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

a reply to: Pardon?

It's not so much the scientific facts/data I question. I am comfortable vaccinating my kids.

However, once the issue turns to government-involved administration of vaccines, it is this 'inconclusive' data that concerns me most (I have bolded some of the most concerning parts):

Although corruption is not endemic in America as it is in several other countries, it does exist. According to the Justice Department, in the last two decades more than 20,000 public officials and private individuals were convicted for crimes related to corruption and more than 5,000 are awaiting trial, the overwhelming majority of cases having originated in state and local governments. Understanding the causes and the consequences of corruption and designing the policies in the fight against it starts with measuring corruption itself. How do we measure corruption, an activity that requires secrecy? The most commonly used measure of corruption in American states comes from the Justice Department’s “Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section.” These data cover a broad range of crimes from election fraud to wire fraud. The measure, based on the Justice Department data, suffers from several significant problems, however.

1. The data report federal public corruption convictions; thus, corruption cases tried by state and local prosecutors are not included in the data. Federal prosecutors have considerable discretion over how much effort to put into investigating public corruption. Hence, the number of convictions depends not only on the level of corruption but also on levels of prosecutorial effort. Prosecutors choose which cases to prosecute and which to decline so as to maximize their conviction rate and their visibility.

2. The number of federal convictions is related to prosecutorial resources in a state.

3. Partisan bias is likely in the prosecution of public officials by federal prosecutors, i.e., the U.S. attorneys. The decision to prosecute is up to the U.S. attorneys who are appointed by the President with the advice and support of the home state partisans. There is anecdotal as well as empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis. The unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven U.S. attorneys in 2007, for example, led to congressional investigations. Some were allegedly dismissed either because they did not pursue corruption investigations against prominent Democrats with sufficient vigor or because they did pursue investigations against prominent Republicans. Similar allegations have resurfaced in Virginia in 2014.

4. While data are reported annually, there is an unknown, and most likely variable, time lag between crimes and convictions.

5. The data give little to no indication as to the seriousness of a case.

6. The data cover only those officials who are caught and, of course, convicted.

Link

This data is troubling because it only represents a fraction of government corruption.

So, I guess I would be curious to see a study showing how many people might decline vaccinations if the government had broader control over the administration of vaccines.

I wonder if this Gallup poll is any indication:
75% in U.S. See Widespread Government Corruption

No worries though. Unvaccinated kids wouldn't be allowed to go to school. All is good.

Wait, but…they will still be able to go out in public.

Perhaps, the number of unvaccinated people would increase if government was given broader control over vaccinating the public? Would be nice to see a study on that.

I know I would rethink vaccinating my kids if the government tried to overreach that far. I struggle to find much the government has done for the benefit of Americans.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Pardon?

It's not so much the scientific facts/data I question. I am comfortable vaccinating my kids.

However, once the issue turns to government-involved administration of vaccines, it is this 'inconclusive' data that concerns me most (I have bolded some of the most concerning parts):

Although corruption is not endemic in America as it is in several other countries, it does exist. According to the Justice Department, in the last two decades more than 20,000 public officials and private individuals were convicted for crimes related to corruption and more than 5,000 are awaiting trial, the overwhelming majority of cases having originated in state and local governments. Understanding the causes and the consequences of corruption and designing the policies in the fight against it starts with measuring corruption itself. How do we measure corruption, an activity that requires secrecy? The most commonly used measure of corruption in American states comes from the Justice Department’s “Report to Congress on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section.” These data cover a broad range of crimes from election fraud to wire fraud. The measure, based on the Justice Department data, suffers from several significant problems, however.

1. The data report federal public corruption convictions; thus, corruption cases tried by state and local prosecutors are not included in the data. Federal prosecutors have considerable discretion over how much effort to put into investigating public corruption. Hence, the number of convictions depends not only on the level of corruption but also on levels of prosecutorial effort. Prosecutors choose which cases to prosecute and which to decline so as to maximize their conviction rate and their visibility.

2. The number of federal convictions is related to prosecutorial resources in a state.

3. Partisan bias is likely in the prosecution of public officials by federal prosecutors, i.e., the U.S. attorneys. The decision to prosecute is up to the U.S. attorneys who are appointed by the President with the advice and support of the home state partisans. There is anecdotal as well as empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis. The unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven U.S. attorneys in 2007, for example, led to congressional investigations. Some were allegedly dismissed either because they did not pursue corruption investigations against prominent Democrats with sufficient vigor or because they did pursue investigations against prominent Republicans. Similar allegations have resurfaced in Virginia in 2014.

4. While data are reported annually, there is an unknown, and most likely variable, time lag between crimes and convictions.

5. The data give little to no indication as to the seriousness of a case.

6. The data cover only those officials who are caught and, of course, convicted.

Link

This data is troubling because it only represents a fraction of government corruption.

So, I guess I would be curious to see a study showing how many people might decline vaccinations if the government had broader control over the administration of vaccines.

I wonder if this Gallup poll is any indication:
75% in U.S. See Widespread Government Corruption

No worries though. Unvaccinated kids wouldn't be allowed to go to school. All is good.

Wait, but…they will still be able to go out in public.

Perhaps, the number of unvaccinated people would increase if government was given broader control over vaccinating the public? Would be nice to see a study on that.

I know I would rethink vaccinating my kids if the government tried to overreach that far. I struggle to find much the government has done for the benefit of Americans.

Fair enough, at least you're honest.

I suppose it's a bit of chicken and egg.
If enough people are vaccinating then there's no need for government intervention.
The government intervene because the rates go down then that stops people from vaccinating.

So what would happen if the government stop intervening?

a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you for that but it doesn't show that vitamin A is a cure, because it is not. Vitamin A is essential for cell division, bone formation and it also produces the pigments in the retina of the eye. Vitamin A deficiency increases the severity of some infections, such as measles, hence there is a higher chance of survival if the body has sufficient vitamin A to function properly. This is why it is given intravenously when a child has measles.

originally posted by: Pardon?


Fair enough, at least you're honest.

I suppose it's a bit of chicken and egg.
If enough people are vaccinating then there's no need for government intervention.
The government intervene because the rates go down then that stops people from vaccinating.

So what would happen if the government stop intervening?

I appreciate that you valued my honesty.

I am of the opinion that we have a fantastic amount of parents and people voluntarily vaccinating and that we should probably leave well enough alone. The FDA's regulatory role is plenty for me.

Besides, when you leave the government out of the decision to vaccinate or not, what you have is a healthy public debate about vaccination -- and people still have the freedom to make their own decisions.

I'm not likely to change my opinion even if there were never one adverse effect from vaccinations. I just prefer to leave a corrupt organization, like our federal government, out of any decision to inject anything into my body or my children's bodies.

And my state government is reportedly one of the most corrupt in the country!

a reply to: Agartha

You are welcome, and I'm sorry it's not what you expected or wanted, but I will not quibble over words. Vitamin A is a part of treating measles because it helps the patient get better sooner. Call it what you will.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Agartha

You are welcome, and I'm sorry it's not what you expected or wanted, but I will not quibble over words. Vitamin A is a part of treating measles because it helps the patient get better sooner. Call it what you will.

And one more time, only if the patient is vitamin A deficient wil giving vit A have any effect. And then it does not help in every case.
It is not part of standard treatment for measles in the developed world.

I'm trying to think of a way of explaining it so it's easier for you to understand but I'm struggling.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Pardon?


Fair enough, at least you're honest.

I suppose it's a bit of chicken and egg.
If enough people are vaccinating then there's no need for government intervention.
The government intervene because the rates go down then that stops people from vaccinating.

So what would happen if the government stop intervening?

I appreciate that you valued my honesty.

I am of the opinion that we have a fantastic amount of parents and people voluntarily vaccinating and that we should probably leave well enough alone. The FDA's regulatory role is plenty for me.

Besides, when you leave the government out of the decision to vaccinate or not, what you have is a healthy public debate about vaccination -- and people still have the freedom to make their own decisions.[quote]

I'm not likely to change my opinion even if there were never one adverse effect from vaccinations. I just prefer to leave a corrupt organization, like our federal government, out of any decision to inject anything into my body or my children's bodies.

And my state government is reportedly one of the most corrupt in the country!

That's the crux of the matter.
Because of the amount of people who have their own ideas on vaccines which are either swayed by anti-vax fear mongering through misinformation and lies a debate which, scientifically was decided decades ago still rages on.
If not vaccinating only effected the individual then fine, it should be a personal decision but when that decision can and will agent others then at the very least a gentle push is required.

Vaccines are not what we are told they are.

originally posted by: itanosam
Vaccines are not what we are told they are.

Please tell us more.
Don't leave us hanging like that.

a reply to: itanosam

Vaccines are not what we are told they are.

I suspect that's very very true... God only knows what all is contained in vaccines, from nagalase to foreign dna. I doubt even the most expert experts know everything that makes up those vaccines.

But I'm not sure how you mean it!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: itanosam

Vaccines are not what we are told they are.

I suspect that's very very true... God only knows what all is contained in vaccines, from nagalase to foreign dna. "I doubt even the most expert experts know everything that makes up those vaccines.

But I'm not sure how you mean it!

I disagree that it's only god who knows what's in vaccines.
And your doubt is unfounded.
Any independent lab even with comparatively basic equipment can deduce exactly and how much of any ingredient vaccine down to a molecular level using electron microscopy, spectroscopy, chromatography etc.
It's not difficult.

And nagalase is also produced by viruses. Which vaccines prevent spreading...
And you breathe, ingest and sometimes inadvertently even inject (from a scratch) "foreign" dna every single day of your life.

originally posted by: Boadicea


I suspect that's very very true... God only knows what all is contained in vaccines, from nagalase to foreign dna. I doubt even the most expert experts know everything that makes up those vaccines.

But I'm not sure how you mean it!

How do you know what's in the vitamins supplements you take?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Besides, when you leave the government out of the decision to vaccinate or not, what you have is a healthy public debate about vaccination -- and people still have the freedom to make their own decisions.

What makes you think the debate is healthy? From my perspective, it looks like the "debate" is hopelessly polluted with charlatans and their lies. People are still taking Wakefield's claims seriously, still quoting snake oil salesmen, taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting data ... how is that healthy?

There is healthy debate going on in scientific literature, but it's not the debate anti-vaxers think it is.

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli
There is healthy debate going on in scientific literature, but it's not the debate anti-vaxers think it is.

Yes. That's exactly the debate I was referring to. I am not anti-vaccinations.

I'm just anti-government controlled vaccinations.

a reply to: Agartha

Good question. I don't. I have to have some level of trust that the manufacturer is reputable, uses quality ingredients and safe manufacturing processes. Much like hot dogs and ground beef and pretty much anything.

That level of trust with both Big Pharma and the FDA has been broken. I do not trust either to act in our best interests, and especially not when mandating medical procedures -- not for "my" good, but for someone else's good. As I said in the OP, I am not anti-vax, but I am anti-FORCED-vax.

And, again, for me, the biggest brightest red flag is the all-or-nothing level of the debate. No middle ground. If someone -- even a doctor -- says giving too many vaccines at once is dangerous, they are "anti-vax." If a doctor -- or anyone -- says giving certain vaccines before a certain age is dangerous, they are "anti-vax." If anyone says anything critical of any aspect of vaccinations, they are "anti-vax."

Everything in life requires some care and precautions. Our first and primary defense is the ability to say "no." Our first and primary clue that we cannot trust someone is when they refuse to take no for an answer.

a reply to: Boadicea

What's the middle ground between flat earthers and everyone else?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Agartha

Good question. I don't. I have to have some level of trust that the manufacturer is reputable, uses quality ingredients and safe manufacturing processes. Much like hot dogs and ground beef and pretty much anything.

That level of trust with both Big Pharma and the FDA has been broken.

This is what I don't get: don't you know that the same companies some call 'Big Pharma' are also the manufacturers of supplements? (I assume that by 'big pharma' you are talking about Bayer, Unilever, Glaxosmithkline, etc).

I worked and work in Pharmaceutical field; the following are true about them..

*It is first a business but public safety comes very close 2nd.

*Many people that work there are your average men/women, not some mad/de-sensitized
scientists.

*Flu vaccination is not as same as DPPT Vaccine(Diptheria, Polio, Pertusis and Tetnus), reason we are healthy civilization and have a good mortality rate is thanks to the latter vaccine.

*Jabbing many vaccine in short amount of time is not good.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Agartha

Good question. I don't. I have to have some level of trust that the manufacturer is reputable, uses quality ingredients and safe manufacturing processes. Much like hot dogs and ground beef and pretty much anything.

That level of trust with both Big Pharma and the FDA has been broken. I do not trust either to act in our best interests, and especially not when mandating medical procedures -- not for "my" good, but for someone else's good. As I said in the OP, I am not anti-vax, but I am anti-FORCED-vax.

And, again, for me, the biggest brightest red flag is the all-or-nothing level of the debate. No middle ground. If someone -- even a doctor -- says giving too many vaccines at once is dangerous, they are "anti-vax." If a doctor -- or anyone -- says giving certain vaccines before a certain age is dangerous, they are "anti-vax." If anyone says anything critical of any aspect of vaccinations, they are "anti-vax."

Everything in life requires some care and precautions. Our first and primary defense is the ability to say "no." Our first and primary clue that we cannot trust someone is when they refuse to take no for an answer.

You can call yourself anything you wish but going on your posts on this thread and others you are without a shadow of a doubt, anti-vax.

There isn't a middle ground, unless you class that as someone who wants to know more about them.
That's the only middle ground I can think of.
Although I suppose a middle-ground could be the "doctors" like Bob Sears and Jack Wolfson who pretend they're giving your little snowflake special and unique attention by saying you can spread the vaccinations out whilst alway, always pointing you in the direction of their personal "health" stores and repeating the mantra "it's your choice". All the while knowing that they are not giving you the full, unabridged information but telling your Dunning-Kruger fuelled mind what you want to hear.

You've convinced yourself that vaccines are bad in spite of the evidence. In fact I would guess that you refuse to even acknowledge an opposite viewpoint to yours which is evident from your lack of responses to real evidence.
Have you done this to support your "forced" vaccinations stance or is it the other way around?

The fact that you sent me a private message to invite me to this thread tells me volumes about you.

a reply to: Agartha

This is what I don't get: don't you know that the same companies some call 'Big Pharma' are also the manufacturers of supplements? (I assume that by 'big pharma' you are talking about Bayer, Unilever, Glaxosmithkline, etc).

Not my vitamins. I do understand that many synthetic vitamin supplements are produced by Big Pharma, but not all. I also understand that synthetic vitamins can cause as much harm as benefit. I don't take synthetic vitamins. I take whole food vitamins.