Measles Cases Triple in U.S., Vaccine Refusal Here and Elsewhere to Blame

reply to post by Pinkorchid


There are studies showing that the incidence of SIDS actually decreased in babies that have been vaccinated.
There are studies that show it is a defective gene.
there are studies that show vaccinations increase the incidence.
Golemina states if you don't vaccinate your child, it is a 100% certainty that it will not happen to your child. That is 100% BS.
SIDS has been ripping the heart, soul and guts out of people far longer than vaccinations have been around. Nobody knows what causes the syndrome; all they can do is guess.
Stating that it is 100% vaccination caused is 100% WRONG.
I thought both sides here wanted to find the 'truth'.
Insisting on falsehoods only invalidates anything else being said.
Vaccines may contribute, but DO NOT CAUSE crib death.
If you really want to 'win' the argument, use facts....not conjecture.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Still quoting discredited and withdrawn "evidence" I see?

that article is from Salon.com, and they had a few problems with it - in fact the factual errors and the BS links caused them to withdraw it:

Although Salon.com later admitted that these errors "went far in undermining Kennedy’s exposé", at the time they chose not to retract the piece in the interest of transparency.[2] Instead, the magazine corrected Kennedy's article five times due factual errors, ultimately retracting it in January 2011 because the editors felt that criticisms of the article and clear flaws in the science connecting autism and vaccines undermined the value of the article.[2]

By the time the final study results discussed at Simpsonwood were published in 2003, the lead researcher, Thomas Verstraeten, had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline.[7] Kennedy contended that the delay in publication gave Verstraeten sufficient time to fix the data around the CDC's alleged objective of obscuring a link between thimerosal and autism. Verstraeten denied the allegations, and published an account of the matter in the journal Pediatrics.[7]

- wiki article on simpsonwood conference

you should try following up on some of the stuff you find to see what happened to it - it would save you being wrong as often as you are!

reply to post by Pinkorchid

SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine

In the late 1940's and early 1950's the polio virus was taking a savage toll on the American public. Thousands of children and adults were crippled or killed. In 1955, Jonas Salk discovered how to mass produce polio vaccine by growing it on the kidneys of Rhesus monkeys. By 1960 a problem had surfaced, a problem which would come back to haunt the nation forty years later. Some of the polio vaccine given to millions of American children from 1962 until 2000 could have been contaminated with a monkey virus that shows up in some cancers, according to documents and testimony to be delivered to a House committee Wednesday. The vaccine manufacturer said such claims "don't have any validity," and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agrees. Some batches of the first polio vaccine used from 1955 until 1962 were contaminated with the monkey virus. The virus has also been found in some cancer in humans, although it has not been determined that the virus caused the cancer. Between 10 and 30 million Americans may have received a contaminated dose of that vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The monkey virus is suspected of causing cancer in laboratory animals, including brain cancers, bone tumors and a usually fatal cancer in the membranes around the lungs called mesothelioma. - See more at: www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com...

www.nccn.net...

reply to post by Pinkorchid


How about you actually write something yourself for all these extracts - tell us what you think they mean?

SV40 contamination, for example - that was stopped back in 1961 - and SV40 wasn't even discovered until 1960 - how do you think it relevant now??

reply to post by Pinkorchid

Well the story of contaminated polio vaccine is not over yet. Microbiologist Howard Urnovitz, Ph.D. provided significant evidence at the Eighth Annual Houston Conference on AIDS that human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is a monkey hybrid virus which was produced when 320,000 Africans were injected with polio virus contaminated with live simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) in the late 1950's. Apparently, viral fragments combine easily with other viruses to produce these hybrids called "chimeras."

This theory was confirmed by another research team headed by Dr. B. F. Elswood at the University of California in San Francisco. Interestingly enough, when researchers Cecil H. Fox and John Martin applied to the National Institutes of Health for grants to confirm the presence of SIV and simian cyto-megalovirus (SCMV) contaminates in polio vaccines their requests were denied. Dr. Urnovitz may have an explanation as he stated in the Boston Globe, "that almost 100 million Americans were exposed (to SV-40) through a government sponsored program, but for over 30 years, there has been virtually no government effort to see if anyone's been harmed by the exposure."

He added, "The government will not fund science that makes it look culpable." Could it be our government, once again, is attempting to avoid a public panic while ignoring the great potential for harm these viruses could inflict. Time will tell. Harvard Medical School professor, Dr. Ronald Desroier points out that taking all known scientific evidence into account that the medical experts' knowledge is limited to "perhaps 2% of existing monkey viruses." Who knows what lethal virus may be discovered in our blood streams forty years from now as a result of good intentions.....

Source

It's relevant now because they still have the arrogant self ,righteous and money driven reason for all their subterfuge.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


mi·cro·pa·le·on·tol·o·gy (mkr-pl-n-tl-j, -n-)
n.
The branch of paleontology that deals with microfossils.

Qoute:

"I find this woman odious, a genuine harpy. Twisting the misery and suffering of countless children across the world to fit her world view of anti-vaccination and anti-medicine. Her work has recently begun to resurface courtesy of outbreaks of measles across Europe. It's not sufficient that she misrepresents her "speciality" as a micro-paleontologist and uses her doctrate to make people assume that she is a medical doctor. Her work has routinely been called to question and is responsible for the idea that the whooping cough vaccine is responsible for SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). She has also linked Shaken Baby Syndrome to vaccination and claimed that childhood diseases such as mumps, measles, whooping cough and german measles are vital for development and only cause fatalities under medical mismanagement. Her work forms the foundation of all sorts of moronic anti-vaccine ideology based out of Australia"

Her research doesn't sound any more believable to me than Big Pharma's.
Her PHd is the study of MICROFOSSILs....not the immune system; not anything to do with the human body.
Once again; vaccines ARE NOT the cause of SIDS. It may have become a contributing factor in recent years, but it IS NOT THE CAUSE.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


supposed link between HIV and polio vaccine - debunked a while back

opopanax

nugget1
I'm having a hard time understanding why the 'pro-vaxers' are so upset. Their children are immune, so what's the problem here?

Vaccines (unfortunately) aren't 100% effective. Also, children who are too young to have been immunized or are unable to be immunized due to some other reason (e.g. allergic reaction) can still be affected.

Personally I just get frustrated at the continued propagation of myths and half-truths about vaccines, the immune system, biology, and science in general.

ME TOO! Unfortunately, I can't tell for sure which side the most truth is coming from!
I know Big Pharma is in it for the money.I know they lie for profit.
Ten years after a drug comes out, they recall it because it's killing people.
Investigations show they knew it all along, but doctored the research.
They pay millions in damages, recall the drug, and count the billions in profit they made before the recall.
I have been a victim of new 'miracle' drugs, and no longer have ANY faith in pharmaceutical companies. I won't take leading-edge drugs. If it hasn't been used for 20+ years, I don't want it.
There are enough sick kids out there to raise SERIOUS questions about vaccines....especially the 'new' ones. Denying that fact doesn't help solve the issue of weather or not they are harmful.
It's okay to be pro-vaccine and still question weather or not they are truly safe.
Big Pharma research says 'yes'; independent research says 'no'. The truth is somewhere in they middle, I suppose. The truth always comes out, just like with all the medicine that has hurt people in recent years.

reply to post by nugget1


Yes big pharma lies - however there are also lots of people keeping an eye on vaccines who are perfectly good "normal" scientists and doctors and ther is very little room for lying about thenm (vaccines that is)

Eg see Ben Goldacre's Bad Science Blog - I especially recommend his TED talk link on the right of that page.

So on one side you have "Big pharma" "bending the truth" - sometimes not always - and plenty of people using real science to try to keep them honest.

And on het other side you have people who have no evidence whatsoever, or who misrepresent the evidence just as badly or even worse than "big pharma".

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by nugget1

 

Yes big pharma lies - however there are also lots of people keeping an eye on vaccines who are perfectly good "normal" scientists and doctors and ther is very little room for lying about thenm (vaccines that is)

Eg see Ben Goldacre's Bad Science Blog - I especially recommend his TED talk link on the right of that page.

So on one side you have "Big pharma" "bending the truth" - sometimes not always - and plenty of people using real science to try to keep them honest.

And on het other side you have people who have no evidence whatsoever, or who misrepresent the evidence just as badly or even worse than "big pharma".

edit on 10-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Basically, it seems your saying it boils down to personal choice...
You either believe in god, or you don't....

[

OneManArmy

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Pinkorchid

 

You are wrong.

contrary to your apparent belief "people who are opposed to vaccination" is an "ilk" and is a perfectly valid group to identify.

Are you resorting to sweeping statements again?

tut, tut, tut.

Is it any surprise that people question vaccines when the UK government knowingly colluded with GSK and granted GSK immunity from prosecution so they would produce and supply their MMR vaccination, even after Canada had already withdrawn it because of a PROVEN link to meningitis for the sole reason..it was cheaper than the alternatives.
It was only later withdrawn from the UK AFTER it had damaged more children as a result of what they already knew would happen. And the Government and Pharma have our health in mind?
Is it any wonder that people dont trust Pharma, when this same version of the vaccine is still available and actively being used in the third world.

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmTue, 10 Dec 2013 16:21:06 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

It's no surprise when they question it without knowing the actual facts surrounding the situation then.
You'll no doubt see this as a biased blog but its references are pretty sound.
Read the account.
vaccineswork.blogspot.co.uk...

nugget1

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by nugget1

 

Yes big pharma lies - however there are also lots of people keeping an eye on vaccines who are perfectly good "normal" scientists and doctors and ther is very little room for lying about thenm (vaccines that is)

Eg see Ben Goldacre's Bad Science Blog - I especially recommend his TED talk link on the right of that page.

So on one side you have "Big pharma" "bending the truth" - sometimes not always - and plenty of people using real science to try to keep them honest.

And on het other side you have people who have no evidence whatsoever, or who misrepresent the evidence just as badly or even worse than "big pharma".

edit on 10-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Basically, it seems your saying it boils down to personal choice...
You either believe in god, or you don't....

No not in the slightest.
It boils down to whether the science is correct or not.
If it was down to belief then I would have no real opinion on it at all.
Belief shouldn't come into this non-debate at all.

reply to post by nugget1


Well said.

That's it in a nutshell , that is what we the ILK have issues with.

nugget1

opopanax

nugget1
I'm having a hard time understanding why the 'pro-vaxers' are so upset. Their children are immune, so what's the problem here?

Vaccines (unfortunately) aren't 100% effective. Also, children who are too young to have been immunized or are unable to be immunized due to some other reason (e.g. allergic reaction) can still be affected.

Personally I just get frustrated at the continued propagation of myths and half-truths about vaccines, the immune system, biology, and science in general.

ME TOO! Unfortunately, I can't tell for sure which side the most truth is coming from!
I know Big Pharma is in it for the money.I know they lie for profit.
Ten years after a drug comes out, they recall it because it's killing people.
Investigations show they knew it all along, but doctored the research.
They pay millions in damages, recall the drug, and count the billions in profit they made before the recall.
I have been a victim of new 'miracle' drugs, and no longer have ANY faith in pharmaceutical companies. I won't take leading-edge drugs. If it hasn't been used for 20+ years, I don't want it.
There are enough sick kids out there to raise SERIOUS questions about vaccines....especially the 'new' ones. Denying that fact doesn't help solve the issue of weather or not they are harmful.
It's okay to be pro-vaccine and still question weather or not they are truly safe.
Big Pharma research says 'yes'; independent research says 'no'. The truth is somewhere in they middle, I suppose. The truth always comes out, just like with all the medicine that has hurt people in recent years.

The thing is though, anti-vaxxers keep on saying "look at all the sick children" but where are they?
Sure there are plenty of stories but very, very few verified cases.
Without a doubt there have been kids who have been seriously harmed by vaccines but like I said, these are very few indeed.
It seems to me to be very obvious that the whole anti-vax movement is being fuelled on litigation and compensation claims.
The amount of vaccine litigation firms now is truly horrendous (Pinkorchid actually had the temerity to link one as evidence against vaccinations earlier!!)

From the link I posted above, 3 children developed encephalitis after having the MMR with the Urabe strain mumps vaccine.
There were over 2.5 MILLION doses given.
So that's around a 1 in over 800,000 chance.
Around 1 in a 1000 kids will develop encephalitis from measles.
That risk is increased by 800 times from NOT being vaccinated.

Because of those three cases the MMR was then changed to a safer version and the risk has now been decreased to over 1 in a million (if at all according to this study)
pediatrics.aappublications.org...

As for the independent research saying "no", it doesn't in the slightest.
Show me where it does and I'll happily consider it.

Pardon?

nugget1

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by nugget1

 

Yes big pharma lies - however there are also lots of people keeping an eye on vaccines who are perfectly good "normal" scientists and doctors and ther is very little room for lying about thenm (vaccines that is)

Eg see Ben Goldacre's Bad Science Blog - I especially recommend his TED talk link on the right of that page.

So on one side you have "Big pharma" "bending the truth" - sometimes not always - and plenty of people using real science to try to keep them honest.

And on het other side you have people who have no evidence whatsoever, or who misrepresent the evidence just as badly or even worse than "big pharma".

edit on 10-12-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Basically, it seems your saying it boils down to personal choice...
You either believe in god, or you don't....

No not in the slightest.
It boils down to whether the science is correct or not.
If it was down to belief then I would have no real opinion on it at all.
Belief shouldn't come into this non-debate at all.

You either 'believe', or you don't.
'Independent' research is funded by....? Follow the money, and you find it is not so 'independent' most of the time.
I think Big Pharma wants (and sometimes funds) these independent researchers. When the study comes out, BF slaughters their findings, insinuating anybody who believes is short on brain cells, and people reading their report have even more confidence in vaccines.
It still boils down to personal choice.

It is possible to make vaccines without all of the questionable preservatives.
It is possible to have better quality control, so mass quantities of tainted vaccines aren't given to people.
It isn't until AFTER the damage has been done that we learn a batch has been recalled....and the problems were know before the batch was ever released.
Instead of fighting over whether or not to vaccinate, we should be fighting for better oversight of pharmaceutical companies.
Big Business answers to no one, IMO. If humanity doesn't stop them, they will eventually stop humanity.