Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

Note #1: I found these articles while researching vaccines for other reasons for other future threads, but thought these articles provided good general information regarding the many and varied issues educated medical professionals have with current vaccine protocols.

Note #2: The above is the title of the article -- not my title. I would have used the word "questioning" instead of "against," since most of the doctors cited are not against all vaccines under all circumstances, but rather question something about some vaccines or vaccine protocols in general. Much like me. But here is how the article introduces these doctors:

There are some doctors that choose to do the research themselves in order to develop an informed opinion on the subject. These doctors who become knowledgeable about vaccines usually become anti-vaccine. A little knowledge goes a long way.

(Again, many of the doctors cited do not themselves claim to be "anti-vaccine," but do have serious concerns. This extreme positioning -- in my seldom humble opinion -- is much of the problem with the current national dialogue. It should not be presented as an either/or situation.)

Many doctors are simply concerned about the current schedule, with too many vaccines given too soon, or too many vaccines given at the same time, such as Dr. Jay Gordon:

I stopped some vaccines. I delayed others. No, I am not ‘anti-vaccination.’ I am aware of the public health implications of completely abandoning our current vaccine schedule, and I certainly don’t advocate that. What I really want is an honest discussion of the risks and benefits of each vaccine and combinations of vaccines for your child.

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a Board Certified Neurosurgeon, and he is concerned about the long-term effects on the brain:

It seems the brain is always neglected when pharmacologists consider side effects of various drugs. The same is true for vaccinations. For a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain. This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown that immune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain’s own special immune system can be activated by vaccination.... [snip]... The problem with our present vaccine policy is that so many vaccines are being given so close together and over such a long period that the brain’s immune system is constantly activated... [snip]... Normally, the brain’s immune system, like the body’s, activates quickly and then promptly shuts off to minimize the bystander damage. Vaccination won’t let the microglia shut down. In the developing brain, this can lead to language problems, behavioral dysfunction, and even dementia. In the adult, it can lead to the Gulf War Syndrome or one of the more common neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s dementia, or Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS).

Dr. Suzanne Humphries questions the lack of transparency by our government regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines:

I do not consider it my place to tell anyone whether to vaccinate or not. It is my place to understand as much as I can about vaccines and give people a more complete understanding from which to make their choices. This has never been a priority to the public health services. In fact there is ample documentation that the priority was quite the opposite, and actually to quell ‘any possible doubts, whether well founded or not’ regarding vaccines.

She goes on to quote the Federal Register of June 1, 1984:

...any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives.

She also points out that "paucity" of the so-called "gold standard" of clinical studies, double-blind placebo studies:

There is a paucity of studies comparing never vaccinated children, with partially or fully vaccinated children. In terms of safety studies, a major issue is that most vaccine studies use another vaccine as the control placebo, or use the background substance of the vaccine. There is only one recent study (Cowling 2012) where a true saline placebo was used, rather than another vaccine or the carrier fluid containing everything except the main antigen. That study showed no difference in influenza viral infection between groups but astonishingly it revealed a 5-6 times higher rate of non-influenza viral infections in the vaccinated. It is no small wonder more true placebos are not used in vaccine research.

Many doctors point out that the decrease in life-threatening diseases began prior to widespread vaccination, due to greater nutritional health and awareness -- NOT vaccinations. Other doctors find a link between not just autism and vaccinations, but also SIDS and vaccinations, Shaken Baby Syndrome and vaccinations, allergies and vaccinations, and just a general decline in health of vaccinated children with unvaccination children. Some doctors question the timing of specific vaccinations, such as those who suggest that boys -- and especially African-American boys -- vaccinated before 36 months are more likely to develop autism than if vaccinated after 36 months. (Perhaps we should consider this as we wonder why our young men are growing up to be murderers...)

A couple follow-up articles:

More Doctors Against Vaccines
Scientists Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

I post this for informational purposes only; specifically, that the vaccination debate isn't as black and white as it's being made out to be and there are many factors to be considered. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and in an honest discussion, we could and would consider ways to tweak the program for better overall health. I don't pretend to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... I know enough to know that I cannot, and therefore do not, have all the answers. Differing perspectives are, of course, welcome. We cannot "deny ignorance" if we refuse to look at any and all sides of any issue.

The only definitive stand I will take is that forced vaccinations are NOT an option.

a reply to: Boadicea

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a Board Certified Neurosurgeon, and he is concerned about the long-term effects on the brain:

Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5

skepdic.com...


No agendas with them.

90 percent of doctors agree vaccines are safe. We are not allowed to disagree with the consensus.

See, This part right here:

Many doctors are simply concerned about the current schedule, with too many vaccines given too soon, or too many vaccines given at the same time, such as Dr. Jay Gordon:

If we went back to giving them one at a time, spread out over 2 to 3 years?
Not only would more people feel better about them, the doctors themselves would have more accurate information to base diagnosis on, when a reaction or other injury occurs.

They are just pushing too much, too fast.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Point well taken... with two "buts":

One -- Nutrition supplements have done me well when conventional medicine failed me, so I do not automatically dismiss the healing power of nutritional supplements, or those who promote them.... even those who sell them. ALL medical professionals are profiting off of their patients one way or another.

Two -- It's too easy to "kill the messenger" so to speak. I'm sure there are peeps who can -- and have -- likewise cast aspersions on your source. The messenger isn't the problem; the message is.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Yes, the "consensus"... passed off as "science"...

It still boggles my mind.

a reply to: chiefsmom

They are just pushing too much, too fast.

That sums up much of the problem. Just a few adjustments could go a long way towards fewer adverse reactions.

This is a big reason why I have a huge problem with the all or nothing terms the national argument is being framed within.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Boadicea

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a Board Certified Neurosurgeon, and he is concerned about the long-term effects on the brain:

Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5

skepdic.com...


No agendas with them.

ad hominem attacks don't change the facts. But you know that.

a reply to: Boadicea

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Bluntone22

Yes, the "consensus"... passed off as "science"...

It still boggles my mind.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

The only definitive stand I will take is that forced vaccinations are NOT an option.

I'm struggling to find any research at all in that article.
Opinion yes but no research.
Nothing at all that you could even consider a cursory attempt at research. Even in its broadest term.

And at the bottom of both articles a link to how to "detoxify yourself" from vaccinations.
Really?
And you want to be taken seriously?
(Not to mention the obligatory "Shop" tab at the top...)

EDIT: Ironically, the only one who is listed who HAS actually done some research loosely connected with vaccines did so fraudulently and his reason for doing so was....wait for it....so he could market his own vaccine!

You couldn't make it up if you tried.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Boadicea

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a Board Certified Neurosurgeon, and he is concerned about the long-term effects on the brain:

Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5

skepdic.com...


No agendas with them.

ad hominem attacks don't change the facts. But you know that.

I think you need to look up the definition of an ad hominem is?

BTW I bet you were just waiting to use those pics in your subsequint posts.

a reply to: Pardon?

I'm struggling to find any research at all in that article.
Opinion yes but no research.

In all fairness, it was not presented as "hear the research" but only as "hear from those who have done the research," and the many and varied concerns they've walked away with.

Having said that, I'm sure those interested in the research, the clinical studies, the published papers, etc., know how to further research the matter for themselves.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

I'm struggling to find any research at all in that article.
Opinion yes but no research.

In all fairness, it was not presented as "hear the research" but only as "hear from those who have done the research," and the many and varied concerns they've walked away with.

Having said that, I'm sure those interested in the research, the clinical studies, the published papers, etc., know how to further research the matter for themselves.

But none of them HAVE done any research into vaccines.
That's the point.

So we're not hearing from "those who have done the research".
All we're hearing are personal opinions which aren't based upon any research at all.

a reply to: Pardon?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding... and/or we need to define terms...

When you say they have not done the research, do you mean that they have not personally conducted clinical studies?

If so, I will take your word for it... at least for now! (Can't promise I won't research that later.)

However, as exemplified above, the definition of "research" is not confined to personally conducting clinical studies.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding... and/or we need to define terms...

When you say they have not done the research, do you mean that they have not personally conducted clinical studies?

If so, I will take your word for it... at least for now! (Can't promise I won't research that later.)

However, as exemplified above, the definition of "research" is not confined to personally conducting clinical studies.

Feel free to split hairs over definitions if you wish.

When I hear a medic talk about research, I expect it to be about reproducible peer-reviewed publications which stand up to in-depth critique and scrutiny.
I don't expect it to be little more than opinion.
Otherwise how can it be qualified or quantified as expertise?
It can't else anyone could profess to be an expert in anything couldn't they?

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer my experts to actually be experts in the field they're talking about.

If you wish to search for relevant research by the doctors expressing their opinions just go to Pubmed.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

If you type in the name of the doctor that will bring up a list of publications they're listed as authors of.

There won't be much for you to read though.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

I'm struggling to find any research at all in that article.
Opinion yes but no research.

In all fairness, it was not presented as "hear the research" but only as "hear from those who have done the research," and the many and varied concerns they've walked away with.

Having said that, I'm sure those interested in the research, the clinical studies, the published papers, etc., know how to further research the matter for themselves.

In all fairness...you could've changed the title of the thread to reflect that.
But you didn't.

a reply to: Pardon?

Feel free to split hairs over definitions if you wish.

Not splitting hairs; just not confining my definitons to the ones you want to use.

When I hear a medic talk about research, I expect it to be about reproducible peer-reviewed publications which stand up to in-depth critique and scrutiny.

Duly noted.

I don't expect it to be little more than opinion.
Otherwise how can it be qualified or quantified as expertise?

I would think for all the same reasons we're told to otherwise consult our physicians and trust their informed and educated opinions; I will be the first to admit however that medical professionals are often fallible, and we pay the price via our health.

In all fairness...you could've changed the title of the thread to reflect that.
But you didn't.

No, I couldn't; T&Cs require the use of the article title at the site.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Dr. Suzanne Humphries questions the lack of transparency by our government regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines:

She goes on to quote the Federal Register of June 1, 1984:

Let me get this straight ... she questions the transparency of the government regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines, and she does this by quoting (quote mining) the Federal Register, a government publication widely available online and at any depository library? And she chooses to quote mine a rule which goes into excruciating detail on vaccine testing, regulatory conformance, and post-licensure surveillance? In what universe does this demonstrate a lack of transparency?

a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

Let me get this straight ... she questions the transparency of the government regarding the efficacy and safety of vaccines, and she does this by quoting (quote mining) the Federal Register

I believe you are referring to this quote from the Federal Register:

...any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives.

Their words do indicate a possible and/or potential lack of transparency and full public disclosure of negative information regarding the safety of vaccines "to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent."

I find this concerning too. I don't know enough about the doctor (nor vaccines) to know how much we should trust her opinion and conclusions about vaccines... but I already know full well that I cannot trust government critters (and Big Pharma critters). They have proven their propensity to abuse any and all powers given them again and again.