical charge.
    The point that it’s the taxpayers that generate that money in the first place is well taken, but it simply reinforces the point: even if the military had use of ALL of the taxes collected (or even, all of the public’s wealth in total), its budget would STILL be finite, and the medical treatment for active service members, retirees and their families — most service members have children that are at the prime ages for ASD diagnosis, and their medical care is generally performed in military facilities by military personnel — DOES come out of that budget. This means that even with ALL taxes collected at its disposal, more doctors doing more (and more expensive) treatments means fewer guns, bullets, bombs, etc. that the military can purchase.
    The fact that the military budget actually amounts to a fraction of the rest of the federal budget (to say nothing of the fact that the majority of it goes to civilian DoD contractors & employees, most of whom live & work in D.C.) exacerbates the situation by at least an order of magnitude.
    The military’s budget is simply not unlimited, no matter how one slices it. The care of the family members of active service members and retirees is paid out of that budget. Assertions to the contrary are simply, clearly and completely false and indicate the rest of the comments made are equally suspect. However, for the sake of any lurkers I will address those responses as well.

25. Damn, you’re funny.
    “ith CDC approval… and that sudden, massive rise of AIDS, a disease caused by a type of virus created by cancer vaccine researchers and which started in promiscuous homosexuals right after they were specifically targeted with an experimental cancer vaccine with a subsequent ~50% mortality rate… hmmm…” – OH MY GOD. THE TRUTH. NOW WE KNOW THE TRUTH. THE GOVERNMENT REALLY DOES HATE GAYS!!!!!!!11
    I’m guessing promiscuity never applied to you, did it? And need I mention your ‘sources’ all say the same thing and cite the same sources, which are based on NOTHING.
    “Injecting orphans with syphilis…CDC approved this” – Oh, really? Source. I know they did that with the Tuskegee experiment, but even that was done with full-grown adults.
    You’re also bipolar on AIDS. First you say that it was indeed from primates, then turn around and say it was engineered with a sinister touch in a lab to eliminate the unworthy. Nice story, though it isn’t real and the fact that even the higher ups refused to believe it existed in the first place after it wreaked havoc. There were ample warnings. They ignored it. It sure does sound like an inside job.

26. Natural News isn’t even a remotely scientific resource and it does not surprise me that your breathless, ‘Ain’t it heinous’ story could woo anyone ignorant of the evidence. You constantly repeat the claim “likely to be grave” which implies that there is no real danger.
    Gulf War syndrome does not exist, and Michael Fumento addresses this rather well. He has asked people who allegedly have it to provide proof of their illness. They did not. Instead, they insulted him for daring to question them.
    So, not only do I see an ignorance of mercury, I see one of autism. You know, you’re not the first to get that super-special Eureka! moment where you think everything is solved when autism is linked with vaccines, despite the thiomersal thing already being debunked. So yes, your claims are outdated, overused, and you ignore any and other causes of autism.
    Plus, when you quote people, you are actually saying things they never said. So, you are being intellectually dishonest. Here is what Dr. Halsey really said: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2002/halsey-autism.html
    Simon Wessely actually said Gulf War syndrome never existed, yet you paraphrases suggest otherwise.
    Thiomersal is also used in antivenin. I’m guessing we should just let people die from snake bites, then?
    If anyone isn’t convinced that you’re a high-grade liar, then they should read this from your blog:
    “The film-makers for Lyme disease documentary Under Our Skin, relate the bizarre story of what happened when they tried to interview Willy Burgdorfer, the biowarfare researcher for whom the Lyme disease agent is named:
    “Just as we began filming, there was a pounding on the door, and we found ourselves facing someone who turned out to be a top researcher at the nearby Rocky Mountain Laboratories, a biolevel-4 NIH research facility. Standing on the porch, our uninvited guest said, “I’ve been told that I need to supervise this interview. This comes from the highest levels. There are things that Willy can’t talk about.”
    “We were stunned. After all, Dr. Burgdorfer had been retired from the lab since 1986. We were there to talk to a private citizen, about the history of a very public discovery that had put him on the short list for a Nobel Prize. Earlier that year, the NIH had refused our requests to interview any of their Lyme researchers. What was going on? Why would the NIH want to censor information about the fastest growing bug-borne disease in the United States?’ “Lyme discoverer Willy Burgdorfer breaks silence on heated controversy,”
    http://www.underourskin.com/news/lyme-discoverer-willy-burgdorfer-breaks-silence-heated-controversy.
    https://sites.google.com/site/jerryleonard999/#_edn2
    These breathless statements can only come from someone truly paranoid. Really, if the Big Government doesn’t want you to know something, then by God, you won’t know it. Having thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of blogs, and millions upon millions of comments about the ‘truth’ that could ‘change the world’ exist, well, then the government sucks, doesn’t it?
    It seems you’re also one of the people that thinks Lyme disease can mimic a thousand other diseases and ignores autoimmune function instead. And all the sources are from naturopath activists, conspiracy forums, and people who think that people are against them. In short: psychopaths. The claim that Willy Burgdorfer had to have his interview ‘monitored’ when he spoke with Under Our Skin paints a secret, government cover-up, but in reality, I’d want to be monitored too if I was dealing with Charles Manson archetypes.
    The classic conspiracy theorist ignores the big picture and focuses on the little details. They truly do hate science. And you, Mr. Leonard, who goes by many different names, is a high-grade liar. No more, no less. Why should we rational people believe you? Prove your claims. And maybe, actually cite some sources other than conspiracy websites? That would help.
    No point in arguing with someone who believes the government is spraying chemtrails and can’t visibly prove it with science, and who amazingly isn’t actually suppressed for his beliefs, because nobody takes him seriously.

27. That’s funny, because Tim Bolen was also called out by the naturopaths for being a liar: http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/06/tim-bolen-shoots-himself-in-the-foot-from-his-hip.html
    Naturopaths. Gotta love ’em.

28. You’re citing YouTube as a source. Nice.
    HIV wasn’t caused from ‘vaccines’. It was caused from the SIV virus that originated in chimps. It was brought to America from a bisexual man. However, earlier cases say that it was a concern in the 1950’s.
    And based on your other comments, you just seem to be a nobody who gets off on conspiracy theories, laughs at the so-called ‘ignorant’, thumps your chest and struts around like you actually did something.
    Oh, right. You’re just an anti-vaccine bucko who says the same thing everyone else says. Oh, please. Get a room.

29. who’s pushing vaccines on the world’s children?
    How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500690_162-4296175.html
    They’re some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.
    But CBS News has found these three have something more in common – strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.
    The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.
    A $342,000 payment from Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine – which makes $2 billion a year in sales.
    A $433,000 contribution from Merck, the same year the academy endorsed Merck’s HPV vaccine – which made $1.5 billion a year in sales.
    Another top donor: Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines and a new five-in-one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.
    Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry, too – but wouldn’t tell us how much.
    A spokesman told CBS News: “There are simply no conflicts to be unearthed.” But guess who’s listed as the group’s treasurers? Officials from Wyeth and a paid advisor to big pharmaceutical clients.
    Then there’s Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely-quoted defender of vaccine safety.
    He’s gone so far as to say babies can tolerate “10,000 vaccines at once.”
    This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview: “I’m the chief of infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penn’s medical school,” he said.
    Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject but like others in this CBS News investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he’s a vaccine industry insider.
    Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children’s Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.
    And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit’s share of vaccine profits? Unknown.
    Vaccine Doctor Given at Least $30 Million Dollars to Push Vaccines?
    Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned millions of dollars as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine. The amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million. Offit has refused to say how much he made from the vaccine.
    The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine — effectively, to vote himself rich.
    Offit’s claim to a share of the profits from Rotateq revenues is based on his role as a listed inventor on the cluster of patents that protect Merck’s vaccine. Paul Offit had a great personal interest in Rotateq’s commercial success, and more than any other individual in the world he found himself in a position to directly influence that success.
    Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created by the recommendation of an appointed body, ACIP. From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP.
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/25/vaccine-doctor-given-at-least-30-million-dollars-to-push-vaccines.aspx

30. and another:
    http://www.healingourchildren.net/Are_Vaccine_Safe/vaccine_side_effects_fall_in_death_rates.gif

31. another interesting plot showing death rates plunging long before vaccines arrived on the scene:
    http://johnwollerjrontheautismepidemic.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/figure-7-92.jpg

32. “If vaccinations are the problem, or even a contributing factor, why would the military willingly spend more on A) unecessary & dangerous vaccinations, and B) spend even MORE money on treating the inevitable outcome of such, while C) purposefully depriving itself of millions or billions of dollars it could otherwise be spending on new toys that make a bigger “boom” with more accuracy, more range, and less training time?”
    –ummm because the military has no shortage of money or dupes to make things go boom (as the defense budget over the last 15 years shows), because the dupes are used as guinea pigs by and for big pharma, because the military doesn’t pay to treat pharma-profitable chronically ill victims… the tax payer does…

33. the quote you are referring to was taken from another article referring the JAMA article you discuss… but figure four is interesting:
    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249#joc80862f4
    that precipitous drop in syphilis was obviously due to the syphilis vaccine… which doesn’t exist… despite the NIH’s desperate attempts to develop one by injecting orphans with syphilis… with CDC approval… and that sudden, massive rise of AIDS, a disease caused by a type of virus created by cancer vaccine researchers and which started in promiscuous homosexuals right after they were specifically targeted with an experimental cancer vaccine with a subsequent ~50% mortality rate… hmmm…

34. Finally, Refutation Six:
    The Claim: “As documented by the American Medical Association’s own journal (JAMA) in the January 1999 issue, there is no connection between death from infectious diseases and vaccinations. That’s right. None.”
    The refutation: This is the study to which Mr. Leonard (and his source link) refers: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249 The whole study is available there, and even a quick read shows the conclusions as staded by Mr Leonard are grossly misrepresented.
    From the abstract alone: Infectious disease mortality declined during the first 8 decades of the 20th century from 797 deaths per 100,000 in 1900 to 36 deaths per 100,000 in 1980. From 1981 to 1995, the mortality rate increased to a peak of 63 deaths per 100,000 in 1995 and declined to 59 deaths per 100,000 in 1996. The decline was interrupted by a sharp spike in mortality caused by the 1918 influenza epidemic. From 1938 to 1952, the decline was particularly rapid, with mortality decreasing 8.2% per year. Pneumonia and influenza were responsible for the largest number of infectious disease deaths throughout the century. Tuberculosis caused almost as many deaths as pneumonia and influenza early in the century, but tuberculosis mortality dropped off sharply after 1945. Infectious disease mortality increased in the 1980s and early 1990s in persons aged 25 years and older and was mainly due to the emergence of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in 25- to 64-year-olds and, to a lesser degree, to increases in pneumonia and influenza deaths among persons aged 65 years and older. There was considerable year-to-year variability in infectious disease mortality, especially for the youngest and oldest age groups. [emphases mine]
    Hmmm. Nothing at all about vaccinations or the lack thereof. Interesting. Also, please do note the spikes in pneumonia & flu deaths came about well before vaccines were widely implemented against them, and that the decline in most infectious diseases which were never widely vaccinated against involved removing or alleviating the conditions which incubated them in the first place: namely, poverty; water & food quality; sanitation; and so forth.
    In addition to the fact that the study goes into detail regarding many of the confounding factors which specifically refute the Examiner’s/Mr. Leonard’s claims about how infectious diseases are not affected at all by vaccination rates, one must also address the fact that most vaccinations are meant to address diseases which in industrial societies have become relatively rare. Thus, even 100% prevention of deaths in these areas (the US included) is not going to affect our affluent society’s mortality rates all that much.
    The statement “The same report showed that the crude death rate from infectious diseases decreased to nearly negligible levels long before introduction of universal vaccination practices” becomes ridiculously non-sequitur as a result. (Never mind that for most normally understood meanings for these English words, the statement is demonstrably false, eg., the introduction of the polio vaccine predates the bulk of the down-swing in mortality rates as reported by this study.)
    Even so, the benefits of vaccination against a number of rare, serious diseases are not too small to measure: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/g/cases&deaths.PDF (Unless, Mr. Leonard, you would claim these numbers are false, for some reason?) One notes that the eras of vaccination dove-tail rather nicely with the eras of eradication or significant reduction (please look those up yourselves to verify, it’ll make more of an impact than if I do it for you.)
    Finally, most of the claims parroted from the Examiner’s article by Mr. Leonard regarding this study have nothing to do with vaccines in the first place. A rise in deaths in the 1930’s, you say? Totally unrelated to the Great Depression, I’m sure. A drop in childhood disease rates during a period of historically unprecedented wealth expansion? Amazing, I tell you, especially the bit where it “levels out,” a time where the study’s actual graphs actually show a continued decline, despite a genuine slow-down/plateau in living/economic conditions over the period.
    Look at it like that, and suddenly vaccines look like the next best things to sliced bread: they continued the improvement when economic conditions could no longer be attributed as a driving effect.
    If one really wants to examine the benefit of vaccination versus non-vaccination let’s ask Mr. Leonard how many people died from complications of ASD last year, versus those who died of chicken pox? Whooping cough? Measles, mumps OR rubella/rubeola? Polio? Flu? How about all those diseases combined, Mr. Leonard? I’m not even addressing survivors and their chronic issues, physical and mental disabilities included; I just would like to know how many preventable deaths we should be allowing in an effort to prevent a mere chance that any given child MIGHT be mentally impaired (and at that probably impaired only to a treatable degree — given the odds, able to function in society without assistance as an adult) by abstaining from the vaccines which have been shown beyond reasonable doubt to prevent those self-same deaths?
    Priorities, folks.
    If one just wants to see as many children as possible suffer and die, the mass-promotion of this false apocalypse seems a much more effective route than simply toting a collection of firearms, ammunition & home-made bombs to one’s local schoolyard. Once again, as with climate science, we have the actual facts getting in the way of a very marketable scare.

35. Refutation Five:
    The Claim: “Meanwhile, in a sobering article by Michael Smith of The Daily Telegraph, Professor Simon Wesseley – previously a sceptic on the existence of a Gulf War illness – confirmed to the public inquiry on Gulf War Syndrome that not only were vaccines the culprit, but also that “the more vaccines you received, the more likely you were to suffer ill health”.
    The refutation: The existence of so-called “Gulf War Syndrome” has been debunked on a number of levels. That people were getting sick was not at issue; what they were getting sick with very definitely was, as A) the symptoms ranged from a chronic common cold, to PTSD/mental trauma, to cancer, to skin lesions, to stomach upset, to sleep apnea, et cetera, and B) the vast majority of troops “exposed” to the conditions which supposedly gave rise to the “syndrome” did not come down with any symptoms at all.
    Also of note, “GWS” made its appearance about a quarter-century ago, and yet the military responsible for paying for the medical aftereffects of the vaccination among its active duty and retired populations has, if anything, redoubled its vaccination efforts. As GH05T can no doubt attest, “opting out” of a vaccine nowadays is often tantamount to “opting out” of one’s military career. If vaccinations are the problem, or even a contributing factor, why would the military willingly spend more on A) unecessary & dangerous vaccinations, and B) spend even MORE money on treating the inevitable outcome of such, while C) purposefully depriving itself of millions or billions of dollars it could otherwise be spending on new toys that make a bigger “boom” with more accuracy, more range, and less training time?
    In any case, GWS is a non-sequitur designed to cast aspersions upon mass vaccination; the proof is sadly lacking.

36. Refutation Four:
    The Claim: “To see if vaccines were indeed thimerosal free, last year the group, Health Advocacy in the Public Interest (HAPI), sent four vials of different vaccines to be tested for mercury content to Doctor’s Data, an independent lab, which specializes in heavy metal testing.”
    Oh, good, the watchdogs have saved us from the evil corporate monsters. What did they find?
    “The tests found that all four contained mercury, despite the claim by 2 companies that their vaccines were completely mercury-free”
    We found the corporations lied in two cases, okay, buuuut… sorry but what kind of mercury did they find? Did they even find Thimerosol? I only ask because, as most people are unaware, the non-Thimerosol preservatives break down into methyl mercury (not ethyl), a compound that is readily excreted by the body and requires relatively high doses to become toxic, even over long-term exposures.
    (BTW, this is the same mercuric compound cited in the typical “OMG, don’t eat sea-food!!!!11!11111” studies; the amounts found in those studies have been shown to be harmless at normal levels of consumption many, many time, even when eaten by pregnant mothers and their eventual offspring.)
    This was the biggest possible point the Thimersol-demonizers intitially had going for their claim: chemically, the chemical breaks down into ethyl mercury, a much more toxic compound. But as we’ve already seen, the link between even Thimerosol-containing vaccines and ASD has been shown to be essentially impossible.

37. Refutation Three:
    The Claim: A December 2004 report by the independent Environmental Working Group determined that autistic children have less glutathione than normal children. The study, led by Dr Jill James, a professor of biochemistry and pediatrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said a glutathione deficit “may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism.”
    The refutation: Let us accept this statement purely at its face value, for argument’s sake. If it is true that a genetic deficiency in glutathianone is at fault, then all vaccines are hereby cleared of wrongdoing in the matter at hand: simply address the glutathione deficiency and you address autism.
    Unless we can’t actually take the statement at face value…? And in any case, even in tandem with this deficiency, there is no ‘smoking gun’ study relating such a deficiency to a rise in ASD coincident with vaccination, which is subsequently NOT found in those with the deficiency but not vaccinated. In every study I have seen (and I have seen dozens, if not hundreds) the rate of autism/ASD was not statistically different among vaccinated populations than in the unvaccinated.
    Unless someone can point me to the study which shows that the glutathione-deficient and non-deficient are different in outcome based solely on rate of vaccination…? no…? Then we need to look to some other cause of ASD for our smoking gun.

38. Refutation Two:
    The claim: “Since 1988, the number of vaccines given to children before the age of two has tripled,” and, “If eight doses of Thimerosal-containing vaccine was given in the first six months of life (3 DTP, 2 HIB, and 3 Hepatitis B) the 200 micrograms of mercury given, say to an average size of 12 pounds, would be about 87 times the Swedish daily allowance of 2.3 micrograms for a baby of that size.”
    And yet, there are still no studies which show a positive correlation between shot schedule and ASD diagnosis, let alone a definitive link.
    The citation of actual amounts in relationship to a specific government standard here fails to address what the standard was based on, and indeed ignores any studies which assess what the harmful levels of exposure might actually be. It thus ignores whatever margin may have built into said cited standard.
    But even if the amounts cited (~200 micrograms) WERE significant, the routine administration of those amounts, knowingly or otherwise, should show up in an decent studies done to investigate the association after the fact. Instead, we see the exact opposite: http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/autistic-spectrum-disorder-no-causal-relationship-with-vaccines
    Of greatest note here is not the editorial position of the authors of the postion paper in the link above, but the studies they cite to support their positions throughout the paper, which I quote from here:
    Since 1999, several studies [19]-[23] have been conducted to evaluate the safety of thimerosal in vaccines. These studies were reviewed in detail by the IOM [10] in 2001 and 2004 with a focus on autism. The IOM Committee concluded that the evidence favoured rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, as well as MMR vaccine and autism [10]. In the absence of experimental or human evidence that vaccination affects metabolic, developmental, immune, or other physiological or molecular mechanisms that are related causally to development of autism, the IOM concluded that the hypotheses generated to date are theoretical. In a separate critical review [24] of published original data, a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD was not shown. Epidemiological studies that supported a link demonstrated significant design flaws that invalidated conclusions of these studies [10][24]. Additional data from Canada published since 2004 also showed no association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism [25].
    An important factor to consider is what has happened to autism rates since the removal of thimerosal from vaccines. In studies from Canada [25], Denmark [20] and the United States [26] the rates of autism have continued to increase despite removal of thimerosal from vaccines.
    Thus, the evidence is in, and the assessment of purported causality is clear. The MMR vaccine and immunization with thimerosal-containing vaccines are not causally associated with, nor are they a cause of, autism or ASD. There is mounting evidence [27] that ASD has a strong genetic component – a very plausible cause for the disorder. [emphasis mine]
    Note that unlike anti-vaccine activists, they not only start their positive claim, but also make a falsifiable counter-claim by naming an alternative cause which actually DOES have medical evidence to support it.

39. Refutation One:
    The claim: ASD is more common than ever, reaching “epidemic proportions,” and is coincident with the rise in vaccines of assorted kinds and types.
    Quote: “The autism epidemic cannot be denied. On February 15, 2005, the GAO, released a Report titled, “Special Education Children With Autism,” that revealed the number of children ages 6 through 21 diagnosed with autism receiving special education services has increased more than 500% over the past 10 years.”
    The refutation: Note the substitution of treatment as proxy for the disorder, and never mind the expansion of autism, proper, into what is now termed “autism spectrum disorder.” The rate of diagnosis alone has expanded by over 200%, depending upon which study one cites, and the fact that such special education is routinely available to those who may or may NOT have actually been diagnosed is left unspoken (they did NOT leave those children out of the data cited, just fyi).
    Still, even allowing for the equation of undiagnosed treatment with cause, the cited explosion of the “epidemic” took place betweeh 1995 and 2005. The following studies show that even if correlation with expanded vaccination might be thought to suggest possible causation of ASD & related disorders, no such correlation is found with the MMR vaccine (whether or not it contained thimerosol or other mecury-based preservatives). In fact, the opposite it proved fairly conclusively:
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15877763
    please note the size of the studies, the quality of the records used, and the fact that ASD is shown to have continued to rise despite the complete discontinuation of the alleged cause. Correlation may or may not be causation, but a LACK of correlation DISPROVES causation directly.

40. Were disease rates plummeting already at the era of invasive vaccination? Did non-infectious diseases and diseases for which there were no vaccines also decrease? Has there been an increase in autoimmune diseases due to vaccination?
    How exactly do you screen vaccines for viruses and other disease agents which haven’t been discovered yet (HIV in 1978) and cause disease in a non-specific manner or over a period longer than the vaccine trials?
    JAMA article data showing no historical correlation between vaccines and disease prevention (must see plots showing disease incidence decreasing long before vaccines were widely administered):
    “As documented by the American Medical Association’s own journal (JAMA) in the January 1999 issue, there is no connection between death from infectious diseases and vaccinations. That’s right. None.”
    http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intelligence-Examiner~y2009m7d31-Vaccines-for-children-not-effective
    Figure 1. Crude Infectious Disease Mortality Rate in the United States from 1900 Through 1996 (Graph from JAMA)
    Deaths graphed by groups of diseases show some variations. The most significant improvements are in typhous and dysentery. Both of these diseases show almost no deaths after 1960. Significantly, there is no vaccination for dysentery and most people are not vaccinated for typhous.
    Figure 2A. Crude Mortality Rates for Influenza & Pneumonia (Graph from JAMA)
    Tuberculosis rates show a curve similar to the overall infectious disease rate. Interestingly, the death rate from pneumonia and influenza from 1970 through 1996 shows a general increase, in spite of the ongoing vaccinations for influenza and the introduction of pneumonia vaccines in 1977 and 1983.
    Figure 2B. Crude Mortality Rates for Typhous & Dysentery (Graph from JAMA)
    As noted above, deaths from typhous and dysentery plunge to near-zero by 1960—though there is no vaccine for dysentery and passingly few people are vaccinated against typhous.
    Figure 2C. Crude Mortality Rates for Diphtheria, Pertussis, Measles, & Polio (Graph from JAMA)
    Diphtheria shows its greatest decrease of deaths prior to 1920. There was a spike in diphtheria deaths during the early 1920’s, shortly after the vaccination was introduced, and then the rate of decrease continued as before the vaccination’s introduction. Whooping cough (pertussis) and measles showed the same general trend of decrease during the 20th century.
    Finally, take a look at the chart for death rates from all disease causes. From 1900 into the 1920s, the infectious disease rate goes down at an impressive pace. This is a time during which there were no vaccinations against childhood diseases. The decrease in the rate of deaths continues at about the same pace well into the 1950s. Then, it starts to level out, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of children are vaccinated during this time.
    Figure 3. Crude Mortality Rates for All Causes (Graph from JAMA)
    Now, take a look at the same graph showing the death rates from all diseases. This should make you nervous. The rate of death from noninfectious causes decreases slightly from 1900 through 1920. However, during the 1930s, when vaccinations start to be introduced, the death rate from noninfectious causes started to increase!
    What Can Explain the Reduction in Infectious Disease Rates?
    Since it’s obvious from the AMA’s own documentation that vaccinations have little or no effect on the outcome of infectious disease deaths, then there must be other issues at play. If one looks at the history of the 20th century in the U.S. then it isn’t too difficult to see what has changed. This was the era of improved overall hygiene and adequate food.
    Neurologic adverse events following vaccination
    Sienkiewicz D.*, Kułak W., Okurowska-Zawada B. Paszko-Patej G.
    Department of Pediatric Rehabilitation of the Medical University of Bialystok, Poland
    Prog Health Sci 2012, Vol 2, No1, 129
    http://www.rescuepost.com/files/prog-health-sci-2012-vol-2-no1-neurologic-adverse-events-vaccination.pdf
    Figures 5 and 6 show tuberculosis morbidity and mortality, figures 7 and 8 contain data on pertussis, and figure 9 refers to the incidence of diphtheria. It is interesting that in recent decades a decrease of infectious diseases was generally reported, which took place before the introduction of inoculations against these diseases.
    According to a 2002 report from Lancet Infectious Diseases [72]―the weight of evidence collectively suggests that personal and environmental hygiene reduces the spread of Infection and ―Thus results from this review demonstrate that there is a continued, measurable, positive effect of personal and community hygiene on infectious‖. The same report showed that the crude death rate from infectious diseases decreased to nearly negligible levels long before introduction of universal vaccination practices.
    Currently, the developed countries introduce increasingly complex vaccination schedules. Forty years ago, children were immunized against five diseases (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, smallpox), today this number has increased to eleven. At the same time, as mentioned previously, repeatedly administered multi-antigen vaccines are recommended.
    Doctors and researchers point to the worsening state of health of the child population since the 1960s, which coincided with increasingly introduced vaccinations. Allergic diseases, including asthma, autoimmune diseases, diabetes and many neurological dysfunctions -difficulty in learning, ADD (attention deficit disorder), ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), seizures, and autism -are chronic conditions, to which attention has been brought [73]
    CONCLUSIONS
    Despite the assurances of the necessity and safety of vaccinations, there are more and more questions and doubts, which both physicians and parents are waiting to be clarified. This paper describes several aspects of the immunization program of children. It includes: the physiological development of the immune system, the immunization schedule adopted in Poland in comparison with other countries, adverse reactions and complications following vaccination described in scientific publications, the natural course of infectious diseases in conjunction with the vaccination programs implemented and the problem of reporting adverse reactions following vaccination by medical personnel and parents.

41. “Given that many experts that question the MMR vaccine blame the cumulative effects specifically, would you support a slower, more controlled schedule of individual vaccinations in order to mitigate risks?”
    –yes, at the very least… BTW, there is way more to the vaccine problem than the autism epidemic (which is much larger than increased sophistication in diagnosis), with respect to the autoimmune disease epidemic.

42. An interesting conundrum. The back log of old vaccines would obviously take some time to be used up before new versions hit the market. Thimerosal was never formally proven to be unsafe. Its removal was in response to market forces rather than safety concerns, so the manufacturers had no legal obligation to destroy old batches. In addition, mercury is a naturally occurring element in almost all dirt and consequently all food. It’d be difficult to prove avenue of delivery with such small quantities. If labelling can’t be trusted, then you’re left to live in fear of any medication or food you didn’t make yourself.
    As far as your claim that autism has risen “500% over the past 10 years”, a large percentage increase in a very small number is still a very small number. You also fail to account for the large changes in diagnostic criteria, definition changes, and publicity of Autism Spectrum Disorder. In recent decades the number of symptoms included in ASD has increased dramatically to include children that previously would not have garnered any attention at all, and parents that previously wouldn’t have known what to look for now do. The effect is similar to medical advances which allow a doctor to diagnose cancer with much smaller tumors. An increase in diagnosis is not the same as an increase in incidence. Give parents an excuse to try to sue someone over their children’s behavioral problems and psychiatrists an excuse to charge several hundred an hour and it’s no surprise the diagnoses increased especially since diagnosis does not rely on any physical evidence.
    I would say the fact that vaccines which have even small associations with increased risk relative to other effective treatments were removed from the market increases confidence in the system. You’re comparing reality to an imaginary perfect world rather than the reality of greatly reduced childhood mortality and injury compared to the centuries before vaccination was an option even if every case of ASD were attributed to vaccination. On balance, mortality and illness rates have improved since the practice of vaccination became widespread including the period where the implicated MMR vaccines were unquestioningly accepted.
    You also say that “There is a widespread perception that this policy is compromised by commercial interests.” If this is so (I agree by the way) is it not equally, if not more likely that the doubt cast upon certain vaccines based on questionable research is the work of corporations in competition trying to monopolize the industry? As you said, 2 MMR vaccines were pulled from the market leaving one to be the sole distributer. Imagine research that showed every car manufacturer except one released products that were unsafe. Is it more logical to assume all the competitors conspired to endanger their customers rather than consider that the manufacturer left standing received a huge windfall thanks to the damaged consumer confidence? This is why it bothers me that prior to determining MMR was dangerous based on a study of only twelve children, Mr. Wakefield had already patented his own measles only vaccine. Prior to being stripped of his license to practice medicine his stance was that children should receive single vaccinations rather than multiples. Is it coincidence that his study just happened to implicate what would have been his only direct competition? The fact that he was paid by a group of lawyers who stood to profit massively from any related class-action suits is also telling. The doubt casting power of profit motivation works both ways. The thimerosal link has similar questions as the “thimerosal free” manufacturers received a boost in sales relative to their competition.
    Then there’s the question of environmental mercury. What makes mercury in vaccines different from mercury exposure by any other means? Without a large study that properly controls for all sources of mercury, it cannot be shown whether vaccination is a significant source. If there is some difference in Autistic individuals which renders them less capable of processing mercury, than we should be able to test for that prior to onset of ASD, relegate individuals to one of two control groups, and track to see if the hypothesized condition actually does correlated to significantly increased incidence of ASD. As it stands, no physical test of any kind is used to diagnose autism so there is no support yet for the assertion that all autistic individuals share some physical trait. It’s easy to come up with an association with something almost everyone has done. I doubt you would fail to find an association with any disease and vaccination given how high a percentage of children were vaccinated for so long. Interestingly enough, the modern anti-vaccine movement has given rise to parents whose children were diagnosed with ASD despite not having been vaccinated leaving me to wonder what, if any, other environmental factors are in play.
    With that being said, I support parental rights to choice after full disclosure of information, but the information available, when considered against the risks associated with the childhood diseases prevented by the vaccines, still comes out in favor of vaccination against the most common life threatening diseases. No life is without risks and dangers. It is the parents’ job to take the path of lowest risk. Even if every charge against the MMR vaccine is true, the combined lifetime risk of measles, mumps, and rubella still outweigh the small risk of autism or other disorder associated with the vaccination. Given that many experts that question the MMR vaccine blame the cumulative effects specifically, would you support a slower, more controlled schedule of individual vaccinations in order to mitigate risks?

43. ‘Beware of any product so dangerous than the government says “you can’t sue the manufacturer even if it kills you” but then that same government turns around and says, “Oh, by the way, you MUST inject your child with this substance, too.”‘
    http://www.naturalnews.com/043210_forced_vaccines_New_York_City_mercury_toxicity.html#ixzz2nGXpAbmt

44. no, it’s not outdated. it is discussing the period in Wakefield got in trouble for reporting potential catastrophic reactions to vaccines with a documented history of severe safety issues. and it is not discussing the CDC or the FDA. it is discussing the British system. And oh, by the way, what makes you think vaccines are free of mercury now?
    Government Investigation Finds Autism Vaccine Related
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_060813_government_investiga.htm
    The autism epidemic cannot be denied. On February 15, 2005, the GAO, released a Report titled, “Special Education Children With Autism,” that revealed the number of children ages 6 through 21 diagnosed with autism receiving special education services has increased more than 500% over the past 10 years.
    In a transcript, obtained under the FOIA, of a secret meeting attended by officials from the FDA and CDC in 2000, Pediatrician Bill Weil, acknowledged the epidemic and stated, “There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem…. The number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before.”
    Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative that was developed in the 1930s by Eli Lilly, and has been used regularly in vaccines ever since basically to boost vaccine maker profits by allowing drug companies to package vaccines in large containers instead of a single dose.
    However, years ago children only received a small number of vaccines that were injected with a period of time in between and one dose at a time. Since 1988, the number of vaccines given to children before the age of two has tripled.
    Lisa Blakemore-Brown, a psychologist in the UK, has been investigating the vaccine-autism link for years and says the reason the epidemic in autism did not occur sooner is because before the 1990s children “were given single vaccines with single amounts of mercury.”
    “But with the introduction of triple vaccines,” she explains, “the amount of mercury contained within the preservative was multiplied and the cumulative effects are only just now being discovered by the public.”
    Once the cumulative amount of thimerosal that children were receiving through injections of 30-some odd vaccines was finally measured in 1999, the FDA discovered that infants were receiving more than 100 times the EPA’s safe limit for mercury by 18 months.
    Internal documents from the FDA and CDC show public health officials knew about the increased mercury they were receiving at least since 1999. A June 29, 1999, email from FDA scientist, Peter Patriarca, to the head of the CDC office on vaccine safety, warned that the FDA was going to be criticized for being “‘asleep at the switch’ for decades by allowing a potentially hazardous compound to remain in many childhood vaccines and not forcing manufacturers to exclude it from new products.”
    Mr Patriarca also pointed out that calculating the cumulative amount of mercury in vaccines was not “rocket science” and involved only ninth-grade math. He also noted the questions that agency officials would likely be asked as:
    “What took the FDA so long to do the calculations? Why didn’t CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?”
    An internal company memo that surfaced in a lawsuit against vaccine maker, Merck, proves the company knew infants were being injected with unsafe amounts of thimerosal back in 1991.
    The memo says a 6-month-old baby receiving shots on schedule would receive mercury 87 times higher than established safety guidelines:
    “If eight doses of Thimerosal-containing vaccine was given in the first six months of life (3 DTP, 2 HIB, and 3 Hepatitis B) the 200 micrograms of mercury given, say to an average size of 12 pounds, would be about 87 times the Swedish daily allowance of 2.3 micrograms for a baby of that size.”
    On September 8, 2004, Dr William Egan, then acting Director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, told the House Government Reform Committee that prior to the mercury reduction initiative in vaccines, children may have received 187.5 micrograms of mercury by 6 month’s of age through routine childhood vaccinations.
    People often ask why some children become autistic when so many do not. As a neurotoxin, thimerosal, has been linked to the depletion of the protective anti-oxidant, glutathione, which helps rid the body of mercury. People with autism seem to be more susceptible to this effect and most have low levels of glutathione. Therefore, their bodies have difficulty excreting mercury.
    A December 2004 report by the independent Environmental Working Group determined that autistic children have less glutathione than normal children. The study, led by Dr Jill James, a professor of biochemistry and pediatrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said a glutathione deficit “may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism.”
    In 1999, many drug companies claimed they were reducing the amount of thimerosal in vaccines. Some even provided product inserts that claimed that only a trace amount of mercury still existed in the final product. Others even claimed to be producing vaccines that were completely mercury-free.
    For instance, a September 1999, press release by vaccine maker Merck declared: “Now, Merck’s infant vaccine line is free of all preservatives.”
    However, On March 8, 2005, the LA Times reported that “Merck & Co continued to supply infant vaccine containing a mercury preservative for two years after declaring that it had eliminated the chemical.”
    In fact, Merck continued to distribute vaccines containing thimerosal until October 2001, according to a June, 2003 letter from the FDA to Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL), a doctor by calling, in response to an inquiry. Dr Weldon called what Merck did “misleading.”
    “You had people literally into 2002,” he told the Times, “getting shots with mercury, having been told it was all taken out in 1999.”
    To see if vaccines were indeed thimerosal free, last year the group, Health Advocacy in the Public Interest (HAPI), sent four vials of different vaccines to be tested for mercury content to Doctor’s Data, an independent lab, which specializes in heavy metal testing.
    The tests found that all four contained mercury, despite the claim by 2 companies that their vaccines were completely mercury-free. According to HAPI, all four vaccines also contained aluminum which greatly increases the toxicity of mercury for causing neuronal death in the brain.
    In fact, during further investigation, HAPI discovered that thimerosal was still being used during the production process for most vaccines. The drug makers claim that after production, they filter the preservative out of the final vaccines.
    Ministers have only themselves to blame for the latest furore
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1469433/Ministers-have-only-themselves-to-blame-for-the-latest-furore.html
    Notably, Dr Salisbury was instrumental in the introduction of the Immravax and Pluserix brands of MMR in this country in 1988. No doubt he was equally reassuring about their safety then. The fact that these vaccines were subsequently withdrawn due to an unacceptably high rate of meningitis does not inspire confidence.
    Alarmingly, Dr Salisbury went on to state in his television interviews, without any medical or scientific basis in fact, that children could safely be given 1,000 vaccines at once. The Times followed up with the headline on Wednesday, “Experts call for six-in-one jabs”. Meanwhile, in a sobering article by Michael Smith of The Daily Telegraph, Professor Simon Wesseley – previously a sceptic on the existence of a Gulf War illness – confirmed to the public inquiry on Gulf War Syndrome that not only were vaccines the culprit, but also that “the more vaccines you received, the more likely you were to suffer ill health”.
    Dr Salisbury’s transparent confusion of fact with personal opinion reflects a failure to grasp that for adverse reactions with combination vaccines, the risk of the whole is likely to be greater than the sum of the parts. This is particularly the case with live viral vaccines where interference between viruses has the potential to alter risk profoundly.
    Also, during his interviews, Dr Salisbury claimed that the shift to mercury-free vaccines was almost irrelevant, as the amount of mercury present was so small as to present no danger. By contrast, one of Dr Salisbury’s American colleagues, Dr Neal Halsey – upon the belated realisation of the true quantity of mercury in many childhood vaccines – was refreshingly honest, if also alarming in his exposure of unacceptable regulatory incompetence. “From the beginning, I saw thimerosal as something different,” he said in 2002. “It was the first strong evidence of a causal association with neurological impairment. I was very concerned.”
    Dr Halsey, who is one of the architects of US vaccine policy, then explained the failure to calculate the total mercury burden to which a baby was exposed as more vaccines were introduced. “My first reaction was simply disbelief, which was the reaction of almost everybody involved in vaccines,” he said. “In most vaccine containers, thimerosal is listed as a mercury derivative, a hundredth of a per cent.
    ***”And what I believed, and what everybody else believed, was that it was truly a trace, a biologically insignificant amount. My honest belief is that if the labels had had the mercury content in micrograms, this would have been uncovered years ago. But the fact is, no one did the calculation.”***
    The next few years are likely to see the introduction of ever greater numbers of vaccines and the possibility of using combination vaccines containing up to 16 different infectious diseases, is already being discussed in the US. In such a fast-changing environment, public confidence in public healthcare policy is crucial. Yet in the eyes of many, the system is fatally flawed.
    There is a widespread perception that this policy is compromised by commercial interests; vaccines are a multi-billion pound business and drug companies, with their powerful political connections, are perceived by many as pursuing vaccine development in the private, and not the public interest.
    Unfortunately there is no way of reassuring the public on this point, since the system of checks and balances that should operate has failed, and the organs of vaccine development, safety, licensing and promotion, are hopelessly intertwined. These functions are separate responsibilities that should never be compromised by fuzzy boundaries, overlapping memberships and close, even financial, relations with the pharmaceutical companies.
    Until this situation is corrected, there is a very grave danger that the Department of Health will succeed in completely destroying the nation’s confidence in the public health system. The consequences of this are likely to be grave. Those of us involved in directly addressing parental concerns and researching possible vaccine adverse reactions are affirmed in our resolve by the often dogmatic, high-handed and alarmingly unscientific response of those in public health, to genuine issues of safety.

45. Interesting tale, but the information is outdated. The mercury containing preservative Thimerosal that was originally implicated is no longer used in the CDC recommended MMR vaccines ( http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228#t1 ). The “indemnity” you refer to is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act which was passed in 1986 specifically to ensure that anyone injured by CDC recommended vaccination was cared for or compensated and that potential hazards of vaccines were documented, reported, and acted upon ( http://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation.aspx ).
    How do you feel about the fact that Doctor Wakefield had patented a measles only vaccination that he intended to market after he discredited MMR with a study of only 12 children whose results were not replicated in the several million other children that were vaccinated?

46. http://youtu.be/8XuuHeGrI4Q?t=3m28s

47. …The two of the three vaccine brands that were introduced in 1988 had to be withdrawn for safety reasons and yet Dr Salisbury in his statement to the GMC sums up by saying this is a vaccine with an exemplary safety record. Well, if that is his idea of an excellent safety record then we have a very different perception he and I of vaccine safety. And so we come full circle now because it turns out the Dean was right. Ari Zuckerman was right. Based upon the information he got, he says (probably from Dr Salisbury way back when these parents started coming to us in 1996/7), that it was the government that was going to be sued.
    I thought it was going to be the drug companies, but it wasn’t. Why was it the government? Because the government had given the drug companies an indemnity against harm and so this is why we are here, this is what this is all about (1:19), this is what this whole GMC affair and effort to descredit doctors questioning the safety of the MMR vaccine has come about because of an indemnity given to the drug companies all those years ago for the introduction of an unsafe vaccine by perhaps just a few members of the department of Health or recommended by the Dept of Health to the Government such that a vaccine (1:53) was introduced and when you ask now, and people have asked, was there an indemnity? is there an indemnity? the answer is catagorically, from David Salisbury, time and time again, there was no indemnity (2:07), no letter of comfort, nothing at all….and yet in the minutes of the JCVI, as late on in this story as 1997, there is an entry there that says (it talks about the various brands of vaccine that are available) SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain without liablity (2:39), there it is, in black and white in their own document.
    I have been every which way around that statement and cannot reconcile it to anything else other than that there was and remains an indemnity, so I am afraid (3:00) that this is really the origins of this whole process and the hope that my colleagues and I be discredited before this information ever becomes public, and in an effort to protect that original decision, that original flawed decision and the consequences that have flowed from it, then we find ourselves in this position, and that is fine but it is not going to stop the truth coming out, and you would think under those circumstances having withdrawn this vaccine (3:37) in Australia, Canada and Japan, and the UK that that would be it, they would get rid of it, because it is not safe, but no (3:46) they go on making it, and what do they do with it, they ship it out to the third world, and there was a mass vaccine campaign in Brazil in the 90’s where they gave the great majority of Brazilian children a revaccination with MMR, during a very short space of time, with the Urabe containing vaccine, which they knew to be dangerous, which produced an epidemic of meningitis (4:16), a huge peak in the numbers of cases, and there was a paper written about it after, and one of the points in the discussion in the paper was perhaps it was not a good idea, in effect, to do mass vaccination campaigns because it produced the true incidence of side effects to a vaccine.
    Well, who wrote that, who in God’s name wrote that? So this is, if you like, the morality of the people we are dealing with. Why is that vax even on the shelf? Why is it being sold at cut rate price to third world countries?
    [Here is a denial classic (see).] I asked you for evidence that demonstrated that deaths were actually caused by the Urabe strain, and you have singularly failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. You have provided media reports, opinions of parents, and decisions of tribunals or courts. These are not evidence of causality that implicates the Urabe vaccine. Nobody would disagree that deaths have been reported after MMR vaccines. But deaths after vaccination are very different from deaths caused by vaccination.
    Dr David Salisbury, director of immunisation, department of health, London 19.03.07 [2007] Parliament was given false MMR assurance
    The person who commissioned Deer was Paul Nuki, Sunday Times’ sometime Head of Newsroom investigations and “Focus” editor. Paul Nuki is son of Professor George Nuki. Professor George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories’ Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval. ……sitting on the CSM with Professor George Nuki was Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Sir David Hull [April 2008] MMR/AUTISM & THE TAMING OF THE BRITISH MEDIA–Clifford Miller
    “Professor McDevitt,…..attended meetings that discussed warnings from other countries about an early form of the triple jab, using the Urabe strain of mumps virus, which caused encephalitis and meningitis. Despite warnings and the fact that this vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, the Urabe-containing jab was introduced in the UK in 1988. Some of the 12 children whose medical history featured in the controversial 1998 Lancet paper, drawn up by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues and which suggested a possible link between the jab and bowel disease and regressive autism, had received the Urabe-strain vaccine – as indeed had some of those children in the high court litigation with manufacturers.” [June 2007 Private Eye] MMR Conflict of Interest Zone
    http://whale.to/a/urabe.html

48. “The affluent and well educated” Stop the vaccinations, get rid of the rabble.

49. “if you really think that we had the ability to create hybrid retroviruses in the 70s before human retroviruses were even discovered in 1981”
    –From my ebook “How To Make An AIDS Virus”
    “An experiment conducted after AIDS was already raging in human populations provides an interesting perspective on the types of viruses and techniques that may have been available to unscrupulous researchers trying to develop such human immunosuppressive viruses from monkey viruses prior to AIDS. In one case published in 1998 a transspecies simian immunodeficiency virus capable of infecting human cells was created by mixing a monkey SIV with a mouse Moloney leukemia virus. The mouse-modified immunosuppressive monkey virus (a pseudotype virus) was found to be capable of targeting human CD4+ cells, the very type of T-cells[64] that the human immunodeficiency virus attacks![65]
    This experiment raises fascinating questions: Were such deadly immunosuppressive monkey viruses available to unscrupulous researchers before they suddenly broke out in human populations causing the AIDS crisis? Could similar modification of such monkey viruses have been the source of human AIDS?
    Indeed, there were simian immunodeficiency viruses available to researchers before AIDS broke out in humans, and indeed researchers were busily modifying these immunosuppressive monkey viruses for human cell growth just prior to the AIDS epidemic! In fact, a monkey immunosuppressive virus was being modified for human cell growth by mixing it with human cancer cells and mouse cancer virus cell cultures—a procedure similar to that described above which rendered the same monkey virus capable of targeting human CD4+ cells.
    For example, while the public is completely ignorant of this fact, simian immunosuppressive viruses such as the Mason Pfizer Monkey virus (one of three types of SIV[66]) were available to researchers as early as 1970—when such a virus was grown in cell cultures.[67] Well before AIDS, the Mason Pfizer Monkey Virus (MPMV) was shown to induce immunodeficiency states in monkeys in the early 1970s[68], [69] as well as the 1980s.[70]
    While this may be startling to some, even more provocative is the fact that cancer researchers were coaxing this immunosuppressive monkey virus to grow in human cells in the late 1970s—just before AIDS broke out in human populations. Just as the SV40 monkey sarcoma virus had been grown in human cancer cells, researchers associated with biological warfare facilities grew the immunosuppressive Mason Pfizer Monkey Virus in human cancer cells. They reported “that a variety of human cells from both primary and continuous cultures established from normal and neoplastic tissues were permissive for MPMV replication.”[71]
    In one of these experiments, MPMV was mixed with SV40—a monkey cancer virus (which had already been injected in humans to cause cancer) and the Rous sarcoma virus in human cell cultures.[72]”
    http://winstonsmith.net/howtomakeanaidsvirus.htm

50. James Randi has been outed by Tim Bolen as a pedophile and part of the hate-group directed at autistic children and their parents, paid by big pharma:
    http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/Doctor%27s-Data-v-Barrett/Who-the-2010-2011-Quackbusters-are.htm

52. The big mistake made by both sides of the argument is in taking a pro or anti stance concerning all vaccinations. Every vaccination needs to be taken seperately for its own specific risk/benefit assesment on an individual bassis. Lumping seasonal flu vaccine together with polio vaccines makes as much sense as lumping aspirin together with morphine.

53. I’ve heard James Randi write that sometimes it’s the smartest people who are easiest to get taken in by claims, or even basic magic tricks. A child or a simpleton knows that they don’t know things and assume that they simply don’t understand the answer. A well educated person is more likely to conclude that they have thoroughly analyzed everything and determined that their is no other explanation outside of their conclusion.
    The worst of all are the faux-educated. They get drunk on a little knowledge and then think themselves all-knowing.
    And Jerry, even if you WERE correct in your baseless assertion. In the choice between polio and cancer I will most certainly take the cancer. As horrible as chemotherapy is, it pales before an iron lung. As for the “Designed HIV” theory, if you really think that we had the ability to create hybrid retroviruses in the 70s before human retroviruses were even discovered in 1981, and then for reasons unknown sicked them on our own people instead of the Russians, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

54. how exactly do you screen a vaccine for diseases that haven’t been discovered yet and take longer to kill than the vaccine trial period?
    The AIDS Epidemic at 25: The Hidden Benefits and Design Behind the Devastation
    http://winstonsmith.net/AIDS_25th_anniversary.htm

55. 100 million people given polio vaccine with cancer virus… no investigation…
    Hilleman et al laugh at injecting SV40 and HIV-tainted cultures in countless millions of vaccine-dupes…