Vaccinations; recent developments

[Pirate88179]

Well, there IS an agenda. You just have to connect the dots.
Example:
1. Biking causes impotency (see Daily Mail)
2. Agenda 21 promotes bike lanes.
Conclusion: Agenda 21 (U.N.) wants to kill you.

Exactly.

Bill

[sarkeizen]

I appreciate his wanting to discuss REAL and PROVEN facts and studies.  Some folks do have an agenda...the anti-Ketchup folks certainly do and would use the above numbers to advance their movement.

Here's an example of something that is suspicious of an agenda.  Andrew Wakefield his paper: "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" is a pretty interesting beast.  From the printed article - the background, methods, findings, patients and investigation sections - the whole first page - do not mention MMR or vaccination AT ALL.  The first time any of these show up is suddenly in Table 1 on page 2.   Which is weird because if the INTENT of the paper was to investigate this connection it has to be stated in those sections. The alternative is that the correlation was discovered accidentally.  However this is virtually impossible for two reasons - one is they very clearly asked the question about the time of the MMR vaccination from every patient.  You can see this because the authors note the even on the two children who's parents didn't think MMR had anything to do with their child's condition.  The second is that Andrew was being paid legal aid to consult in a case where parents were considering suing with a claim that MMR caused autism in their children.  To the tune of somewhere between 50,000 and 400,000 pounds.

Finally the closing paragraph of the paper is odd "We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine"

If you randomly select 10 people from a population and find that three of them are wearing blue watches.  You could say that there is evidence that 30% of this population wear blue watches.  However if you walk down the street and stop the first ten blue watch wearers you see and ask them their political leanings and find out most of them are democrats.  You can't say that most blue watch wearers are democrats.  Why?  Your sample wasn't random so there could be any number of things biasing it - in fact the street you are walking down probably contributes more to that result than the color of peoples watches.

However this is exactly what Wakefield did.  He took twelve cases which had been referred by a GE chosen both for having severe developmental delay and lower GI trouble.   Ten of those cases had parents who associated MMR with the onset of their child's developmental condition.  Given that your sample is a) non-random and b) incredibly small and c) very likely to be confounded with the age at which parents first start to notice neuro-atypical behavior.   Even a first-year statistics student would know enough to write this kind of thing off as selection bias. So why is it mentioned in the authors final summation?

It's also worth noting that not one calculation is made concerning MMR and either some kind of developmental delay or enterocolitis.  Nothing telling you how the information they took from these twelve patients tells you something about the RISKS inherent in getting the MMR.  Wonder why?  Well to calculate your RR (relative risk) you need four things:

i) The number of people who both had the exposure and developed the condition
ii) The number of people who had the exposure but did not develop the condition
iii) The number of people who did not have the exposure but did develop the condition
iv) The number of people who neither had the exposure nor developed the disease

Prior to 1998 uptake of MMR was about 93% - the number of people who had exposure but did not develop the condition would have been huge that the RR would have been three or four decimal places.

So again why mention this thing that you did not design your study to measure, from a super small non-random sample which is known to be co-morbid with other factors which you know can't be expressed as any kind of risk...and you just-so-happen to be getting paid very, very well to advise some people on.

[SeaMonkey]

Is the Polio Vaccine Causing Cancer?

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

--Marcia Angell, MD

("Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption." NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

[joel321]

Another thing that medicinal pills cause is depression and the lack to concentrate and other ill affects. I've read/seen time after time people that are having "problems" like ADD, anxiety, OCD, and who knows what else is considered as a "disorder", have very severe problems with medication/pills.

The reason that happens is because of how the body works. And I find it ironic that the cause of the greater severity is due to the pills themselves. Allow me to explain and anyone can do these test to verify. The immune system is built to eventually get immunity from viral invaders over the long run. The pills affect eventually wears out due to the immunity itself. So what happens? The patient will need bigger doses of the pill to take the same effect as the first dose. Then after a while the patient becomes confused and very desperate. The doctor prescribes more pills to get the same effect (like drug addicts) as the first dose did.

ADD with pills becomes worse.
OCD with pills becomes worse.
Anxiety with pills becomes worse.
etc, etc

It is kind of ironic that pills are trying to cure a 'disorder' that is cause by behavioral learning. Think about it, if pills worked as described, everyone would be healthy!! like diet pills! Right?

There is so much garbage in the medical drug industry that those that believe in it 100% are not taking medication themselves. This also applies to the vaccinations too.

Those that find the truth are the ones that have first hand experience and those that actually use their brain to figure things out.

The only reason that plagues happen is because the people did not know that throwing trash in the streets was harmful. Eating not fully cooked meat was harmful. Allowing flies (or any other bugs) lay eggs on their meat is harmful. The list goes on and on. Being dirty and ignorant about how viruses spread is how plagues start. That is the only reason.

The only ORIGIN of plagues are from the filth. In a clean place following the understanding of how the virus spreads, some may get sick but there WILL NEVER BE A PLAGUE. This is why I understand that there will never be any kind of plague in the USA as it is UNLESS, the water gets filthy. The streets get filthy. The air gets filthy BUT as it stands, there are only going to be few casualties cause nothing is 100%.

I kind of see that there are more casualties regarding medicine now than any type of deadly virus in the USA, or in any modern places.

The measles! The flu! "ADD!" "OCD!" etc, please. I just read that kids kill many parents in the USA by accident with guns. If a parent does not know the safety of a gun, how in the world can they know the safety of vaccines or for that matter pills/vaccines.  How about the health of their body. 70% overweight  ring any bells? they would say they are "born to be genetically chubby" = what else can they say? By that same token, how are they even knowledgeable about other health precautions?

[SeaMonkey]

Doctor Russell Blaylock talks about:

How Vaccines Harm Child Brain Development.

Extremely informative.  Definitely a must watch.