While in Columbus, OH, educating legislators on the balance of the science, I witnessed a reporter interview a mom of a vaccine injured child. The mom no longer consents to vaccination for her daughter because, as she said, if she had continued to vaccinate her daughter would most likely not be here.
The reporter seemed to struggle forming one question. The cognitive disequilibrium was obvious. After explaining the history of events that led to her daughter’s eventual diagnosis, and being told that a functional neurologist has determined that the vaccine did, in fact, cause her injury, the reported asked:
“And what do you say to people who say you are putting children who cannot vaccinate in harm’s way?”
The mom answered the question gracefully: she said she does not tell anyone else to not vaccinate, that other parents have the choice to vaccinate, and so on.
But here’s the rub: the reporter ignored the fact that her own daughter is in the population that people think they are protecting.
Is it me, or is society clueless that the vaccine injured are among those who cannot vaccinate?
Parents of vaccine injured children or of children killed by vaccines should never be asked to promote to support a pharmaceutical product that has injured or killed their child.
This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue.
Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?
Merck’s MMR vaccine has been against the ropes for some time, with critics cautioning against possible contribution of the vaccine to autism, whistleblowers alleging Merck spiked rabbit antibodies into samples to defraud the FDA, and studies showing waning vaccine efficacy and lack of boosting power. GSK’s Priorix is about to be adopted for use in the US, and there are a few points to keep in mind, using information from the scientific literature and a Canadian PRODUCT MONOGRAPH:
Priorix targets a different type of measles than the MMR. GSK’s vaccine targets the Schwarz strain, while the MMR targets the Edmonston-Zagreb measles strain. A study in Bangladesh in 1987 showed that vaccination against the Schwarz strain led to half the seroconversion rate (35%) as the E-Z strain (62%).
The side effects can be serious.
From the Canadian Monograph:
“Page 21 of 23
INTERACTIONS WITH THIS VACCINE
In subjects who have received immune globulins or a blood transfusion, vaccination should be delayed for at least three
If a tuberculin test (skin test to check for tuberculosis) is to be performed, it should be done either before, at the same time as, or 4 to 6 weeks after vaccination with PRIORIX, otherwise the result of the tuberculin test may not be correct.
Your doctor may decide to give PRIORIX at the same time as other vaccines. A different injection site will be used for each vaccine.”
[JLW: Your doctor may decide? This ia presumptive consent, not informed consent.]
“PROPER USE OF THIS VACCINE In case of drug overdose, contact a health care practitioner, hospital emergency department or regional Poison Control Centre (Oh, Canada!) immediately, even if there are no symptoms.
The vaccine must be administered by a health professional.
A single 0.5 mL dose of the reconstituted vaccine is recommended.
PRIORIX will be injected under the skin or into a muscle either in the upper arm or in the outer thigh.
PRIORIX should not be administered intravascularly (into a blood vessel). Different injectable vaccines should always be administered at different injection sites.”
It is not likely to be “either MMR or PRIORIX”. It will likely to offered in addition to, and doctors will be performing new experiments on patients with untested combined use in an untested schedule.
“PRIORIX may be given as a booster dose in subjects who have previously been vaccinated with another measles, mumps and rubella combined vaccine.”
ACIP has never taken a vaccine type off the schedule, no matter how old the vaccine formula is. They have changed recommendations for one age group for the HPV vaccine, dropping the third dose for teens and younger adults. According to the American Cancer Society, the reason is parent/teen conflict – not HPV vaccine injury:
From the ACS website:
Debbie Saslow, PhD, senior director, HPV Related and Women’s Cancers at the American Cancer Society, said the new recommendation will make it easier for people to get protection from HPV. “It’s a burden on parents to get teenagers to the provider’s office. The new recommendations not only cut down on repeated trips, but also spread out the recommended interval. This adds the flexibility that allows the second shot to be given at a time when the child will already be at the provider’s office for something else – an annual checkup, a sports physical, or even something like a strep test.”
That’s a load of baloney to represent this is parent/teen strife. Many of the teens won’t go back because the second dose made them intolerably ill. It’s family/doctor strife that’s the problem – the doctors will not attribute vaccine injuries to vaccines. Nope, never vaccine injury. Can’t say that in the US.
If Priorix and Merck’s MMR are both given to patients each according to their own schedule, it would double the number of measles, mumps and rubella live attenuated virus vaccines exposures. CDC says that a second MMR vaccine, usually given at 4 years of age, “can be given early”, as long as it is has been 28 days since the last MMR.
I wonder if, therefore doses of a measles, mumps and rubella vaccine are in the works for children and teens without evidence of immunity?
Given that this study shows 24% efficacy of the MMR against mumps 20 years after vaccination, lifetime immunity is clearly not available via vaccination.
Merck also has the MMRV vaccine, which, in addition to measles, mumps and rubella contains the varicella-zoster virus, which causes chickenpox and shingles.
This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue.
Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?
Laws that demand parents knowingly risk injury or death or their own beloved children are intolerably inhumane. The question is not whether such injustices will be resolved; the question is whether parents will wait to convince the majority, flee as medical refugees to more rational States, or disregard such cruel overreach? Once forced, they have no moral choice but to walk away from orthodox medicine one by one, thereby, en masse, revealing the relative futulity of paradigms poisoned by profit incentives due to the hubris of a paternalist medical conspiracy of good intentions. Woeful and willful ignorance of risk portend disastrous outcomes: the rejection of Science and The Press by the inevitably awakened majority, and a vigorous condemnation and punishment of purveyors of misinformation leading parents to bring their most precious prosperity to slaughter for some uncertain proclaimed greater good. Governments must behold and heed the wisdom of painfully earned experiences of the injured masses who come in earnest to protect those with unrecognized shared peril. For all the uncertainty and suppositions, one outcome is assured: this well-identified minority of American citizens will not conform; given their natural imperative as parents they will resist and protect the welfare of their loved ones, they will defend their liberties against any assault, and they will not rest until the abrogation of the sacred contract of public trust is revoked and is replaced with a trust of self-determinism and remedied via public health policies and medical practices founded on reality.
There are a few serious disconnects between the science of genetics and the application of that science to medicine, and it’s putting millions of people at risk of exposure to unnecessary medical interventions, including life-long exposure to psychotropic medicines. These exposures are starting at an increasingly young age.
First, I will outline the signs that a “genetic disorder” is not genetic:
(1) The variation in the human genome involves “common variants”. Common genetic variation, whether it be in the form of SNPs, or mitochondrial variation, non-synonymous substitutions or, or insertion/deletions, are ancient, pre-dating not only the development of psychiatry, but pre-dating the development of Western Medicine – and Western Civilization itself. These genetic variants nearly all pre-date the invention of the airplane, cars, houses, and roads.
Examples include common variations in the MTHFR gene, and the 12 SNP loci identified in a study of ADHD that reports the “first” evidence of genetic variation linked to that condition.
While the traits associated with the “disorder” are “heritable”, that is only because those traits are heritable in the human population. It is important to note that it is the specific genetic variation that is associated with the “condition” that is ancient – not just the highly conserved functionally important parts of the genome, and some coverage of that study has confused these two entities.
(2) No grandparents have the condition – and many parents of people with the condition do not have it.
Autism is found in a startling 1 in 56 Americans – with rates as high as 1 in 25 boys. These children’s grandparents certainly do not have the tell-tale signs of not talking, hand-flapping, toe-walking, lack of eye contact, and difficulty in navigating socially. In the 1980s and 1990s, parents of the newly diagnosed children not only never heard of “autism” – many did not even ever hear of any child with the same set of symptoms that their children were exhibiting. Most autism-related genetic variation also involves common variation, although much of the variation is de novo (i.e., unique to the child) representing mutations, perhaps from environmental toxins that the parents – or, in the cases of mothers’ DNA, the grandmother – was exposed to.
(3) The genetic variation explains too little of the traits in question.
The common understanding of “genetic” traits – such as eye color – is that they show very specific reproducibility in appearance from generation to generation, even when they are are influenced by multiple loci. This high-fidelity transmission can occur in discrete traits that occur in categories, or in traits that are continuous traits with variations on a theme, within narrow bounds. At the population level, eye color is determined by numerous loci, leading to variations within categories, but the inheritance is very clearly discrete.
Heritability studies in autism only explain around 50% of the inheritance of the phenotypes (traits) that lead to autism. This estimate is done at the population level, not at the individual level – a parent of a child with autism is not 50% autistic. The 12 new loci discovered in ADHD only explain 74% of the trait – meaning that environmental factors have a large influence in determining whether the occurrence of the traits occurs in an individual or not. In autism, the largest studies point to a lot of room for environmental factors. The right types of studies that look at both genetics and environmental exposures in the same individuals have not been conducted in ASD nor in ADHD. If they did, we would know the significance of the interaction term between environmental exposures and genetics.
So there are times when a “genetic” condition cannot be labeled “genetic”. Here are some reasons why a “genetic condition” might not even be the right “condition” to be concerned with.
(1) The “condition” itself is a sequela of one or more true underlying conditions.
If a person has no problem with specific environmental exposure, but then develops a condition as a result of another condition, they may be confused with having a condition they would not otherwise have. This is a type of co-morbidity, and if the symptoms of the actual underlying, sometimes hidden condition are lessened, the indirect resulting condition may become alleviated. An example is encephalopathy leading to autism involving the exposure of the brain to toxins from food and gut bacteria due to conditions with lesions in the intestine. The intestinal epithelium layer is the largest surface area by which we interact with our environment. Dignoses of ASD can result with neither the parents – nor the doctors – aware that the issue is chronic exposures to toxins leading to brain inflammation.
(2) The risk of the outcome of an environmental exposure is heritable, not the condition, and the severity of the condition is driven by environment.
If a condition comes and goes with changes to exposures to specific environmental triggers, the sensitivity is the primary condition, not the symptoms. An example would be food allergies that lead to altered mental states, or to simple rashes resulting from food or chemical exposures. These sensitivities are often not genetic – the parents may or may not have certain similar sensitivities – and they often involve immunological responses with a component of autoimmunity. Another example would be seasonable allergies and asthma. Remove the trigger, the sensitivity remains, but the root cause is an autoimmunological response made possible by prior exposure to allontigens in the presence of a substance that over-activated the immune system, such as aluminum hydroxide in vaccines.
(3) The”genetic condition” can be modified by changes in diet, restrictions to food triggers, removal of toxins, or other seemingly unrelated improvements.
Studies have now shown long-term benefits from correcting the gut microbiota in autism, leading to a 50% reduction in the severity of ASD symptoms via fecal microbiota transpant (FMT). Not only are the improvements apparently permanent, they also appear to help every child. As the moms have been saying for years: Heal the Gut, Heal the Mind.
The risk of psychosis from ADHD psychotropic medicines is estimated to be 1 in 660. In my book, “Cures vs. Profits”, I have a chapter on ADHD entitled “Overdiagnosis of ADHD: It’s their mind, not yours” and also a chapter on FMT. Clearly the improvements made by FMT are historic, and every parent of a child with ASD would do well to read as much you can about FMT. I’ll end this article with a list of links to articles on the ASD studies as a start toward what will hopefully be a better future for kids with ASD and their families.
I wonder if FMT might have permanent benefit for ADHD as well?
In a very (VERY) unscientific, informal survey conducted among those who follow my Facebook page, I asked two questions, in separate posts
“Other than toxins in vaccines and glyphosate and lead and fluoride, which corporate toxins do you avoid the most? #CorporateToxins”
After five hours, the replies numbered 217, and the results were very interesting.
In spite of specifically excluding toxins in vaccines, and glyphosate (an herbicide), a signals reflecting those concerns seem to push through the collective psyche.
Artificial dyes, “fragrances”, aluminum, and artificial sweeteners ranked highest followed by GMO’s, flame retardants (pthalates), detergents, and the list goes on (See Figure 1, above).
The second question followed:
“Five hours ago, I asked an open-ended question: “Other than toxins in vaccines, glyphosate, and lead and fluoride, which corporate toxins do you avoid the most?” In 217 mentions, the toxins you are most concerned about are listed below. NEW QUESTION: Of the toxins listed below, WHICH >>THREE<< CONCERN YOU THE VERY MOST?”
The question was met with a large number of “why only three?”. Fair question: to quantify the toxins that people avoid the most is different from the toxins that concern us the most. I wanted to characterize the respondent’s priorities in the following terms: of the toxins people typically avoid, which concern you the most?
In the 356 mentions of toxins that rank highest, the following result is telling:
Of the top four, mercury and aluminum came through as highest concerns – alongside herbicides and GMOs.
So, in spite of instructions to leave vaccines and glyphosate out of their concerns, the respondents are clearly very focused on the toxins found in vaccines even if they come from other sources.
YESTERDAY IN OREGON, I gave testimony, registered as neither for nor against, to educate the Ways and Means Committee on scientific facts relevant one of the most draconian bills conceived (HB3063). Oregon has classically been among the most politically diverse and yet tolerant society among all of the US States. The aim of the bill is to remove religious and personal exemptions recognized by the State for school attendance after a handful of measles cases, many in adults. The argument in support of the bill is that immunocompromised kids attending school might become infected with measles, mumps, pertussis, or any of the other allegedly “vaccine preventable diseases”.
The religious exemption removal is breathtaking in its scope, and will likely be found to be unconstitutional if passed. Clearly, if the medical community fails to attribute vaccine adverse events to the vaccine, the law will prevent parents from exercising a personal exemption after a vaccination that their child is vaccine intolerant that their own doctor believes is not due to the vaccine.
A couple of pediatricians gave testimony before mine describing how terrible pertussis infection is in very young infants, and they claimed that vaccination could prevent those infections.
Originally I had intended to testify on asymptomatic measles transmission, but in my two minute period I felt compelled to use time to address the fact that TdaP and DTaP are recognized as failed vaccines and that they can create carriers of pertussis infection without symptoms. These potential asymptomatic carriers including anyone who is vaccinated, as has been robustly shown by a baboon study. This includes school nurses, teachers, pediatricians and ob/gyn doctors as well as grandparents, aunts, uncles and older siblings of newborn infants, and so pointed out that I found it odd that out of the thousands of non-vaccinating families I have come to know, none have told me that they have had a pertussis infection, and yet here we see families who receive allopathic care including vaccination against pertussis have infants that develop pertussis infections. I suggested that perhaps they should consider mandating that doctors be tested weekly for pertussis infection to find the hidden reservoir of asymptomatic carriers.
In a compelling piece of testimony, a school Superintendent told the Ways and Means Committee that he would not comply with the exclusionary policies that would result if the bill were to pass. His reasoning was that the school would by denying that child access to education, and that his school would lose federal funding for every child that left the school to be homeschooled.
In the hallway afterwords, I was interviewed by the press, and during that time I brought up the reality that science shows that like pertussis, like the mumps, measles can be transmitted via asymptomatic carriage and transmission (See For Health Officials and School Boards: Asymptomatic Transmission is Real). I made the point that the logic of excluding the unvaccinated from schools is therefore dangerous because schools cannot know that they have an active transmission chain of measles, mumps, pertussis or chickenpox unless some kids develop symptoms, and therefore excluding the unvaccinated places the immunocompromised at higher danger of unknowingly being exposed. Therefore, the unvaccinated are a boon to public health. This reality shows the fatal flaw in the logic of excluding the unvaccinated from school: it only works if you deny asymptomatic transmission.
The people who use vaccine exemptions often do so after first-hand experience with vaccine injury. CDC classifies febrile seizures as mild, and yet they can lead to seizure disorders and can kill. CDC denies that vaccines cause autism (although not all vaccines have been tested for causing autism and the studies conducted on the MMR are truly poor science).
In Salem yesterday, after I left to fly back to Pittsburgh, the vote passed out of the first Ways and Means Committee along party lines. Democrats who want to pass legislation mandating this and other flawed products are mandating them not only for Democrats but also for children of Republicans, for Independents, and for Greens.
There is a strong message here for those who seek truth. Vaccines are not only not safe for everyone. Vaccines also perpetuate the perception of the need for vaccination while perpetuating invisible transmission chains that can kill the immunocompromised via asymptomatic transmission. The palliations that the pediatricians will provide medical exemptions are unfathomably untrue: the CDC’s misinformation campaign that “Vaccines Are Safe” requires vaccine risk, injury and death denialism, and medical doctors are facing persecution in California where Senator Pan was pushing a bill the very same day as HB3063 to restrict medical exemptions because, according to him, there are too many medical exemptions.
This issue is quickly become a very risk, divisive and partisan issue. I know ten people in Oregon who told me yesterday that they left the Democratic Party. A lifelong Democrat myself, I left last year and registered as an Independent.
There is an even more dire message here for Democrats: The vaccine injured population grows every week with more and more families joining as a result of vaccine injury. These families have massive amounts of pent up anger and resentment which has been building up since Congress indemnified Pharma and doctors for vaccine injury.
I predict that if the bill passes in Oregon, it will be eventual political undoing of the Democratic party in that legislature.
I predict that if HB3063 passes, the blame for all vaccine injuries and deaths from 2019 may fall at the feet of the Democratic Party, and pending a party line vote to pass the bill, that is, in my somber but professional view, precisely where the responsibility will belong.
The Senator who brought HB3063 forward had previously pulled a similar bill in 2015 because the discussion centered on the science instead of what she called the health of the people of Oregon. The health and lives of the vaccine intolerant and the vaccine risk aware matter. I did some calculations while in Oregon: there are between 35,000-40,000 families who are not fully vaccinated. Of these, if 80% stopped vaccinating due to injuries, Oregon can expect between 18,000-22,000 new vaccine injuries per year. Vaccines risk is likely genetic. While vaccines do not check your party affiliation before they injure, they also create political activists who are vaccine risk aware, and they turn Democrats into Independents or Republicans.
Listen to Oregon State Senator Dallas Heard’s passionate plea to his colleagues made just prior to the vote.
The US military intelligence and Homeland Security community is surely aware that enemies of the US exist who desire to harm American citizens by any manner possible. Images of trucks traveling through major metropolitan areas misting the air with bioterrorism weapons are enough to make any parent shudder and keep Homeland Security policy makers awake at night.
Recently, former Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge offered their views in USA Today that the measles cases in the US represent a national security threat. Citing H1N1 flu as a previous example of a deadly disease that provided a past scare, they refer to the measles as the current deadly disease.
While their concerns over bioterrorism and national security are warranted, their hyperbole over measles morbidity and mortality is unfounded. According to CDC, the US say 450-500 deaths per year prior to 1960, in a population of 180,000,000 citizens. Any of those citizens who experinced measles and survived developed lifelong immunity. This contrasts with people vaccinated against measles with the MMR who now face news that as adults, they, too, might “need” an MMR booster. The US believes they are dependent on Merck to save us from measles and mumps – and to the extent the previously vaccinated require boosters for bouts of temporary immunity of increasingly short duration, the dependency is a construct, created by trust given to a corporation who has betrayed the public health trust time and again, with 55,000 fraud-based deaths from Vioxx.
Why is there only one measles vaccine in the US, and why does the Lieberman/Ridge narrative ring hollow?
In my view, they have missed their mark completely by portaying the measles infections as a threat to national security in part because measles is not a deadly disease in the US. But more importantly, as I tweeted out last month, the fact that the entire recently vaccinated crew of a Navy ship (The USS Fort McHenry) is still quarantined at sea after her crew developed paratoditis – mumps in all but name – means that the MMR vaccine itself may be a serious thrat to national security (this point was seconded by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr).
In reality, every jab creates another patient (civilian or otherwise) dependent on future vaccination for their immunity, and there are signs of waning efficacy due to mutations that occur every year in both the wild type measles and mumps viruses and in the vaccine type, propagated by serial passages in cell lines. The evidence is all around us: outbreaks of mumps and measles in highly vaccinated populations, evidence of asymptomatic infection and transmission of both viruses and the pertussis bacterium, pointing to the vaccinated as unknowing reservoirs of wild-type pathogens which cannot be eradicated due to the use of mismatched vaccines that make wild-type imfections silent in some, and more deadly to others.
The fact is that the US has no readiness plan to deal with waning vaccine efficacy of aging vaccines other than more increasingly futile boosters. And that is no plan at all.
Billions of Dollars Heisted in False Zika Narrative
The horrific encephalopathy in newborns reported following whole-cell pertussis vaccination that led to the development of acellular pertussis vaccines was later denied by a false narrative of “unsubstantiated reports” and “rumors”. For vaxtremists, only issues detected with epidemiological studies occur – and even when no such has been conducted, the absence of evidence carries the same weight as a gold standard double-blinded prospective randomized clinical trial. This habit is unscientific and unacceptable.
In 2016, during the months following Zika season in Brazil, no increase in microcephaly was detected. No increase in microcephaly occurred outside of Brazil, either – even during the 2015 microcephaly scare. What did occur in 2015/2016 – which I can prove with emails- is that the scientist involved in a new whole-cell pertussis vaccine study in the slums of NE Brazil – the epicenter of the microcephaly outbreak – was informed of a concern that perhaps her whole-cell pertussis vaccine was causing microcephaly. The cessation of that research could explain the sudden end to microcephaly in Brazil.
The basis of the CDC’s conclusion that Zika infection caused the increase in microcephaly came in the form of a report from one aborted fetus. The autopsy was not conducted in the US, and the result has not been reproduced. We do not know the incidence of MC in cases of Zika infection, nor vice versa – especially given no increased in microcephaly in 2016 in spite of infection rates on par with 2015, something is amiss.
The fact is that the Lieberman/Ridge analysis is shallow because even a minor scratch beneath the surface shows a repeated pattern of the use of fear and exaggerated threats to maintain a multi-billion dollar governmental complex via which corporations routinely access billion dollar contracts. Since CDC and health departments are unwilling to provide full-spectrum public health policies founded on Science instead of shallow, one-note songs that lead inevitably and singularly to more vaccinations, the agenda is to use a cynical paternalism to induce an expectation of widespread unquestioning compliance for the eventuality of a bioterrorism attack.
The problem with this approach is found in its cynicism. Most vaccine refusal is derived from religious objections to the practice and to the manifestation of ill effects of vaccines that occur in some people which, in spite of the CDC’s best effortd, are now impossible to deny. The awkward, ineffectual and legally questionable practice of government induced – and possibly coerced – censorship of discuasions of vaccine risk on social media has only served to increase distrust of government public health policies, compounding the mistrust derived from vaccine injury and death denialism amidst the growing recognition of flaws and alleged fraud in vaccine safety studies.
If maintaining bioterrorism readiness is to be used to motivate support for increasingly extreme vaccination policies, which re: measles includes no plan to deal with subclinical infections and asymptomatic transmission, nor any plan to accommodate those who will be injured, then certainly a fair and salinet question is how much of the billions bilked from the US Treasury for an unnecessary Zika vaccine is being used to create readiness for a recombined Frankenstein bioweapon? Where was US readiness in 2014 and 2015 during the largest Ebola outbreak in history?
The lack of readiness was then, is now and will be attributable to a private industry that has captured public agencies, has hijacked Congress, and that has dictated massively profitable agendas that have alienated and dischenfranchised much of the US public.
I and others have been calling for safer vaccines and have laid out a clear path to renewing the public trust. These voices do not care to perpetuate contracts for Merck, GSK, or other vaccine developers. We care about accountability and product improvement, which are impossible without product liability.
Summary: Vaccine injury and death denial-based policies have failed, and mandates without exemptions designed to mask transmission chains will only serve to increase vaccine risk awareness and will further fuel mistrust of vaccine-centric public health policies in the US and abroad. Attempts to sustain public support for vaccination-based public health policy based on gross exaggerations of risks to childhood illnesses is irresponsible because it will likely backfire and reduce the public’s confidence in calls to action when national security is a under sincere and credible imminent threat.
This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue.
Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?
WHEN GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATIONS WORK TOGETHER to advance and perpetuate their power and wealth at the cost of the average citizen’s well-being, we have a few terms that we can use. Some use “corporatism”, but, in a capitalist society, being pro-corporation has a positive sheen. It’s intermingled with being “pro-American”.
The corporatism that has a stranglehold on our regulatory bodies has occured via a process call “regulatory capture”, which means nothing less that a take-over of certain arms of the executive branch of government. Regulatory agency directors are appointed, not elected, and thus pro-corporate policies can take hold and stay in place as long as the officials in the agency remain in place. That’s why CDC can get away with scientific fraud, with not doing the right science, or even with not doing more of the wrong science. They are guarding the bodies – and this will eventually be their legacy: criminals acting at the behest of corrupt and greedy corporations hiding behing the guise of protecting public health, when, in reality, they are protecting contracts for aging and increasingly ineffective vaccines.
One step that is taken by fascist dictators is to dissolve the separatation of powers. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (aka “Vaccine Court”) is administered by the HHS. They are an arm of the executive branch that expresses HHS (executive) policy. This is wrong. There is a move afoot to increase the use of “Special Masters”in many areas of law that impact liability – and when corporations write the rules, they remove themselves as defendants, make the government the defendant, and the corporatist government arm that is the defendant (as HHS is in every vaccine injury case), the defendant oversees the “judges”. That turns my stomach.
Every American citizen whose grandfather- or grandmother- fought European fascism in World War II should bristle and act upon how corporations have all but consumed US regulatory agencies. Those who stand to profit from this neofascism actually applaud regulatory capture. But in a US in which corporations can make unlimited donations to political candidates, including via dark-money organizations and SUPER PACS, either we work to change the rules, or will submit to a new form of government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.
It’s all too easy to throw the term “fascism” across party lines, as if undue corporate influences that better the position of candidates in one party is more evil than the same level of undue corporate influences that better the positions of candidates in another party. As fascists keep the people separarated and confused along “party lines” defined by token divisive variations on social norms, partisans tend to fall into the trap of demonizing their fellow citizens across party lines without being able to see the puppet strings of those who want to keep the populus separated, numb and uninformed to the chronic pilfering of our wealth, and our health.
I honestly wonder if modern fascists realize they are fascists?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Allison Park, PA
This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue.
Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?
NB:This article was originally published on Medium but that account was silenced following publication.
“GET YOUR VACCINES! HERD IMMUNITY! You anti-vaxxers are putting other people at risk!”
This level of ‘debate’ is an emotional appeal to fear and is a form of coercion.
In reality, many current vaccines have reached the limit of their usefulness, and there is no hiding it.
Worse, some current vaccines may make the vaccinated more susceptible to infection from the very pathogens they were designed to immunize against- or other pathogens that the vaccine does not target.
I’ve looked at toxicity of metals like aluminum and mercury in great detail and find a great deal of support in the scientific literature for serious issues with injection of thimerosal and aluminum. Tens of thousands of hours and two and half papers later, we have a viable theory for how vaccines can cause autism, and we have a determination that a series of mistakes have led to doses of aluminum in vaccines that are intolerably unsafe for some.
I’m now of the opinion that if you are partaking of aluminum-containing vaccines, you should never accept a thimerosal-containing vaccine due to additive toxicity. And if one does choose to vaccinate with aluminum-containing vaccines, one should never accept a thimerosal-containing vaccine due to synergistic toxicity. I’m also of the opinion that digging up metals and injecting them into our newborns and our expectant mothers is, well, quite possibly the most stupid idea from medicine. Ever.
I am sharing bluntly from an informed position. My forthcoming review on the role of aluminum and mercury in autism has 250 references, all supporting a key role of vaccine metals in inducing — with the help of some inherited and de novo mutations — ER Hyperstress. Our just-published reconsideration of aluminum study took over a year in peer review — the editor graciously handled the process and the paper was vetted in the end, by an additional three independent reviewers. There is no question in my mind that there is too much aluminum in the CDC vaccine schedule for some, and there is no credible basis for the dosing of aluminum in vaccines, period. This is not hyperbole, we did the math.
The Flu Vaccine Makes Us More Susceptible to Acute Infections from Non-Influenza Respiratory Viruses
Studies are confirming that vaccination against the flu virus leads to increased rates of respiratory infections by non-influenza viruses. See, for example, Rikin et al., 2018 who wrote “Among children there was an increase in the hazard of ARI caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period. and “Post-vaccination risk of non-influenza respiratory pathogen was higher in children”. This is in the journal VACCINES.
Public health policy around influenza must change so deaths due to “flu-like illnesses” are no longer considered deaths due to influenza. Every cadaver should be swabbed for an exact determination of the virus(es) involved — again, another policy update needed. Americans deserve to know what they are dying from.
But the issue for today is waning immunity. Emblazoned across CNN’s website— complete with a video that includes artificial immunization 101, sure to tell you serious side effects are rare.
The flu vaccine, we were told, was only 10–18% effective this year. I’ve analyzed trends of flu vaccine efficacy and found that higher vaccine uptake in any given two years is associated with decreased efficacy of the vaccine in the next year. I’m convinced that part of that is immune system compromise due to the effects of thimerosal on the protein ERAP1 — which is essential for proper shortening of immune proteins.
The other problem is that viruses evolve. They experience mutations in the wild — and the strains in the vaccines experience mutations in the cultures in which they are grown. The mumps vaccine uses the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps — isolated from a throat culture of the daughter of Dr. Maurice Hilleman in 1963.
To calculate the number of mutational differences between the 2018 circulating strains and the 1955 strain should be straightforward — sequence the stored isolates and sequence the currently circulated strains. In mumps, this has been done every year — and while overall the predicted amino acid sequences are very similar, for some wild type mumps isolates, protein divergence from the Jeryl Lynn strain are much higher- with divergence as high as 15% (See example study here). Faster divergence in some proteins than others is confirmed in a study conducted on isolates in China.
But, as I’ve said about Ebola — it’s not the rate, it’s the mutation. A series of individual mutations, or a single mutation could render the MMR significantly less effective than it had been in previous years. Or, a new strain of the mumps could come into prominence due to the efficacy of the mumps vaccine.
The disease burden from vaccination is not adequately assessed. Here are some facts worth considering:
(2) Live Vaccine Types Can Directly Cause Disease. Persistent infection of mumps wild-type virus (Jeryl Lynn 5 mumps virus) has been detected in cases of chronic encephalitis. (See Morfopoulou et al.) This evidence is as strong as the evidence used by CDC to conclude that Zika contributed to microcephaly in Brazil.
(3) Whooping Cough Bug Persists in Vaccinated Medical Professionals.Medical professionals, including pediatricians, who vaccinate every ten years against pertussis may be the reservoir of wild-type infectious because they are not immune to B. pertussis, the bacterium that causes whooping cough-they just show no symptoms. (See my article at World Mercury Project). Medical professionals should be swabbed every Monday morning for asymptomatic B. pertussis infection.
(5) Type Replacement is Real. Type replacement is accepted in influenza, and always has been. It is denied by CDC to be occurring in HPV vaccinated populations, in spite of the fact that most studies show type replacement (See my article on this in Epoch Times). The CDC’s own study (Markovitz et al. (2016)) found no net change in overall HPV infection rates after the 4-valent HPV vaccines came to market but somehow concluded that their data did not support type replacement.
We at IPAK have re-analyzed the Markovitz study data in the simplest manner possible to ask a very simple question: Was there a significant shift in the prevalence of non-vaccine targeted types after the introduction of the 4-valent HPV vaccine? Recall that Markovitz et al. (2016) concluded that no type replacement had occurred after the HPV 4-valent vaccine had been brought to market.
The study data were ambiguously labeled with a column “non-4v HPV” but a close read of the text points to “Any HPV” — “4v HPV” vs. “non-4v HPV” as the data of interest to use in a 2 x 2 contingency test. We used Fisher’s exact test on counts (not frequencies). Counts were estimated from the prevalence data, data are represented as percentages for clarity.
Here is the result:
Fisher’s exact test on the count data was significant at p<0.0001.
This means that for HPV, type replacement is real. Due to using weak statistical testing, when more powerful tests are available, CDC can be considered culpable for new infections that occur when doctors tell patients “you are protected from HPV”. In my view, the Markovitz et al. paper should be retracted because it is misleading, and clinicians should warn patients that they could still be infected with rarer, potentially more dangerous types of HPV if they have other risk factors (unprotected sex, multiple sex partners, drug use, etc). To be fair, I contacted CDC some time ago and asked them to consider whether their data might necessarily show type replacement, like other studies published at that time had shown. Dr. Markovitz declined direct dialog, and an underling stopped replying after I pointed out the obvious.
In spite of attempts of individuals to claim that data show that HPV vaccine reduces HPV-related cancers rates, one must always read the fine-print. The studies look at surrogate outcome (CIN rates), and they often only report rates of CIN lesions associated with vaccine-targeted HPV types. We may not know if rarer types sweep into populations and increase overall HPV-related cancer rates for decades.
The second reason that HPV vaccination-induced type replacement is possibly quite dangerous is that both intra-typic and inter-typic recombination could lead to increased new types of pathogenicity. With hundreds of rare types, those that increase in frequency due to vaccination may be different in different parts of the world. Evolution is fastest in semi-divided populations with gene flow due to low migration rates and high genetic diversity within subpopulations. And recombination occurs in HPV. This study shows recombination occurring between European and African HPV types.
Interestingly, impaired normal recombination of the human genome is the virus’ cancer-causing calling card. As an evolutionary biologist, I’d say that enabling recombination among types is part of this virus’s phenotype. Evolution loves diversity. Evidence of recombination among HPV types is strong (see for example this study). And since recombination is most likely to occur between different HPV types in individuals with >1 HPV types, prevention of exposure to new HPV types in individuals who are already infected is very important.
And the age distribution, by Aboriginal status. The outbreak involved only the Aboriginal population — and mumps can lead to sterility, as the presenter of these images describe in this video.
Clearly, the FluQuadri and FluQuadri, Jr. vaccine may have an an unforeseen effect on the aboriginal population. Hyperimmunization could be responsible. (Neither vaccine contains thimerosal, according to the vaccine manufacturer The product insert from 2015 is available via the WayBack machine.)
This is what happens when we do whole-population experimentation without informed consent and do not insist on randomized clinical trials to assess long-term safety of vaccines and vaccine schedules before unleashing them on to an uninformed, non-consented population. None of the patients — Aboriginals or not — were informed they were part of a safety testing for Sanofi-Pasteur’s new vaccine. However, additional vaccines were also used and it is possible that simultaneous administration of aluminum-containing vaccines occurred.
In general, the sources of waning immunity are likely two-fold: the damaging effects of metals in non-live vaccines on the immune system, combined with vaccine driven evolution (antigenic drift) leading to type replacement.
Discussions of “breakthrough infections” in populations vaccinated against mumps should consider the importance of individual amino acid differences in viral biology and immune escape.
Jeryl Lynn, like the mumps viruses, has changed a bit since 1955.
It’s time for a ruling on the MMR efficacy controversy, and for research on safer and and more effective means of artificial immunization. And it’s time that governments in countries that use vaccines to inform their populations that post-marketing surveillance studies mean they are enrolled in safety studies, and that they have the right to expect that the medical professional will honor their basic human right to opt out of any such study under laws inspired by The Nuremberg Code. There are many reasons why that is the right thing to do… reason #1 for me is that, in spite of what we had all hoped, vaccines are no longer what they used to be.
IF I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that causes me to understand something, I have personal knowledge (“on the basis of information and belief”). It is completely rational for me to act on the basis of my personal belief, even if I’m wrong. It would be irrational for me to continue to believe something once confronted with evidence that (a) fundamentally contradicts my understanding, or (b) demonstrates that the assumptions underlying my personal knowledge are false. If sufficient new information comes my way that contradicts my understanding, I should, rationally, change my mind. If the assumptions of my personal knowledge are shown to be untrue, I should at the very least seek new information, and my personal knowledge should become uncertainty. If I were to hold onto a specific something in the face of (a) or (b), or both (a) and (b), that personal knowledge would be re-classified into personal belief.
The question of the basis of knowledge claims about vaccine safety is an area of interest to many people, and it should be of interest to anyone who represents themselves as a scientist or a medical professional concerned with human health and well-being. Here, I will contrast the basis of the knowledge claims about vaccines. But first, let’s dispense with knowledge claims about vaccines, because studies done only on a single vaccine are irrelevant to claims about other vaccines, just as studies done on one drug is irrelevant to the safety of other drugs.
The basis of knowledge claims of safety of any given vaccine requires control over factors that might influence our assessment of health outcomes. For example, if I arbitrarily assigned patients into a group to be vaccinated based on availability (such as patients enrolled in a practice from 2008-2012), and compared those health outcomes to outcomes observed in a new set of patients who received the vaccine (2013-2017), any health outcomes that were trending already for reasons not related to the vaccine could appear to be signficantly different between the groups. This is called a cohort effect. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) control for such variation by putting a randomization scheme (called “random allocation”) between the investigator and the decision on which group each patient is assigned. With large enough sample sizes, randomization practically guarantees that arbitrary factors (called confounders) are not mistaken for the effect of a treatment effect.
Randomized clinical trials are true experiments, and true experiments are stronger science than observational studies. Epidemiological association are used to assess long-term vaccine safety, and are a weaker form of science. In particular, they do not objectively correct for confounders; instead, they are often used in a manner that leads investigators to correct for variables after they have initially found an association, repeating analyses until an association is lost. In other sciences, this is called p-hacking; there is no fixed data analysis plan, a priori power analyses are not conducted, and the result of the study is only published after a problematic health outcome is made to be no longer significant. For example, most of the studies used to assess the question of “vaccines” and autism were based on the study of one vaccine, they were all retrospective studies, and according to my analyses, most were underpowered, meaning that a negative result could be due to having too few patients.
When it comes to the safety of a vaccine, the following flowchart applies
If a long-term “total health outcome awareness” RCT with valid placebos (saline) has been conducted, the answer to the question is objectively knowable. Hopefully the results are negative (e.g., no serious adverse events or increased deaths in the treatment group compared to the control group) and in support of the conclusion that the vaccine is safe. Even then, however, the standard of objective knowledge in science is that the study be independently replicated by competitors or by individuals who have no vested interest in the outcome of the study. If such independent replication exists, then the conclusion that the vaccine is safe can be adopted as objective knowledge.
If, by contrast, no such studies exist, the answer to the question of the safety of a vaccine is unknown and the conclusion that the vaccine is safe requires reliance on personal (subjective) knowledge, aka personal belief.
Policies and laws should be based on objective knowledge. As Neil Degrasse Tyson explained to Joe Rogan in the The Joe Rogan Experience (#1159):
“If you create laws that requires that I go with that, you just imposed your personal belief on me, and your personal belief is not true for everyone, it’s only true for you.
An objective truth is true for everyone. If you’re going to have governance, you’re going to want to base governance on what is objectively true, because it would apply to everyone, independent of your belief system.”
“Wait!”, you might say, “the scientific consensus is that vaccines are safe and effective, and their knowledge is based on retrospective observational studies, and it’s good enough for them, so why should we listen to you, your standards are too high, get with the program!”.
To which I would answer there is a term for a belief system in which hundreds – or millions – of people ardently believe something with their whole heart. It’s called religion. Personal belief is personal belief no matter how many people hold that belief. That’s fine, anyone can choose to believe that a vaccine is safe, or even that vaccines are safe, even when sufficient evidence does not exist to support that belief. Just call it religion. Don’t call it science.
There is another form of knowledge that is worth considering here. Neil Degrasse Tyson also explained Political Truth – and that is belief that is something someone holds because it has been repeated over and over. I have a flowchart for that, too.
The mantra “Vaccines are Safe and Effective” has certainly been repeated over and over. The question is whether one is willing to accept dogma, and there are many reasons why someone might want to, none of which make a vaccine safe. The fear of infection, for example, or fear of ridicule, and derision. Fear of harming someone else with an infection. Lack of personal experience with vaccine injury. Or, some people just go with the flow, they don’t have time to look into the state of vaccine safety science. Either way, their belief is personal belief, not objective knowledge. For those unwilling to accept repeated statements as sufficient reason to adopt the mantra as their personal belief, the only recourse is to fall on personal experience with vaccine injury, the experiences of others, or science.
This is why I, and others are calling for RCTs testing individual vaccine long-term safety and for RCTs of the entire CDC pediatric schedule – replicated by independent research teams with no ties to corporations with financial and agencies with financial interest- so we can have policies and laws based on objective knowledge. And that is why personal belief exemptions are necessary – so those with personal knowledge of vaccine injury are not forced to participate in an activity which they know- based on information and belief – may harm themselves, or further harm their child (or children).
Allison Park, PA 15101
This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue.
Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?
Scientific American risks taking on the stigma of the loss of credibility
The American Council on Science and Health, which was busted in a scam to trick people all around the world into thinking that glyphosate – an ingredient in RoundUp(TM) was safe – advertises itself as a “pro-industry” not-for-profit. Monsanto (now Bayer Crop Sciences). RTK (Right to Know) considers ACSH a “corporate front” (Read: Glyphosate:GEOFFREY KABAT’S TIES TO TOBACCO AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY GROUPS (RTK)). GM Watch describes how discovery in the first trial on fake science constructed in an attempt to refute studies that supported that Glyphosate is a cancer-causing agent. (Read:Glyphosate and Cancer: Buying Science (GM Watch)). ACSH’s involvement in the fake science came out in the Dewayne Johnsons’ successful lawsuit against Monsanto which led to an historic ruling that Monsanto influenced studies that were represented as independent. Emails obtained on discovery showed that Monsanto employees were openly discussing “Ghost Writing” (as they had done in past studies).
The Journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) published a series of papers reviewing the carcinogenic potential of weed-killing agent glyphosate. In a special issue of CRT entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate,” the review found that the weight of evidence showed the weed killer was unlikely to pose any carcinogenic risk to people. These conclusions ran counter to previous studies, which ACSH was involved in a coordinated campaign in which they (and others with ties to Monsanto) attempted to discredit past studies showing that that glyphosate is a carcinogen.
In the review, sixteen scientists from “four independent panels” had declared in their paper that their conclusions were free of Monsanto’s intervention. The Declaration of Interest section reads: “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”
In reality, William Heydens, Monsanto’s chief of regulatory science, emailed: “I have gone through the entire document and indicated what I think should stay, what can go, and in a couple spots I did a little editing.“ A confidential document dated May 11, 2015 identified several candidate scientists who could be used as authors to give the papers credibility. The Monsanto documents show discussion of “ghost-writing” strategies employing non-Monsanto scientists as authors to lend credibility to the study’s findings.
In the trial, Heydens admitted that he had received copies of the papers in advance of publication, and that he had read “parts of some of them,” before the study was sunmitted to the journal for publication. He testified that he did not “recall” making the 28 edits that plaintiffs’ attorneys found after in-depth review of the internal records. (Read: EHN A story behind the Monsanto cancer trial — journal sits on retraction).
Now, Scientific American has published an article authored by an ACSH author in which he, and a astrophysicist compare mothers of vaccine injured children to drunk drivers. The analogy they make is a terrible logical fit in innumerable ways. For one, drunk drivers make bad choices with impaired judgement, whereas mothers of vaccine injury are super-informed and have been conscripted to be vaccine risk aware as a result of direct personal experience and have chosent to not repeat the risk of vaccine injury in their family. What is society’s monument of gratitude for the families who stop vaccinating after death or serious injury? Denialism, lack of research on treatments of vaccine injury, ridicule, censorship, comparison to terrorists and pedophiles, and drunk drivers, and, in Rockland County, NY, a new executive order that they cannot bring their children into the public without risking arrest and imprisonment. This degree of abuse is not sustainable because vaccines continue to add more injured families to the population. The real public health crisis is the growing amount of chronic illness that mechanistic studies tell us can manifest in some people. The American public is experiencing gas-lighting on vaccine risk. Full Stop.
There is insufficient research on identifying families at risk prior to vaccine injury. Instead, post-market surveillance studies are used to find rates of vaccine injury – but vaccine injury denialism is hard-wired into the vaccination promotion paradigm. The families who pay the cost of vaccine injury learn that vaccine injuries are not reported, as required by law, by their doctors to VAERS – which captures 1% of vaccine adverse events and is touted both as a critical tool for tracking vaccine injury and a flawed tool because causality cannot be assessed. More gas-lighting.
Society must take heed and carefully consider anything put out by institutions that are comfortable selling their reputation to corporations. Ghost writing, of course, is not new. Flaherty (2013) warned:
“Industry-sponsored ghost- and guest-authored clinical research publications are a continuing problem in medical journals. These communications are written by unacknowledged medical communication companies and submitted to peer-reviewed journals by academicians who may not have participated in the writing process. These publications, which are used for marketing purposes, usually underestimate the adverse effects and medical risks associated with the products evaluated. Since peer-reviewed data are used to develop health care paradigms, misleading information can have catastrophic effects. A failure to curb ghost and guest authorship will result in an erosion of trust in the peer-review system, academic research, and health care paradigms.”
Scientific American can do better. The medical establishment can do better. The public has the right – and in a democracy the civic duty – to hold scientific institutions accountable for not conducting the type of science required to generate knowledge of causation of the epidemic of chronic illnesses, autism and autoimmunity, anxiety, anorexia, depression and suicide. The mainstream press is participating due to their conflict of interest from direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceutical products.
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently said in an event at Yale University: “It’s time to start listening to women. My body, my choice. Whatever happened to that?”
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Allison Park, PA
UPDATE: In February 2019 a University of Washington meta-analysis concluded that glyphosate raises cancer risk by 41 per cent. That study was publishced in the journal Reviews in Mutation Research.
AS ONE WHO IS INVITED with increasing frequency to educate legislators on the reality of relative risk of vaccines and infections, I have witnessed arguments for stripping away parents’ rights to refuse vaccination. They involve a mix of hyped fear and a misrepresentation of facts-on-the-ground, even by state officials. Here I outline the myths used to fool people into supporting the loss of rights, with the counter arguments.
(1) “We could eradicate measles if it were not for personal belief exemptions by reaching 95% coverage via herd immunity.”
Wrong on at least three counts.
(a) This statement is often accompanied by a claim that we “eradicated measles” in 2000 In reality, there were 86 cases of measles in the US in 2000.
(b) Also, most adults vaccinated againt measles are simply not immune due to waning immunity. Thus, vaccinating >95% of children will not provide 95% immunity. Vaccine immunity is not the same as natural immunity.
(c) Don’t blame philosophical exemptions. Personal belief exemptions, or PBEs, are the law in 17 states. Also known as philosophical exemptions, these are often accompanied by religious exemptions. The recent measles outbreak in Washington State (Clark County) did not involve a widespread outbreak among so-called “anti-vaxxers”; rather, it involved a Ukranian community which does not vaccinate because they are exercising their religious exemptions. The outbreak in the Bronx and in Rockland County, NY are similarly isolated to an ethnoreligious community (in this case, the Orthodox Jewish community), members of whom are merely exercising their right to abstain from participating in an act that they feel goes against their religious beliefs.
2. Exemption rates are up. This is not relevant thus far, because outbreaks are limited to communities who vaccinate due to the religious reasons. But even then, it’s not correct. While school-entry stats may show a small increase in some places in the use of PBE’s, the population-wide rate of vaccination is stable. And before anyone blames any increase in PBEs on misinformation about vaccines, read on.
3. “The Science is Settled – Vaccines are safe, and vaccines are effective.”
There are charts circulating that portend to show that measles deaths were reduced by vaccines. The problem is the chart is left-truncated. As this Harvard study shows, measles as a condition was nearly gone from the US before the measles virus was isolated. So much for the vaccine savings millions of lives.
Also, people pushing to strip rights away ignore the reality that two high doses of Vitamin A significantly ameliorate the symptoms of measles. Merck is also in court over allegedly committing fraud by spiking human samples with rabbit antibodies to make their MMR appear to have high efficacy. The MMR is the very vaccines we are told must be mandated without exemption (See HuffPost – Merck Has Some Explaining to Do…). How can anyone support a mandate of a product that is under scrutiny of being fraudulent?
On the safety issue, well, we have never seen anyone do a test to find the genes or biomarkers that will allow us to predict who in the population is likely to develop seizures, or die, or suffer from encephalitis, encephalopathy or other conditions known to occur following measles vaccination. We have never seen long-term vaccinated vs. unvaccinated randomized prospective clinical trials with total health outcome awareness – instead, post-market surveillances studies are supposed to be sufficient.
While MDs are required to report all vaccine adverse events to VAERS, less than 1% do – and many send parents home with vaccine injured children telling them it wasn’t the vaccine. They do not see that the act of vaccine injury denialism short-circuits the post-market human subject experimentation on vaccines, and they did not consent the patient to such a study anyway. I have a manuscript on the rates of vaccine injuries corrected for underreporting.
3. Stories About Fraud in Vaccine Safety Studies by the CDC Are “Misleading Information” and “Conspiracy Theories.”
This speaks to the current censorship going on in popular media forums like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest etc. It’s too late. We have The Simpsonwood transcripts. Dr. William Thompson. Dr. Frank Destefano. Dr. Coleen Boyle. Dr. Walter Orenstein. Dr. Julie Gerberding. her subsequent job at Merck. If you listen to the online CDC Fake Study apologists, there is nothing to Thompson’s revelations, just honest disagreement between scientists on interpretation. But that’s not true. After the VSD study was cooked for four years, CDC scientists and those in Denmark working for CDC finally found a way to make the association go away – that’s right, they re-analyzed the data over and over – the relationship between total vaccine exposure and autism was linear. Since they analzyed it over and over until they got the result they wanted, they are guilty of p-hacking – the same way a Cornell University Professor who studied nutrition was guilty of p-hacking, except that while that professor wanted significant results, the CDC wanted no significant association. Where’s NPR’s story on this?
As a scientist, I had a choice to make while writing the chapter on Vaccines in my second book “Cures vs. Profits”. I could either (a) not include the chapter on vaccines, (b) turn a blind eye to the revelations of Dr. Thompson to Dr. Hooker, or (c) I could remain an objective scientist. Obviously, I chose the latter.
So I want to share with you the passage that Dr Thompson said to Dr Hooker that got me. The data fudgery on the Destefano study alone was not enough. Perhaps they stumbled on a false positive. While I would never have handled it by changing the study groups, or dropping out children due to a lack of GA birth certificate (which has no scientific rationale), I could still see that maybe public health could be put at risk, the CDC thought it was in the best interest to mislead the public… but no, I could not accept it in the end because Dr. Thompson told Dr. Hooker that the practice of screening studies for positive results prior to submission for publication was routine:
So there it is. Systematic watering down of interpretation any time there is a positive result (association between vaccines and adverse events). This is the revelation that stuck with me. But even this could be just one errant scientist’s ego bruised… who knows the politics…
Were it not for the Simpsonwood transcripts, this might not have bothered me enough to go and read every study published by CDC or its contractees, and therein, with my objective scrutiny, I found science-like activities. Negative Results from Low Power studies being interpreted as robust by the authors, and by the IOM. A study that reported “No Association” between vaccines and autism without ever measuring a single case of autism – in spite of a sample size large enough to have found some cases of autism. Very odd exclusions of clinical groups with conditions that could also be caused by vaccines (seizure disorders). The list goes on and on. So I read 2,000 studies on autism to see if plausibility existed (it does), and that’s when I found enough evidence to call the vaccine injury denialism “fraud”. I’ve reviewed all of the studies sent from AAP to POTUS after scoring them using an objective evaluation scoring system. That can be found on the IPAK website along with other preprints. It’s not pretty.
The only vaccine misinformation I see is coming from the CDC, parroted by pediatricians, defended by a hoard of netizens who do not use rational discourse but instead use ridicule, shame, derision – thugs, really, who do the dirty work. They overstate confidence in association studies as if they could test causality, which they cannot, and deny, deny, deny any wrongdoing on the part of the CDC or its minions. This leads to incredible realities such a key CDC autism/vaccine researcher who is also one of OIG’s “Most-Wanted” fugitives, charged with embezzling over $US1 million that was supposed to be used for autism/vaccine studies publishing new studies in 2018/2019 – as if he is not on that most wanted list.
The other thugs are HHS expert witnesses that work in the NVICP to specifically deny any and all vaccine injury claims. No matter how much science supports a biologically plausible theory of mechanisms of injury, they won’t have it. They are professional vaccine injury denialists who cite mysterious “other causes” without any evidence. In spite of their best efforts the program has paid out over $4Billion in injuries or settlements. I’ve been compensated by petitioners’ lawyers for some of the cases I’ve been on (full disclosure) but in a recent case I pulled my invoices – but not my expert opinion – because the Special Master threatened to not pay for further expert statements unless he “liked them”. To me, that’s evidence of fraud because he’s trying to buy obedient witnesses on the petitioner’s side.
I would like to point out that there is a breakdown in the separation of powers because the NVICP is administered by HHS, who also happens to be the defendant in vaccine injury cases that come into the NVICP.
For those wanting to mandate MMR or all vaccines without exemption, please consider that 100% vaccine coverage = maximum possible vaccine injury rate. Please allow that due to genetics alone, under such an oppressive program, some families will lose children, some children will lose their lives, some kids will be injured, maimed, impaired – all because HHS has failed to fulfill – after 33 years – the 1986 mandate to (a) make vaccines safer, and (b) identify those at highest risk of vaccine injury.
Sounds like personalized medicine to me.
Remember, the 33 years of vaccine injury denialism has come at the cost of taboo-driven priorities in funding of research at the NIH. So while moms have figured out mild therapies that can help get metals out of their kids’ brains and bodies, the NIH has sat, mute, while an epidemic of autism has come to roost in our peoples. The UK is now creating separate schools for kids with autism. The educators say they are “delighted”.
In the US, “separate but equal” is unconstitutional.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Allison Park, PA 15101
This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue.
Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?
LOOKING AT SOCIAL MOVEMENTS in the past, we can see that it was the victors who decided the fate of the overthrown oppressors. The vaccine injured are leading the charge for social change, and the current calls for stripping away existing rights via elimination of personal belief and religious exemptions are being fought back via highly informed parents who will never – read this carefully – NEVER – accept government coerced vaccination for their children.
Looking at the issue of vaccine risk awareness mathematically, it is clear that the increase in activism is not being driven merely by social media. The just-so story often portrayed in the media is that one mom heard from a neighbor that her sister’s kid developed autism right after vaccines is a misrepresentation of the real-life experiences of parents with infants and school-aged children. In reality, in the American classroom, about 1/25 kids have autism, 1 in 25 have epilepsy, 5 of 25 have ADHD, another 5 have asthma, and so on and so on so that we can see that parents will meet parents with the same stories in real life. In other words, the vaccine risk aware “army” is growing due to the accumulation of people in the population who have direct knowledge of vaccine injury in their community.
The reaction of many people in the VRA movement to the title of this article will no doubt be another “has he lost it?”, because why would we WANT to engineer a safe landing for Pharma when their products have done and do so much harm. So let’s examine (a) where the VRA movement wants society to go, and (b) the various pathways by which it can achieve those goals.
Some hard-core anti-vaxxers want vaccines banned. The goals of the VRA movement – the ones we can all agree on – include
Respect for choice – respect for the right to refuse vaccination as a medical procedure, and for the right to decline participation in post-marketing vaccine safety studies.
Fulfillment of the 1986 Congressional mandate to make vaccines safer
Fulfillment of the 1986 Congressional mandate to identify those at highest risk
An end to corporate regulatory agency sponsorship and of politicians.
Some in the movement want
Prosecution of those who have participated in scientific fraud to hide vaccine risk from the public.
Reform in policies reflecting vaccines as a pancea for public health questions surrounding infectious disease and immunity. This seems fair, since it is illegal to conduct scientific fraud using government funds.
Revocation of the immunity-from-liability clause in the 1986 Act.
Prioritization of science conducted to detect and reverse vaccine injury to brain development and to the immune system.
Some who are more radical want
An end to allopathic (“Western”) medicine
I certainly do not pretend to speak for the VRA movement, but I would encourage all involved to take a look at social movements from a historical perspective. We know that social movements can, for the most part, fall into four categories based on the degree of change sought, and how many people are expected to change. Consider the four-way categorization by Aberle (1966):
Alternative social movements – Limited change in specific people.
Redemptive social movements – Radical change in specific people.
Reformative social movements – Limited change in everyone.
Revolutionary social movements – Radical change in everyone.
There are solutions to the current impasse with Corporatist Congress and regulatory agencies within each of these four possibilities. An Alternative Social Movement would be convincing CDC/FDA/NIH to conduct objective science. No one who is VRA and who understands the degree of manipulation and fraud inherent to vaccine safety pseudoscience would trust Frank DeStefano, Coleen Boyle, Francis Collins and whichever corporate puppet is now in charge at FDA to suddenly reverse course and begin to realize that knowledge of vaccine risk allows critically valuable feedback on vaccine risk that can be used to form new directions for vaccine development.
A Radical Social Movement could result in the replacement of those in control of vaccine science at CDC, or better yet removal of vaccine safety science from the captured CDC/FDA/NIH triad, allowing the medical community and the public to learn what independent science reports on studies conducted without an agenda to control public perception. This could result in a more trusted scenario, but many in the VRA movement would still never trust any research from Universities attached to hospital systems that profit from vaccines.
Change in every person at all levels of society to accept that vaccine safety scientists have systematically misled everyone would be a Reformative Social Movement, and it seems this is necessary before we see any need for change. However, since the US Government and Pharma has conducted massive perception control with vaccine risk denialism and vaccine injury denialism, even this would appear to be – i.e., feel like – a Revolutionary Social Movement. But if it is truly revolutionary for medical doctors to respect patient’s rights to choose, then we need to find the benefit of that respect to medical doctors. Clearly 100% vaccination means 100% possible vaccine injury rate; perhaps pediatricians faced with less vaccine injury they then are expected to deny would burn out less?
It works to Pharma’s advantage to make shifts in vaccine risk awareness and shifts in the solutions to the problems with vaccines for everyone – including many in the VRA – to view the coming necessary changes as a Revolution. In reality, there is a critical percentage of vaccine risk awareness in the population necessary where the nonsense arguments made in defense of – and this is important – whole-population vaccination a fail-safe, fool-proof solutions to the control of transmission of infectious agents.
There is a fifth category that is not covered by Aberle’s four-part classification (1966): Rebellion. This, like all of the other paths, is a possibility, but it really is a sociological artefact involving achievement of new aims by new institutionalized means. This is in comparison to other forms of deviance. In this context, ‘deviance’ is not a perjorative term, although those on the losing end would react with loathesome hate and fear over new means to achieve new aims. The call for restructuring who does vaccine safety science may not involve all people, but it would then require all people to shift – or to have shifted – their trust of the “brand” of the CDC as a reliable and trustworthy agency.
Clearly allopathy is conformist and ritualistic. I advocate innovation. But it is a fair question to ask what or whom would be in rebellion, and whom or what would they be rebelling against? Clearly, Pharma’s (and CDC’s) agenda of vaccine risk denialism could not withstand a simultaneous rebellion against the media refusing to curb their publication of accurate facts on vaccine risk (for example, the very simple fact that not all vaccines have been tested for association with autism). It could equally not withstand a spontaneous rebellion by ethical MDs who stand up and refuse to continue to conform to the vaccine risk and injury denialist agenda. Finally, it could equally not without a boycott of pediatricians’ offices of parents from all walks of life. The aim of such a boycott would be get the attention of the Corporatist allopathic medical establishment, and would be a show of power beyond anything that parents could achieve short of repeal of the portion of the 1986 act that indemnifies Pharma and doctors from liability.
In the meantime, the VRA movement has clearly found it legs – and will be seeking political retribution for the stripping of rights of choice with political campaigns against those who vote to remove personal or religious exemptions. The movement will also be seeking damages for impingement of first amendment rights – in other words, the frantic and panicked responses from the Corporatist government have been terribly useful mistakes by which hundred-fold gains will be made in defense of basic human rights.
“Social movements challenge informal criteria of citizenship that define some individuals as ‘Others’, as belonging to a group that makes them unworthy of equal rights in the civil sphere.” (Nash, Citizenship p132).
So, to the highly presumptive question of the title of this article – “How Will We Engineer a Safe Landing for Pharma?” – the answer is that we do not yet know which path we will march, but march we most assuredly will, with non-passive peaceful and legal means to dismantle what we can now easily recognize as fascism incarnate in the US in 2019.
But we know that we will not bureacratize, and willfully place a head to be captured. The VRA community instinctively prefers “death by a million cuts” and we have learned the value of “you do you”. This is why the divide-and-conquer tactics of counter-insurgency ops cannot work. We see all agencies and entitites as tools to be utilized – fairly, with compassion – and I dare say for the bulk of the VRA, our current view is we have emerged, we are coaelescing, but there we will stay until we achieve the ends we seek.
This is why I dare presume to predict that the parents of the vaccine injured and killed will be the ones who ultimately determine the fates of vaccine manufacturers. It would therefore be in Pharma’s interest to extend an olive branch with a settlement offer for all who claim vaccine injury, and for Vaccine Manufacturers to call for a hearing on why the 1986 Act mandates have not been achieved. Remember, all politicians engaged in stripping rights away will eventually lose their seat. Therefore, I will be happy to speak at such a hearing, and can offer completely reasonable solutions and terms acceptable to most people in the VRA that brings justice and will dramatically reduce the burden of the cost of vaccine injury on society.
I once told Pharma to bring their lawyers to Washington to change the laws regarding patents on natural compounded formulations that have clear public benefit. I lectured them harshly on the need to understand the value of profit sharing and licensed gathering of intellectual property. Within the next four years, many in Pharma will either be being prosecuted or will be at the helm determining the extent to which the coming regulations impact their autonomy.
Again, I do no speak for the entire VRA, I speak ABOUT them. The rate of vaccine injury has surpassed the level at which the population can psychologically tolerate – and the social costs imposed upon the VRA are irrelevant. They cannot be ridiculed into submission. They cannot be made to submit by threatening to take away public education. They will show up en masse and demand entry anyway. They will not accept vaccines as safe even if you fine them, or restrict their ability to work. They will fight loss of their custody. They MAY vaccinate at the point of gun, but some will not. Someone will be hurt, and the true police state will have been forced to show its face. That will work to the advantage of liberty and freedom.
Those who are VRA who agree or disagree can weigh in. What would you have me tell the US Senate on how to end vaccine injury, and, at the same time, not destroy the vaccine manufacturers? If you say “let them hang”, say that too. Remember: it’s all about respect and change and an end to vaccine violence using all possible legal and non-violent means.
Two whistleblowers, former employees of Merck, Inc. have alleged in a lawsuit in a Pennsylvania court that they were told to commit scientific fraud by falsifying data on the apparent efficacy of Merck’s vaccine against the mumps virus by adding rabbit antibodies to human samples.
The whistleblowers allege that the original efficacy of merck’s MMR vaccine against the mumps virus was only 18%, and to secure prevent the loss of the contract for CDC’s use of the MMR vaccine, they were instructed to spike human samples with rabbit antibodies to increase the efficacy measurement of human samples to over 94%.
Now it seems that Merck’s fraudulent move to compete with other vaccine manufacturers as manifest as a direct threat to US national security by resulting in the quarantine and isolation of an entire US navy ship of fully vaccinated sailors and officers.
This should give the judge in the Pennsylvania court sufficient information to lead to a ruling that Merck committed fraud, and they have sold a fraudulent and flawed product to the US population and to the medical community by defrauding the US FDA.
I was sent a story from Fox News on the cost of a single case of tetanus: $800G. I wondered, “What is cost of vaccine injury to society?“. The journey started with a simple question posted to CensorBook:
“Does anyone have a breakdown of the medical and other costs of your child’s vaccine injury?”
Most people probably think there is a cost for speech therapy, supplements, cost of chelation if one can find a willing doctor, extra baby sitters. All of the responses were from parent of kids with autism.
Here are some responses:
“Between what we’ve paid out of pocket, what insurance has paid and the amount the school district has paid we are closing in on $1 million in just 7 years. 😳😡”
“If I went back and added it all up from early intervention days, therapies, special ed preschool, kindergarten to 21 years old in a 6-1 classroom with daily minibus, Medicaid services, SSDI, adult dayhab and self direction, I’m guessing it has cost the taxpayers hundred of thousand of dollars if not millions. Astronomical cost over her lifetime.”
“Ours is over $300,000 with 6 wheelchairs. 2 sport & 2 outgrown, 2 current use.”
“My total is almost at 1 million between insurance and private pay for medical, therapy and supplies covered by insurance, cash and grants for two vaccine injured kids ages 6 and 8.”
“Therapy per week: $1700 x 6 years (roughly, thank god insurance covers this): $530,400 to date. Supplements per week: $25ish x4 years: $5,200 to date. Not including gas to get the therapy and doctors appointments, time spent on IEPs and waitlists for therapy, glasses for 4 years, special diet, etc”
“I added mine it was $580,000.”
“For one year combined out of pocket and what is covered by insurance is approximately $275,000. Multiply by number of years = over $6.6 million.”
So who fronts the bill for autism costs? If the parents have insurance, insurance premiums are no doubt raised. One poster summed it up:
“Just so you know, I tell pro jabbers to keep working and paying taxes They need to support my kid who took one for the herd.”
If parents do not have insurance, they are out of luck:
“The cost would be higher if I could afford anything. The iPads alone for communication were a struggle.”
In fact, many of the families I know who have children whose medical condition they attribute to vaccination – whether the medical community concurs or not – live in abject poverty. From time to time, I’ve collected shopper’s gift cards and sent them, especially around the holidays. Remember, these families took one for the herd. Some have had to turn to help from the child’s grandparents.
“A million here. My dad gave me a credit card to use for it all long ago. We used 2-4K a month for a decade. That doesn’t include what we paid for ourselves.”
By my estimation, in the US, vaccine injuries have easily cost society hundreds of billions of dollars if not over a trillion since 1986. Only a paltry $4Billion has been paid out by HHS for vaccine injury claims in National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – which is hostile to awarding for any vaccine injury not found on the table. And the HHS’s medical doctors play with diagnoses to move injury claims from on-table to off-table. I’ve been in the NVICP as an expert witness. It’s absolutely corrupt and totally biased against giving awards. Most Americans do not know about the NVICP – even though their doctors are supposed to – by law – inform them of the programs.
“Now we have a grandson we’re caring for as well. It’s incredibly expensive – and our kids don’t believe they could file a lawsuit. They have one more year before the statute runs out.”
The participants in the discussion were prescient:
“Wow. Looking at just these few responses I am stunned at the dollar amounts. And even those who have insurance that covers some, how long can the system keep doing that when there are more and more kids with serious vax injuries every day. For their lifetimes. This hurts my heart and y’all are in my thoughts and prayers💔💔💔”
Some didn’t want to know:
“I’m afraid to even attempt to add it up. And mine is less than most. Therapy weekly, dietary needs, dietary enzymes, weekly chiropractor visits.”
But the costs mount regardless:
“I would also say about a million this far. Between early intervention that had to paid out of pocket due to my son ‘not being disabled enough’…
“Oh my goodness….I haven’t counted what we’ve spent outside the $150k in loans we have for alternative doctors, fees, traveling and treatments. That is just for alternative medicine. We’ve done traditional therapies for 14.5 years straight…”
“I have never added it all up. It would be so depressing to do so. $3000,00/month for two years for ABA therapy, thousands of dollars for speech therapy, occupational therapy , doctors visits, supplements and it caused his type 1 diabetes…
“Psyche eval in teens to get proper schooling and placement was $2,000 each. Speech in one $180 a week for 5 years OT on two averaged $1,000 a month. Younger evaluations for ADHD around $4,000 . None of it covered by insurance. That’s just a snapshot…
Consumer Reports says the US is #1 in health care costs -which of course means #1 in health care provider profits.
In the discussion on costs, the poster who saw the problem most clearly said it best:
“I dont think there is a cost put on a parent’s sanity.”
Watch for Part Two of “Vaccine Injury is Free – If You Deny It” with a guest article by a parent who has done full accounting since her case was booted from the NVICP in the autism Ominus hearings.
Zach: “[The study] came out and it made it sound as if boy this is the nail in
the coffin [in the vaccine/autism question], what’s your take?”
Dr. Meehan: “It’s definitely not the nail in the coffin. This is kind of a rehash of some of the the same stuff that’s been coming out of Danish studies for quite a while. In fact there’s a lot of problems with the study. The first one goes back so you know to the point of who funded it…”
JUST IN TIME to be sandwiched between two one-sided Senate Hearings, a new cohort study by Hviid et al. has all of the hallmarks of a completely well-done study. Well done as in overcooked. Here is my initial assessment.
The burnt ends on this brisket are obvious. Just like all the past studies on the MMR/autism question, the study focuses on one vaccine. This is a problem because the variable they call “genetic risk” (having an older sibling), which is the most significant variable, is confounded with health user bias (there is no control over vaccine cessation). It’s an important variable, but genetic risk of what? Of autism? Or of autism following vaccination? It’s impossible to tell because the study never tests a VACCINE x FAMILY HISTORY interaction term. Or any other interaction term that includes vaccines.
Were it not such an imporant question for which so much “science-like activities” have occurred, we could just shrug our shoulders, one could argue that defining the data analysis strategy is just about how one like to season their meat. But there is real evidence Hviid (who did the data analysis) appears to be up real data cookery here.
(1) The smoking gun is the study-wide autism rate of 0.9-1%. The rate of ASD in Denmark is 1.65%. Where are the missing cases of ASD? Given past allegations of this group’s malfeasance and fraud, the rest of the study cannot be accepted based on this disparity alone: the study group is not representative of the population being studied.
(2) They did not consider anything about >1 vaccine per visit when the MMR was given. Comment below if your child regressed into ASD following receipt of the MMR + other vaccines (“MMR + OTHER”). Here’s an interesting question: Comment below if your child regressed into ASD following receipt of MMR alone after having received no prior vaccines (“MMR ALONE NO PRIOR”). Comment below if the situation was “MMR ALONE WITH PRIOR VACCINES”).
Cumulative vaccine exposure is the variable that might reflect risk better, as would “>1 vaccine received on date of MMR vaccination”. It is meaningless to study a single vaccine exposure in a population that is being vaccinated so many times before the MMR.
(3) Apparently vaccine risk in immigrants do not matter because the study required that individual have a valid entry in the Denmark birth registry. Why would that matter? Because the odds of receiving many vaccines at once upon entry into Denmark is very, very high. Oddly, without explanation, the study excluded 11 people with autism. To avoid translational failure, the MMR should not be used on any of the clinical groups that were excluded from the study.
(4) While the appear to have learned how to combine risk variables into risk covariates, they did not test models that combine different risk variables (such as vaccine and parent’s age). Single-variable, 2-variable, 3-variable… etc models should all have been trained on a training set (66% of the data), optimized via internal cross-validation to maximize prediction accuracy, ROC curves produced, and then the generalizability tested on a set-aside (RANDOMLY set-aside) training set (33%) of the data using my Weighted ACE optimization given the high imbalance in the two study groups (ASD vs. no ASD) (see Cures vs. Profits, it’s published in there and will prevent nonsense results).
(5) Association studies do not test causality. Had this study reported a positive association, it would have fallen short under IOM standards, of providing sufficient evidence for causality. Thus, it cannot be used rule out causality. It’s not testing that hypothesis.
(6) COIs abound: “Jaya K. Rao, MD, MHS, Deputy Editor, reports that she has stock holdings/options in Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Catharine B. Stack, PhD, MS, Deputy Editor for Statistics, reports that she has stock holdings in Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson”. – Thank you John Stone for pointing this out.
Once again, epidemiology is the WRONG TOOL for studying vaccine risk.
Hviid, A et al. 2019. Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Annals of Internal Medicine. DOI: 10.7326/M18-2101
The occurrence of measles diagnoses in various states has lawmakers promoting bills around the country to restrict personal exemptions. As in California, this move will be followed with bills to remove religious exemptions, and then by attempts to sanction or otherwise penalize medical doctors who offer medical exemptions.
In Clark County Washington, an ethnic group that does not vaccinate primarily due to religious exemptions is the seat of the current measles outbreak. So far, 63 cases of measles diagnosis are reported. In Brooklyn, an outbreak among another ethnic/religious group is larger, with about 260 cases reported.
Measles virus transmission is controllable via isolation, and symptoms are manageable via proper hydration and Vitamin A doses.
In the past, measles incidence used to have a cyclic incidence with peaks every 3-4 years. In the recent past, the occurrence of outbreaks also appears to be cyclic. It’s part of the natural ecology of the virus in the human population.
Further, the MMR vaccine does not prevent measles infection, it prevents measles diagnoses. Gregory Poland and colleagues correctly described the measles paradox in 1994, noting that in highly vaccinated populations, the predominant mode of transmission appears to be from fully vaccinated individuals:
“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles. The long-term success of a two-dose strategy to eliminate measles remains to be determined.” Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8053748
Given that two- and multi-dose MMR vaccination has not prevented measles circulation in the US, the strategy of blaming so-called anti-vaxxers (i.e., the Vaccine Risk Aware) will not stop transmission when exogenous infections come to the US. Adding 2% coverage will not prevent silent infection and silent transmission.
The MMR is America’s only vaccine in use to prevent measles diagnoses. Note that while measles immunization has had an impact on the number of diagnoses (cases), it was a late-comer as a factor in reducing mortality, and that individuals hyping the risk are not being objective.
Still, the public has been asking or a single-dose measles vaccine for years, to increase consumer choice options. Merck, and their MMR is now under fire for fraud in a whistleblower case in which the scientists allege that they were instructed to spike human samples with rabbit antibodies. They claim the efficacy of the MMR (against the mumps virus) was 18% – that’s against the Jeryl Lynn strain, from the 1960’s, and to secure the contract w/the CDC, Merck defrauded the FDA (and the American public).
Finally, as Del Bigtree pointed out to the Health Service Committee in Olympia Washington yesterday, adults who were vaccinated against measles are no longer immune. Therefore, herd immunity, or so-called “community immunity”, is a myth.-
So what is driving Preventable Disease Outbreaks? Nothing, because they are not preventable with current vaccination technology.
On Wednesday, Feb 27, there will be a hearing on “Confronting a Growing Public Health Threat: Measles Outbreaks in the US”. In reality, there is no “Growing Public Health Threat”. On March 5, there will be a Senate Hearing on the topic of this blog post.
Therefore, be sure to tell your Congressional Reps and Senators that
The only thing that is “growing” is the hyperbole and attempts to manipulate the public’s perception of risk of measles as a “new” and “deadly” threat. Pre-vaccine the death rate was 450-500 per 180,000,000 people in the US, and the death rate was 0.1-1/100,000, not 1/1,000 as fear mongers would have you believe.
Current outbreaks have not involved primarily people using personal exemptions
Outbreaks would occur even if 100% of children were vaccinated
Most transmissions in highly vaccinated populations are from the vaccinated, asymptomatic carriers with subclinical infections
Natural infection causes superior lifetime immunity
Having unvaccinated kids who can develop symptoms is useful- it informs us of transmission chains, and thus the immunocompromised can be better protected
Stripping rights away will maximize vaccine injury – some families need personal exemptions.
A 2014 World Health Organization report included the following risks from measles, mumps or rubella Vaccination:
Thrombocytopenia: 1 in 30,000
Meningitis: 1 to 100 per 100,000 (depending on the strain of mumps)
Febrile seizures: 1 in 2,000 to 3,000
Acute arthritis: 1 in 10 (rubella)
Some families cannot tolerate this and other vaccines. I’m calling for an end the hype, an end Fear-Based Policies and return to Science-Based Policies that respect ALL of humanity.
This effort is not funded by any means, except some meager ad revenue.
Your support will help me offset costs. Won’t you pitch in?