Best Care Methodology for children AND adults

[Journyman16]

There are several threads around on this subject but for some reason they aren't posted in Healthy Living. In light of the Liberal Govt in Australia deciding to penalise any poor people (as in those receiving benefits from official sources) by withholding benefits unless they vaccinate their children, it seems timely to look at the other side of things.

For a start, the recalcitrance of parents in vaccinating is NOT high among the poor; the middle class and upper middle class tend to be the ones not vaccinating, so the Govt policy is a slap at people who aren't really part of the problem. It's not the first nor only attack on the lower levels of society - the billionaires are given a free ride while the poor are attacked and told to tighten their belts.

For many people following the story, this serves as yet more evidence that the upper middle class and the rich are the most likely culprits for vaccine non-compliance.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but there's other evidence this may be true.


Recent vaccination data for kindergartners bolsters the theory: In 2013 the country's poorest state, Mississippi, had the highest rate of measles vaccine compliance at more than 99%. The worst state for measles vaccine compliance was the much wealthier Colorado, where the median household income is about 53% greater than Mississippi.

Overall, among the 48 states and DC that reported 2012–13 school vaccination coverage, median 2-dose MMR vaccination coverage was 94.5% (range: 85.7% in Colorado to ≥99.9% in Mississippi); 20 reported coverage ≥95% (Table 1). Median DTaP vaccination coverage was 95.1% (range: 82.9% in Colorado and Arkansas to ≥99.9% in Mississippi); 25 reported coverage ≥95%. Median 2-dose varicella vaccination coverage among the 36 states and DC requiring and reporting 2 doses was 93.8% (range: 84.6% in Colorado to ≥99.9% in Mississippi); 14 reported coverage ≥95%.

From: Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2012–13 School Year

There is rampant hypocrisy as well - some of the people willing to punish the poor for a non-issue have stated clearly in the past they would not vaccinate their own children - Tony Abbott for example said publicly 10 years ago he would NOT get his daughters to have the HPV vaccine. (but didn't say why)

There are a plethora of accusations going on in the MSM. Parents who have lost a child to whooping cough get vehement in condemnation of those who don't vaccinate, but ignore the fact that in many cases it is NOT the unvaccinated who are spreading the disease and in several location such as the recent Utah outbreak, ONLY the vaccinated have gotten the disease - at least in the early days of it.

So what IS going on?

Recent research (and older research as well) has made it clear there is significant difference between immunity from vaccines and what you get from actually going through the disease. So if we rely on vaccines, every one of them needs to be repeated at 5 year intervals, for the rest of your life! Those who have actually had the diseases are immune for life.

Vaccines are a highly profitable business and corporations are EXTREMELY interested in cutting costs and increasing profits. The swine flu, which actually killed less people around the world than normal flu kills only in the USA per year (please don't respond with the later highly-inflated figures - they are faked) but was promoted as deadly. The presence in a warehouse of millions of doses of Tamiflu that were within a few weeks of going past their Use-By date would seem to have a lot to do with the hype about swine flu.

Doses of flu vaccine sent into Europe were contaminated with the virus.

SV40 (Simian Virus) is is being seen as a primary carcinogen and contaminant in Merck vaccines for years - and they knew about it!

In 2002, the journal Lancet published compelling evidence that contaminated polio vaccine was responsible for up to half of the 55,000 non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases that were occurring each year.

What was it contaminated with?

SV40, a cancer-causing monkey virus. The puzzle began in 1994, when Dr. Michele Carbone, a Loyola University researcher, found the virus SV40, which had never before been detected in humans, in half of the human lung tumors he was studying. Since then, 60 different lab studies have confirmed the results, and SV40 has been found in a variety of human cancers, including lung-, brain-, bone-, and lymphatic cancer.

From: Vaccine Pioneer Doctor Admits Polio Vaccine Caused Cancer
Link also has a video and transcript relevant to the findings.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded multiple vaccination programs that are killing children - 47,500 in 2011 in India, 50 recently in Africa and many more around the world. Claims are also made of sterilisation vaccines being found in the HPV vaccine promoted in poorer nations. There are reports of people in countries where disease is very high actually running away from the vaccination programs being instituted by force.

The poster child for the evil anti-vaccination folk is Dr Wakefield - lambasted in the 90's for daring to suggest vaccines might be related to increasing autism, he and his fellow researcher, Prof. walker-Smith, were stripped of their qualifications. Recently the Supreme Court in the UK cleared his coworker of any wrongdoing and the Judge said:

Judge John Mitting’s conclusion, from an appeal by the highly respected pediatric gastroenterologist Prof. John Walker-Smith, stated:

“…both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed…The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.”

Dr Jayne Donnegan researched her own data from the Office for National Statistics in London because she was attacked by the General Medical Council for professional misconduct. Her crime? She attended a court to give evidence in 2 cases where ex-partners were suing their exes for not wanting to risk their children in vaccinations.

After 3 years of fighting a hostile Council, she was vindicated by their findings:

The Panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants.

You demonstrated to the Panel that your reports did not derive from your deeply held views and your evidence supported this.

You explained to the Panel that your approach in your report was to provide the court with an alternative view based on the material you produced in your references. That material was largely drawn from publications that were in fact in favor of immunisation.

It was clear from your evidence and the evidence of your witness that your aim is to direct parents to sources of information about immunisation and child health safety to help them to make informed choices.

You told us that there are many books by doctors and others in this and other countries who seriously question vaccination and they cite a lot of history, proofs, and medical papers to support their arguments. You did not use any of those publications because you did not think that the GMC would regard those as satisfactory support or references for your recommendations. You largely used what was available in refereed medical journals.

The Panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent, and unbiased.

Accordingly, the Panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Even the idea that vaccines have been responsible for massive changes in the illnesses is flawed badly. Here's the measles data from the 1850's on...

Here's Whooping Cough in the USA and England...

In both cases the incidence of the disease dropped to almost nothing BEFORE the vaccinations were available.

So for diseases such as measles, mumps etc. are vaccines the best way to go? WHO says this...

Yes, there are about 170 000 measles deaths per years world wide (2008 figures), but, as the World Health Organisation (WHO) states:


“The overwhelming majority (more than 95%)of measles deaths occur in countries with low per capita incomes and weak health infrastructures…Most measles deaths are caused by complications associated with the diseases” and


“Severe measles is more likely among poorly nourished young children, especially those with insufficient vitamin A, or whose immune systems have been weakened by HIV/AIDS or other diseases…. As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and lack of adequate health care”1

Now turn that around and you realise children in countries with good health and diet are far less likely to have the 'complications' mentioned.

Another issue is that the standard recommendations for treating fever, which most of the diseases cause, is exactly wrong. The first thing done, by GP's, by Hospitals and recommended on medical sites, is to use paracetamol and ibuprofen, even though WHO and the NHS specifically recommend against it.

“Antipyretic agents should not routinely be used with the sole aim of reducing body temperature in children with fever who are otherwise well”.

They should only be considered:
“in children with fever who appear distressed or unwell.”

They also stress :
“Antipyretic agents do not prevent febrile convulsions and should not be used specifically for this purpose.“

The best treatment for what were once 'childhood' diseases that parents would try to ensure their children got, is fresh air, lots of water and make sure plenty of foods containing vitamin A are eaten, preferably in liquid form. And including such foods in a normal diet is the best way to ensure any infection stays mild and DOESN'T cause 'complications.'

For more info AND references, have a read of Jayne Donegan's website

You can read about her story HERE - there are also interesting links to kickstart your own journey into what is really going on.

 

[Journyman16]

Another recent issue in the vaccination field has to do with autoimmune disease. This is a field only just becoming a hotbed of discussion and controversy. Given the overwhelming pressure from Big Pharma, the MSM and govts, the fact the discussion is ongoing at all is a strong indicator of how serious it is.

What is under discussion is the strength of the link between various vaccines, including measles, MMR, and flu with a wide variety of autoimmune illnesses.

The question of a connection between vaccination and autoimmune illness (or phenomena) is surrounded by controversy. A heated debate is going on regarding the causality between vaccines, such as measles and anti-hepatitis B virus (HBV), and multiple sclerosis (MS). Brain antibodies as well as clinical symptoms have been found in patients vaccinated against those diseases. Other autoimmune illnesses have been associated with vaccinations. Tetanus toxoid, influenza vaccines, polio vaccine, and others, have been related to phenomena ranging from autoantibodies production to full-blown illness (such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA)). Conflicting data exists regarding also the connection between autism and vaccination with measles vaccine.

From: Vaccination and autoimmunity-'vaccinosis': a dangerous liaison? - Abstract

The range of links being found and discussed is both extensive and scary, particularly when you look at recent growth rates for some of them.

Abstract: Infectious agents contribute to the environmental factors involved in the development of autoimmune diseases possibly through molecular mimicry mechanisms. Hence, it is feasible that vaccinations may also contribute to the mosaic of autoimmunity.

Evidence for the association of vaccinations and the development of these diseases is presented in this review.

Infrequently reported post-vaccination autoimmune diseases include:
- systemic lupus erythematosus,
- rheumatoid arthritis,
- inflammatory myopathies,
- multiple sclerosis,
- Guillain-Barré syndrome,
- and vasculitis.

In addition, we will discuss macrophagic myofasciitis, aluminum containing vaccines, and the recent evidence for autoimmunity following human papilloma virus vaccine.

From: Vaccines and Autoimmune Diseases of the Adult

Note that many of the parents' concerns about vaccines have reported allergy reactions. Autoimmune disease can be very similar, except it is aspects of the person that trigger the allergy reactions.

If you'd like a bit of a laugh, in recent times there is suggestion of a vaccine to prevent autoimmune disease... :D Specifically at present they are looking at Chrohn's and rheumatoid arthritis... One wonders if they'll need a vaccine to work against the vaccine that works against autoimmunes?

The problem is not even so much the damage that vaccines might cause because of autoimmune responses post-vaccination, it is what it can do to those who already have autoimmune issues. And nobody is testing for such issues prior to vaccination. And given the eagerness to vaccinate prenatal and early post-natal it is also a concern of what we might be setting up a child's life for. After all, their immune systems are not fully developed at the time we are pumping such things into their blood.

One estimate is a vaccination program in the USA would expose 80 million people to new or increased autoimmune response.

One of the links being investigated is that of aluminium (aluminum in the US) that is used as an adjuvant in a number of vaccines. It is widely used and has been for decades. CDC says is present in U.S. childhood vaccines that prevent hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP, Tdap) Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), human papillomavirus (HPV) and pneumococcus infection.

Another factor influencing autoimmune reactions is to do with the health of the immune system prior to vaccination - given the 'modern' diet of processed and chemically contaminated foods, there isn't any wonder we have a large scale increase of illnesses across a range of areas.

Thinking back to the previous post, how likely do you think it might be that the recent outbreaks of diseases thought safely contained might be contributed to, not by the few unvaccinated, but the widespread degradation of food quality and content? For example, we have known for decades that cancers feed on sugar, but the amount of sugar consumed by the average person has gone through the roof since the mid-1900's - so has the cancer rate.

 

[SixBuckets]

I really don't think advising people against vaccination falls within the 'harm reduction' scope of this site.

 

[Journyman16]

LOL - so we ignore all the evidence that says we are being lied to and rely on the people making billions to tell us what is good for us? It's been a LOOONG time since I trusted what the TV tells me. Even longer since I believed a politician, banker or lawyer.

But hey, that's OK, we can just be quiet because we are told what is good for us so we don't actually have to find out for ourselves. :D

And you might note, I didn't actually advise anyone against vaccines, I just presented solid information about issues around the subject. Unlike the billionaires I don't have any stake in telling people what to do.

Except maybe... THINK! :D

 

[Journyman16]

From a study in 1992 in New Zealand as well as a more recent German study, it seems vaccinated children are generally less healthy than the unvaccinated.

These figures are a comparison between the general KIGGS study throughout Germany and a study of 8000+ unvaccinated children.

There seems to be a much lower incidence also of other factors common in our society...

He went on to say that the results demonstrated that the prevalence of many conditions in the unvaccinated children were also significantly lower. These were:

“Other disorders and diseases


As we included open questions in our survey we evaluated the prevalence (of the first 10,070 participants) of some other disorders and illnesses. Unvaccinated children show very low prevalences of the following disorders:


Dyslexia: 0.21%
Speech delay/articulation problems: 0.38%
Sensory Processing disorder: 0.28%
Anxiety: 0.25%
Depression: 0.12%
Bedwetting: 0.12%
Celiac disease: 0.12%
Gluten sensitivity: 0.41%
GERD (Gastroesophageal reflux disease): 0.06%”

Unfortunately I haven't yet found figures for vaccinated kids for these.

Note that these studies are not proving a direct cause & effect between vaccines and illness, but are strongly indicative that something about vaccinations may be altering the ability of children to resist other problems. For example 92% of children in the study that required tonsillectomy were vaccinated for measles.

What results like this DO make very clear is the Science is NOT conclusive and there is a lot more work to be done before we can simply accept the commands from Govts that vaccines are mandatory. Particularly when we look at track records of most govts with respect to how they treat the general population.

Do we REALLY want to just let the money and power-hungry psychopaths have full control over what goes into our bodies? We already know they have little compunction in using toxic chemicals in vaccines and have only desisted because people got up in arms about it. I think we have a right to demand full investigation and a clean up of an industry that has a track record of lying and cutting corners as well as killing people for profit.

http://www.vaccineinjury.info/images/stories/ias1992study.pdf
http://journal.livingfood.us/2011/1...ses-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Yay, more misinformation from JM16. Your links don't work, and you don't cite where you pulled your 'Survey of unvaccinated children" from. Also, using the KIGGS study in such a manner is disingenuous (i.e. trying to lend your misinformation some level of integrity). If that survey is the one from 1992 in New Zealand then you are not only comparing two totally different groups of people, but also completely different generations.

None of the illnesses being compared have ever been linked to vaccinations. On the contrary,

Vaccination helps children with asthma or allergic disease by reducing their likelihood of
getting a serious infection which could worsen their asthma or allergy symptoms.

http://www.ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/fact-sheets/vaccines-asthma-allergies-fact-sheet.pdf

Here is a quick factsheet from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. What to believe, a person who believes every conspiracy he reads, or the fact that millions, if not billions of potential complications have been avoided through vaccinations. Please people listen to the medical professionals that have spent their lives studying and understanding vaccinations, and not some guy who can't even cite or link properly.

JM16 you are not capable of honest debate since you have repeatedly resorted to lies and misinformation (all documented on this lovely forum, most in CEP). You have also repeatedly cited conspiracy blogs when asked to back up your misinformation. .

Since you are incapable of honest debate, I challenge you to find a single country where vaccinations are not encouraged by the leading medical professionals. Moreover, it would be great if you could provide a link to those power hungry, psychopathic politicians, bankers, and lawyers who so desperately want to immunize everyone.

 

[Journyman16]

LOL - actually, as anyone can see, I DID link to places where people can find the info and most of them have further links to original data. The NCRIS piece is PR - there is no actual data in it and you need to know how to research academically to find the papers.

But that's by-the-way. Nobody is denying there are thousands of papers out there extolling the wonders and virtues of jabbing your kids 25 or so times before they are 2yo - think about that... it's an average of once every 2 weeks parents are required to subject their children to attacks on an undeveloped immune system. Common sense alone would suggest they should vaccinate the breast-feeding woman instead and let HER immune system produce and pass along the antibodies.

For others, the above post is fairly typical of what happens should you dare to even hint the establishment dogma might have a few bumps in it. The issues are not addressed and instead it becomes personal. We see it in the sites & papers with parents who have lost a child writing abusive and nasty pieces about those who don't vaccinate their children.

Which leads to some questions that require answers, and I ask readers to actually think about these for themselves...

1. Those parents who are attacking the non-vax folk... Did they vaccinate their child? If not, how dare they attack others? If they DID, why are they NOT attacking the Doctors and media who convinced them their child would be safe with vaccinations?

2. The 'don't bring your unvaccinated child near mine' meme that is being pumped through the media... Why? If vaccinations are so beneficial and protective, what possible harm could an unvaccinated child cause to a fully vaccinated one?

3. If vaccinations work so well, why are we seeing outbreaks among the vaccinated? The recent Utah measles one, at least for the first few weeks (only because I have yet to see more recent data) was ONLY among those vaccinated. How is that possible if vaccines are all we are programmed to believe?

4. Why is Bill Gates not on charges for paralysing and killing children in India (over 47,000 affected with 8% deaths) by paying for a vaccine banned in most western countries because it causes NPAFP (Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis) - and it may yet happen. There are reports the High Court in India is looking into charging the BMGF and the corporations they paid to deliver the vaccine.

And it is extremely difficult to believe this was an innocent mistake - the oral vaccine was taken out of the game more than a decade back - you have to wonder where they even GOT the vaccine, let alone how they could not have known the dangers.

It makes interesting Bill Gates' statements on TED and other places that we can reduce the population with vaccines, don't you think? And India is not the only place where their vaccination programs are suspect - Africa has a list as well.

5. If vaccines are so safe, why have govts passed laws preventing any victims suing the corporations? Like Monsanto's protection by the US Govt, the producers of these supposedly perfectly safe vaccines are exempt from being held to account for injury and death caused by their products.

6. And it's a biggie, mentioned above... why is it almost every disease we vaccinate against was vastly reduced in scope BEFORE the vaccines came along? Given in almost every case the slope of the graph levels out after the vaccine comes along, do you think it's possible the vaccine SLOWED the reduction of cases being caused by something else? (such as better hygiene, better diets, better health care etc?)

And there is a side issue to this - how come so many of the graphs from the CDC and other pro-vaccine sites show a massive drop in cases in the year or so after the vaccine came along - are we REALLY expected to believe there was such a change in such a short time? Normal response would show a steadily decreasing number of cases over the next maybe decade as the vaccination programs spread and immunised more people.

But of course it is far more dramatic (& easier to show the masses) with stats that show a crash immediately on vaccination programs, even if it ISN'T believable once you think it through.

7. And a general question - if vaccines are so good for us, if the data is so unequivocal, why do those suggesting there are problems get attacked and vilified? Surely an open debate with all the data on the table would simply prove the pro-vax case? Why would a doctor get charged with professional misconduct for merely showing vaccines aren't the golden healing touch they are portrayed as? How could she possibly have constructed the evidence for her case from the PRO-Vaccine literature if it is all sunshine and rainbows?

In Australia we have Tony Abbott's Govt proclaiming they are going to punish anyone on benefits if they do not vaccinate according to the imposed schedule. But Abbott refused, about 8 years back, to get his daughters vaccinated with HPV, a vaccine trumpeted as a modern miracle for women and as a prevention to cervical cancers. So why would someone who will not vaccinate his daughters demand everyone else has to do their kids... or else?

 

[Journyman16]

CORRECTION: For some reason the site will not let me edit the above post - in question #3, Utah had a whooping cough outbreak only in the vaccinated, not measles. :D too much enthusiasm on my part... :D

 

[Journyman16]

I thought I would provide an example of how we are being bamboozled - this is from the NCIRS link given above by SF... 1st paragraph...

Asthma and allergic disease rates have increased dramatically in the last few decades. The exact reasons for this increase remain unknown.

Some media reports, anecdotal evidence and uncontrolled observational studies have suggested that this increase may be due to vaccines stimulating changes in the immune system which may affect the development of chronic allergic and autoimmune conditions. However, this hypothesis doesn’t hold up when it comes to vaccine-preventable diseases.

Moreover, several large-scale, well-controlled epidemiological studies have concluded that there is no evidence that vaccines cause allergic disease.

Vaccination of persons with asthma and most allergies is very important in order to reduce their likelihood of getting a serious infection which could worsen their existing condition

Bold & Italic is mine.

So, point 1. Exactly as mentioned earlier, asthma and allergies are acknowledged to have increased markedly. And THEY DON"T KNOW WHY!

Of course, anyone suggesting it might be vaccines gets dismissed as "media reports, anecdotal evidence and uncontrolled observational studies" so clearly we don't have to listen to anyone not touting the official story.

The rest of that paragraph SOUNDS like it makes sense but it doesn't. On the one hand the 'dismissed' evidence is suggesting vaccines may be triggering autoimmune and other allergic responses, but the counter argument says this doesn't apply to vaccine-preventable disease - about as non sequitur as it gets.

NOBODY was suggesting vaccines are triggering some kind of immune problem that produces vaccine-preventable disease - although paradoxically, the official literature and papers definitely prove they do, but in terms of the autoimmine, asthma and allergy situation, that is not mentioned by anyone except the NCIRS. So this is pure red herring. They are trying to imply the vaccine causation for asthma, allergy and autoimmune problems is not true because it doesn't apply to vaccine-preventable disease.

They then follow with another non sequitur, that it is important for people with allergies and asthma to get vaccinated. But that is NOT what is being discussed. The topic is vaccines CAUSING allergies and asthma.

But most people, reading that first paragraph, would find it quite reasonable and positive for the vaccination mandate being proclaimed around the world.

 

[SixBuckets]

But that's by-the-way. Nobody is denying there are thousands of papers out there extolling the wonders and virtues of jabbing your kids 25 or so times before they are 2yo - think about that... it's an average of once every 2 weeks parents are required to subject their children to attacks on an undeveloped immune system. Common sense alone would suggest they should vaccinate the breast-feeding woman instead and let HER immune system produce and pass along the antibodies.

Kids would still need to be vaccinated when they stopped breastfeeding. Your proposal is not how breastfeeding or immunisation works.

1. Those parents who are attacking the non-vax folk... Did they vaccinate their child? If not, how dare they attack others? If they DID, why are they NOT attacking the Doctors and media who convinced them their child would be safe with vaccinations?

2. The 'don't bring your unvaccinated child near mine' meme that is being pumped through the media... Why? If vaccinations are so beneficial and protective, what possible harm could an unvaccinated child cause to a fully vaccinated one?

Also not how immunisation works.

5. If vaccines are so safe, why have govts passed laws preventing any victims suing the corporations? Like Monsanto's protection by the US Govt, the producers of these supposedly perfectly safe vaccines are exempt from being held to account for injury and death caused by their products.

These laws are in place for a lot (the majority? not sure) of pharmaceuticals. Your problem is not with vaccinations, it is with medical corporations.

And there is a side issue to this - how come so many of the graphs from the CDC and other pro-vaccine sites show a massive drop in cases in the year or so after the vaccine came along - are we REALLY expected to believe there was such a change in such a short time? Normal response would show a steadily decreasing number of cases over the next maybe decade as the vaccination programs spread and immunised more people.

No. You are again misunderstanding how vaccination programs work. A significant drop in new cases immediately after the roll out of a childhood program is exactly what one would expect to see if the vaccine was effective.

In Australia we have Tony Abbott's Govt proclaiming they are going to punish anyone on benefits if they do not vaccinate according to the imposed schedule. But Abbott refused, about 8 years back, to get his daughters vaccinated with HPV, a vaccine trumpeted as a modern miracle for women and as a prevention to cervical cancers. So why would someone who will not vaccinate his daughters demand everyone else has to do their kids... or else?

I don't think holding Tony Abbott up as an example is a very good idea for any movement.

 

[SixBuckets]

I thought I would provide an example of how we are being bamboozled - this is from the NCIRS link given above by SF... 1st paragraph...
Bold & Italic is mine.

So, point 1. Exactly as mentioned earlier, asthma and allergies are acknowledged to have increased markedly. And THEY DON"T KNOW WHY!

Of course, anyone suggesting it might be vaccines gets dismissed as "media reports, anecdotal evidence and uncontrolled observational studies" so clearly we don't have to listen to anyone not touting the official story.

The rest of that paragraph SOUNDS like it makes sense but it doesn't. On the one hand the 'dismissed' evidence is suggesting vaccines may be triggering autoimmune and other allergic responses, but the counter argument says this doesn't apply to vaccine-preventable disease - about as non sequitur as it gets.

NOBODY was suggesting vaccines are triggering some kind of immune problem that produces vaccine-preventable disease - although paradoxically, the official literature and papers definitely prove they do, but in terms of the autoimmine, asthma and allergy situation, that is not mentioned by anyone except the NCIRS. So this is pure red herring. They are trying to imply the vaccine causation for asthma, allergy and autoimmune problems is not true because it doesn't apply to vaccine-preventable disease.

They then follow with another non sequitur, that it is important for people with allergies and asthma to get vaccinated. But that is NOT what is being discussed. The topic is vaccines CAUSING allergies and asthma.

But most people, reading that first paragraph, would find it quite reasonable and positive for the vaccination mandate being proclaimed around the world.

I'm always glad of an opportunity to use this link: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3030529...-graphs-prove-that-correlation-isnt-causation

 

[Journyman16]

LOL... maybe margarine decreases sex drive leading to divorce?

Miss America's spend more time in steam rooms trying to lose that extra pound and so the death rate goes up? (the older the Miss America the harder it is to drop the extra. :D)

I can imagine lots of people want to kill themselves after a Nicholas Cage movie - and if you have a swimming pool... :D

But correlation doesn't DISPROVE causation either. Have a look at the links at the start of the thread. They aren't about correlation.

 

[Journyman16]

Kids would still need to be vaccinated when they stopped breastfeeding. Your proposal is not how breastfeeding or immunisation works.
Also not how immunisation works.
No. You are again misunderstanding how vaccination programs work. A significant drop in new cases immediately after the roll out of a childhood program is exactly what one would expect to see if the vaccine was effective.

I'd be curious as to just how you think immunisation DOES work.

These laws are in place for a lot (the majority? not sure) of pharmaceuticals. Your problem is not with vaccinations, it is with medical corporations.

No, the law is very specifically for vaccines. If I take headache tablets and they cause damage i am quite free to take Bayer to court. In the USA you cannot do that for vaccines.

I don't think holding Tony Abbott up as an example is a very good idea for any movement.

Oh, very true, but this is the guy who is going to punish anyone else who might decide to act as he did.

One has to wonder why?

One also has to wonder why it is the poor being targetted by this - the CDC has some interesting data...

Unvaccinated children, according to a 2004 analysis of CDC data, are more likely than undervaccinated children to be white and to live in households with an income of $75,000 or more — like my child. Their mothers are more likely to be, like me, married and college-educated. Undervaccinated children, meaning children who have received some but not all of their recommended immunizations, are more likely to be black, to have younger, unmarried mothers, and to live in poverty.

And children unvaccinated or under-vaccinated tend to be healthier. So the evidence is stacking up, even if the spin sounds like it is backing the pro-vax side of things. (have a read of the study and compare findings to eventual conclusions - they don't match)

Rates of health care utilization differed between the cohort study arms (Table 4). Undervaccinated children had lower outpatient visit rates than children who were vaccinated on time (IRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.89-0.90). Undervaccinated children also had lower rates of well-child visits and encounters for specific minor acute illnesses in the outpatient setting.

Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED and outpatient settings—both overall and for specific acute illnesses—than children who were vaccinated on time

From: Study on Undervaccination

 

[Journyman16]

In a paper done using the VAERS data from the USA, there is a fascinating result shown. Note this is 20 years of data from 1990 - 2010. Also note that it is highly likely this is around 1% - several sources suggest VAERS cases suffer from severe under-reporting.

VAERS is recognized to contain only a small percentage of all adverse vaccination events.

As GS Goldman and NZ Miller point out,[A] confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fifty-fold under-reporting of adverse events’’ is likely. According to David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, ‘‘only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.

The paper using VAERS data begins with a paragraph...

Linear regression analysis of hospitalization rates as a function of (a) the number of reported vaccine doses and (b) patient age yielded a linear relationship with r 2 = 0.91 and r 2 = 0.95, respectively (Figures 3 and 4).
The hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% (107 of 969) for 2 doses to 23.5% (661 of 2817) for 8 doses (Table 2), and decreased linearly from 20.1% (154 of 765) for children aged <0.1 year to 10.7% (86 of 801) for children aged 0.9 year (Table 3).

The graphs showing this are below, but what is being said is, the OLDER the child is when vaccinated, the less times it is likely they need outpatient or Emergency visits. This fits in with what I have said earlier and Science that was done back in the late 70's or early 80's - very young children have undeveloped immune systems so vaccines are contraindicated. Back then it was used as a platform to encourage mothers to breast feed for longer so they protected their babies until the immune systems were working properly.

And the more jabs given the more likely it is they have to go to hospital. This shows distinct Causation :D between vaccines and illness. Add it to the earlier evidence about the undervaccinated and we have a pretty clear picture - the EARLIER you vaccinate and the MORE vaccines you give your child, the more likely it is they will have to go to hospital for a wide variety of reasons.

It is also likely (see above posts) that they will develop autoimmune issues, asthma and allergy problems as a direct result of the vaccines, probably, IMV from what I have learned, due to ravaging the undeveloped immune systems with 25 invasions of rather nasty chemicals and virus parts.



Here's that linear relationship between the number of vaccines given versus how many times they had to go to hospital.

And here is the relationship between Age and how often they have to go to hospital.

From: Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age

Interesting, don't you think? :D

 

[SixBuckets]

LOL... maybe margarine decreases sex drive leading to divorce?

Miss America's spend more time in steam rooms trying to lose that extra pound and so the death rate goes up? (the older the Miss America the harder it is to drop the extra. :D)

I can imagine lots of people want to kill themselves after a Nicholas Cage movie - and if you have a swimming pool... :D

It's a good link, isn't it?

No, the law is very specifically for vaccines. If I take headache tablets and they cause damage i am quite free to take Bayer to court. In the USA you cannot do that for vaccines.

Hrmmm... I don't think I can really comment on that, as I'm not in the US. I know that in Australia, I am unable to sue for damages caused by any of the medications I take, unless there is evidence that the corporation concealed data or mislead the consumer.

And children unvaccinated or under-vaccinated tend to be healthier. So the evidence is stacking up, even if the spin sounds like it is backing the pro-vax side of things. (have a read of the study and compare findings to eventual conclusions - they don't match)

My understanding is that vaccination rates are kinda a bell curve - most people are vaccinating their kids, but the people who aren't tend to be either wealthy or very poor. I'd have to see methodology of an assessment to ensure they were controlling for socioeconomic class of parents before reaching a conclusion like "unvaccinated kids are healthier".

And the more jabs given the more likely it is they have to go to hospital. This shows distinct Causation :D between vaccines and illness. Add it to the earlier evidence about the undervaccinated and we have a pretty clear picture - the EARLIER you vaccinate and the MORE vaccines you give your child, the more likely it is they will have to go to hospital for a wide variety of reasons.

No, I'm afraid that's still correlation. I run into this a lot on these boards - causative links are actually pretty difficult and complicated to demonstrate with population level statistics. You would need to control for a huge range of variables before you could conclusively say that it was the vaccines (and specifically the total number of vaccine injections) that directly caused hospital admissions.

Interesting, don't you think?

I do think it's interesting! I just don't think it points to the conclusion that you've reached.

 

[Journyman16]

I don't think I agree we need to know socioeconomic backgrounds to demonstrate that vaccinated kids are going to the hospital more often than unvaccinated or under-vaccinated. And other links in posts above show that poorer people are more likely to vaccinate. There exists a possibility that alternative methods of medical assistance keep kids healthier - there was some confusion around the differences between un/under vaccinated from parents who CHOOSE not to vaccinate and those where they were un/under for other reasons. Maybe the parent who choose against vaccination spend more time/money on good diet, or are more conscious of good health practices. (such as NOT dettol'ing everything in sight because you kid touched dirt. :D)

Linear relationships tend to be causative. The graph above and the data behind it suggest very strongly that the more jabs, the more visits. Sometimes correlation IS due to causation. Keep in mind the data comes from the VAERS database, not from surveys or anecdotal references. These are reported outcomes, and only those where the vaccination history is known.

And as far as I know, the only conclusion I have reached is there is a lot we are not being told about vaccines, their dangers and even their REAL efficacy, and it seems to all point to making lotsa money for the rich. I think the estimate the other day was $59 billion for Big Pharma. Add to that the efforts going into covering up the actual damage being done to children and people and we have a situation where people should be getting hauled into court on felony charges.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Study of more than 95,000 kids finds no link between MMR vaccine and autism

Surprise, surprise. Look who couldn't be bothered to answer two very simple questions, and instead reacted with his typical pseudo-science spam. This is why honest debate with JM16 is impossible. Did I call it or what? :D

Since you are incapable of honest debate, I challenge you to find a single country where vaccinations are not encouraged by the leading medical professionals. Moreover, it would be great if you could provide a link to those power hungry, psychopathic politicians, bankers, and lawyers who so desperately want to immunize everyone.

Here is the abstract of a new study with 95,000 children published yesterday (with a link to the full study):

Importance: Despite research showing no link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), beliefs that the vaccine causes autism persist, leading to lower vaccination levels. Parents who already have a child with ASD may be especially wary of vaccinations.

Objective: To report ASD occurrence by MMR vaccine status in a large sample of US children who have older siblings with and without ASD.

Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study using an administrative claims database associated with a large commercial health plan. Participants included children continuously enrolled in the health plan from birth to at least 5 years of age during 2001-2012 who also had an older sibling continuously enrolled for at least 6 months between 1997 and 2012.

Exposures: MMR vaccine receipt (0, 1, 2 doses) between birth and 5 years of age.

Main Outcomes and Measures: ASD status defined as 2 claims with a diagnosis code in any position for autistic disorder or other specified pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) including Asperger syndrome, or unspecified PDD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification 299.0x, 299.8x, 299.9x).

Results: Of 95 727 children with older siblings, 994 (1.04% ) were diagnosed with ASD and 1929 (2.01% ) had an older sibling with ASD. Of those with older siblings with ASD, 134 (6.9% ) had ASD, vs 860 (0.9% ) children with unaffected siblings (P < .001). MMR vaccination rates (≥1 dose) were 84% (n = 78 564) at age 2 years and 92% (n = 86 063) at age 5 years for children with unaffected older siblings, vs 73% (n = 1409) at age 2 years and 86% (n = 1660) at age 5 years for children with affected siblings. MMR vaccine receipt was not associated with an increased risk of ASD at any age. For children with older siblings with ASD, at age 2, the adjusted relative risk (RR) of ASD for 1 dose of MMR vaccine vs no vaccine was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.49-1.18; P = .22), and at age 5, the RR of ASD for 2 doses compared with no vaccine was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.31-1.01; P = .052). For children whose older siblings did not have ASD, at age 2, the adjusted RR of ASD for 1 dose was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .50) and at age 5, the RR of ASD for 2 doses was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.78-1.59; P = .55).

Conclusions and Relevance: In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444

Wow look, a real study. Like a breath of fresh air after so much misinformational spam.

Btw JM16, if you take a headache tablet from Bayer and suffer damage you are free to take them to court, but if the damages incurred are listed among the possible side effects then you are shit out of luck. The same goes for vaccines. You can take the company to court, but in nearly every case the damage is covered by the potential side effects disclaimer.

The vast majority of people that have complications from vaccines are due to inaction. High fever and subsequent seizures are what tend to cause the most lasting harm. This fever is usually caused by the vaccine adjuvant (a protein used to activate the immune system leading to a much longer lasting vaccination). A simple paracetamol suppository is usually all that is needed to drop the fever. Monitoring by the parents is important because if the fever doesn't drop or raises too high the chance for a febrile seizure rises (while remaining very low). With proper monitoring extremely strong reactions can be identified and treated before further complications occur.

JM16, in other threads about global warming you say that other pollutants are far more dangerous than CO2. I disagree with you as to the degree of danger, but there are many pollutants which are very dangerous (i.e. heavy metals and endocrine disruptors). Wouldn't the rise in various illnesses be better explained by developed nations polluting more than in the past, while having the dirtiest of polluters located around the equator allowing for natural water cycles to effectively disperse said pollutants all the way to the poles? Vaccines are rigorously tested for safety and efficacy. I think the much larger unknown is what is in our air, food, and water that was not there 20 years ago.

I think a little unethical experiment using members of the anti-vaccine crowd and other vaccinated volunteers would have you changing your mind very quickly.

 

[Journyman16]

And thus we see the manifestation of the need for attention. :D

You need to research more and rely less on rhetoric. In the US you CANNOT take the vaccine producers to court - it's the law.

The vast majority of people that have complications from vaccines are due to inaction.

This is just so much verbal diarrhea - not only unsupported but meaningless.

Wouldn't the rise in various illnesses be better explained by developed nations polluting more than in the past, while having the dirtiest of polluters located around the equator allowing for natural water cycles to effectively disperse said pollutants all the way to the poles

Perhaps some more research here by you as to the CAUSES of vaccine-treated diseases? Them there virus thingys and bacteria... That might be a good place to start. :D

Vaccines are rigorously tested for safety and efficacy.

Yeah... but no, they are NOT. That's part of the problem. More reading I think, for you. The Big Pharmas are increasingly being shown to have not tested, concealed negative results and to misrepresent the levels of efficacy. Look for the FOI from the CDC - took 8 years but proves the CDC knew since the late 90's the Mumps part of the MMR wasn't giving protection. Nothing was said and nothing done and that vaccine is STILL being used.

Here's some pics for you... :D

Surprise, surprise, thimerosal STILL being used in a vaccine commonly distributed.

Ooh, look... no controlled trials that show this works... and it's on the info sheet that Doctors don't normally show patients. Why would they administer something that has not shown any benefits? Could it be they are simply doing as they are told?

Now, for your benefit SF, what the highlighted sentence means is they are selling this product based on the fact it produces an antibody, NOT because it reduces flu incidence. There are virtually no studies around to connect the presence of an antibody with effective immunisation - it's one of the things needs to be done to find out why we get lifetime immunity from having the disease but only maybe a 5 years immunity (if it can be called that, given how many vaccinated people are getting ill) from vaccines.

Clearly the body immune response is substantially more than simple production of one antibody. But we aren't likely to find out how until we break the Govt/Big Pharma/MSM stranglehold on our health.

It really isn't hard to find this stuff, although I will grant you it is slightly more difficult than locating the many writings full of adulation and gratuitous praise for jabbing your kids with a whole lot of unknowns. There are billions of dollars at stake, coming from OUR pockets through govt theft - they are NOT going to let that go simply because some honest scientists point out the Inconvenient Truths... :D

 

[SixBuckets]

There are virtually no studies around to connect the presence of an antibody with effective immunisation - it's one of the things needs to be done to find out why we get lifetime immunity from having the disease but only maybe a 5 years immunity (if it can be called that, given how many vaccinated people are getting ill) from vaccines.

This is an anti-vaxxer myth. It's perfectly possible for people to get viral infections more than once, just as it's possible for people who've been vaccinated to get the infection.

For example, I've had chicken pox twice.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

For anyone interested in some non-biased information regarding vaccine adjuvants here is a link.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312338/

It is a bit harder to read for people not into natural sciences, but it offers some insight into how much work medical professionals are going through in order to best protect the average person. It also shines light on JM16's lie that

There are virtually no studies around to connect the presence of an antibody with effective immunisation -

Do you even know how the immune system works?! Antibodies are one of the keystones to how our adaptive immune system works. There have been countless studies covering the antigen/antibody work mechanisms. We even understand the inner and outer molecular workings of the cell when such reactions occur. We know of dozens of CDs involved, the two major MHC pathways involved, etc, etc... I'm not going to teach you beginner molecular biology. This is where you should go read a real book as opposed to conspiracy web sites.

Here is something that you might be able to comprehend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_immune_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHC_class_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHC_class_II

Please educate yourself before claiming there are no studies connecting antibodies with immune response. It is a complete falsehood and a really embarrassing statement.


Moreover, controlled trials for a specific version of a flu vaccine would be a waste of money because by the time the trial would be finished the next version would already be on the market. This is once again due to the quick evolution of the coating proteins on the influenza virus.

So, since such a study is not feasible the CDC is doing their own analysis together with medical scientists across the country.

A link to vaccine effectiveness and why risk groups should be vaccinated:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

Here is another link to seasonal vaccine effectiveness from 2005-2015:

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

You are again being very disingenuous by lumping all vaccines together. The flu vaccine is meant for a completely different role when compared to childhood vaccinations. While impossible to perfect, the flu vaccine is still very useful in reducing the number of potential complications that can arise from the influenza vaccine. Moreover, the companies producing these vaccines are being very transparent by giving out pretty much any desired information related to their vaccines.

Keep trying to spin your bullshit by cherry picking sentences from labels which were designed to inform when in fact such a controlled study is not even realistically possible. I am not a huge fan of the pharma industry, but if they were a transparent material (which they aren't) you would be lead. I've never seen someone so hell bent on spreading misinformation.