Retired Vaccine Expert Speaks Out (Get this information out before the Internet gets Censored!)

Originally posted by liveyourlife
I know people will argue the autism case on this....but there could be many other factors that are causing the increase in autistic children, such better diagnosis procedures, pollution, genetics...it goes on and on.

I can agree that erradicating polio and mumps were important. Today we live in a very different climate. One where our ability in making vaccine concoction is far more advanced.

1. Diagnosis Procedures: Our medical system is so crooked, it's a business. Ever been to the doctor's office in America? You're a customer, not a patient. Money is to be made. Diagnosis procedures are greatly effected by the corrupt system which our doctors and medical researchers are invariably part of.

2. Pollution: Yes, pollution of the body, can come in many forms. Some people believe that the vaccinations now, supported by evidence, contain pollutants and chemicals, preservatives.
Thimerosal Cover-Up

3. Genetics: Ok this one is quite obvious. Our genes are subject to change through our environment, including direct change from the shots. A positive look at changing our own genes:
Good Gene Behavior
Genes can be changed by food. If what we eat can change our genes, surely a direct implementation into our bloodstream can be equally, if not more effective.
Food Changes Genes

Thanks for spreading the warnings of vaccines. But under obama's goal of regulating our health, is it not against the law to not take vaccines? I hear your kids are forced to take these time lapse poisons and death devices, else you must home school them, which is also becoming against the law of government, in places. Confused. I don't remember that being a part of 'change'. It's not what I voted for, at any rate. I'm unsure if this makes me a criminal, or a terrorist.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by dfens

 

I did attack the "meat of the post". Your "meat" demanded that I prove a negative rather than asking for proof of a positive. This is illogical. When someone makes a claim ("most researchers have financial conflicts of interest" in Soficrow's case), why SHOULDN'T he have to prove that claim? Why should I have to prove his statement ISN'T true, rather than just asking him to support the original statement?

The point of this web site, and in fact the web site's motto, is to "deny ignorance". Making sweeping claims, such as claiming "most researchers" doe X or Y, without any tangible proof, is the antithesis of denying ignorance.

edit on 1/19/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)

I will show you the conflict of interest since you keep demanding it. Sorry for the long post but this was cut short.

Pharmaceutical companies are the ones making vaccines such as Novartas and its counter parts.

The FDA approves which drugs and which vaccines are safe for us to use.

THE revelation that the diabetes drug Avandia can potentially cause heart disease is the latest in a string of pharmaceutical disappointments. Vioxx was pulled from the market in 2004 because it doubled the risks for heart attacks and strokes. Eli Lilly recently paid $750 million to settle lawsuits alleging that Zyprexa causes diabetes. Many have criticized the Food and Drug Administration as being too lax about monitoring drug safety.
link

I know what you're thinking this isn't proof for conflict of interest but I am not done. Here I am just showing you that the FDA has been dropping the ball lately on drugs. This article is a great read:

Truth about drug companies

The scope of the article deals with how drug companies reaping in a heavy profit, 3rd industry in the US. The first was oil and the second was banking, go figure. This just shows how much money these pharma companies actually make. BTW I haven't really proven conflict of interest yet. This is interesting definition which is important to the pharma industry:

The great majority of “new” drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called “me-too” drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first. As Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, put it,

Take a drug that is working and re-brand it to make people think there is competition among these drugs.
Bear with me because this is where the article starts to get really juicy:

Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)

How is it not a conflict of interest when a big company invests heavily on doctors, congress, FDA, and psychiatrists?

The most important of these laws is known as the Bayh-Dole Act, after its chief sponsors, Senator Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) and Senator Robert Dole (R-Kans.). Bayh-Dole enabled universities and small businesses to patent discoveries emanating from research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the major distributor of tax dollars for medical research, and then to grant exclusive licenses to drug companies.

Our taxpayer dollars working hard to reap pharma company profits...not conflict of interest? Schools develop drugs and the drug company markets them, because that is what they do best, than both industries increase their profits by skyrocketing the drug prices.

Faculty researchers were encouraged to obtain patents on their work (which were assigned to their universities), and they shared in the royalties. Many medical schools and teaching hospitals set up “technology transfer” offices to help in this activity and capitalize on faculty discoveries. As the entrepreneurial spirit grew during the 1990s, medical school faculty entered into other lucrative financial arrangements with drug companies, as did their parent institutions.

These aren't only scientists but doctors. If doctors have the ability to financially gain from selling these drugs how is that not a conflict of interest? It would mean the doctor would prescribe more of those pills so the stock prices can increase, hence, the doctors pockets become fatter. More profit would mean more biased research to get drugs out there.

So you want proof of conflict of interest? Are Pharma companies funding universities who house doctors not good enough for you? Or the fact the US prescription drugs cost a lot more than the rest of the world? Or is this not enough proof:

(NaturalNews) It's being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer's speakers' bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as "proof" that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There's only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!
Source

BTW this doctor got a lot of people killed and was only sentenced to 6 months in prison. By many people I don't mean 60-100 I mean thousands. Read that whole article and show me there is no conflict of interest.

More fraud:

It's times like these when I'm happy that I haven't published in too many Elsevier Journals during the course of my career. I say that because on Thursday, it was revealed that pharmaceutical company Merck, Sharp & Dohme paid Elsevier to produce a fake medical journal that, to any superficial examination, looked like a real medical journal but was in reality nothing more than advertising for Merck. As reported by The Scientist:
Scienceblog

You have not done any research and just asked for proof. Well here is your proof. All you have to do is go to google and type in pharmaceutical faking research and you will get hundreds of thousands of hits.

here`s the cure for Hepatitis

"Amazingly, vitamin C has actually already been documented in the medical literature to have readily and consistently cured both acute polio and acute hepatitis, two viral diseases still considered by modern medicine to be incurable." - Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Dr Oz from tv promotes vaccines

That evidence includes an SEC document detailing how Dr. Oz. bought options on stocks for SIGA Technologies in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. SIGA Technologies (stock symbol SIGA) is a vaccine technology company with many advanced developments whose success depends on the widespread adoption of vaccines. According to SEC documents, Dr. Mehmet Oz. currently holds 150,000 option shares on SIGA Technologies, purchased for as little as $1.35 back in 2005.

He is also on the board of directors

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by soficrow

 

So, you have no evidence that "most researchers" have financial conflicts? Is that what I'm supposed to draw from your post? All I see is a revision of guidelines, which happens all the time to accommodate changing technology, trends, and environments.

Why can't you just provide evidence of your claim, rather than dancing around the point?

Sorry if someone else has already given you this information.........but it sounds like you really want to know.

Why bother to call attention to Dr. Paul Offit, the vaccine patent-holder who has led the attack on the idea that vaccines have anything to do with autism or any of the myriad of other ailments afflicting this generation of American children? Well, because other people are paying attention -- including the nation's pediatricians and the mainstream journalists who need to start calling him to account. Offit has a new book out -- "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All." Here's the question doctors who recommend him to nervous parents, and parents unsure what to think, and journalists who interview him, need to ask: Why is Offit transparently opposed to ever studying the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated Americans, even as he acknowledges that vaccines have a long history of causing serious side effects?

While his last book, "Autism's False Prophets," focused squarely on the disability now afflicting 1 in 100 children, Offit branches out here to deride those who have any concerns whatsoever about the safety of the current vaccine schedule. There is plenty of sympathy for parents of children who have died of infectious diseases, but perfunctory dismissal in cases where parents blame vaccines.

Link to above

Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and lists a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development. Also, he lists that he is a consultant to Merck.

c. Dr. Paul Offit

Dr. Offit lists that he is a consultant to Merck on an attachment to his OGE 450, but does not disclose whether or not he received any remuneration for his services. (Exhibit 39)

Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement he voted “yes” three times, including, voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program.

Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP’s rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the meeting, “I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.”

[lxvii] In the hearings in the House

He was questioned continually by Dan Burton, Congressman in the Conflict of Interest Hearings in D.C. about his conflicts and he ABSOLUTELY denied that the above made a conflict because he was an honest man.

Link to above

My children born in 1980 and 1982 did not have nearly this many vaccinations. My daughter born in 1997 did not even get this many. Although the last time we went to the doctor, he was already suggesting I ok giving her the HPV Guardasil shot and a shot for meningitis, which he tried to persuade me saying that she would need it to go to college. (She's in the 8th grade!) I said no thanks.

Three doses of this, four doses of that.......what could putting all these chemicals into our children and ourselves be doing?

Some of these vaccinations are given to babies for things that they would not even be exposed to most likely, such as Hepatitis A and B. I also noticed when looking at this list, that the recommendation is to give the child combination shots whenever possible.

The use of a combination vaccine generally is preferred over separate injections of its equivalent component vaccines.

Following is a link to the recommended dosage schedules for children and adults. Just look at this!


Link to children's schedule
Link to adult schedule

As I have said many times in the past:

If vaccines really work the way they are stated to work, if I and my children don't get a vaccine, you will still be protected from the disease!!!

All this information is interesting, however, i believe vaccines have helped to minimize the effects of diseases far more than have had severe side effect. I would much rather take the chance of protecting my child than not. You have to consider the results on a LARGE scale when talking about vaccines- thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that can be affected by a disease. Vaccinate and have less than 2% with bad side effect, or have 99% get the disease and see how it goes. hmm...

Originally posted by liveyourlife
I have to say I find it a little frightening that people do not have their children vaccinated. The purpose is to prevent your child from contracting a disease that will hurt them, possibly for the rest of their lives or kill them. It is also to prevent the spread of disease to others. This is why we there is not wide spread cases of mumps or polio. I dont know if you have ever seen a picture of someone who has the mumps, but I would never forgive myself if my child contracted that disease because I did not make sure they were vaccinated.

I know people will argue the autism case on this....but there could be many other factors that are causing the increase in autistic children, such better diagnosis procedures, pollution, genetics...it goes on and on.

I had mumps as a freshman in high school, back to back with measles. My 4 brothers and sisters did, too.
We all had chicken pox as well. Most of the children I went to school with had all three of the above.

I don't know of anyone who had any problems resulting from catching these.

As a matter of fact, my two older children had chicken pox when they were little. At that time, my doctor did not have a problem with me doing what a lot of parents were doing.....letting their children get exposed to it at a young age to "get it over with". Not that I did that, but a lot of parents did.

reply to post by Ceej1980


Over 70% of the people of England have had flu injections but there is an epidemic of flu there now,so even if one had the vaccine one is more than likely to catch the flu,my question is would it not be better to have flu by itself as opposed to having a vaccine and putting mercury and aluminum,possibly squalene inyour body and then getting the flu (with a compromised system)
?

reply to post by jameshawkings


no, I can't do it...
Whether I agree or not is of no concern, what is of concern is that there is absolutely no evidence an interview even took place. Its just writing...

What happened to deny ignorance? you believe words on a page that anyone can write?

At least have an interview with a blurred out face and warped voice, at least then we would know there WAS an interview in the first place.

Regardless of if this is true or not, I can't put it in the evidence file. Anyone who feels this way about vaccine and has accumulated a lot of researchable knowledge can write this and say they had an interview with an insider.

Obviously these people who find their conscience after working at an evil corp aren't that compelled to get the word out, hiding behind a keyboard etc.
I know the risk of coming clean to the public, but if you want to do it, DO IT! Don't sit behind a keyboard and expect people to believe you... unless your one of the 20+ people that starred the OP... no offense...
20 down, a few million more to go...

Look at this site for some great quotes about vaccines some from the 18th century

www.itwillpass.com...

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


You know, just about everything statement you make has a hole in it. You like to link evidence people point out with with a product being sold. Hey guess what Pharma's "evidence" is 10 times more linked to selling a product than any other person you accused of trying to sell something on this thread AND other threads. The striking difference is Pharma's "evidence" is hardly that. It's in very many instances flawed, skewed, contrived, and incomplete, whereas, the people presenting evidence against vaccines are very thorough, well presented, well researched, and genuine as MOST of them have nothing to sell.

And you simply LIE about the ethyl mercury not being able to reach the brain:

Mercury concentrations in brain and kidney following ethylmercury, methylmercury and Thimerosal administration to neonatal mice

G. Jean Harrya, , , Martha W. Harrisb and Leo T. Burkac
aLaboratory of Neurobiology, Neurotoxicology Group, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD C1-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
bLaboratory of Molecular Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
cLaboratory of Pharmacology and Chemistry, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Received 8 June 2004; revised 28 July 2004; accepted 28 July 2004. Available online 18 September 2004.
Abstract
The distribution of mercury to the brain following an injection of methylmercury (MeHg) or ethylmercury (EtHg) was examined in immature mice. Postnatal day (PND) 16 CD1 mice received MeHg chloride either by IM injection or by gavage. At 24 h and 7 days post-injection, total mercury concentrations were determined in blood, kidney, brain, and muscle by cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry. At 24 h, an IM injection of MeHg chloride (17.4 μg) produced total mercury concentrations in the blood (6.2 ± 0.9 μg/g), brain (5.6 ± 1.3 μg; 0.6% delivered dose), and kidney (25.2 ± 5.6 μg; 1.1%), approximately 30% of that obtained from oral administration (blood: 17.9 ± 1.0 μg; brain: 16.1 ± 1.2 μg, 1.5%; kidney: 64.9 ± 6.3 μg, 2.7%). For comparison, PND 16 mice received an IM injection of concentrated dosing suspensions (2 μl dosing vol.) for EtHg chloride (6 μg) or Thimerosal (15.4 μg). For EtHg, approximately 0.39 ± 0.06% of the injected mercury was detected in the brain and 3.5 ± 0.6% in the kidney at 24 h. Thimerosal IM injection resulted in 0.22 ± 0.04% in the brain, and 1.7 ± 0.3% in the kidney. By 7 days, mercury levels decreased in the blood but were unchanged in the brain. An acute IM injection to adult mice of each suspension at a 10-fold higher dose resulted an average 0.1% mercury in the brain, and higher levels in the blood, kidney, and muscle as compared to the young. In immature mice, MeHg delivered via oral route of administration resulted in significantly greater tissue levels as compared to levels from IM injection. Comparisons of tissue distribution following IM administration suggest that an oral route of administration for mercury is not comparable to an IM delivery and that MeHg does not appear to be a good model for EtHg-containing compounds.
Keywords: Thimerosal; Mercury; Tissue distribution

www.monkeyday.org...
www.healing-arts.org...

Thimerosal is still used in manufacturing and still detectable in trace amounts in vaccines. And has NOT been taken out as a preservative in EVERY vaccine.

Your explanation for possible cause of Kawasaki's disease in caucasians is that of autoimmune disorder and toxic chemical exposure. Hello? Vaccines effect the immune system can cause autoimmune problems and are simply that, a chemical exposure. You're arguments are sad, and can be countered on every level with legitimate evidence, but it's obvious what your job is here, to simply blurt out your side repeatedly so that those who don't take the time to look further will just rely on an "authority". Someone who is truly educated, IS NOT someone who has gone to school, studied the carefully constructed material and then take that as the end all be all. A truly educated person is someone who looks at every angle, every source biased and unbiased, and uses their critical thought.

Your profession doesn't cause your words to carry more weight. Many, many doctors and scientists change their stance because they've taken the time to use their own mind instead follow blindly. The doctors I trust are the one's who've dedicated their lives to learning, critical thought, and are humble and truly interested in the well being of people, NOT someone who learned their profession by the book and then spends the rest of their time proselytizing their "wisdom" on a conspiracy forum.

reply to post by star child


For someone who claims to have done so much research, I have yet to see you provide a single link.

How curious.

Why have we become such a fearful people. When I was a child we got chicken pox, rode our bikes with out helmets, played in the dirt, and were not tied down in a car and thought it was fun being thrown aound going down a winding road. We survived, and were stronger for it.

All of these new things being forced on us is ridiculous. All these new vaccinations that have come out, take for instance the cervical cancer one, in the commercials they don't bother telling you a majority of exposure is from unprotected sex with an exposed partner. Just have safe sex, get your regular GYN check ups, and say no to the vaccine. Cervical Cancer has a 92% survival rate. Here is some more info..

There are over 120 strains of HPV:
--Over 100 of these strains cause harmless warts (you've had them as a child, probably) that cause warts on the hands/feet. They do no harm. Over 30 of these strains remain invisible and disappear by themselves.
--10 strains are caught ONLY through sexual contact. Most of these go away by themselves. These dont cause cancer.
--10 strains cause warts on the genetalia. Caught by sexual contact. They dont cause cancer.
--4 strains are only caught by sexual contact and can lead to cervical cancer. However, you have a 92% chance of surviving cervical cancer after being diagnosed with these strains. Less than .8% of the population carries one of these strains

BTW.. Gardasil contains polysorbate 80, a know carcinogen, and has been linked to infertility in mice
I know in Austrailia it has been pulled and I believe it is going to be pulled in Canada too. Too many deaths.

It is ok to get the chicken pox, or mumps, we build a natural immunity afterwards. It is ok to be sick, to get hurt, and live a life with out fear.

Oh, and fyi.. there were not that many deaths to warrant all the seat belt and child seat laws and regulations we have today. Its your children your choice, if you want to let them play in the trunk of your station wagon while driving down the road... it should be your choice. A bit off topic, but you get the point. Stop letting them control you through fear.

reply to post by soficrow


So you searched and searched, and came up with three people with conflicts of interest?

Do I need to remind you that your said most researchers have conflicts of interest?

I mean, unless you think there are only five researchers in the United States...then I don't think you've proven anything.

Originally posted by kalamatas

And you simply LIE about the ethyl mercury not being able to reach the brain:

Exactly kalamatas, it's a game of Russion Routlette once that ethyl mercury is in the blood stream, ideally you want it to reach the kidneys first, but if it doesn't and it goes to the brain, you better hope it's a part of the brain you can manage without

reply to post by Equinox99


The "research" you posted is in regards to manipulation of patent law, and was performed by a corporation, not researchers. The majority of researchers do not work for pharmaceutical companies, they work for universities. As such, university professors are very rarely able to obtain patents, as any discoveries become patents of the university (it stinks, but that's the system).