Tag: vaccines

Hair of the dog?

In which a vaccine for autism is posited:

A first-ever vaccine created by University of Guelph researchers for gut
bacteria common in autistic children may also help control some autism
symptoms. The groundbreaking study by Brittany Pequegnat and Guelph chemistry professor Mario Monteiro appears this month in the journal Vaccine.

They developed a carbohydrate-based vaccine against the gut bug Clostridium bolteae. C. bolteae is known to play a role in gastrointestinal disorders, and it often shows up in higher numbers in the GI tracts of autistic children than in those of healthy kids.

More than 90 per cent of children with autism spectrum disorders suffer from chronic, severe gastrointestinal symptoms. Of those, about 75 per cent suffer from diarrhea, according to current literature.

Thus raising the obvious question, how does C. bolteae manage to inordinately get itself into the intestinal tracts of autistic children?  It’s customary, at this point, to ritually denounce Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy. But ask yourself this question: if as much as 50 percent of the studies published in academic science are, to put it kindly, flawed, what are the chances that the oft-cited surveys funded by the vaccine manufacturers, (who, you will recall, are one of the very few industries that are not legally responsible for their products), are not?

To reiterate, I am not a “vaccine denier”.  Based on past discussions, I appear to understand the science and financial issues involved considerably better than most vaccine enthusiasts, including some medical doctors. I even got a tetanus vaccination myself only a few years ago. However, to understand that some vaccines are appropriate in some situations is very different than blithely assuming that all vaccinations are safe and appropriate in all circumstances.

It certainly fits with the break it and charge to fix it model that is presently so popular in the big business of modern medicine.

Vaccine “safety” and the swine flu vaccine

I find it tragically unsurprising how even with more than 800 confirmed cases of something as rare as teenage narcolepsy staring them in the face, the vaccine providers are still staunchly holding to their usual position of “no causal link”:

Emelie is one of around 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunised with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline in 2009.

Finland, Norway, Ireland and France have seen spikes in narcolepsy cases, too, and people familiar with the results of a soon-to-be-published study in Britain have told Reuters it will show a similar pattern in children there.

Their fate, coping with an illness that all but destroys normal life, is developing into what the health official who coordinated Sweden’s vaccination campaign calls a “medical tragedy” that will demand rising scientific and medical attention.

Europe’s drugs regulator has ruled Pandemrix should no longer be used in people aged under 20. The chief medical officer at GSK’s vaccines division, Norman Begg, says his firm views the issue extremely seriously and is “absolutely committed to getting to the bottom of this”, but adds there is not yet enough data or evidence to suggest a causal link.

Perhaps, as supposed to be the case with the increase in autism, what we’re seeing here is nothing more than a sudden increase in the parental awareness of narcolepsy…. What one always has to keep in mind when hearing the pro-vaccine parrots squawking “no causal link, no causal link” is that the standard they use for a causal link would eliminate the link between “being shot in the head” and “death” in the vast majority of lethal shootings.

In most cases, unless someone keels over dead after receiving a vaccination while still in the doctor’s office, the vaccine propagandists will claim that there is no link between the administration of the vaccine and the resultant harm that has been suffered by the individual receiving it.  Of course, having personally witnessed an individual collapse unconsciousness within two seconds of receiving a vaccine and hearing the doctor exclaim “oh, no”, I tend to have a considerably more skeptical outlook concerning the purported safety of vaccines and the vaccine schedule than the average individual.

The undeniable fact of the matter is that vaccines are not entirely safe, nor as they as safe as the vaccine advocates claim they are.  The precise degree to which they are unsafe is completely unknown, by either side, because no real and replicable scientific experiments have been performed concerning the current U.S. vaccine schedule.

Furthermore, we also know for an absolute fact that the vaccine manufacturers cherry-pick their statistical studies purporting to demonstrate the safety of the products they are selling.  The only rational position one can take concerning the safety of vaccines is a cautiously skeptical one, particularly in light of the legal immunity granted to those who manufacture, sell, and administer them.

To be clear, I am not against all vaccines.  I even received a tetanus shot when my kneecap was torn open on the soccer field a few years ago.  But it is also perfectly clear to me that not all vaccines are equally safe, or equally necessary.

The gun, she smokes

One of the main reasons I am a vaccine skeptic is that the organizations which vaccine advocates repeatedly cite in their attempt to claim vaccine safety are caught concealing information that indicates the opposite:

 Documentation received from the National Coalition of
Organized Women (NCOW) states that between 2009 and 2010 the
mercury-laden combined flu vaccinations have increased Vaccine Adverse
Events Reporting Systems (VAERS) fetal death reports by 4,250 percent in
pregnant women. Eileen Dannemann, NCOW’s director, made abundantly
clear that despite these figures being known to the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC), the multiple-strain, inactivated flu vaccine containing
mercury (Thimerosal) has once again been recommended to pregnant women
as a safe vaccination this season….

Despite evidence that the CDC knew of the 4,250 percent increase in
fetal death reports in 2009/2010, in order to ensure the continuance of
the vaccine program for pregnant women, the CDC published a study in
AJOG authored by Dr. Pedro Moro of the CDC in the fall of 2010. The
study articulated that there were only 23 miscarriages caused by the
single flu vaccine in 19 years between 1990 – 2009, an average of 1.2
miscarriages per year. This study formed the basis of a CDC worldwide
publicity campaign that the flu shot was safe for pregnant women by
willfully and strategically excluding the 2009 pandemic data, which was
available to them.

For those who blithely argue that all vaccines are developed scientifically and therefore safe – a fascinating approach from a logical perspective – and insist that the CDC should be considered more reliable than other government regulatory agencies such as the BEA or the SEC, I wonder how they can defend the notion that the CDC data is trustworthy when it is confirmed that the organization is making knowingly false statements concerning the safety of vaccines known to cause adverse effects.

Mandatory guinea pigs

The AMA contemplates “compulsory involvement in vaccine studies“.  From a paper entitled “Should Participation in Vaccine Clinical Trials be Mandated?”

“If progression of promising vaccines from the lab to the clinic is to remain unaffected and financial inducement is an ethically unacceptable solution to the recruitment shortage, other strategies need to be considered. Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration. Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as non-donors are presumed to consent to donation, and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon.”

It goes without saying that this is monstrous.  But the fascinating thing here should be the response of those vaccine advocates who have repeatedly argued that the only reason there are no serious double-blind studies of any approved vaccine series is that it would be unethical to use people in such scientific experiments because they would not know if they had received placebos or the actual vaccines.  I’m curious to see if they will suddenly pivot and start arguing that while giving placebos – which are by definition harmless in themselves – is unethical, forcibly giving test vaccines to unwitting human lab rats is perfectly acceptable.

We already know they’re morally and logically bankrupt, I’m mostly interested in learning how far down into the abyss they are willing to plunge.

Watch what they do

And not what they tell you to do.  It’s intriguing to see that most health-care workers refuse to get the vaccinations they so religiously administer to everyone else.

In August, B.C. became the first jurisdiction in Canada to legislate
mandatory flu shots for doctors, nurses and any other healthcare worker
who may come into contact with patients. In previous years, the rate of
inoculation for the province’s health-care workers had been below 50%,
one of the lowest in Canada….

In a November op-ed, University of Toronto bioethics researcher Ross
Upshur maintained that eschewing a flu shot fundamentally violates the
credo of “do no harm.” If healthcare workers “are vectors of disease for
hospitalized patients, they are putting patients at risk for increased
harm,” he said.

It is “disheartening” to see how few Canadian professionals are
getting the flu shot, even if they work with children and the elderly,
said Maher El-Masri, a nursing professor at the University of Windsor.
“I think we have a responsibility to protect our patients.”

It would be fascinating, and I suspect extremely informative, to know if health-care workers are similarly disinclined to vaccinate their own children according the current recommended vaccine schedule.

Cancer-free sterility

On the plus side, with Gardasil, young women are theoretically protected from a few of the many strains of HPV, which can, but usually doesn’t, result in cervical cancer.  On the con side, it appears that it can render teenage girls sterile.  How fortunate for the manufacturers that Congress has rendered them immune to civil liability for their defective products.

The BMJ has published the case report of a healthy 16-year-old
Australian girl whose womanhood appears to have been stolen by Gardasil
vaccinations. She has been thrust into full-fledged menopause, her
ovaries irrevocably shut down, before becoming a woman. The
authors, Deirdre Therese Little and Harvey Rodrick Grenville Ward,
draw direct attention to the fact that, though the girl has been
thoroughly examined and tested, there is no known explanation other than
the series of three Gardasil vaccinations she had.

 The potentially damning information is here:

 “It is not known whether this event of premature ovarian failure is
linked to the quadrivalent  HPV vaccine. More detailed information
concerning rat ovarian hist-ology and ongoing fecundity post-HPV
vaccination was sought from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Although the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report for Human
Papillomavirus Quadrivalent Vaccine, February 2011, does report on the
histology of vaccinated rat testes and epididymides, no histological
report has been available for vaccinated rat ovaries.”

Translation: Neither Merck nor the TGA ever tested for ovary-related problems, in rats or in humans.  This is why the “vaccines are safe” arguments are so inherently vacuous.  The various studies purporting to “prove” their safety do absolutely nothing of the kind, most of them aren’t even relevant to the primary risk factors.  It is certainly too soon to say that Gardasil sterilizes girls, but on the other hand, it is also too soon to assert that it doesn’t.  If it is true that Gardasil causes premature ovarian failure, this is likely to be the biggest medical scandal since thalidomide was shown to be a teratogen.

The total safety of vaccines

Of course, nothing like this unfortunate little incident of gene-swapping viruses could ever possibly occur with human vaccines. Because scientists have performed all sorts of scientific experimentsstatistical reviews and so they can assure you that no vaccine has ever been scientifically proven to harm anyone ever.

Three vaccines used to prevent respiratory disease in chickens have swapped genes, producing two lethal new strains that have killed tens of thousands of fowl across two states in Australia, scientists reported on Friday. The creation of the deadly new variant was only possible because the vaccines contained live viruses, even though they were weakened forms, said Joanne Devlin, lead author of the paper published in the journal Science….

The viruses emerged in 2008, a year after Australia started using a European vaccine along with two very similar Australian vaccines to fight acute respiratory disease in poultry. The illness causes coughing, sneezing and breathing difficulties in birds, normally killing 5 percent of them. The two new strains, however, were far more harmful, and since they were created have killed up to 17 percent of chicken flocks across Victoria and New South Wales, the two main chicken rearing states in Australia.

Of course, if these Australian scientists utilized the system presently used by the U.S. vaccine reporting system, their reports would show that twelve chickens had died for reasons that were inexplicable, but definitely had absolutely nothing to do with the vaccines they received the previous day.

Scientists claim vaccine fraud at Merck

It appears there may still be a few legitimate scientists working in the deeply corrupt vaccine industry:

This is the story of the MMR vaccine and two Merck scientists who filed a lawsuit in 2010 over Merck’s efforts to allegedly “defraud the United States through Merck’s ongoing scheme to sell the government a mumps vaccine that is mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated and falsely certified as having an efficacy rate that is significantly higher than it actually is.” Merck allegedly did this from 2000 onwards in order to maintain its exclusive license to sell the MMR vaccine and keep its monopoly of the US market….

In the complaint, the scientists outline in great detail exactly how Merck manipulated the efficacy results in order to be able to say they had a 95% effective vaccine so that they could meet the fairytale goal of vaccine-induced “herd immunity by 2010.” Well, it turns out that the vaccine could not meet the goal that CDC projected to eradicate mumps by 2010, BECAUSE the vaccine, in its current state cannot reliably confer immunity, and is in fact a dilute version of what it once was when Maurice Hilleman invented it using the virus of his five year old daughter. The same viral mumps strain has been in use in every mumps or MMR vaccine Merck has made since 1967. In order to make the live vaccine virus non-infective the virus has to be “passaged” through different cells or animals. In that passaging, mutations take place and have altered the antigenicity, or the antibody-stimulating capacity of the virus. When testing was performed to show the efficacy (neutralizing antibody provoking potential) of the forty-year-old virus strain, for use in the newer combination mumps vaccines, Merck’s scientists could not produce a 95% efficacy rate….

If what these scientists claim is true, the net result of Merck’s questionable activity was epidemics and outbreaks. It is known that the mumps component of all MMR vaccines from the mid 1990’s has had a very low efficacy, estimated at 69% (Harling 05). The outbreaks started in UK and Europe in 1998. USA’s outbreaks began in 2006.

These mumps outbreaks have already been proven NOT to be the result of failure to vaccinate, but vaccination failure … and now it looks to all be a result of Merck’s cooked books, used in order to maintain a commercial monopoly to generate increased revenue from increasing numbers of boosters.

Now isn’t this interesting? As I have long suspected, the science is not on the side of the vaccine manufacturers even though the scientists are well-paid to ensure that they are. Once more we see the utility of observation and pattern recognition versus published professional science, which due to its increasing corruption, is intrinsically unreliable. This is why the constant appeals to various statistical studies and the occasional experiment in defense of vaccine safety are logically invalid; absolutely none of it can be trusted.

And don’t fall for the defensive and deceptive claims of the vaccine apologists that the known corruption in their limited field of science means that all other fields are necessarily corrupted to the same extent. While the potential for the same problem certainly exists in other fields, few of them are as observably and demonstrably as corrupt as vaccine industry science.

Can anyone doubt that if this case is dismissed for some reason, the same people who claimed the Italian court’s finding that an MMR vaccine caused a case of autism were immaterial will loudly proclaim how it proves that Merck’s vaccines are safe? Or that even if the scientists’ case is confirmed, that those who have loudly accused the unvaccinated for causing the various outbreaks since 1998 will fail to admit they were wrong and point their fingers at the faulty vaccine?