The Truth about Vaccines Episode 1: Top Ten lies debunked

9bb0e12d111070896f3f1ec92255bec9

This episode is sub-titled The History of Vaccines, Smallpox, Vaccine Safety and the Current CDC Schedule. I accessed the documentary by joining the email list. From there, I got a daily email with a link to watch today’s episode free for 24 hours. After the 24 hours, the episodes are available for purchase at the Truth about Vaccines website.

 

The series is hosted by Ty Bollinger. Ty is a CPA. He runs a seemingly successful business and website telling people factoids about cancer. For clarity, I am going to refer to everyone by their first name, after introducing them.

The first guest is author Jennifer Margulis. She makes a point is that if a patient did not want an antibiotic for a viral infection, they would never be called anti antibiotic, so why do we call people who question vaccine safety “antivax?”  Now, dear readers, do you see the logical errors here? As someone who is actually allergic to two different kinds of antibiotics, I know that being unable to take certain antibiotics and asking questions about antibiotic risks and benefits does not mean one is opposed to all antibiotics. It behooves my health to double check with my doctor that any antibiotic they are prescribing to me (on the rare occasion I need one) is not related to the two types which caused me allergic reactions.  By the same token, if you had a bonafide allergic reaction to a vaccine, you would want to find out which ingredient caused the reaction and avoid that one ingredient. Asking your doctor questions about your reaction and future vaccines does not make you antivax. What makes a person antivax is, for example, assuming that everything bad is a vaccine reaction or that a minor reaction is cause to avoid all future vaccines.  Also, doctors do not prescribe antibiotics for viral infections, so Margulis’ comment doesn’t actually make a lot of sense to me.

I do agree with Ty and Jennifer that we all want our kids to be safe. As I am oft to say, there is nothing wrong with asking questions. It’s the answers that are the issue.

The documentary says many falsehoods, such as the one above. I chose to narrow it down to ten and debunk just them.

 

One: The first lie comes from Dr Paul Thomas, a pediatrician from Oregon.  Paul explains that the AAP does not investigate vaccine safety. Ty claims that the issue is that we need to entertain the vaccine safety discussion. Now, do you see the lie?  The American Academy of Pediatricians is a professional organization.  They publish several journals, including Pediatrics.  They also research pediatrician office practices and they do research issues related to immunizations. In a way, Paul is correct that the AAP does not specifically research vaccine safety but this does not mean members are not involved in vaccine safety research nor does this mean that AAP ignores vaccine safety. In the journal Pediatrics alone, there have been many vaccine safety studies published. Therefore, it is untrue that the AAP does not investigate vaccine safety.

Two: Paul brings up iatrogenic, the idea that doctors cause harm by what they do. He says that doctors have lost their way and don’t look at the harms vaccines do. He discusses the connection between autism, vaccines, mercury in vaccines, the hepatitis B dose at birth, aluminum and how, in 2008, he had to make a decision to slow down and analyze vaccines for toxicity issues. His implication is that doctors cause grave injury to children, with vaccines, but they are not interested in learning why or how. This begs the question why then are doctors reporting adverse events to VAERS, the vaccine adverse event reporting system? Why are other doctors studying the medical information related to these reports and publishing findings in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a network of nine healthcare organizations across the country? Why are these findings published in journals to which doctors subscribe, such as Pediatrics, wherein they can be easily read? I have to think that Paul must be aware of these facts and is simply misleading viewers on purpose.

ThreeNeil Z. Miller comes to discuss all the side effects he thinks vaccines cause but he never brings up how he got these ideas from raw VAERS data nor does he discuss issues of validity or reliability of using raw VAERS data. The problem is that anyone can report anything to VAERS and reports are made, in comes cases, without regard to proving causation. This is important because the CDC and FDA and the VSD will monitor these reports and do studies of actual medical records to see if vaccines really do cause serious issues. For example, it was the results of these kinds of studies that the first rotavirus vaccine was removed from market in 1999 for causing intussusception more often than would occur normally. Neil should know how this works but he does not have access to medical records, so his studies only look at raw VAERS reports. This is not considered valid since none of the reports have been verified by medical evidence. SIDS is an example of something that may be reported to VAERS but, in reality, is not caused by vaccines. In fact, studies show SIDS rate in USA is not only at an historical low but that vaccines cut the risk of SIDS in half.  Therefore, Neil has nothing valid to offer and it was remiss of Ty to not mention these facts.

Four: Ty then comes on to claim that the CDC states informed consent issues are, according to the 10th amendment, a state’s rights issue. Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC founder, explains how vaccine laws are state laws. Vaccine laws are statutory, created by states. They are implying that vaccines are given to children without the parent being afforded informed consent; therefore, they argue, this is coercion. Dorit Rubinstein Reiss has written about the legalities this topic and states: “The informed consent process for vaccines is carefully regulated and thought through. A serious effort is made to provide patients with the information they need in a short, accessible format. As long as the healthcare provider performs the legal duty of providing the Vaccine Information Sheet before vaccinating, the patient – or parent – has before them the information necessary to make an informed decision.”  Therefore, patients and their parents are give informed consent and the filmmakers, again, have lied.

Five: From this point, Ty discusses how much medical education a typical doctor receives in medical school. Larry Pavelsky states vaccines are not very much discussed in medical school.  Suzanne Humphries says doctors are not taught anything at all about what is in vaccines. Paul talks about how his daughter is in medical school and she is still not being taught what is in vaccines. Shari Tenpenny says the problem is the “big ramp up in the number of vaccines.” Del Bigtree, film producer, comes on to explain that doctors entire understanding of vaccines is “just because.”   He says doctors know nothing about vaccines except that they were told vaccines are safe. This is fraud, in his opinion.  Ty spends some time going over the average medical school curriculum. He claims that only one course is offered, microbiology, which addresses vaccines at all.

standford copy.jpg

 

In reality, doctors spend a great deal of time learning about everything to do with the human body, disease, prevention, treatment, and more. As you can see from the schematic above, which is from Stanford University’s s 2016-2017 MD Program, doctors learn about immunology, microbiology, diseases, systems, and more. What those opposed to vaccines really mean, when they say doctors don’t learn about vaccines, is that doctors do not learn the ingredients to vaccines. This is true. There is nothing on this curriculum list about pharmacology. Do you know why? Because pharmacists learn about pharmacology, not medical doctors. Medical doctors don’t memorize the ingredients to the drugs they look up. They can look up ingredients and side effects on their laptop. If you want to discuss drug ingredients, find a pharmacist.

Six: Barbara Loe implies that all manner of pediatric health issues are all on the rise and, therefore, must be related to the increase in vaccines. She states that the worst public health report card in history coincides with the increase in vaccines. But let’s take a look at the actual data. This report, from AAP, noted that the prevalence of disability increased 16.3 percent from 2001-2002 to 2009-2010 with more children today having a disability than a decade ago, and the greatest increase is among kids in higher-income families. But, “while neurodevelopmental and mental health-related disabilities increased, those due to physical conditions decreased.” “The survey did not break out autism, but we suspect that some of the increase in neurodevelopmental disabilities is due to the rising incidence or recognition of autism spectrum disorders,” Dr. Houtrow said. ”

We also know, from my research project last summer, that shifting diagnosis codes is responsible for the increase in autism diagnosis. And, we know that increases in special education funding and programming have resulted in more children being diagnosed with learning disabilities who would have been ignored in past generations.

We also know that SIDS and infant mortality rates are at all time lows, in USA.

Therefore, it is a lie to say that pediatric health issues are on the rise.

Lead

Seven: Paul brings up how doctors were promoting cigarettes in the 1950s and implies vaccines are similarly waiting for studies to be done on them. This is a bit silly but since it is brought up often by those opposed to vaccines, I am going to give it some time. As you can tell from this 1956 Atlantic Article, science knew a great deal about how cigarettes were related to cancer, even back as far as the 1930s. “The year 1950 saw the publication of four independent statistical studies, each of which established a significantly higher percentage of heavy cigarette smokers among lung cancer patients than among any other group. There have now been more than fourteen similar studies, and without exception they arrive at this same conclusion.” So, why did doctors promote cigarettes in the 1950s? Well, because they were fake doctors in advertisements. The tobacco companies were not yet required to list warning about cigarettes and advertisers were allowed to lie back then. Laws changed in the 1960s. The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act was not enacted until 1965. So, it is a lie to say that doctors were promoting cigarettes and there was not science about them being health hazards.

Eight: Paul comes back on to talk about how doctors don’t know what to look for, with regard to vaccine reactions. He says no one has looked at whether the unvaccinated have febrile seizures or die of SIDS.  He talks about how there are more allergies, more ADHD, etc and they have not been studied in relation to vaccines. (Does he really not know that these questions have been answered already? See #2)   Here is some information about febrile seizures. A lot is known about how they connect with vaccines. Some vaccines can cause a fever which could cause a febrile (fever) seizure. This is not epilepsy and it is not a vaccine issue, per se, but that some toddlers are prone to a seizure with a fever. An illness could also cause the seizure. We also know that vaccines cut risk of sids in half and that sids rate is at an all time low, in USA. 

Nine: Barbara  brings up how vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. Toni reiterates this point. Toni claims that judges don’t understand this point when she discusses it with them. Unavoidably unsafe refers to a legal case Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. Dorit Rubinstein Reiss explains that it means “these products are beneficial enough that society wants to encourage their manufacturing. Therefore, while strict liability would be applied to most products, a manufacturer that prepared a drug or vaccine carefully and warned consumers of its risks should not have to pay for the side effects of a drug or vaccine whose benefits outweigh the risks unless that manufacturer can be shown to have been negligent.” Therefore, vaccines are not unsafe.

Ten: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger comes on to claim that vaccines are advertised as 100% risk-free, that the vaccine risk are ignored. He claims the vaccine injury wants us to ignore the risk-benefit ratio. He does not explain why he thinks the risk from vaccines is “very very high.” I am sure Mike knows that vaccine information sheets fully state the risks and that disease risks are much higher. Therefore, he is lying to viewers.  Here is a great explanation of risks of diseases versus vaccines from the National Center for Immunisation in Australia.

Sidebar to #10: Ty brings up the vaccine injury awards paid out. He mentions the risks but does not qualify them. We know that 5200 claims of vaccine injury have been compensated, along with attorney fees, in 30 years. We also know that we’ve given out 3 billion (at least) vaccines in those 30 years. Why does Ty not mention that makes vaccines 99.999984% safe?

 

As you can see, there were a great many mistruths and outright lies told in this first episode of The Truth about Vaccines. I hope this information helps you to debunk the film. Look for episode 2 debunking soon!

Some information about Ty Bollinger

Official biography

Woman following his protocol died unnecessary death

Ty Bollinger’s pseudoscience

 

As always, remember to think for yourself.

 

Kathy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

411 thoughts on “The Truth about Vaccines Episode 1: Top Ten lies debunked

  1. Actually, physicians do learn quite a lot about pharmacology. Although there is no longer a specific course called Pharmacology in Med School curriculum now (as there was in my day) it is taught in the systems approach (Cardiovascular System, GI system etc).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Physician Assistants and various Nurses are other medical professionals who may have prescriptive privileges. Their curriculums also have proscribed credit hours in pharmacology which may be a separate course or a systems approach. Pharmacology is much more than the composition of a medication. I would suggest modifying your retort after you come to a fuller understanding of the discipline of pharmacology.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m a,pharmacist, in fact I’m taking the immunizing pharmacist course and ingredients are not addressed in any substantial degree. There’s no mention of vaccine injuries outside of the 15 minutes “possible ” post vaccine reactions or the big AEs like intussusceptuon after rota virus vaccine. 1000s of parents have come forward showing how their interactive speaking baby went straight into autism after the mmr. Vaccines are not safe. Vaccines are often ineffective in preventing disease and in fact may contribute directly or indirectly to the spread of infectious disease. I address this in my book vaccines:a public health crisis. Doris is incorrect in stating that vaccines should not have product liability. The citizens of the USA deserve vaccine manufacturer product liability. Vaccines should never be mandated. The vis doesn’t even come close to addressing the many adverse events people suffer from vaccines. The vaccine hey day is about to end. Too many of us vaccine injured are coming forward. I went through the crooked vaccine injury court and got nothing because it took my team of doctors just over 3 years to diagnose multiple sclerosis caused by the hepatitis b vaccine. I’m happy to announce that I’ve discovered a 3rd mechanism of ms induction by the hepatitis b vaccine. Dr. Offit is incorrect in his stated theory of autoimmune induction.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. I have a Question for the writer of this Blog, Kathy. You say you are a mother. Do you have any children with disabilities? I ask because those of us who do are typically seeking answers. We live everyday wondering why. I don’t know if the vaccine’s are to blame, but NO ONE can tell what is. I actually completely disagree with most of the points you have made above. I venture to state that if your child was developing normally and then all of the sudden lost the skills they had gained, you would be singing a very different tune.

    Like

    • My oldest is disabled. He had seizures as a baby, before he got any vaccine (before HepB vaccine). Sometimes things happen, and a reason may often never be found. He also has a genetic heart disorder in addition to his autism.

      The Simons Foundation is recruiting families to discover some of the genetics of disability. They have figured out several of the gene sequences that cause disabilities that are under the autism umbrella. If you would like to more and participate in the science, then please visit https://sparkforautism.org/ .

      I am not associated with this study in anyway, other than I tried to sign up my family. The problem is that my son is way over eighteen years old, and as an adult he has to do the online survey. So it is not going to happen.

      There is more information about the research in this video:

      At around the 27th minute they post slides of some of those genetic sequences showing the common phenotypes and symptoms. Starting at about 35 minutes in there is a pie chart of what is known. I will summarize it for you (there made errors in the transcription because the lack of video resolution, and my typos):

      5% are Genetic Syndromes like Fragile X, Tuberous Sclerosis (TSC1 and TSC2), …. etc

      10% are Copy Number Variants like 15q11-1, 1q21…. etc.

      2% are 16p11.2

      30% are De novo gene variants like DYRK1A, ADNP, … etc

      1% CHD8

      8% are rare inherited gene mutations (letters too small to make out).

      And 45% are still unknown, hence the massive recruitment for families for SPARK for Autism by the Simons Foundation (link in my other comment).

      At around the 57th minute there is a slide of various groups parents have formed around the specific genetic sequence their child has. It includes FamiliesSCN2A and ADNPkids.

      At 59 minutes there is a slide showing how knowing the specific gene sequence is important. For instance those with SCN1A need to avoid sodium channel blockers, and those with SCN8A need to use sodium channel blockers.

      Then the presentation concludes on research programs at the Simons Foundation and our local university. Then the presenters took questions.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Autism Speaks, the Autism Society, the Autism Science Foundation, and others all agree autism are not caused by vaccines. They all agree that most cases are genetic in origin or related to environmental exposure in utero. Regardless, they all agree babies are born autistic.

        Like

    • Yes I have a child with challenges. No, they are not caused by vaccines. I know many people who have children with challenges, disabilities, whatever you want to call them, all of whom know vaccines are not the cause. I would urge you to find the website or facebook page for the Thinking person’s guide to autism. You will find a large community of parents and autists who know vaccines do not cause autism.

      In reality, the people who think vaccines cause all manner of disabilities are in a small group. They are just loud.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I agree. This is a very poor rebuttal that picks and chooses a few parts of the documentary to respond to and pretends like all the other science didn’t exist. But again feeds those that don’t question and blindly follow

      Like

    • Yes !!! Kathy do you know that allopathic reductionism will never cure a disease it will manage symptoms. Our Body needs 90 essential nutrients and a healthy Gut flora and multiple other things that make up the immune. Their so educated on the immune system we destroy it and bypass the whole thing. Look up the flexnor report and guess who owns medical education Rockefellars and the Carnegie and they are in banking and oil not Doctors. Do you really think they want people healed no that would be bad for business. Vaccines are the global elites plan for depopulation with the UN. Sheep wake up before it’s too late educate yourselves sheep get slaughtered

      Like

  5. My son was diagnosed with a brain cancer. He underwent forced vaccination in Germany only six months after completion of chemotherapy. Can you, please, name one peer study that shows that vaccines are safe for a child who has suffered brain damage caused by brain cancer (I ask myself if this disease was not vaccination long term side effect, however no way to find out)? I asked this question to the german doctors, but I still haven’t received any answer (a month has gone by). They have decided to delay the hep B vaccine for 6 months (the mother asks too many unconfortable questions). Wait a moment! Why on earth does a 10 years old boy (who went through so much lately) need to get this vaccine so urgently? I’m sure you can understand that forced vaccination poses me a huge problem, right? I forgot to mention that I live in a country where vaccination is not compulsory

    Like

    • I don’t see how I could even being to speak for doctors in Germany who treated your son. You need to ask them why they felt vaccines were important for him. It is likely that they felt he would be at risk for measles, since that is epidemic in Germany at the moment, and wanted to protect him from it.

      I highly doubt he was forced.

      Every country has it’s own unique vaccination needs. If Hepatitis B is not an issue in Germany, then they can schedule the vaccination differently that USA.

      Like

    • My youngest child was fully vaccinated apart from chickenpox (which still isn’t on the vaccine schedule here!)

      His earliest memory is of chickenpox and sitting in the yellow Pinetarsol bath to ease the itching, so yes, he’s had the “preventive” illness.

      As a teenager he was diagnosed with brain cancer. Raised intracranial pressure resulted in full cardiorespiratory arrest. Scientific medicine allowed him to survive and recover.

      A decade later, following his professional degree, he remains scientifically literate. He looked into whether vaccines could have contributed to his illness and laughed at the poor quality of evidence provided by those opposing the scientific consensus.

      These days he’s amongst the first to see his GP for influenza vaccination, although he doesn’t exactly recommend brain cancer as a way to get free vaccinations!

      Like

  6. Can’t wait to hear you debunk Dr. Lee’s discovery through autopsies, of the HPV virus present in healthy children who died right after receiving that vaccine, and had no other way of contracting the illness other than from the vaccine. There have been more deaths from that vaccine than from cervical cancer (which the vaccine is supposed to be protecting us from). Vaccines ARE unsafe-some deadly- and there is no incentive for drug companies to make them safe, because they only care about money and can no longer be sued, so not held accountable. And vaccines should absolutely NOT be forced-we all have the right to control what happens to our own body (or our children’s). Plenty of children have sensitivities to them, as you do to antibiotics. What do they do to try and determine that before they are damaged? There is no validity to the herd immunity theory. Your arguments are weak and baseless, to say the least. And please do explain why autism rates have gone from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50 if it’s not due to vaccines. We know that aluminum is a neurotoxin and that it is injected into babies while their immune systems are immature and developing. There are numerous studies showing a correlation. We have much higher rates of infant mortality than countries who wait to give vaccines after a year old. The more vaccines that are received at once, the more health problems that occur. They need to give single dose shots, later, and further apart. Cognitive dissonance is a blinding you. I could go on, but I fear it would fall on deaf ears.

    Like

    • I’m afraid it’s you who suffers from cognitive dissonance, and frankly some of the assertions you make are untrue.

      Deaths in 2014 in the UK from cervical cancer: 890 (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer)
      Deaths attributed to HPV vaccine in 2014 in the UK : 0
      Doses administered of HPV vaccine in 2014/2015 : 297651 (Gov.UK)

      As for the herd immunity having no validity, do you have anything to back up that statement? Most if not all microbiologists (and I dare say medical professional (ie doctors)) would disagree with you.
      And as for autism rates having shot up, that’s been shown time and time again in studies that’s almost complete due to changed diagnostic criteria and that the DSM has now a far wider variety of disorders on the spectrum. And Wakefield has been discredited over and over again as a fraud.

      As for the vaccine industry being big $$$, again you’ll be disappointed. It’s estimated be worth $48 billion, whereas the dietary supplement market size is estimated to be $278 billion, the homeopathy market is $18 billion.
      With all the supposed big pharma shills needing paying off and the widespread corruption alleged by anti-vaxxers, I don’t think there will be much profit if any left 🙂

      I could go on but I fear you’ve already set your mind on vaccines being harmful.

      Like

    • Dr Lee’s notions about the HPV vaccine/virus have been clearly debunked.
      There have certainly not been more deaths from vaccine than cervical cancer (there were over 4000 deaths from cervical cancer in 2015 in the US, with around 30,000 cases of HPV induced cancers occurring). There have been a tiny handful of deaths blamed on the vaccine, and most of these have scanty medical verification, being purely anecdotal.

      Infant mortality is calculated differently in the US than in most other countries; if the same criteria were used, the US rate would be closer to that of Sweden, which has one of the lowest. US IMR has dropped from over 30 per 100,000 births in the 1960s to under 6 per 100,000 today; that has happened while the vaccine schedule has expanded hugely. If vaccines contributed to infant deaths, then mortality should have risen, no?

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Cathy
    Doctors are supposed to be interested in their patients safety by using and studying the VAERS system. They should be discussing causes of injury that they see repeatedly. This is reality. That’s why we see UNSAFE vaccines being withdrawn to protect the public from ongoing serious injury and death. No scientific proof required. Just because some reactions are assumed co-incidental does not prove they are, or mean that the majority are then false. If this is a problem what percentage are false and what suggestions could we discuss to improve on such a poor system. It shouldn’t be just about using its shortcomings to argue against those who choose not to vaccinate or question vaccination.
    Is the vaccine sheet the same as the vaccine insert? Could the patient be missing vital information on the vaccine insert? Informed consent is an important conversation, because the parent is left responsible for their child if they get an injury from a vaccine. What are the implications of doctors having no knowledge of vaccine ingredients, where they go and what they do to the body? How does a patient access information if they wish to research these matters to properly assess the risks for their child?

    Like

    • Reports to VAERS are monitored via the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is 9 medical centers in the USA who do research.

      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/

      Vaccine information sheets list side effects and other vital consumer information.

      Vaccine inserts are legal documents produced only after clinical trials. They include reports of adverse events made without regard to causation and are not updated after further research is done.

      There is no proof that doctors have no knowledge of vaccine ingredients. Just because they don’t memorize all drug ingredients does not make them ignorant of them.

      “How does a patient access information if they wish to research these matters to properly assess the risks for their child?” You should find reputable, valid, reliable places for information, like the vaccine safety datalink above. Never get information from blogs or websites that also have stores.

      Like

    • I am sorry your son had lifelong issues related to seizure disorder. I am sure you have read the research showing seizure disorder to be genetic in origin. Vaccines and illness can both cause seizures to appear but the underlying cause is genetic. I wish you peace.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The underlying cause can be genetic, but aren’t you adding insult to injury when you inject a child that is already prone to life threatening seizures with an ingredient that will “turn on” that reaction or genetic predisposition? It’s like playing Russian roulette hoping your child is not predisposed to the condition to find out later the vaccine actually triggered it. Genetics do play a huge role. So, why not spend the money on preventing the reactions and discovering possible predispositions rather than deal with the collateral damage after the fact?

        Like

      • The genetic predisposition or disorder could be turned on by stress, illness, injury, or a strong immune response to a vaccine. So, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to completely shelter the child from genetics. It is going to happen. It is not a vaccine reaction. That is why you cannot get compensated for this type of health issue after vaccination. It is not a vaccine injury. And, people with genetic disorders deserve to be protected from serious diseases which could also trigger devastating seizures.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “So, why not spend the money on preventing the reactions and discovering possible predispositions rather than deal with the collateral damage after the fact?”

        Actually that is exactly what vaccines do. They prevent the diseases that can cause an even greater reaction. My oldest had what used to be known as a “grand mal” seizure due to actually getting a disease several years before its vaccine was available.

        Though if you have evidence that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule causes more seizures than the disease, just post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: The Truth about vaccines 2, more lies | vaccinesworkblog

  9. Thanks for your wonderful debunking.
    As a UK doctor, I can tell you that the undergraduate medical course has some vaccination related education and training, with most being covered in paediatrics or in infectious diseases/microbiology.
    The bulk of specific knowledge follows after med school, with specialisation in the various disciplines. Doing microbiology, immunology, public health, infectious diseases, paediatrics and general practice will all have training that is vaccine related. Some specialties have further subspecialisation within them; for instance you can do diplomas or masters in child health, in preventive medicine and public health, in tropical medicine and infectious diseases etc.
    A large chunk of education and training is devoted to clinical aspects of vaccination, including side effects, contraindications, development, constituents and pharmacology and immunology of the vaccine response.

    It is laughable that these speakers tout themselves as “World experts” in vaccines, when many are not even doctors, and none have the relevant training or experience, and none have done any clinical research in the topic (just done data dredging surveys from VAERS and the like)

    Liked by 1 person

  10. vaccines do work, in rare occurrences, lol. but the side effects are killer. I love how everyone is waking up to vaccine damage and the greedy corps destroying human health in the process. its hardly even debatable anymore how dangerous vaccines are. its great to see people knocking down pro-vaccine articles like this. I will say its not just vaccines causing all these problems, its our entire environment from GMO food to our glyphosate drenched food supply, from nuclear “accidents” to weather geoengineering. the corporations have almost completely taken over our government. we no longer live in a democracy(of which we were never suppose to be, founding father set up a republic) but we now live in a corprotacracy. but thanks, I got a good laugh out of your article and even more so enjoyed the comments. much love

    Like

  11. This is not a debunk at all. The reality is that doctors do not provide informed consent. I’ve had both of my daughters vaccinated and been vaccinated myself as an adult. Not one piece of information about the benefits vs risks was discussed with me.
    Thank you for the great laugh though!
    People are learning the truth and I love it:)

    Like

  12. Dear Kathy,
    Looking at the very first response to your ‘blog’, it’s clear that you’ve already got YOUR facts wrong and are offering to amend your comments.

    Do you even realise how hypocritical that is?

    Would it be possible, that at the end of your next hypocritical dribble, that you include your last name? That way, when the proverbial poop hits the fan and the lid of this unscrupulous industry is blown off, once and for all, I’ll be there laughing at the egg on your face.

    Oh…and before you start screaming ‘Antivaxxer!’ at me…. My children have been vaccinated. Fully. I have done my own research and come to the conclusion, just like the Scientists, Parents, Lawyers, Journalists, Doctors, Immunologists, etc. in the ‘Truth About Vaccinations’ by Ty Bollinger, that there are fundamental problems with the safety of vaccines and the amount being given to our children. If there is nothing to hide, then there should be no problem with the setting up of an Independent Safety Council, since it’s very clear that the CDC has been compromised.

    Anyone being belligerent to people, who are genuinely fighting for the safety of our children and the freedom of choice of our nations, need to go live in North Korea. They will fit in well there.

    Kind regards,
    Fiona

    Like

      • Wrong?
        Kathy, you wouldn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘wrong’ if it was tattooed on your own forehead and smacked you on the ass every time you saw it.

        I could pick through every piece of information you’ve tried to justify in your ‘blog’, but it’s clear you have no inclination to look at all the facts and wasting time is what you do, not I.

        With you it’s either black or white and there’s no grey in the middle. You’re so set on the fact that you are right(even the name of your blog suggests that!), that you can’t even imagine a scenario where some vaccines may be safe, but some most definitely aren’t. This makes your ‘blog’ ridiculous and makes you look completely stupid.

        In all honesty, I haven’t even wasted my time reading everything you’ve said, because it’s full of old, one-sided, misleading and not factually correct information. If you can’t be swayed by the facts and the experts on ‘The Truth About Vaccines’, then anyone trying is simply wasting their time.

        Just one other thing…Dr Andrew Wakefield was completely exonerated…and I’ll say it again…COMPLETELY EXONERATED of all the FAKE charges that he was accused of. Anyone who suggests otherwise, or prefers to ignore this fact because it suits their own agenda, is nothing short of laughable.

        Like

      • “Wrong?”

        You still have not pointed out what was “wrong” with any kind of evidence.

        Instead of making a blatant claim like “Wakefield was exonerated”… just directly quote the wrong points and then post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researches to support your claims.

        Anything less is just being a lazy blowhard. Sure you can bluster, but can your actually deliver real evidence?

        (since Wakefield has been legally stripped from practicing medicine in the UK, and could never ever legally able to practice medicine in the USA… or elsewhere, he is not considered “qualified” nor “reputable”).

        Liked by 1 person

    • I notice you have pointed to nothing inaccurate in the blog post.

      People can become anti-vaccine, even if they were not that to start with.

      As to being belligerent, I suggest re-reading your comment. The post was factual, explaining the issues with the series.

      Liked by 1 person

    • What you observed is someone who was told they were incorrect, so they asked for evidence and when that evidence was presented, accepted they were incorrect, and assimilated that into their body of knowledge. That is how a body of knowledge develops. Perhaps you don’t recognise the process, because you have bought into a thought process that relies on not accepting anything other what agrees with you ie exercising confirmation bias. And people like you are the worst, because you yourself and your children are protected, yet you follow people who actively encourage people not to be protected. Your American centric argument also falls flat, because every country in the world vaccinates, many on a very similar schedule to the US, plus many countries have stricter laws around vaccination. You whine about freedom of choices, when you live in a country where you are allowed to write what you just wrote with no ramifications. Your first world privilege is showing.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Pingback: The Truth about vaccines 3: MMR, DTaP, and the Greater Good | vaccinesworkblog

  14. “Vaccines Work” FOR WHOM? They work for the corporations that produce toxic chemicals that the US Supreme Court says are “unavoidably unsafe” in a 2011 ruling in favor of Wyeth corporation. They work for rich pigs in those corporations that get rich by selling toxic chemicals that have been given FULL legal Immunity which means that when vaccines HARM “unavoidably” that those vaccine makers are completely protected by law. They work for investors in these toxic chemical potions which know that without prosecution for dangerous and defective products they will continue to see their profits grow. Yeah…..vaccines work for rich, pathological people without a conscience. Nice!

    Like

  15. Will you please provide references to the peer reviewed articles supporting your statements above, specifically those on vaccine safety? TIA

    Like

  16. Kathy wrote “… more children today having a disability than a decade ago, and the greatest increase is among kids in higher-income families … neurodevelopmental and mental health-related disabilities increased …”
    =============
    Professional two-income households are “higher-income families”. If parents careers caused them to postpone having children, that increases the probability their children will have autism, see … http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/April/Autism-Risk-Older-Parents/

    Like

  17. Two questions and thoughts if you don’t mind… is there a real legitimate risk to not vaccinating on the schedule assigned by the CDC? If so, have there been reputable studies that show potential adverse or not significant effects of multiple vaccines at once; looking at the possible use of multiple metals coupled with anti-bioics and live micro organisms (as in the case with some vaccines)? I understand that there are thousands if not millions of people who are vaccinated in recent years go without any known or obviously visible effects. Is there something out there that looks at (or currently in the process of being developed ie. database) that could show a longitudinal reality between these two groups and see if there is any statistical significant deviation between them? Seems like we have a number of those willing to participate.

    Like

    • “…is there a real legitimate risk to not vaccinating on the schedule assigned by the CDC?”

      Yes. It would be something like your child has cancer. Speak to your doctor. My oldest son had neonatal seizures when he was two days old, so he did not get a pertussis vaccine (he got the DT instead). But this was 28 years ago, and they have now discovered that the DTP did not cause seizures but it was often a genetic disorder.

      ” If so, have there been reputable studies that show potential adverse or not significant effects of multiple vaccines at once; looking at the possible use of multiple metals coupled with anti-bioics and live micro organisms (as in the case with some vaccines)? ”

      Um, kind of yeah… just in the use. Also what “multiple metals”? Anyway there is the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which there are lots of studies:
      https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/publications.html

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks I’ll look those over.

        Metals such as:
        11 elements, namely aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, thallium and zinc,

        Some are used as a stabilizer some used to antagonize the immune response some used as a delivery system and some used for preservation. They are used in the production of individual vaccines but now some cases multiple vaccines are given in one shot mixing them. They vary in concentration albeit low and again depending on the manufacturer. Not ALL metals always present. Just wondering if they all need to done at the rate and speed with which they prescribe. (All before less than 1yo)

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26518400/?i=3&from=/27403668/related#fft

        Like

      • From your link “Power analyses demonstrated that safety studies of aluminum could detect relative risks ranging from 1.1 to 5.8 for a range of adverse event incidence.”

        So, when you read the full document, what did that mean? What were the conclusions?

        Like

    • 1. The risk to not vaccinating is not being protected from preventable diseases and contributing to the lack of herd immunity.

      2. There are no studies on record showing vaccine risks outweigh benefits.

      3. There are no metals in vaccines. Aluminum adjuvants are compounds, not metals. Thimerosal is a compound, not a metal.

      4. There are too many variables to weigh then comparing vaxed v unvaxed. The vaccine safety datalink, however, analyzes and studies reports to VAERS.

      Like

  18. I stopped reading this after “vaccines cut the number of SIDS in half.” Kathy is either very ignorant, or evil. Neither is much qualification for writing a blog that other people might read.

    I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    Like

  19. Only a religious zealot would believe that vaccines have ever or could ever be effective. Let me take a few minutes to smash your beliefs to pieces with simple common sense.

    Viruses in vaccines are grown in (not a complete list):
    1. Aborted fetal tissue
    2. Caterpillar larvae
    3. Green monkey kidneys (SV-40 known to cause cancer)
    4. Chicken embryos

    Aluminum is 7x more toxic than mercury and is neurotoxic. Common sense

    Formaldehyde is a neurotoxin, used to preserve vaccines. Maybe you’ve heard that aspartame causes brain lesions, in diet sodas. That’s because at 86 degrees, it breaks down into formaldehyde.

    Polysorbate-80 is a spermicide. It is neurotoxic.

    This is common sense I’m not going to keep talking about ingredients. Let’s look at the immune system. I’m just going to quote people from this point since you dribbling neanderthals are probably a lost cause anyway. But before I do, let me explain to you what an oligarchy is.

    80 people own over half the world’s wealth. No surprise there. Try studying history. I assume you do not due to your enormous ignorance and lack of independent thought. An oligarchy by definition, believes in overpopulation. In 1000 BC, the ruling class believed that the earth was overpopulated. Climate control is used to make people feel guilty, and ultimately blames us for the earth’s troubled status. (Carbon emissions from humans, instead of mass pollution from corporations.) The oligarchy believes that the common man, the slave class, is an animal. They believe they are inherently superior and have the right to rule. Vaccines actually dumb down populations to the point that we will soon become a sub species. Consider researching these claims since you likely are not familiar with them and will already as you are reading be thinking of what to say next instead of using knowledge to guide you.
    Without further ado.

    Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, MD, 1989, Director of the Park-Sanatorium of Bad-Steben, West Germany, witness in more than 150 court trials about vaccination damages:
    “Vaccines have never had the proclaimed preventive effect on infections. The regression of infectious diseases started over 200 years ago, which means long before the introduction of vaccination, and it was due to the improved social conditions of the population: nutrition and hygiene.
    Contrarily to general belief, the vaccinations have had a negative influence on the decrease of the infective maladies and mortality. Statistics started off at a period when the infectious diseases were already on the downgrade. Careful studies over a period of many years have revealed that each introduction of a mass vaccination has obtained only one result: the immediate recrudescence of the malady that the vaccine should have prevented, but which it has solicited instead. The temporary but immediate isolation of infected patients has each time proved sufficient to prevent an epidemic.
    After every flare-up of an infection due to vaccination, the maladies have resumed the downward course which existed already before the vaccination. In general and over a period of many years, every vaccination has caused more casualties than the infection it was supposed to prevent. This happened for instance with the smallpox vaccination in Germany and many other countries.. ..Vaccines don’t protect, but do harm. A scientific proof of their usefulness has never existed, whereas the severe, sometimes fatal damages they cause are a proven fact.”(source: a talk given at the “The International Congress Of Doctors Against Vivisection” originally printed in CIVIS International Foundation Report Nr. 8″, WINTER 1989 – 1990, Massagno – Switzerland, CIVIS.)

    “There has never been a single vaccine in this country that has ever been submitted to a controlled scientific study. They never took a group of 100 people who were candidates for a vaccine, gave 50 of them a vaccine and left the other 50 alone, and measured the outcome. And since that has never been done, that means that if you want to be kind, you will call vaccines an unproven remedy. If you want to be accurate, you’ll call the people who give vaccines quacks.” Prof. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., 1986, Head of the Liscensing Board for the State of Illinois, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine. (p.50)
    “The public is surely entitled to convincing proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, that artificial immunisation is in fact a safe and effective procedure, in no way injurious to health, and that the threat of the corresponding natural diseases remain sufficiently clear and urgent to warrant mass inoculation of everyone, even against their will if necessary. Unfortunately, such proof has never been given” Richard Moskowitz, M.D. 1983. (p.47)

    “It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we vanquished smallpox with vaccines when only 10% of the population were ever vaccinated.” Dr. Glen Dettman, AMM, BA, PhD, & Archie Kalokerinos, MD, 1986.

    “It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we vanquished smallpox with vaccines when only 10% of the population were ever vaccinated.” Dr. Glen Dettman, AMM, BA, PhD, & Archie Kalokerinos, MD, 1986. (p. 36) In the late 1960’s and 1970s, Dr. Kalokerinos and Dr. Dettman discovered that some 500 out of every 1,000 Aboriginal children were dying in the Northern Territories. The cause was a type of toxic shock reaction, complicated by vitamin C deficiency, often brought on by immunisation. In a two-year period without vaccination and with improved nutrition not one child died. (p.43).
    “The most phenomenal accomplishments in tuberculosis eradication have been achieved where little or no B.C.G. has been used, including in Iceland, Hawaii and the Netherlands.” From an article signed by 17 doctors in the British Medical Journal, June 6 1959. (P.110). B.C.G. is a vaccine used against tuberculosis.
    Vaccination leads to Cancer, Leukaemia, Brain Damage and many other chronic diseases?
    “Immunisation programs against the flu, measles, mumps, polio, etc., actually may be seeding humans with RNA to form pro-viruses…which under proper conditions become activated and cause a variety of diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematoses, Parkinson’s disease, and cancer. Spare me this ‘medical miracle’.” Dr. Robert Simpson, of Rutgers University, 1987. (p.42)
    “The vaccination modifies the terrain of the vaccinated, driving it towards the alkaline and oxidised terrain–the terrain of cancer. The fact can no longer be denied.” The French medical Journal Revue de Pathologie Generale at de Physiologie Clinique, 1958 (p.111).
    “It is necessary only to read on the dials of a physical measuring apparatus the ratings of the 3 characteristics of the blood. The pH, the rH2 and the electric resistance. The findings are that all vaccination has the effect of directing the three values of the blood into or toward the zone characteristics of cancer and leukemia…Vaccines do predispose to cancer and leukemia.” Prof.L.C.Vincent, founder of Bioelectronics.
    “Vaccination also causes leukaemia to break out.” Dr. B. Duperrat, 1954, of the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris, in the French medical journal Presse Medicale , March 12 1955. (P.114)
    “Since routine vaccines introduce live viruses and other highly antigenic material into the blood of virtually every living person, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a significant harvest of auto-immune diseases will automatically result. It is dangerous and misleading and the exact opposite of the truth to claim that a vaccine makes us “immune” or protects us against an acute disease. In fact, it only drives the disease deeper into the interior and causes us to harbour it chronically with the result that our responses to it become progressively weaker and show less and less tendency to heal and resolve themselves spontaneously. . . Far from producing a genuine immunity the vaccines may act by actually interfering with or suppressing the immune system as a whole…” Richard Moskowitz, M.D. 1983 (p.67-68)
    “There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK alone some hundreds if not thousands, of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly, and that their lives and those of their parents have been wrecked in consequence.” Prof. Gordon Stewart, 1987, Professor of Public Health at the University of Glasgow, 1980, commenting on the brain damaging effects of whooping cough vaccine. (p.40)
    “Vaccines are made from: mucus of infected children (whooping cough), excrement from typhoid victims (typhoid), fermented chick embryos, and until recently, vaccines for polio were got from diseased kidneys of monkeys, and cause: leukemia, encephalitis, Multiple Sclerosis, and “Now I believe the smallpox vaccine theory is the explanation to the explosion of AIDS.” advisor to the World Health Organisation, as reported in The London Times , 11.05.1987 (p.39). The advisors name was not disclosed in the Times article
    “Millions of people have been vaccinated with the polio vaccine, which contains the cancer-forming SV-40 virus originally found in monkeys. It is possible that it will take 20 years or still longer before the possible damaging effects of this virus come to light” Professor J. Clausen, 1973, of the Institute of Preventive Medicine at the University of Odense. Consider the upsurge of diseases such as AIDS, CFS, increases in leukemia etc., in light of this statement. (p.94)
    “Vaccination is not necessary, not useful, does not protect. There are twice as many casualties from vaccination as from AIDS” Dr. med. Gerhard Buchwald, 1988, West Germany, specialist of internal diseases and participant in about 150 trials of vaccination victims (p.35).

    It is also clear you are ignorant about what a chiropractor does, or how much more knowledge about the body they are the in school than any ignorant medical doctor. They take more credit hours to graduate and almost no pharmacology.

    Please don’t speak again until you have something intelligent to say.

    Like

    • “4. Chicken embryos ”

      I had some for lunch in the form of an egg salad sandwich.

      And your Gish Gallop was just lots of silly arguments that have been disputed many times. Assertions like: “Aluminum is 7x more toxic than mercury and is neurotoxic. Common sense” are just silly. Aluminum is in the soil, and you get more from skinning your knew than any vaccine.

      Like

    • I am sorry that you are chemophobic an do not understand science. Do you live near a community college or university? it might be to your advantage to sign up for a few biology and chemistry courses.

      That being said, if you make another threat to me, I will ban you from posting on my blog.

      Like

      • For a “Free Thinker” he seems to be very gullible. He would definitely benefit from some community college science classes, but first he has to open his mind to facts.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. Chronic illnesses are now so common, having a sick child seems to be the “new normal.”Children are supposed to be vibrant, healthy, free of disease.” – Janet Levatin MD, Pediatrician.

    God bless

    Like

  21. Oh, wow… a quick google shows she is a homeopath! That is even worse than a chiropractor (especially since she supposedly passed a chemistry to on her road to becoming an MD).

    An interesting thing about measles and the immune system: getting it resets a kids immune system so they are no longer immune to much of anything:
    Science. 2015 May 8;348(6235):694-9. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa3662. Epub 2015 May 7.
    Long-term measles-induced immunomodulation increases overall childhood infectious disease mortality.

    If you think vaccines do not work, then answer a question for me using the US Census data of the number of reported measles cases during the 20th century. Look at that table and tell us why measles dropped 90% between 1960 and 1970 in the United States of America. Some notes:

    Provide verifiable documentation to support your answer in a form of PubMed indexed studies… no videos.

    Please do not mention deaths, because that is not what the table shows. If you do you will be changing the subject.

    Please do not mention any other disease, because that would be changing the subject.

    Please do not mention any other country, because this is specifically data from one particular country (plus England and Wales are not American states).

    Please do not mention any other decade unless the number of cases dropped more than 80% and never went up again.

    From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . . 0.1

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Immunization is a robust science full of evidence and facts, the exact opposite of dogma or religion. Please click on any link in any of my posts and you will find multitudes of facts, science, and evidence.

    Like

  23. Forrest is ridiculous. That you all fall for his BS is even more ridiculous. Do you know what it means to think for yourself? It means try to look up his “facts” and verify them. Be sure to recognize that television shows are not facts.

    Like

  24. Any comments on these thoughts? [From a friend who is swallowing all this hook, line and sinker]:

    She starts out – I as a concerned individual looked up what is in vaccines. And found some alarming things such as: Polysorbate80, Aluminum, Thimerosal, Animal DNA, and Aborted Fetal Tissue to name a few.
    Because I have done this research, I believe I am justified in saying that I have more information than my doctor on this; therefore I would not follow their recommendation solely because I trust them. I am not saying they don’t have way more knowledge on many topics that the nurse mentioned. But most doctors, not knowing the ingredient list, cannot provide me with enough information for true “informed consent” therefore I research independent of them.
    I cannot trust the CDC’s statements that the ingredients found in vaccines are safe for many reasons but that seems like another subject (I can expound if you’d like)

    [Side Note] Now the Paul Offit interview..
    you may or may not be surprised that I have heard/read most all of that information before.
    The article contains many half truths.

    She then goes on to say:
    1: Thimerosal was removed (excluding trace amounts) from all vaccines in the pediatric schedule in 2001. However in 2004 (?) the flu vaccine was recommended for pregnant woman and all children above 6 months of age. The multi dose flu vaccine vials contain Thimerosal is large doses. And when woman are pregnant, the body “detoxes” substances like mercury and aluminum straight to the baby in utero. Just a couple large problems with the theory that Thimerosal can’t cause us harm.

    2. Assuming that the foreign material in a vaccine is a) not more exposure than “normal” b) the same substances we are otherwise exposed to.
    For example, the max amount of mercury in drinking water is 2 parts per billion otherwise it is deemed toxic; yet the flu vaccine alone exceeds that. (I can’t find the ppb now)
    We are apparently exposed to many things but it is by no means OK or without consequence to inject foreign DNA (animal or human) into a human body.
    The aluminum and mercury are different weights than what we are otherwise exposed to and when combined with other adjuvants such as Polysorbate80, they affect the brain and gut very differently.

    On a side note, in some states, if a vial of the flu shot is broken, the building has to be evacuated and a HAZmat team is called in to clean up because of the Thimerosal. If it is such a health hazard to inhale that substance, How in the world is it safe to inject it?

    Thoughts? I am at a loss as to how to answer her. Especially since she has a come-back for everything I try to say.

    Like

    • Ask her about the three influenza vaccines that come in single doses, and have no thimerosal. Also, it is not an adjuvant. Also, there are different forms of mercury with different toxicities. Methylmercury, which is in fish, is completely different than ethylmercury (thimerosal). Just like drinking methyl alcohol can kill you, but ethanol is in almost every beverage at your local liquor store.

      Aluminum is not in every vaccine, but as the most common metal element in soil, it is every where. You get more if you fall down and skin your knee. The researchers who try to make it out as dangerous actually invented a term for “sore arm.” Just tell her that any paper by a speaker at a Dwoskin paid conference in Jamaica can be safely ignored:
      http://vaccinesafetyconference.com/speakers.html

      The other “scary” thing, Polysorbate 80, is an emulsifier used in food and cosmetics. If she is scared of that, then she should stay away from ice cream. And if she is afraid of any foreign DNA, then she needs to stop eating everything. Or perhaps take a freshman level introduction to biology at her closest community college. Or just ask her how she has avoided all bug bites.

      “The aluminum and mercury are different weights…”

      The atomic weights of the elements do not change, they are in different molecular compounds. Someone really needs to take a basic chemistry course. Also, as a former structural engineer who passed my engineering materials class almost forty years ago, I go into silent laughter whenever anyone calls aluminum a “heavy metal.”

      Though truly, you need to insist she provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers (not any on the above speaker list) that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the disease. The onus is on her to provide the evidence. Also I bet she has no clue what the diseases are actually like, considering she lacks basic chemistry and biology knowledge, she obviously slept through high school history and English classes too.

      Like

    • There is no aluminum adjuvant in flu vaccine and most pregnant women get the thimerosa-free version.

      No, the body does not detox into the uterus. Good grief, what the hell? Tell a pregnant person to ask her OB about that one.

      2 parts per billion of 64 ounces of water is a lot more mercury than what is in the thimerosal in one flu vaccine. Plus, the EPA level is for pure mercury, not thimerosal.

      There is no evidence there is foreign dna in vaccines. Cells are used to grow viruses but then the virus is removed from the cells and purified before being used in the vaccine. No DNA. Plus, we eat, breathe, and drink non-human dna every day, all day. Are we turning into dust mites? Cats? Spiders?

      Vaccine particles are micro size, not nano size. See #8 here
      https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/the-truth-about-vaccines-2-more-lies/

      The hazmat comment comes from RFK jr and is just ridiculous.

      Like

  25. Well, I hate to say it because it sounds worse than it is, but she was homeschooled. As was I. I think she honestly just doesn’t care to listen. She sent me three links just this morning: One from Vaxxed (enough said right there), one from this website – http://www.livingwhole.org/god-does-not-support-vaccines/ (I’m convinced that woman is completely off her rocker), and one from a right-to-life website spouting that whole Fetal Tissue in vaccine issue (I’m right-to-life, but I really don’t think they’re dumping chopped up babies into the vaccines).

    Where might I find those PubMed studies? She won’t do the research on her own, if it doesn’t come from Vaxxed or Ty Bollinger, she doesn’t want to believe it. And I’m not sure the methyl alcohol/ethanol argument would be persuasive either – one could argue that drinking alcohol can cause liver damage.

    Like

    • Ah, I see. She could definitely benefit from further education. PubMed is a large index of medical literature from around the world. Having a journal listed on the index is no guarantee of quality, but it weeds out youtube videos, random websites and other dreck.

      It is free to use, and while some papers are behind a paywall, there is a “free online” filter: http://www.pubmed.gov

      Because this blog is set up to send any comment with more than one link into moderation, I have used the journal, date and title papers. Typically if you put the title into the search box (top of the page) you will find the paper’s abstract. At the upper right hand corner is a link to the full paper, and if it is free it will tell you. Like this is a free online paper from Pediatrics:
      Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):577-85.
      Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009

      Like

    • (need to use another link)

      About the fetal tissue: it is because viruses that only infect humans will only grow in human cells. So one man did quite a bit of work to get the best of a bad situation:
      http://www.nature.com/news/medical-research-cell-division-1.13273

      The Catholic Church approves of rubella vaccination, because they do not want to see a repeat of the 1960s rubella epidemic. I am old enough that I have met those affected by it, including stillbirth and deafness. Congenital Rubella Syndrome is also one known environmental cause of autism.

      “And I’m not sure the methyl alcohol/ethanol argument would be persuasive either – one could argue that drinking alcohol can cause liver damage.”

      It is all about the dose. Methanol is pretty lethal. During prohibition lots of folks died from wood alcohol poisoning due to the actions of federal agents. A good book that goes into that and other poisons is The Poisoner’s Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York by Deborah Blum. Despite its grim subject, it was a fun read, and it was fascinating to read how chemicals were treated to casually not so long ago.

      Sadly, I think you are not going to go anywhere with your friend. There is something called the “backfire effect.” In short the more you try to present any kind information the more she will dig in her heals and become even more entrenched. Personally, I would just ignore her… take a break, go to the library and check out the above book (it is one reason why I have stopped reading fiction, I am presently reading a book about Bellevue Hospital by David Oshinsky).

      Like

  26. I think you believe in the wrong science.

    1
    In a way, Paul is correct that the AAP does not specifically research vaccine safety but this does not mean members are not involved in vaccine safety research nor does this mean that AAP ignores vaccine safety.

    Above comment makes all in your case number 1 totally invalid!

    2
    In your second case iatrogenic is because doctors believe that the CDC is the highest truth in existence and there is no need to question an expert. A doctor that believes everything the expert says without even making connections from his own practice is a dangerous doctor. That person is a repeater, and they echo the information coming to them, without any questions. Watch out for them!

    3
    SIDS is an example of something that may be reported to VAERS but, in reality, is not caused by vaccines.

    So it “may” be reported?? Not caused by vaccines? Show me hard evidence to back that claim!

    4
    “The informed consent process for vaccines is carefully regulated and thought through.”
    Hm, in reality, this is not the case. Parents are met by hostile medical practitioners when questioning vaccines and if that is not coercion, then I don’t know what is!

    5
    “What those opposed to vaccines really mean, when they say doctors don’t learn about vaccines, is that doctors do not learn the ingredients to vaccines. This is true.”

    So in essence, not knowing the content of a vaccine results in no connection to side effects? This is dangerous practice!

    6
    “We also know that SIDS and infant mortality rates are at all time lows, in USA.”
    What does that mean? Numbers?

    7
    You can argue that case all day long but the fact is that even if it is mentioned in an article in 1954 lobbyists are the reason why this information hasn’t rooted properly. People simply don’t get the info because the lobbyist is twisting the case to benefit the company and make the public none the wiser! And they still do it! They are one of many enemies to the people!

    8
    ” A lot is known about how they connect with vaccines. Some vaccines can cause a fever which could cause a febrile (fever) seizure. This is not epilepsy and it is not a vaccine issue, per se, but that some toddlers are prone to a seizure with a fever. An illness could also cause the seizure.”

    Not a vaccine issue, per se? Could also cause seizure?
    What is that, are we speculating in avoidance? This is not science!!!

    9
    “these products are beneficial enough that society wants to encourage their manufacturing.”
    Well, being misled by lobbyists, benefits are all that comes out. Not a single doctor who carelessly gives people vaccines consider there to be ANY side effects besides a little rash in the needle area and fever.

    10
    “Mike Adams, the Health Ranger comes on to claim that vaccines are advertised as 100% risk-free, that the vaccine risk are ignored.”
    The only risk parents learn is a little rash and fever, not that your african-american child is almost certain to fall in to autism when receiving the MMR vaccine!

    Ok, this is what I believe:
    The person writing this article is most likely a lobbyist defending the trillion dollar industry, yes TRILLION DOLLARS!!! This shit is to be implemented worldwide. What does that mean? Shit load of cash to pharma and shit loads of dead people, the end goal is to be read on the Georgia guide stones!

    Give this a thought: Why are the manufacturers of vaccines completely immune to prosecution?

    There is nobody in the medical care taking responsibility for vaccine injuries, only you are, the one who receives the vaccine. If you are injured, you are on your own!

    Now, none of us reading and/or writing this information has any firsthand information. That means that the information you receive could be true or false and none of us are any experts! The only advice I can give on the matter is to investigate as much as you can. Learn to recognize what can be trusted and what cannot! The doctors wont give you any satisfying answers, listen to people instead with real life experiences, their tragedy. Use your heart and mind and feel what is right for you.

    We live in a very hostile world where greed is on the first row. If you use common sense, you will get far. If something feels wrong, it is your intuition telling you there is something wrong indeed, listen to it!

    Lastly… The series about vaccines is not intended to abolish vaccines, it is about why so many people are injured by it. The questions in focus are why vaccines needs mercury as a preservative and why aluminum is added as a immune system provoker. What I’ve learned is that the vaccine is for the body and not the brain. The aluminum in vaccines penetrates the blood brain barrier and sends the vaccine straight to brain, but the experts say that the brain is not the target and it should never receive the vaccine… but it does, hence the horrible side effects!

    But hey, what do I know, I’m just a guy reading and viewing all sorts of information… but I use my heart to find the truth, and so far it has benefited me to know things others don’t. I’m connecting the dots, that’s all I do, and I don’t like what I discovered!

    Beware and be safe!

    Like

    • 1. There is plenty of vaccine safety research and I have posted plenty of links.

      2. Doctors believe in evidence. Truth is subjective.

      3. Quit playing semantic games. I don’t bite.

      4. If parents who are antivax don’t want to vax, they should stop seeking medical care from provax docs. It is that simple.

      5. No

      6. I posted links re SIDS. It is your job to read them.

      7. Wrong

      8. Who is speculating?

      9. Wrong

      10. There is an about section to this blog. Why are you all so afraid of facts and evidence that you assume anyone who uses them is a paid shill? It’s pretty paranoid and ridiculous of you.

      Nowhere in the series did anyone discuss why thimerosal was in vaccines or what is now used in it’s place. No one debated whether we could have vaccines without adjuvants. Aluminum, in vaccines, does not penetrate the blood brain barrier because it is too large. It is not in nanoparticles but microparticles and therefore too large. Read #8 in my review of episode 2.

      You should use your brain to read evidence.

      Like

      • “6. I posted links re SIDS. It is your job to read them.”

        Though your link hyperlinked on the words “vaccines cut the risk of SIDS in half.” actually just goes to just the main PubMed index. There is a meta-analysis, but since data is messy all they could figure is that it is protective, but I could not access the full paper:
        Vaccine. 2007 Jun 21;25(26):4875-9. Epub 2007 Mar 16.
        Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis.

        The closest thing I saw not behind a paywall as this:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221466/

        It is not an easy read. Because like all multi-variable problems it is not an easy question to understand.

        What is a wee bit easier to understand that with reduction of parental smoking, putting babies on their back to sleep has reduced SIDS and avoiding pertussis. Though there are some precautionary tales:

        Neonatal Deaths After Hepatitis B VaccineThe Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, 1991-1998 (which turns out to be a cautionary tale about co-sleeping… the freakiest one on the table includes this description: “co-slept with mother on couch, found on back on floor beside couch”).

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889991 … where the abstract says: “An antivaccine movement developed in Japan as a consequence of increasing numbers of adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the mid-1970s. After two infants died within 24 h of the vaccination from 1974 to 1975, the Japanese government temporarily suspended vaccinations. Subsequently, the public and the government witnessed the re-emergence of whooping cough, with 41 deaths in 1979.”

        Oh, crud… I have heard lots through the medical media on the impact of parental tobacco smoking and SIDS, but apparently they are many… and bundled up with co-sleeping. It is an overload of just reviews! And I covered the co-sleeping on the first link!

        (by the way, I am guilty of co-sleeping on a few occasions, because anyone with a newborn is just sleep deprived, though I tried to only do it by sitting upright in a chair… but obviously that is not perfect, because the baby could have rolled off of the pillow on my lap)

        By the way the “back to sleep” to prevent SIDS campaign did not happen until after my first two kids (the second one was breast fed to the late night television coverage of the first Desert Storm war!… so I was alarmed awake). I was on a listserv for my oldest son’s lack of speech, and one concerned grandmother asked me if I thought he was affected by the 1990s “back to sleep” program. Um, no. He was born in 1988… this just goes to show that some folks will grasp on to any little change just to justify that a disability cannot be from genetics!

        Oh, by the way, since I am way into the moderation due too many links, let me plug again the Simons Foundation’s program to find the genetics of autism, which include several de novo mutations: https://sparkforautism.org/

        😉

        Like

  27. Anyways, evidently, something is horribly wrong and you don’t seem to take this seriously! People who care about themselves and their loved ones do best in being skeptic until proven otherwise.

    Like I said. the Georgia guidestones tells us in which direction our world is heading! Bill Gates has also said it himself that the world need to be vaccinated to reduce the population. He got kicked out of India for killing and injuring tens of thousands children with his polio vaccine!

    It is better to be safe than sorry. You suggest in short the other way around… you must be very stupid or you’re a lobbyist!

    Like

    • Bill Gates said that family planning programs will help people have smaller families and vaccination and other medical care will help them have healthier families. This will lead to the population not growing so fast.

      Gates did not get kicked out of India. The Indian government decided to run their immunization program themselves. The Gates Foundation still does work in India.

      Please stop reading natural news.

      Like

  28. Pingback: The Truth about vaccines 4: influenza, HIB, and pneumococcal vaccines and herd immunity | vaccinesworkblog

  29. Physicians prescribe antibiotics for viral infections routinely. This has happened to me many times throughout the years by several different doctors. The reasoning was that they didn’t want a secondary bacterial infection to set in. They do it less now, but it’s still not uncommon. People have to advocate for their own health, and they have to be able to ask questions. The last time I was prescribed an antibiotic, which was about 5 years ago, I said to the physician, “Well, don’t I need to take a probiotic with or after the antibiotic treatment?” His reply was, “You can if you want to.” Wow. You just have to educate and take care or yourself. But in my experience, doctors tend to feel very threatened by questions. I used to work for big pharma and did very well; I spent many years working with physicians, and very few are brave enough to buck the system and really look at the science put out by entities without vested interests.

    Like

  30. PHD thesis … in the context of Australian vaccination schedule and not the USA, but worth a read http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4541/. BTW, SIDS might be lowest it’s been in the USA, but it’s not in other countries like New Zealand, with obviously a lot more at play than just vaccines. As for us, we enjoyed the few TruthAboutVaccines episodes we saw and will continue to research the claims and counter claims.

    Like

  31. Anyone who thinks giving a baby through to 15 months old, the required amount of vaccines promoted by the establishment, needs a serious rational re-boot in critical thinking.

    Like

    • Please expand on that statement. Tell us why with supporting evidence from PubMed studies by reputable qualified researchers.

      I say this as a mother who had to deal with seizures in my oldest from a rotavirus infection more than a decade before the vaccine was available, and had to take care of three kids with chicken pox (including a six month old baby) a year before that vaccine was available. I have also met parents whose children were disabled and actually killed by an Hib infection. I, as a person born in 1957, suffered from mumps twice… possibly because a measles infection a couple years before wiped out my immunity:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4823017/

      So really, tell us why we need a re-boot in critical thinking because we believe preventing diseases with vaccines is better than letting kids get sick with some rather nasty pathogens. Again, support your answer by providing PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases.

      As an aside since this is all about “critical thinking”, give us some good economic reasons why it is better to let kids get sick than to prevent disease. Make sure to prove this study totally wrong:
      Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):577-85.
      Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009.

      Warning: do not use the argument that the diseases no longer occur. That is not on the table, because the reason they do not occur so often is because of vaccination.

      Like

    • Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to leave a baby vulnerable to 14 diseases needs “needs a serious rational re-boot in critical thinking,” in my opinion. I am very glad my children didn’t have to get HIB and PCV13 vaccine decreased ear infections in their generation.

      Like

  32. I am not a Doctor, but am interested in how certain conspiracy theories come to be so ingrained in the human psyche. With that in mind I can understand how desperate, confused and befuddled parents having children with Autism, can become very susceptible to believing in any cure that might ease the suffering of their child, and of themselves—thus it is sort of natural that they would want to cling to any hope offered to them—such as a smoking gun which supposedly provides proof that simply avoiding vaccinations for their children can significantly improve their children’s health.

    However, what I can’t understand is what would motivate an average compassionate Dr., (well educated in the causes and remedies for serious illnesses), would want to (deliberately) deny all supporting data linking autism with certain vaccines? Why would professional healers so utterly fail to carry out the moral imperative requiring them to examine each possilble cure and then thoroughly examine the scientific proof used to verify if that cure is truly effective, or just the result of faulty research.

    Likewise, although I fully believe that big pharma can be primarilly motivated by making money, and may sometimes be negligent concerning the validity its own research, or, might display false zeal when marketing a new medicine I absolutely refuse to believe that Doctors and/or researchers intentionally want to endanger the public—just to make money, while deliberately neglecting proper scientific controls?

    So,thanks for providing this article as a way to point out many, often unnoticed pitfalls, which can cause honest people can make honest mistakes, and how emotionally grieving and burdened parents, can promote anti-vac movements out of a natural need to imagine a brighter future for thier children.

    Like

    • 1. How did certain conspiracy theories come to be so ingrained in the human psyche? My theory is that there have always been people who have irrational fears and 2017 is no exception. I think some of them are not mentally stable, some are gullible, some are not rational thinkers, some are paranoid. It is not an easy question to answer.

      2. I am not sure why some doctors fail to see that science has deeply analyzed the autism-vaccines connection and shown there is nothing there. I wonder if it is just the old snake oil salesmen and women tactics, meaning they know what they are doing but they are motivated more by profit than truth.

      3. I agree with you here. “Likewise, although I fully believe that big pharma can be primarilly motivated by making money, and may sometimes be negligent concerning the validity its own research, or, might display false zeal when marketing a new medicine I absolutely refuse to believe that Doctors and/or researchers intentionally want to endanger the public—just to make money, while deliberately neglecting proper scientific controls?”

      You are welcome. Thank you for reading.

      Like

      • One more thing needs mentioning–while some are spreading fears about the possilble harm they believe vaccines can cause their children, the fact is that every vaccine or medication used to alleviate human suffering, comes with a price–that price being that it will have some side effects and/or produce some bad reactions in some people. So while I remain distrustful of big pharma and its quest to make money by producing many overly expensive treatments for diseases, parents need to remember that even aspirin and ant-acids can have adverse side effects on some individuals, and every time we need a medical procedure or some kind of surgery, we are also accustomed to being told that infrequently those procedures and operations can harm certain in certain patients. That’s why we must sign consent forms whenever going “under the knife.”

        So this begs the moral question of whether using drugs or vaccines that have some rare, or not so rare, side effects, are truly moral and acceptable to market, while knowing full well that, although they may make things worse for a few, they WILL provide many people with relief and improved health.

        That’s the main fear that anti-vaccine people seem to be exploiting–using unavoidable facts of life, to demonize certain drugs and vaccines that actually do produce positive results in a vast majority of people. If we have to wait for all problems or all complications that are sometime associated with those drugs and vaccines to disappear, we will have a very long wait. So even while Doctors actively report adverse effects which the vaccines they prescribe may have, there is no way for them, nor anyone else, to eliminate all possilble risks. And unfortunately, risks are very normal drawbacks that alarmists exploit in order to exaggerate the dangers that vaccines or treatments may pose. In this way their beliefs about the dangers of certain vaccines, becomes accepted by the larger populous. And if one of them happens to have a child that has been vaccinated, and then develops Autism, this becomes the definitive event that cements the dangers of certain vaccines in their minds, possibly causing them to become activists who oppose dependence on vaccinations which they believe, in the long run, will only cause harm. In the midst of such hysteria, its hard to believe that scientist who are anti-vaccine, don’t really believe the findings of their own erroneous research. Otherwise, why do they have such a need to crusade against the use of MMR inoculations that is so strong, that they are willing to take up the banner of true believers in the overall harm that can be caused by some medicines?

        Once a conspiracy becomes anchored in their minds, it becomes very hard to remove, even though only a very small number of people experience enough negative side-effects to be persuaded not to use vaccinations that clearly help so many others?

        The fact is, that when it comes to medical treatments of any kind, all of us are taking a risk and spinning our personal roulette wheels. So the larger moral issue is whether or not it is immoral to force parents to have their own children vaccinated due to the larger numbers of children that will benefit from inoculations? It doesn’t help to polarize each other when we should be engaged in rational and polite discussions which include facts instead of fears. Parents are not bad for wanting to protect their children, and neither are the many other parents who see the advantages of inoculating their own children in order to protect them from a host of dangerous, and typically childhood, diseases!

        Like

      • Yes, I completely agree. I had a moderate reaction to MMR, in grad school, and had a severe reaction to sulfa drugs, as an undergrad. I know full well we have to weigh risks v benefits.

        I always say it is fine to be cautious and ask questions. What matters is where you get the answers.

        Like

  33. I’ve read the original “10 rebuttals” article, plus ALL the 160? comments… a 2 hour exercise. The sundry links must wait for another day. I’ve preempted all that by listening to (and subscribing to the transcripts of) the seriously-compiled 7 part series “thetruthaboutvaccines” (ttav). Imo, the ideal intellectual rationale is to aggressively seek refutations to one’s cherished paradigms, whilst respecting the complex grey areas. Individual sovereignty, supported by ongoing research and lateral thinking, should override naive obedience to possibly-compromised ‘authority figures’ (medical or political or spiritual). Of deep geopolitical concern is the overreach of burgeoning governmental demands for mass conformity, under the meme of “the greater societal good requires sacrificing personal freedoms”…. decrying that meme is a key factor throughout the liberty-advocating ‘ttav’ series. Think how charasmatic historical leaders have all too often caused disastrous outcomes for those citizens who trusted them, as viewed in retrospect. Personally, I see a time when our 2017 ‘politically-correct’ zeitgeist will be understood as the deceptive folly it is. So, I’m encouraging the ‘jury’ to be undecided whilst legitimate debate rages on. Imo so far, the core “10 rebuttals” of the first of seven ‘ttav’ videos are ill-phrased and unlikely to be redeemed by my future research of the mostly pro-vaccination links generously supplied. Nor is it likely that this thread’s analysis of the other six episodes will allow “sweet water to be drawn from a bitter well’.

    Like

      • On my “word salad”. Nothing but the best and most impartially-nutritious will suffice. eg. no artificial sweeteners, no preservatives, no GMO’s, and most definitely no dried-bullshit-sprinkles (sadly typical of many of the 160 blogs herein). Thanks, master chef! Salivating already!

        Like

      • As I see it, the main conflict between supporters of vaccines and anti-vaccine people, is precisely a philosophical one. I don’t know if I really have answers that will bring peace except to say—it must be exceptionally painful for any parent to have a child that has apparently suffered a bad reaction to vaccines and ends up being severely injured or even killed—and if that happened to my child, I too, would be mostly suspicious, angry and skeptical, and eager to bring to justice those whose incompetence or non-caring attitudes might have caused my child to die. However I don’t see the solution to be in adopting a my way of the highway solution (for either side).

        While it is true that there are a small number of cases in which children with certain kinds of genetic predispositions, or some other biological factors that do not make the vaccine option personally desirable, or safe, the fact is that there really are many side effects and negative reactions inherent in all prescribed medications, vaccination and forms of treatments. So, where does the best course lie? I would say that scientist should keep on doing research and issuing clear warnings that need to be heard by the families of children with certain physical liabilities,and these children should not be required to use vaccines—simply because that child’s parents suspect that he or she will have a bad reaction. That means testing done to eliminate those with such risks needs to be improved, and, that notification of the public (especially parents) should be of paramount importance!

        As far as the families of those children whose have no reason to suspect anything bad will happen, they should continue a program of mass inoculations for their children at schools, hospitals, and clinics. And of course, it is the medical professions responsibility to emphasis ALL POSSIBLE RISKS so that EVERY child’s parents can decide if those risks are likely to hurt their children.

        At this point let me share some personal information about the inoculations that I received as a child in the late 1950s and early 60s, It was clearly understood that illness like the measles and the mumps etc. were very risky things for children to contract. And, before having the “shots” we were given, almost every family with children in our area had already developed the mumps, measles, or chicken pox, and these afflictions were real health risk to all children at that time. However, another funny fact is that out of thousands of children in our home town who were vaccinated, I never heard of one death or serious illness happening to a child after receiving vaccinations for infectious diseases. So to me, that suggest that the incidence with which such deadly results happened in our community were either zero or nearly zero. I’m not saying that kind of fact should erase all worry in the minds of parents—just that adverse reactions to vaccines for any reason, are not something that happens with in large numbers or with great regularity. And thus the large majority of cases where inoculations are given, results in delivering good and positive effects that help to erase such dangerous illnesses.

        It seems to me that what is really at issue here, is not whether vaccines are good or bad, or whether mad scientists without ethics forcing us to kill our children—personally I have much more respect for the medical profession than that, and refuse to believe that Doctors and pharmaceutical researchers are cackling with glee as they deliberatly set out to harm living children for the mere sake of increasing profits. To be sure, big pharma does often charge too much for its products and may attempt to rationalize doing so with some kind of inadequate hype! For that they should be held responsible by the FDA and American courts of law, but those who vilify the medial profession and the ethics of everyone in it, are only portraying pharmaceutical companies as some sort of viscous child killers,and in most cases they are completely wrong!

        So, what is at issue or what should be more at issue, is the safety measures used to test all drugs as well as to increase screenings for any children that may have risk factors. Blaming Doctors, pharmacists, or medical researchers who work for lage drug companies of wanting to deliberately place the lives of children in danger, is really placing blame in the wrong places. So if parents don’t want to endanger their children, very thorough efforts need to be taken so that ANY child with pronounced risks,should not be required to receive vaccinations! However, there is the fact, that if our children must go to school with someone who is ill, or carries the “germs,” for measles and mumps, that is not fair to all other children in their schools either. So, what is called for is for Parents who fear the risks, to agree to home school their children, and perhaps receive extra help from school districts to facilitate their giving scholastic instructions in the home.

        For God’s sake! Even kids with Turrets syndrome are protected by the ADA, and their schools may even build sound proof booths with windows, so that such children can listen to their teachers without troubling the many other children in their class who are not so afflicted! Certainly if our government would adequately fund schools or help those with clear disabilities that are the results of physical/and or genetic origins, we could all manage children’s homeschooling so that they continue to have the right to receive educations, while not endangering others!

        It seems that both parents and doctors are barking up the wrong tree, when they quarrel about whether vaccines should be mandatory or not–each side has passionate views that involve their own perceptions on what truly being compassionate entails, but the emphasis should be on improved screenings so that those who are under risk, can be detected and accommodated without endangering large bodies of other school children as well.

        A popular saying is that, “where there is a will there is a way.” And that certainly should and could be the way of thinking that resolves this issue favorably for both sides!

        Liked by 2 people

      • And absolutely no sense nor science. Seriously, you use lots of words to say nothing of substance. It is positively homeopathic!

        Like

      • Chris opines: “What kind of dressing would you like on your word salad?
        And absolutely no sense nor science. Seriously, you use lots of words to say nothing of substance. It is positively homeopathic!”
        I respond: your ‘salad dressing’ jibe deserved my compatible rejoinder. Word-play is not either vital nor antithetical to framing legitimate research parameters (my core contribution). Kindly don a more philosophical hat when rereading my initial post. Such a ground-rules foundation may then be subsumed by ‘Sense/Substance/Science/Seriousness’. See the subtlety ?? Sincerely, S.S.

        Like

      • “legitimate research parameters (my core contribution).”

        Really? Where? Perhaps you can provide some actual science in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researcher to counter the information provided by Kathy.

        “Kindly don a more philosophical hat when rereading my initial post.”

        Actually I did. It is called “natural philosophy” and “actual logic”, along with a wee bit of linguistics to figure out that you have decided to say nothing sprinkled with lots of nonsense. I’m a big fan of René Descartes, who while ill observed the ants crawling on the ceiling, and from that we have the Cartesian coordinate system. Something I used often as an engineer using applied math. Also logic is kind of crucial when creating computer models of structural systems which involve multivariable nonlinear second order differential equations, which was done after getting the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the system. Oh, yeah… I can also baffle with unfamiliar words. Let me just add one thing: hooray for Euler and his fantastic formula!

        The above article outlines the unscientific nonsense promoted by some business guy, a wayward pediatrician (not a researcher of the relevant science), a journalist and a public relations media mangler. What they say is unscientific nonsense (with a big dose of “pay me money for more idiocy!”, especially for that Ty character). What you say is mangled vocabulary nonsense that exudes basic scientific illiteracy.

        By the way, if you don’t like what is written on this blog here are two suggestions:

        1. Do not read it.

        2. Write your own blog.

        Like

      • “What they say is unscientific nonsense (with a big dose of “pay me money for more idiocy!”, especially for that Ty character).”
        I presume from your latest self-serving lofty blog… you may maintain that’s reciprocal… you were too smart and too well-informed to actually “pay Ty, et al, money” for the 7-part series leisurely-absorbed transcripts. Justifying the $$$$ expended, I’ve found them useful for revision beyond the 7 videos’ time-constrained transience. But instead, you (and possibly all other ‘vaccinesworkblog’ bloggers) rely on free secondhand opinions herein, plus previously-deduced entrenched conclusions, with maybe a little tweaking here and there. Ye old ‘confirmation bias’ reigns supreme, apparently. Good luck Chris with that paradigm… in this cleverly deceptive world of ours! Have you been able to plumb the depths of your philosophical wisdom yet?

        Like

      • So you don’t have any actual factual science to counter what Kathy wrote. You instead just rely on a verbally dense insult screed as a substitute for evidence.

        Good to know.

        Like

  34. Instead of saying this in my last comment:

    “but those who vilify the medial profession and the ethics of everyone in it, are only portraying pharmaceutical companies as some sort of vicious child killers,and in most cases they are completely wrong!” I should have said instead—, “in virtually all cases, they are wrong!?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Instead of saying this in my last comment: “but those who vilify the medial profession and the ethics of everyone in it, are only portraying pharmaceutical companies as some sort of vicious child killers,and in most cases they are completely wrong!” I should have said instead—, “in virtually all cases, they are wrong!?
      The well-intentioned “pharmaceutical companies” patronage reminds me of Ronald Reagan’s cynical but worldly-wise quip re door-knocking authoritative governmental agencies announcing to the obsequious home-owner: “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.” LOL!
      A sensible response to ‘red flag’ energetic vaccine-pushers: “Buyer beware! The Nanny State’s convoy has no reverse gear.”

      Like

  35. Chris
    JUNE 30, 2017 AT 3:25 PM
    So you don’t have any actual factual science to counter what Kathy wrote. You instead just rely on a verbally dense insult screed as a substitute for evidence. Good to know.
    Perhaps you can provide some actual science in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researcher to counter the information provided by Kathy.”
    ——–
    Perhaps you Dr.? Chris, are rooting for the 20% category of PubMed-endorsing medicos….
    From an alternative website:-
    ‘Sixty percent of the public and 80 percent of doctors think drug companies are LYING about health claims from medical trials
    Tuesday, June 27, 2017 by: Lance D Johnson
    Tags: Big Pharma, deception, fraudulent medical studies, statins
    Drug companies don’t want to hear the latest results of a survey conducted by the Academy of Medical Sciences. The survey found that 63 percent of the general public and 82 percent of general practitioners are now skeptical of claims made by drug trials. More people now trust a friend’s advice on medicine, while only a third of the public actually believes in the official medical research. More people are questioning the official studies laid out by the deceptive pharmaceutical industry.
    Skepticism toward modern medicine is growing. The safety of so many drugs is now being put into question, whether it’s statins, anti-viral drugs, antacids, antibiotics, antidepressants, or vaccines.
    Sources include:
    DailyMail.co.uk
    NaturalNews.com
    NaturalNews.com
    HealingTheBody.ca ”
    ————-

    “As you can see, there were a great many mistruths and outright lies told in this first episode of The Truth about Vaccines. I hope this information helps you to debunk the film. Look for episode 2 debunking soon!” [Kathy.]
    ———–
    Perhaps I’m unique in this 181 (so far) blogs, re the attempted debunking of ‘ttav’ Episode One. In contrast to anybody else herein?, I actually purchased the 229-page, 60-plus interviewees’, word-for-word, off-the-cuff, ‘ttav’ Transcript, vital for my ongoing authoritative referral. To me, that’s ‘How-To-Research 101’ methodology…. and how to avoid ‘Herd-Mentality-Smugness 101’. Kathy’s lofty excoriation unkindly treats it all as if those rough-hewn disjointed interviewee remarks were ‘ex-cathedra encyclicals’.
    Btw, in the 19th. and 20th. century Art World, the politically-incorrect but groundbreaking Impressionists and Surrealists were castigated by the entrenched Realists for their visual and poetic lateral-thinking imprecision (read Chris’: “shown me the facts” retort). Me, as a Surrealist Artist, I follow their irritating yet enlightening artistic suit! Whilst allowing the facts-only other bloggers to paint themselves into the proverbial corner!

    Like

    • These are not valid sources.

      DailyMail.co.uk
      NaturalNews.com
      NaturalNews.com
      HealingTheBody.ca

      If you have a peer-reviewed, published study to back your claim “Sixty percent of the public and 80 percent of doctors think drug companies are LYING about health claims from medical trials” then post it.

      There is no paradigm shift happening, in science, when it comes to immunizations. The paradigm shift that occurred in the art world, in the late 19th century, grew out of innovations in science, most specifically the invention of the camera. Also, the rise of the middle class, particularly in Flanders, gave rise to people being able to buy art for the home. This, plus Protestantism, led to more art in homes and appreciation of every day images in contrast to religious idolatry.

      Today, we have international scientific consensus that vaccines have greater benefits than risks and don’t cause autism or SIDS and we have a rogue group of pseudoscientists performing shoddy science they publish themselves or in pay -to-publish or low tier journals.

      Thus, your comparison between what happened in late 19th century art and immunization science today is unfounded.

      There is no paradigm shift happening.

      I have an art history minor, dude. Don’t try to mansplain art history to me.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “…we have a rogue group of pseudoscientists performing shoddy science they publish themselves or in pay -to-publish or low tier journals.” And “There is no paradigm shift happening.”
        With those two unassailable ‘bottom lines’, there is no comeback is there, Kathy? All ‘done ‘n dusted’, eh?!
        Thankfully and ironically, for both modern Art Practice and for the Scientific Method, axiomatically there is no dogmatic unassailability.

        Whilst risking empty verbosity, in your view, I do not resile from my original June 25 thought: “Imo, the ideal intellectual rationale is to aggressively seek refutations to one’s cherished paradigms, whilst respecting the complex grey areas.” But given your guru-like status, Kathy, that’s merely a ‘low tier’ notion.

        “If you have a peer-reviewed, published study to back your claim”.
        I wonder what % of “peer reviewed studies” are later on withdrawn/proved bogus/exaggerated/politicised/irrelevant/superseded? Hindsight is 20/20…. so they say.

        Like

  36. Le sigh. I told you I was an engineer who used applied math (obviously Googling “Eigenvector” eludes you). I am a parent of an adult child with multiple medical issues that included going to neurologists, cardiologists and several ambulance rides. Along with being able to compare the multiple emergency departments in our city, we have had the “privilege” to compare the quality of care in a few hospitals in at least two states, which has included two surgeries.

    I have spent lots of hours in medical waiting lobbies reading actual books about medicine and science, plus reading several very detailed reports from a few specialists.

    I tire of those who use Dunning-Kruger screeds that just boil down to the evidence free Pharm Shill Gambit.

    “I actually purchased the 229-page, 60-plus interviewees’, word-for-word, off-the-cuff, ‘ttav’ Transcript, vital for my ongoing authoritative referral. To me, that’s ‘How-To-Research 101’ methodology…. and how to avoid ‘Herd-Mentality-Smugness 101’”

    Yep, you have proven you are gullible, and definitely cannot think for yourself. Your art references do not translate in actual science. All they show is that you have wasted your money on pure nonsense, especially since the PubMed index has so many verifiable cites from around the planet that are free for all.

    Here is an idea… break out of your humanities art mode, and learn some actual facts about the nature that surrounds you! Learn why many flowers and other things are related to Pascal’s Triangle! Figure out why there are spirals. Obviously your art “education” made you miss out on a whole world of inspiration… and left you sadly gullible.

    There is a way to fix that: take some basic chemistry, biology and math classes at your local community college. Plus, you probably live where there is an actual library for you to check out actual factual science books (okay, they unfortunately do include some real stinkers).

    Just learn how to science. I say that as a daughter of visual and textile artist who helped me with both my math and science (plus I had the best Halloween costumes) She explained the different number systems like binary, decimal, etc to me when I was eleven years old.

    I am a mother of a couple of very talented science/math oriented young adults who do great art. One is using her art to help pay her rent while going to school to be a speech therapist. Science and art are compatible (just read the most recent NY Times article on Louis Pasteur and how his art influenced chimeric chemistry).

    So, seriously, don’t let your former former education limit you… expand your brain and learn some stuff. Try not to be so gullible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Me, being three times dismissively described as “gullible”: Does that equation your mind to ‘three strikes and you’re out!’?
      Who knows if any-one else reads our exchanges but I appreciate, to a degree, your familial but tangential openness (as a proud ungoogle-able mother, et al). I suppose, in an idle moment, you could google me for my background. Soundly grounded research protocols are not foreign to my career nor to my off-campus activities.
      If you did actually humble yourself enough to digest the ‘ttav’ Transcript you would see it does not at all fit neatly into your 2D. stereotype of ‘medical gullibility’.

      Like

      • No, it just takes it hard to make a point in your incredibly closed mind.

        The know better than to read anything by Ty Bollinger because he does not have the expertise, and he is just using his nonsense as a way to empty the wallets of gullible people like you:
        https://www.linkedin.com/in/tybollinger/

        He is an accountant. I wouldn’t trust him anywhere near our taxes after seeing how he has scrambled basic biology.

        Like

  37. When I was a child growing up in the late 50s and early 60s all the children in our school district had to wait in line for hours at a gymnasium and be given shots to prevent infectious diseases (which many of us had had) But as far as I can remember, not one of those thousands of kids was ever seriously injured of had a bad reaction that killed them. So its very hard to think that receiving vaccinations is really as hazardous as anti vaccine people contend it is. Rare reactions must have always existed, but if that’s the case then the answer is in improving screening and better educating parents and teachers about the risks that might affect some children.

    Say what you want about the greed of companies who charge exorbitant prices for their drugs, or hurry along approval before all the testing has been done. But Big pharma, Doctors, nurses, and health care workers are not so stupid as to not notice such abuses if they were real, nor would they ever refuse to report them if they knew that supposed perpetrators were behind a program of deliberate negligence. They aren’t using dead patients as soylent green, while keeping the public believing their good intentions ya know! So if you want to improve awareness and create better screening for those who are vaccinated, just quit insulting dedicated health workers or equating them with evil itself! And the same goes for the medical community as a whole!

    Liked by 1 person

    • A ‘Peter Johnson’: “But Big pharma, Doctors, nurses, and health care workers are not so stupid as to not notice such abuses if they were real, nor would they ever refuse to report them if they knew that supposed perpetrators were behind a program of deliberate negligence.”
      I do wonder what is the un-determinable % of un-reported or under-reported crimes/abuses/negligences (for whatever reasons) that occur either on the streets, or in homes, or within medical clinics.

      A ‘Kathy [whomever]’: “Well, if your name is Brian Hooker, then quite a few of your studies are withdrawn/proved bogus. badaboom”
      I’m not seeing the relevance of that rock band, ‘badaboom’… must be my legendary “gullibility” careening off a cliff at full throttle. Sigh!
      The immaculate Trinity of Peter/Chris/Kathy … forgive my impertinence… would like to throttle arch-heretic Brian Hooker. My ongoing multi-tasking prevents full-time ‘pro/con vaccine’ study but I presume blog moderator, Kathy, has dispensed (via her yet-to-be-read-by-me ‘Episode 6’ expose) with Hooker’s ‘ttav’ Transcript page 177/178 verbals against the Trinity-blessed CDC’s “2001 DiStefano study… used to absolve the MMR vaccine”.

      A ‘Chris [whomever]’: “I know better than to read anything by Ty Bollinger…because he does not have the expertise, and he is just using his nonsense as a way to empty the wallets of gullible people like you:”
      Since no-one except me has admitted to possessing the well-within-my-budget ‘ttav’ package, specific and ongoing cross-referencing (with its vital-to-this-blog contents) is impossible herein. Hence to fill that void, let’s all descend into entertaining ‘elephant-hurling’ via credential oneupmanship, and ad hominem assaults. LOL!
      Btw, during my 1/2 century of pro-critical-thinking academic life I’ve lined my home with myriad of publications (and in later years, web searches). Those references open my (Trinity-alleged,“gullible”) consciousness to paradigms ranging from the ‘comfortably-accepted’ down to the ‘downright-disbelieved’. Such is a serious academic’s… in whatever discipline… ’Cross to bear’!

      Like

      • “The immaculate Trinity of Peter/Chris/Kathy … forgive my impertinence… would like to throttle arch-heretic Brian Hooker.”

        I don’t want to throttle anyone including Brian Hooker, but if that’s the only way you can regard my statements, then you probably didn’t even get my point.

        I didn’t say that big pharma or all doctors are guiltless as newborn babes. I just said that what needs to be focused on is making sure screenings are done with more thoroughness, and that the real conflict revolves around the continued polarizing and demonetization of the other side. What do we tend to do when we’re hurt–look for someone to blame! So maybe each of us, at least, needs to be careful to discover first, if the accused is really to blame.

        I can’t pretend to know the anguish experienced by parents who have lost children via unexpected reactions, or parents who firmly believe that their son’s or daughter’s autism is caused by an injection. What I do know is that the vast number of dedicated doctors, would not take bad reactions experienced by their patients lightly, and that they usually report bad reactions to VAERS. If they had no interest in making sure vaccines were safe for all their patients, then why would they even care enough to report the bad results of any patient, or any drug company–for any reason? VAERS is a voluntary entity with no real power to compel them! And, while some doctors are certainly prone to character faults like greed, I don’t believe they all are that way–not by a long shot!

        I also doubt the magnitude of mistakes and incompetence required to perpetuate a fraud this large and presumably evil, could be covered up by (what would have to be at least), thousands of people who all think they know better. And, if even a few concerned souls decided to spill the beans about what they know—not just to the medical profession, but also in the legal system, with lawyers willing to launch a massive class action suit against Big Pharma, and anyone else acting without conscience, that the realization of justice ought to be possilble! So if parents consider that their loved ones have been provably abused or endangered, I can’t help but think that the legal process would win out in the end. I’m just saying that there are a lot more constructive avenues one can take, besides expressing anger and making only comments intended to vilify.

        I am not a member of any trinity and I am not aligned with any other commenter in some sort of deceptive or complicate manner. I’m just a concerned person who thinks the punishment should fit the crime. So if you think the crime is very large then go for it! Suit the sorry asses off of anyone who ignores your own dignity and that of your loved ones! I’m just one more comenter seeking to express my opinions, and hoping I can add (at least something) to the conversation!!

        Like

      • Peter: “I just said that what needs to be focused on is making sure screenings are done with more thoroughness, and that the real conflict revolves around the continued polarizing and demonetization of the other side. ”

        Screening for what? They do know about half of the genetic sequences that cause disorders that are on the autism spectrum. Some who do get that screening and are found to specific known genetic sequences will get specific treatments if something has been determined to help. It has nothing to do with vaccines, since the sequences were there from conception.

        Those who wish to help fill in the gaps in knowledge can join https://sparkforautism.org/

        SS: “Btw, during my 1/2 century of pro-critical-thinking academic life I’ve lined my home with myriad of publications (and in later years, web searches).”

        If you lined your home with nonsense, then by definition means you missed the boat on “critical thinking.” Your comments here reveal you are a very gullible person. I do not want to throttle anyone either. I do want people to stop promoting silly ideas that do not help autists, and are often trying to empty the wallets of desperate parents, who often have a very limited budget. Ty Bollinger is just trying make money.

        If you truly want to help, then tell the US Congress to support Medicaid, which is what supports independent living for most disabled American citizens.

        Like

      • The high risk of aussies like me indulging in colourful irony with, say, ‘merikans is obvious. Example: My metaphoric suggestion of “throttling of Mr. Hooker” was not me advocating actual physical garrotting. Nor was I serious re any human “Trinity”. Anyone with a dark sense of humour… or is that an irritating trait reserved for us ‘gullible aussies’?

        “If you lined your home with nonsense, then by definition means you missed the boat on “critical thinking.” Your comments here reveal you are a very gullible person.”
        Now, Chris, that’s case of a multi-levelled non-sequitur! Example: One of my personal books is the Quran which, though I’ve read it, I certainly do not endorse its contents. Rationale: Part of critical thinking is to become conversant with opposing perspectives in order to maturely engage those who champion them. Not to do so ossifies ideation and alienates/disenfranchises others. I remain puzzled, but not surprised, by sincere folks who deliberately choose not retain firsthand knowledge of “nonsense” (as currently perceived… given that perceptions are a ‘moveable feast’ over decades); nor choose to accrue accurate transcript copies of such alternatives. Yet those dogmatic souls impute “gullibility’’ to those who adhere to the standard open-sourced academic protocol…. e.g., a core value for critical-thinking is discerning and nuancing ‘complex grey areas’. The much-maligned ‘ttav’ series does that nuancing or “screening” (axiomatically imperfectly) ‘in spades’. Obviously, the ONE size (read, idiosyncratic-humour or dense-vocabulary or genetic-preconditions or life-styles or vaccines-choices etc) does NOT fit all! Viva la difference?
        Chris: “…tell the US Congress to support Medicaid,…’’. Me as a thankful isolationist? aussie, I’ll leave you with an enigmatic ancient proverb: “He who meddles in another man’s business is like one who picks up a dog by its ears”.

        Like

      • So Stevie, you are an Aussie. Good to know. I know exactly who to send your sad bit of nonsense to.

        Isolationist… not so much, but just envy for your national health coverage. You have no idea.

        Like

      • “Also, Doctor Karl will be very disappointed in you.”
        Doubly ‘very disappointed’. … I ran for a Lower House Seat in the 2010 Australian Federal Election on the ‘Climate Skeptics’ ticket, which opposed the Dr.Karl and Al Gore-endorsed AGW notion. Boo’s from all sides. As veteran of fielding knee-jerk disprovals, it’s business as usual for me.
        From wikipedia:-
        Karl Kruszelnicki. AM, BSc, MSc(Qual), MBiomedE, MBBS, MAIP
        Kruszelnicki was an unsuccessful candidate for the Australian Senate in the 2007 Australian federal election. He was placed number two on the Climate Change Coalition ticket in New South Wales.[13]
        4Change, formerly known as the Climate Change Coalition (CCC), was an Australian political party, which was formed in 2007 with a view to accelerate action by politicians from all parties on global warming and climate change. Its position on working towards addressing climate change, stresses cooperation with big business in order to achieve significant progress on the issue. The party therefore advocates a close working relationship between environmentalists and the business community. The CCC was registered as a political party with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on 4 September 2007 and deregistered on 25 March 2010.

        Like

      • [Chris (whomever)]: “Yes, it is an interesting attempt at “poisoning the well” trying to denigrate Australia’s version of Bill Nye the Science Guy.”
        The equivalent of ..
        [Wikipedia]: “Why is it so? – the ground-breaking TV series with the enigmatic Professor Julius Sumner Miller – ran on the ABC from 1963 to 1986. Professor Miller’s infectious enthusiasm for physics delighted, educated and entertained generations of Australians, most of whom have at some point asked each other ‘Why is it so?’ in the characteristic Julius Sumner Miller voice.”
        [Skillitzi]: “What has to happen is an awakening from the basic trance, in which all official science is considered a god. Allowing politically-incorrect folks to think for themselves.”
        [presumably Kathy (whomever)]: “I am also envious their “no jab, no pay” law and their new law banning healthcare providers from talking people out of vaccines. Aussies don’t mess around!”
        [Skillitzi]: I do know firsthand both my native Aussie…. and the now-retired USA culture from back in the 1960’s. We here, in our posture of U.S.A./U.K.-fawning aussie Federalists, believe expodentially in the cradle-to-grave ‘Nanny State’, even more than in your ‘Land of the Free’ (LOL!). Eg., handguns are only legal for our trogylodyte police/military… and sundry criminals of course, but never for ‘conceal-and-carry’ self-protection by lawful citizens. Here the autonomous family unit is essentially a fading geriatric wet-dream. Our sheeple ‘Herd-mentality’ toggles with the ‘vaccinesworkblog’ sophisticated? meme: “We’re all in this together, aren’t we?!” Ah!!! Me, pining for ‘the good old days of yore!’.

        Like

  38. “Hank and SAVN” must have been recommended by…. who knows?. But I did absorb Hank et al and their pleasing habit of extensively quoting (via screen grabs) the oft-too-vitriolic asides of disempowered aussie-battlers. We aussies treasure our hard-won personal autonomy, reflecting our island-continent geography. Add to that, our grassroots general distain for the lingering U.K. colonial status perpetuated by lofty Canberra-esconsed pollies. They arrogantly frogmarching us ‘serfs/cattle’ into medical corrals (read, mandatory wall-to-wall vaccinations… roundly applauded by blog-moderator, Kathy). Sadly and tellingly for this blog site, time-honoured and dignity-enshrining Civil Liberties are never championed or even mentioned. Nor the normal academic requirement of referring to the latest publication of your current exposé target (thetruthaboutvaccines), i.e.. the 229 page ‘ttav’ Transcript ‘touchstone’. Despite picturing (in one of her articles) a virtual library of other relevant books, the arguably over-confident moderator, Kathy, probably does not even possess it (or choose not to admit it, to discourage her eager followers “emptying their wallets GULLIBLY”… to overused that vaccinesworkblog buzzword). She may rely instead on some captured videos of the 7-part series, plus her predetermined disparaging opinions of its 60 or so interviewed alleged experts.
    Academically, thin ice?… or solid ground?

    Like

    • I found reasonable hank years ago. Cannot remember how. SAVN I have been following on Facebook for about 8 years. They rock. Great group of people. Their Kathy is not me.

      Solid ground. Rock solid.

      Like

      • If “Hank” is indeed “reasonable” he will cherish and defend openly Civil Liberties, to the point of being very reluctant to forego any of them… including our traditional society’s core value of Family self-determination and medical autonomy. In contrast, ‘might-is-right’ dictatorships (and their troglodytes) rest on the ‘rock solid ground’ of denying such vulnerable liberties to their subservient citizens. Thus Humanity is diminished accordingly.

        Like

      • Because championing vulnerable Civil Liberties is antithetical to seemingly-unstoppable ‘Globalism’ (echoing this blog’s core fixation with rolling out global vaccination protocols), I offer this Canadian politics stuff below, from a web-raver Jon Rappoport. At first glance it seems too tangential for a ‘vaccinate or not’ blog site, but I [S.S.] personally paint with a broader brush (to illustrate ‘the struggle’) than with a sharp draconian injection needle…..
        “If I [Rappoport,]were a speechwriter, I’d want to put different words into Trudeau’s mouth, just to clarify things a bit. I’d have him say:”Look, I’m a Globalist, okay? Let’s get down to it. I’m a mid-level player who wants open borders, as a step toward putting a North American Union together. Let’s erase borders and let’s have the US, Canada, and Mexico join together in a structure very much like the European Union, where armies of bureaucrats decide your fate and your future every day, by passing tons of regulations. We’ll run your lives down to the fine details, and you’ll learn to live with it. Stay passive, my friends. Our present national government is already overbearing, but you haven’t seen anything yet. When I use words like ‘diversity’ and ‘openness’ I mean ‘control’. Control from above. Control with a smile and friendly face. I’m a Globalist and a technocrat, which means I want a completely planned society, an engineered society. No more individualism. And no more free speech. We have to get rid of that. Are you catching on? There is no ‘dialogue’. That’s a fantasy. I paint a Disney cartoon for you yokels and rubes. Think of me as a sort of New Age hustler. I’m selling you love and friendship, which, when you take them apart, crumble in your hands. Remember the old saying, ‘grin and bear it’? Well, I’m grinning, and you’re bearing it. Canadians are famous for being stoical. Keep it up. Take what we give you. Nationalism is dead. This is now One Planet, and you’re all ciphers, numbers on a planning board. That’s the vision. I’ve been groomed for this job since I was a child. The thing called the New World Order? It’s real. You’re in it. And finally, I’m not lying. Not now. Everything else I’ve been saying up until now was by way of selling you rose-colored glasses…”
         Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Refreshing and disturbing, yes. But at least a statement like that would begin to define the actual situation; and the terms of the struggle.”

        Like

      • “Because vaccine mandates don’t limit your civil liberties. You have a choice. Quit whinging.”
        Or should I quit defining and applying words accurately, e.g.. “mandatory”? Axiomatically, when does “mandatory” ever equal “liberty to choose”? Never! See below….
        Australian Mandatory Vaccines: “No Jab No Pay”, “No Jab No …
        First it was “No Jab No Pay”; now it’s “No Jab No Play”. Find out the link between the Aussie PM’s Big Pharma wife and Australian mandatory vaccines.
        ———–
        “The best thing about Aussie provaxers is they don’t take any bulldust. They fight back!”
        Balanced sober-minded Truth is rarely established in a testosterone-filled kick-boxing ring. The ‘ttav’ 229 page Transcript that you all seem to have avoided mentioning is a cool-headed discussion of justly-disputed reality.
        ———-
        “is your alter ego names Tristan, by any chance?”
        Wikipedia: “Tristan, also known as Tristram, is the hero of the Arthurian Tristan and Iseult story. He was a Cornish knight of the Round Table. He is the son of Blancheflor and Rivalen, and the nephew of King Mark of Cornwall, sent to fetch Iseult back from Ireland to wed the king. However, he and Iseult accidentally consume a love potion while en route and fall helplessly in love. The pair undergo numerous trials that test their secret affair.”
        My [S.S.’s] “love potion”? A love of ongoing provocative questioning of ‘authority figures’ (in this instance, political and medical ones)… see my very first post.

        Like

      • Several blogs ago, I showed some regretably-misinterpreted but typically-aussie ‘dark humour’ by suggesting “throttling” and a “Trinity”. Chris has followed suit via her hypothetical, even more dark, posture: “S.S. and his friends… harassing parents of dead babies”. Chris: you could be a closet or wannabe aussie?! But, as I’ve opined previously: “ONE size does NOT fit all”. So allow me adroitly to duck your clumbsy mud-slinging.

        Like

  39. SS: “So allow me adroitly to duck your clumbsy mud-slinging.”

    That is so funny coming from someone who uses word salad insults instead of scientifically verifiable evidence! Actually, I just described the antics of the Aussie Anti-Science Brigade, which is reported by Reasonable Hank with plenty of evidence. Plus I included a news link of your friends tormenting a man because they thought he was Reasonable Hank.

    Love your generalizations based on nationality. Since our neighbor to the north is Canada, we do not share your stereotyping of our neighbors, and relatives. You are a funny guy, but not in a good way.

    “They fight back!”

    Here is one way they do that: http://www.skeptics.com.au/2014/07/23/the-vaccination-chronicles/

    Liked by 1 person

    • “…a news link of your friends tormenting a man…”
      With ‘friends like that who needs enemies’? Yeah,Chris, we (paid-up members of the ‘anti-science brigade’… lower case to prove humility) we all full-moon fire-dance at midnight assiduously skewering pro-vacc-er dolls with thimerosal-enriched needles, chanting: “That’ll teach ’em!!”. There ya go! I’ve used a scientific” word. Now (to obey your stereotype), I’m all done in.
      Thanks for the link: I’ve just now subscribed to the Skeptics newsletter.

      Like

      • My colourfully dubbed “… word salad insults instead of scientifically verifiable evidence!” is a rather disingenuous descriptor. Why?
        At grave risk of me ‘flogging a dead horse’:- my previous observations that the primary reference point, or the whole reason, for this blog (i.e. the debunking and/or endorsing by informed bloggers of ‘the truth about vaccines’ 7 videos) is academically IMPOSSIBLE without all blog-active parties specifically referencing the relevant 229 page transcript as “evidence”.
        For example, if I wanted to comment on the “scientifically verifiable evidence” as offered by, say, Dr. Wakefield via his up-to-date 2017 justification for his research into vaccination risks, I would simply refer to his comments on pages 27-31, 78, 176, 182/3, 194, 226. Readers of my hypothetical blog would reach for the Transcript and argue for or against Wakefield’s 2017 comments. Or am I required, by stakeholders (Chris and the moderator et al), to retype it out for your ‘spoon-fed’ penny-pinching benefit?
        Obviously, as I said before, that standard efficient consult-the-text-book methodology is out of the question via this “we-already-know-it-all” ‘vaccinesworkblog’ ghetto. So what is left other than my free-ranging generic “word salad” contributions to this adult ‘sandpit’??
        If you are serious about taking on the ‘ttav’ target then tool-up first with the requisite text book, the ‘ttav’ Transcript. That would provide you a “solid rock”.
        It’s kinda lonely me being apparently the only blogger to apply that basic academic protocol. Ignore that advice and you risk building your edifice on sand-hills, not on solid-ground!

        Like

      • Yawn. Wakefield is neither qualified nor reputable.

        Hint: anyone who has been legally stripped of the ability to practice is not reputable nor qualified. Another example would be Mark Geier.

        Like

      • Chris: you fell into the trap I laid for you! 1/ I foresaw your avoidance of my myriad justifiable references to “the Transcript”, and shrinking civic liberties. 2/ You rehashed expected prejudices re Wakefield…. ignoring all the recent peer-reviewed papers he’s published.
        “Yawn. Wakefield is neither qualified nor reputable (legally stripped)”… nor allowed to EVER present his, imo, 2017 cogent cool-headed defence, apparently. Consigned to Siberia’s (the ‘Soviet gulag’) outer darkness, is he?! Any appeals possible? Not in this Chris-supervised blog-backed ‘brave new world’.
        Ty Bollinger merely facilitated production and distribution of the ‘ttav’ series and interviewed the medicos…. not offering, on any EQUAL footing, his own medical opinion.
        Chris: what does ‘entrenched personality-prejudice’ mean to you personally?My chance to chuckle (not yawn) in the face of those politically/legally directed souls who hypocritically pontificate about being guided loftily by “scientific facts alone”.

        Like

      • If a juvenile delinquent robs a liquor store while brandishing a gun, and then goes straight and never committed another criminal act, does that mean its improper for anyone to criticize him for the original robbery he was guilty of?

        What ever Wakefield is doing today, does not, nor should not, exonerate him for originally conducting a very small study in violation of clear ethical principles. He was in violation of ethical science then, and that’s reason enough to suspect that he may be wrong now. And it’s also no reason not to judge wakefield’s own beliefs (or the lack of them) when not following proper scientific protocols. The same goes for judging anyone based on his record of slippery research and disrespect for sound scientific protocols.

        Like

      • With those declared ethics, I sincerely hope and trust you, Peter, are never in a position of judgment. Any similarly-prejudiced Judge of a fair Court system would be disbarred soon enough.
        if you applied your black ‘n white posture to the multiply-fined CDC and DFA et al (for their errors of judgment) those agencies would have zero credibility also in your eyes. If not, why not!?
        So exactly how would Dr. Wakefield defend his decades-old research paper?Apparently no-one else on this laughable one-sided blog would have any clue whatsoever. I know exactly how, it being outlined in the arrogantly-dismissed by this blog 229 page ‘ttav’ Transcript. How’s that blatant ‘exclusion-zone’ for classic anti-intellectual hot-headed analysis. LOL!
        And the absentee too-busy-to-comment blog-moderator says…. ????

        Like

      • I am obviously not referring to the judgment used in a jury trial, and there are some major differences between that and peer review of one’s fitness as a scientist. If someone submits a paper that is not approved, he may try again in the future to clarify his points or do other research. He will obviously not be sentenced to long periods of incarceration which may affect his mental or physical health, and in States that approve of capital punishment (are there any left) he may be put to death for his offenses. But a better distinction would be in comparing how the reputation of a defense attorney might be judged as opposed to someone who knowingly provides faulty research?

        An unethical scientist may be barred from doing research for a period of time and both his reputation and that of a defense attorney can and should suffer negative consequences for unethical behavior. But In that case perhaps a lawyer will suffer the worst consequences? Would you hire a lawyer who has won only 5% of his cases over one that has won 90% of his cases? So the lawyer’s reputation immediately affects his earnings and future reputation. However an unethical scientist might, after being censured for a period of time, begin to engage in research later, even after being caught in a lie! However all of this goes without saying because you know that judging a scientists reputation is very different from judging the guilt or innocence of someone who might have committed a heinous or violent crime.

        So seriously! What kind of consequences do you think someone who has engaged in shoddy research (quite possibly by intention) face? Consider that part of the offense would include (in wakefield’s case) the fact that future parents, when deciding whether or not to vaccinate their children, might place their child’s or those of other’s, safety in jeopardy, and that a parent’s possible decisions can be significantly affected by knowing that the information they are relying on is coming from someone who has deliberately done shoddy research—which has been motivated, at least in part, by their lawyer’s personnel plans to sue the journal in which their research may soon be published? So wouldn’t I be guilty of something far less severe if deciding a criminal case on the basis of past transgression, than I would whe merely being cautious and concerned about a scientist abuse of protocol and his prior unethical approach to doing research?

        To consider the fact that someone who lies or has deliberately done faulty research in the past, might need to be examined before deciding whether to believe his current research, is way way different than using the fact that a 40 year old client who committed only one serious crime at the age of 13, in order to judge his guilt or innocence in the present! So trying to accuse me of possibly being a rotten judge in a criminal court, is completely irrelevant and is really just a red herring used to complicate the basic and easily understood fact that scientists can and should be judged on the basis of deliberately refusing to practice sound science when doing research. Such obviously biased arguments are completely unrelated to the fact that many readers can and should, be able to judge the reputation of a scientist like Wakefield before deciding how to regard his present research!

        Like

      • Thanks for your lengthy response. Passing judgments in whatever field or circumstance is a ‘movable feast’. So very many grey factors to weigh up! One can be a ‘Hanging’ Judge or a ‘Push-over’ Judge, both within legal parameters. Useful as it was imo, my provocative courtroom analogy, like all other word pictures, has limitations.
        For context, I suggest reading the heated yet erudite blog exchanges re Dr. Wakefield’s benighted career buried in the depths of this March-June 2017 ‘vaccinesworkblog : .https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/truth-about-vaccines-who-are-the-experts/comment-page-1/#comment-1536

        Like

      • Actually in my previous comment using the analogy of a juvenile robbing a liquor store, I only asked if it was proper to CRITICIZE him for past transgressions, not legally JUDGE him based on his past.

        Likewise It is obviously permissible to criticize the past ethical violations of Wakefield, since he committed a scientifically prohibited transgression which
        may be repeated in the future. Of course, any research he does still deserves a fair shot and may be on the up and up, but it would just be silly to mentally ignore his past before placing a great deal trust in his future research.

        Do I detect a backhanded compliment when told “Thanks for your lengthy response,” which is really a criticism about my writing style?” Yes, I am not the master of succinct or non-wordy comments, and sometimes I pursue a convoluted path when explaining my points. But none of that should give another commenter a license to issue an ad hominem attack which really used to ignore focusing on the validity of the points I make. Perhaps I’m wrong about you, but its a very easy to throw insults at another, rather than actually consider what he or she says.

        I haven’t got time right now, but I will examine your link concerning Wakefield’s “benighted” career later–an adjective that suggests your own reactions to his arguments are completely believed on an almost hero worshiping level.

        Like

      • Peter: me ‘killing two birds with one stone’, my 9/7/17 response below to a blog-veteran Chris, may truncate dialogue-convolution usefully. Like ‘the poor’, in such threads as this, one pesky loose ends ‘will always be with us’. Happy trails, Peter!… hopefully skipping the trials.
        ————–
        in response to Chris:

        Not that I care what you think, but this is Wakefield’s most recent published study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19800915 Check out the first word in the title. And you are still gullible.

        ‘WITHDRAWN: Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight.
        Hewitson L1, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L, White ER, Wakefield AJ.’
        Chris: your ”not that I care” dismissive tone is noted, as is you playing fast ‘n loose with the implications of this “Oct.2009 withdrawal”.
        A/ Withdrawn by the unnamed EDITOR (for undisclosed reasons).
        B/ Does Wakefield’s name, being the last one of 9 authors, mean maybe he was the least involved?
        C/ For me, bypassing the ‘strictly peer-reviewed’ label, “Wakefield’s most recent published” utterance is contained in the ‘ttav’ transcript. (As you know, an impassioned yet highly-cogent ‘Marge’ back in May 2017, exhastively took moderator Kathy and you Chris to task over Dr. Wakefield’s protracted experience of being unjustly ‘thrown under a bus’ by a series of BigPharma/CDC etc henchmen.)
        Marge (streets ahead of me) also scored the “Troll” medal, so I’m in good company. I’ll allow her the Gold if I can keep my inferior-to-Marge Bronze one. Now for the Silver…. ?

        Like

      • I only recently started commenting on this blog so I’m not really aware of any of the soap opera like dramas you may have lived out with other commenters. My interest is to discuss this issue in order to determine if there is any veracity at all behind the claims of those opposed to vaccines, who feel those vaccines are being deliberately administered children, while those doing the administering are fully aware of the supposed extreme dangers that MMR vaccines in particular may involve. To that end I must say that my feeling is that most of the hype that has made this issue into an almost hysterical morality play, involving who is to be villainized who is not, favors the conclusion that those agreeing with the anti-vaccine group are probably the most at fault, and have been willing to manufacture too many false flags created by their own fears and anxieties, in order to do what they believe is required to protect their children.

        I don’t know if you’ve seen this Frontline video on the PBS website but I feel is succeeds in providing fair and balanced reporting concerning both pro and con vaccine parents but also pro-and vaccine researchers and doctors. And if you click on teh portion between the 30 and 40 minute marks of the video you will discover a list of many thorough and meticulous studies published in prestigious journals which have found no proof at links MMR vaccines with or without thimerosal, to autism! The video also examines some impressive Danish studies which have included half a million children split into two groups –one after 1991 which had received MMR vaccines, and another which had not. And the results of this study found no link between autism and MMR vaccines–the group which had not received vaccinations, showed no greater incidence of autism, than did the group which had received regular vaccinations!

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-vaccine-war/

        So I must consider that Wakefield’s simple study done with only 12 children, some of which were his own, was far from being a thorough or comprehensive endeavor. And although I feel I have good reasons to reject the hypothesis of some anti-vaxxers (that big pharma and government agencies all around the world are deliberately placing the lives of babies at risk), I also have reason believe that the anti-vaxx movement is driven more by the desire to isolate some person of party it can blame, for the unfortunate but relatively small numbers of children who have had bad reactions after receiving vaccines— rather than in furthering scientific knowledge and understanding. However, trying to list all the reasons about why I have reached these conclusions, would take up far more space than one commenter ought to have on a blog like this.

        Have a good summer!

        Like

      • Without any “backhander compliments”, I admire and identify with your struggle in this highly complex area… where both sides have far more technically/medically informed persons than myself. hence my recommendation to you of the blog heavy-hitters, a ‘Marge’ and the blog-moderator Jacky. Motivating my alliance with the anti-vaxxers is largely driven by 1/ philosophically (re, natural remedies/health and protecting traditional liberties) and 2/ academically (re, centring on the specific content (i.e. the ‘ttav’ transcript), and not too-wide ranging or pre-cast) and 3/ fair-dealing (re, balanced pro and cons… largely absent from this one-sided blog moderate et al)…. My position (as a 70 year old in cold wintery Australia) has congealed over several years of email exchanges with a school friend, now a mainstream pro-vax medico.
        The hard yards are unavoidable! And yes, without bogging down in reiteration, I’m aware of the links and studies (and their shortfalls) you cited.

        Like

      • I can understand why you may have questions that need to be answered about the safety of vaccines, and it’s totally within your rights to entertain such doubts, but I find it hard to understand why you seem to have such a protective attitude about the research and reputation of Dr. Wakefield considering that his study was so egregiously flawed? How you can possibly compare a study done on 12 children involving payments made by lawyers trying to dig up dirt to use against the Editor of the Lancet, in any kind of legitimate way, escapes me? And how in the world can you place your trust in such a very small study which was so unethically flawed, and then claim that studies done on hundreds of thousands of children are somehow less valid or conclusive?

        I haven’t yet looked at the link you provided, which apparently, you are convinced it vouches for Dr. Wakefield’s character. So, I will take a look at it later. Just understand that I find it very hard to swallow the premise that Wakefield made an unfortunate mistake which a good man like himself , should not even be judged for—especially after deliberately distorting data and hiding the many suspicious aspects of his study? Whatever the norm is in Australia, I don’t see how Wakefield’s study could possibly be used to discredit the many other well conceived studies done by reputable scientists, on very large samples of children, which have produced such clear evidence that there is no real reasons to think that MMR vaccines are being unleashed on the world in some sort of evil and villainous way?

        Sure, conspiracies do happen, but apparently we also need to prove that “the bad guys” are who we think they are? Anyone’s biased attitudes may provide closure which many people are willing to accept, but just because those answers can be provided, does not mean those answers have irrefutably disproved anything!

        I don’t know what health measure were taken in Australia 60 years ago, but Americans like myself who are soon to turn 65, can clearly remember the way ourselves and thousands of other children, were given measles and mumps vaccines etc. yet none of us suffered from, or heard of any other children suffering from, bad reactions to those vaccines? There is no 100% certainty about any medical treatment, but if the potential side effects are relatively non-existent, and that speaks volumes about the safety of MMR vaccinations and why they have been very useful to facilitate widespread public health.

        Like

      • Peter,
        I’m a one finger typist, hence my brevity.
        Blog me again once you have completed the relevant research that I and others suggest.
        Another useful website is http://www.naturalnews.com. Yes I know it’s a vaccine-skeptical site, thus vilified by the pro-vac folks…. but a mature perspective just HAS to be familiar with opposing views. The ‘hard yards’ are ahead of you, but judging from your engagement, you have the tenacity for that task..
        Cheers,
        S.S

        Like

      • I did open the link you gave to Wakefield’s latests research paper only to find that it had been withdrawn. And when I opened your link to the science blog, I viewed its homepage, instead of a specific article. You may tell me what article I need to read, or else provide its specific URL, but otherwise I am unable to oblige you.

        Like

      • https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/truth-about-vaccines-who-are-the-experts/
        a SHORT sample blog (one of dozens of much more highly technical ones herein) from:
        Marge. (This link, although very long, is a shortcut to the anti-vax (or more accurately, the partially anti-vax perspective). Happy hunting…. you will find many box-canyons as well as clear mountain passes in your truth-seeking odyssey.)
        “Marge.
        MAY 2, 2017 AT 11:55 AM
        you are being profoundly dishonest if you do not print my comments so that only your view is reflected. Like you Kathy, I am also an advocate but for the 1-10% of children who are being damaged by vaccines. I am a mom, I am a teacher with two degrees and a specialist and I taught science and there is a growing body of scientific literature pointing at problems. This blog is not being honest by ignoring them. I can write a blog too. I’ve copied your responses and mine which you refuse to print. Perhaps you are busy and have not had the chance, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt but I’m looking for honest discussion on this subject and it doesn’t look like I’m going to find it here.”

        Like

      • hi Stephen,
        I see you identify with this ‘Marge’ of May 2, 2017. I’m new to all this but being one-sided never appeals to my sense of balance. What web sites do you recommend for understanding both pro and con vaccines?
        I doubt if any one else on this blog would know.

        Like

      • I highly recommend scienceblogs one word) and science based medicine blog. Skeptical Raptor is also an excellent blog. These all are very factual blogs with links to all science. I am not going to specifically recommend any anti vax blogs but these bloggers will all mention some in their posts.

        Like

      • Double yawn. Again Mr. Bollinger is neither qualified nor reputable. He quit being a certified public accountant to separate wallets from vulnerable people with his silly DVDs of quackery.

        Like

      • Triple yawn for thinking I actually cared about what your what was written in your wall of text of nonsense.

        Like

      • Oh, wow you have bored the grammar out of me this evening. Actually, you are now just trolling, so this little song is for you:

        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Rawhide!
        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Though the threads are swollen
        Keep them comments trollin’,
        Rawhide!

        Cherry pick!
        (Head em’ up!)
        Move goalposts!
        (Move ’em on!)
        More insults!
        (Head em’ up!)
        Rawhide!
        Make stuff up!
        (Paste ’em in!)
        Change topics!
        (Cut em’ out!)
        Whine some more!
        Paste ’em in,
        Rawhide!
        Keep trollin’, trollin’, trollin’
        Though they’re disaprovin’
        Keep them comments trollin”,
        Rawhide!
        Don’t try to understand ’em
        Just rope, laugh, and ignore ’em
        Soon we’ll be discussin’ right without ’em

        Like

      • Chris, I have no evidence that any-one else actually reads our divergent exchanges anyway. If the audience is more than us two, they can judge whether or not my conscientiously-offered comments warrant your “Troll” nomenclature.
        FYI:-
        Wikipedia:- Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.[6]

        As noted in an OS News article titled “Why People Troll and How to Stop Them” (25 January 2012), “The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do.”[7][8] Others have addressed the same issue, e.g., Claire Hardaker, in her Ph.D. thesis[8] “Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions.”[9] Popular recognition of the existence (and prevalence) of non-deliberate, “accidental trolls”, has been documented widely, in sources as diverse as Nicole Sullivan’s keynote speech at the 2012 Fluent Conference, titled “Don’t Feed the Trolls”[10] Gizmodo,[11] online opinions on the subject written by Silicon Valley executives[12] and comics.[13]

        Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it,[citation needed] because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: “Please do not feed the trolls”.

        The “trollface” is an image occasionally used to indicate trolling in Internet culture.[14][15][16]

        At times, the word can be abused to refer to anyone with controversial opinions they disagree with.[17] Such usages goes against the ordinary meaning of troll in multiple ways. While psychologists have determined that the dark triad traits are common among internet trolls, some observers claim trolls don’t actually believe the controversial views they claim. Farhad Manjoo criticises this view, noting that if the person really is trolling, they are a lot more intelligent than their critics would believe.[17]

        Like

      • Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Rawhide!
        Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
        Though the threads are swollen
        Keep them comments trollin’,
        Rawhide!

        (even worse, SS is a cut and paste troll)

        Like

      • “even worse, SS is a cut and paste troll)”
        To my fellow ‘dark humorist’, Chris:-
        “Rawhide”, my favourite TV western back in the 1960’s when the bad guys always wore black hats… must dust off mine to fit your expanding “S.S.” stereotype. Remember, pre-computers, when cut and paste was a literal chore? But now… yippee! Us ‘trollers’ can piggyback on other ‘trollers’. Grist for your mill!
        —————–
        Is Trump’s investigation of vaccine-dangers dead? By Jon Rappoport
        Trump has made two key appointments in the area of childhood vaccination. The first was Scott Gottlieb, the director of the FDA. What does Gottlieb have to say?
        From fiercepharma.com: “…antivaccine activists were disappointed with Trump’s appointment for FDA head, Scott Gottlieb, who has said any theories of a link between vaccines and autism have been ‘thoroughly debunked’.”
        Trump’s second key appointment has now been revealed. Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald takes over as the head of the CDC.
        Georgia Department of Public Health: “‘Immunizations are the best way to protect infants and children from childhood diseases, like whooping cough and measles that can be life-threatening at young ages’,” said Brenda Fitzgerald, M.D., commissioner of the Georgia Department of Public Health [before her appointment to lead the CDC]. “It is critical for parents to talk to their child’s doctor to ensure they are up-to-date on immunizations, because no child should have to suffer a vaccine-preventable illness’.”
        In 2014, Dr. Fitzgerald wrote an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “I’ve heard all the arguments against vaccination. All have been debunked…”
        Is Trump, who has declared he believes there is a link between vaccination and autism, playing a secret game? Is he giving his new appointees enough rope to hang themselves, before he moves in and empowers an independent panel to investigate vaccine-dangers?
        We’ll see. However, if other key appointees Trump has moved into important slots in his administration are any indication—with their leaking, their out of school statements, their former employment at Goldman Sachs, their bias in favor of extending American Empire and policing the planet—the whole issue of vaccination could be off the table.
        Does Trump want yet another media war, this time over vaccines? If he does, for example, as rumored, tap Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to head up a probe into corruption and fraud at the CDC re childhood vaccination, mainstream news networks will erupt in a new round of furor. Pharmaceutical companies, which pour mighty amounts of advertising dollars into those networks, will demand volcanic attacks against Trump.
        For the moment, vaccine makers are relieved to see the president has filled two key posts with defenders of their toxic realm.
        ===========================

        Like

      • Chris, you may have a serious case of sleep deprivation and even sleep apnea. Your terminal ‘yawning’, verified by your associated zombie-like responses, is of grave concern to me, your fellow dark humorist and erstwhile psycho-analyst medico, “Dr. S.S.”.
        Where to send you a ‘Get-Well’ card??

        Like

      • Yawn. Boring, not a single original thought, just the old tropes being recycled. No actual factual evidence.

        Like

      • A self-referential comment from you I presume.
        Just between you and me (‘cos no-one else ever reads this exchange. Even the blog’s moderator is hibernating):-
        The requested ‘factual evidence’ (referrencing the original reason for this specific blog thread, ie. a discussion of ‘thetruthaboutvaccines’ series) is ‘BORINGly’ contained in the ‘ttav’ Transcript…. never-accessed, never-acknowledged, by ‘vaccinesworkblog’ navel-gazing disciples. Are you getting dizzy yet, via your spinning circular reasoning? QED!

        Like

      • Mr. Johnson: “I haven’t yet looked at the link you provided, which apparently, you are convinced it vouches for Dr. Wakefield’s character.”

        What link? I have looked through Mr. Skillitzi’s comments and did not find any actual link to anything other than “Natural News.” All he seems to say is that we need to read though hundreds of pages of Bollinger produced DVD transcription, which he happily paid for. Um, no.

        As far as I know it was the last time Mr. Wakefield published in scientific literature was several years ago, and that paper was withdrawn. What did happen was that persons associated with that research decided to follow the rules of science and released this SafeMinds funded paper:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455585/

        (Spoiler: the paper concludes that vaccines don’t cause autism. SafeMinds was not happy with this conclusion, so they had a hissy fit, like any Wakers fanboi)

        Like

      • Chris opines: “ALL HE SEEMS TO SAY IS that we need to read though hundreds of pages of Bollinger produced DVD transcription, which he happily paid for. Um, no.”
        What Chris should have opined is: “All I, Chris, seem capable of absorbing is a mere fraction of Mr. Skillitzi’s multi-forked blogs. To verify, read them!”

        As a 3D artist, I, Mr. Skillitzi, can attest to my 3D. viewpoints… in contrast to Chris’ 2D. blog-comprehension and ‘yawn’-punctuated offerings. Sigh!!

        Like

      • Chris says: “What link? I have looked through Mr. Skillitzi’s comments and did not find any actual link to anything other than “Natural News.” All he seems to say is…”
        Mr. Skillitzi says: Fair dealing goes beyond not illegally-poaching ‘ttav’s intellectual property’ (see my last blog), into the cerebrally-challenging area of fair balanced evaluation of other bloggers’ offerings. Sadly lacking with this insomniac? “yawning” and dismissive Chris individual… in my experience.
        Ok Chris et al. Try this Mr. Skillitzi-discussed topic, relating to the encrouching ‘nanny state’.. This generic link re ‘Parental Rights’ encompasses the vaccine issue.:-
        “How Well Do You Know Your Parental Rights? “ParentalRights.org”
        including Question 6
        You have a legal right to know if your teenage children will receive or have received medical treatment through the public schools. View answer.
        True or False: If you are an American parent, your child’s doctor must have your approval before giving your child a vaccination.”

        Like

      • Hello Chris,
        I think we are confusing something here. My understanding was that Stephen Skillitzi was the one who proffered a link to Dr. Wakefield’s latest work, which I offered to examine in the spirit of fair play. Consequently I did open a link provided by Stephen but found only the withdrawn notice where Wakefield’s study had been, and when I went to the link for the science blog Stephen also recommended, I only wound up on its home page—not linked to any specific article where some study relevant to Skylitzes contrarian attitude could be found. That being said, I do not favor Stephens position and in a previous comment I explained all of this to him.

        I also examined the post listing the qualifications of many pro-waxing “experts,” and understand that they have little or no reason to be considered experts in vaccines and any potential problems they might cause. My stance is that so far I see no evidence that supports any notion that vaccines can cause autism or any other dire health conditions, except in very limited numbers–enough to worry many parents, but really unsubstantiated by objective scinece. No vaccine, or for that matter, no medication prescribed by Doctors, can be used without causing any negative reactions, and the process is really about weighing one’s options after being informed about potential side effects by one’s family doctors, or by a specialist.

        Sorry for causing unnecessary confusion, as I told stephen, I am a very new commenter on this blog, and wanted only to satisfy his request for a fair and balanced assesment of the dangers possibly posed by vaccines. But I have no reason to believe that his sources are appropriately qualified to speak on this topic. I did provide my own link to a Frontline video on the PBS website which overall actually supports the claims that MMR vaccines DO NOT cause autism or any other drastic disorders unless they are statistically miniscule in nature.

        Like

      • “I also examined the post listing the qualifications of many pro-waxing “experts,” and understand that they have little or no reason to be considered experts in vaccines and any potential problems they might cause.”
        That post took me 3 hours to absorb all the dozens of back-and-forth blogs below the smearing-only “experts” profiles of the moderator, Kathy. … and for you how long? As I said: “the hard yards for you lie ahead”.

        Like

      • Believe me, between this blog and other articles by anti-vaxers that I have been reading and doing research about lately, I have already devoted a large amount of time to this issue–certainly no more conclusive an average layman like myself would be normally prone to do. And if the actual lack of expertise of lack of reasonably arguments used by those in the list of experts is correct, then of course you have only one path to affirm their deceptions. can proclaim that they are absolute liars and then provide convincing evidence of their lack of expertise, or of convincing evidence that the charges they make are not true. And if you have devoted much times towards this end already, why can’t you just provide a summary of the points that favor your side of the argument.

        I have engaged in arguments with AGW deniers, and 911 government plot advocates which have turned up no smoking guns, and no points which can be considered undeniably true and revelatory–in fact, in many of those cases actual science has effectively and objectively disproved the arguments put forth by anti vax deniers. AND, I also find that the most serious attempts to vilify and discredit others, are made by individuals in groups which engage in planting and growing both theirs and the charities they are involved with—Or at least, for those who’s goal is to bury us in threats each day. and with each new day. are largely have been backed up by known science. why not throw in the towel for a while?

        Like

      • Believe me, between this blog and other articles by anti-vaxers that I have been reading and doing research about lately, I have already devoted a large amount of time to this issue–certainly no more conclusive an average layman like myself would be normally prone to do. And if the actual lack of expertise or lack of reasonably arguments used by those in the list of experts is correct, then of course you have only one path to expose their deceptions. You can proclaim that they are absolute liars and then provide convincing evidence of their lack of expertise, and provide convincing evidence that the charges they make are not true. And if you have devoted much times towards this end already, why can’t you just provide a summary of the points that favor your side of the argument?

        I have engaged in arguments with AGW deniers, and 911 government plot advocates which have turned up no smoking guns, and no points which can be considered undeniably true and revelatory–in fact, in many of those cases actual science has been effectively and objectively used to disprove the arguments put forth by AGW deniers, 911 conspiracy truthers, and now anti vaxers. And, I also find that the most serious attempts to vilify and discredit others, are made by individuals in groups which engage in the dissemination of lies, misinformation and unsubstantiated proofs. So rather than make me slog through volumes of arguments, leading to more arguments, why don’t you just give me a break and summarizes the most convincing points to be made against pro-vaccine advocates and then let me research the information you provide?

        Like

      • Believe me, between this blog and other articles by anti-vaxers that I have been reading and doing research about lately, I have already devoted a large amount of time to this issue–certainly no more than average layman like myself would be normally be prone to do. And if the actual lack of expertise or lack of reasonably arguments used by those on the list of experts is true, then of course you have only one path to follow in order expose those who discredit them. You can proclaim that they are correct and then provide convincing evidence of their expertise, and provide convincing evidence that the information used against them is not true. If you have devoted much times towards this end already, why can’t you just provide a summary of the points that favor your side of the argument?

        I have engaged in arguments with AGW deniers, and 911 plot advocates which have turned up no smoking guns, and no points which can stand up to being debunked or proven that they are undeniably true–in fact, in many of those cases actual science has been effectively and objectively used to disprove the arguments put forth by AGW deniers, 911 truthers, and now, anti vaxers. I also find that the most serious attempts to vilify and discredit others, are made by individuals in groups which engage in the dissemination of lies, misinformation and unsubstantiated proof. So rather than make me slog through volumes of arguments, leading to more arguments, why don’t you just give me a break and summarizes the most convincing points to be made against pro-vaccine advocates and then let me research the information you provide?

        Like

      • “.. why don’t you just give me a break and summarizes the most convincing points to be made against pro-vaccine advocates and then let me research the information you provide?”

        Much to your evident disgust, I don’t try to summarise secondhand (read, spoon-feed) web-links compiled by others more technically qualified than me. That does not make me ill-informed or lacking in discernment … just time and energy conscious. And over the years I’ve never demanded such summaries from those touting opposing perspectives, when so much firsthand material on-line is readily available.
        Cynics would say: ” That’s a copout!” but for me it’s commonsense pragmatism. Best wishes for our ongoing individual journeys, sparring partners, Peter….. and Chris.
        Riddle: “Is the glass half empty or half full?”
        Answer: “Neither! Use a glass that’s half the previous volume.”
        Moral: Each is limited to to his own capacities.
        Danger: Assuming that others must dance when we pipe a tune to them.

        Like

      • “Much to your evident disgust, I don’t try to summarise secondhand (read, spoon-feed) web-links compiled by others more technically qualified than me. That does not make me ill-informed or lacking in discernment … just time and energy conscious. And over the years I’ve never demanded such summaries from those touting opposing perspectives, when so much firsthand material on-line is readily available.”

        Well, obviously since you have supplied several links that you seem to think will edify me, you have already made some judgements and personal assessments about the veracity of information at those links? And no one is disgusted, or is ordering you to provided summaries of those more technically knowledgeable than yourself. Personally speaking, Wakefield himself is likely way more knowledgeable than me, yet that does not prevent me from assessing his claims after hearing arguments which question the validity of his methodology when doing research concerning only a very small number of children–I don’t need to have a degree in statistics, chemistry or Medicine, to know that a study like that, is way less dependable than a study involving half a million children—as was the study done by Danish researchers. Likewise I don’t need to be a mathematician to understand that one plus one equals two. So since you already have distinct opinions about the research done by mainstream scientists and doctors, I see no reasons to believe you can’t just share those opinions and simply tell me what they are based on—instead you have chosen to answer as if you are a lawyer trying to avoid issuing self incriminating testimony?

        Way too often commenters who I have challenged have led me on one google goose chase after another, most of which I find have less to do with sound science, then to do with subjective interpretations of evidence which they deem as damning, even though that evidence is quite ordinary and inconclusive—so I am not going to go down that road again with you.

        You are not on trial, and you are not testifying before Congress, so since you seem to have formed definite opinions about the vaccine controversy there is really no reason you can not simply list some reasons why you have those opinions. I am asking you to share the rationale behind your beliefs, not demanding that you display encyclopedic knowledge about the research that has been done, either pro or con about the vaxxers, anti-vaxxers controversy.

        Like

      • “I have engaged in arguments with AGW deniers, and 911 plot advocates which have turned up no smoking guns…”
        So presumably you, casting your net wide, have subscribed to sundry weblink such as ‘Citizens Electoral Council’:-
        mailto:cec@cecaust.com.au
        AAS 12 July 2017 Vol. 19 No. 28.
        AAS 12 April 2017 Vol. 19 No. 15.
        which deals with geopolitical/environmental/fiscal issues.

        Like

      • No, I have never examined those websites. Are you suggesting that they have some information which will explain your own opinions. I have never read any arguments having to do with geopolitical issues which are relevant to the vaccine controversy.

        Like

      • Mr. Johnson: ” My understanding was that Stephen Skillitzi was the one who proffered a link to Dr. Wakefield’s latest work, which I offered to examine in the spirit of fair play. ”

        Yes, I posted that link to illustrate Wakefield’s last PubMed indexed study. It was very old, and was withdrawn. In fact, those who are still scientists figured out that they needed to do the work properly in order to salvage their reputations. That included Dr. Hewitson who was actually an vaccine court litigant for her autistic child, and who really needed to drag her reputation out of the mud:
        https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-activists-fund-a-study-to-show-vaccines-cause-autism-it-backfires-spectacularly/

        You did quite well has a new commentator on this blog. Personally I cannot tell exactly what SS is trying to say, all I see in his word salad are a series of insults and random attempts at being a Wakefield fanboi. All I can reiterate is that his sources are not verifiable scientific evidence, and that Mr. Wakefield does not have the required experience in autism nor immunology. His reputation was shattered when it was discovered he committed research fraud.

        Plus Ty Bollinger is also not qualified in any medical/scientific field, so it comes to reason he would not interview actual experts. He literally quit being a certified public accountant with a tax specialty to make quacky DVDs to sell to a gullible audience. This is a behavior I cannot abide.

        My almost thirty year old first child has multiple health issues, the first being neonatal seizures (the other big one is a genetic heart condition that required open heart surgery). I was first online close to twenty years ago searching for answers, only to find a bunch of folk ready to take advantage of desperate parents of disabled kids. I left an email listserv for my son’s speech/language disorder about ten years ago after I found out one of the “mothers” pushing chelation was actually an employee of Jeff Bradstreet (an autism quack, who committed suicide when the FDA was investigating him for another unlicensed treatment based on questionable blood).

        Those people don’t care about the kids. They only care about $$$$. Hence my harsh attitude. I don’t even read the any of SS’s word salad anymore, jut the responses

        Like

      • Thanks for the reply. I also have found SS’s comments a bit hard to understand, but he seems to portray himself as being an anti-vaxxer, even though in the next breath he will say something ambiguous enough to make me doubt even that. Still, if he will just list a few of the reasons he doubts current medical science, or would just provide a link that leads to a credible website or a credible anti-vax authority I would happily oblige him and examine it.

        Like

      • We all “see through the glass darkly”. ‘Ambiguity’ meshes with an honourable ‘fence sitting’ academic mindset whilst prudently reserving judgment. ‘Bigotry’ meshes with an imprudent ‘slamming the door shut’ mindset before independent research of unfamiliar perspectives.
        Allow our differing modus operandi enough elbow room, please. For reasons previously offered, I choose not to ‘dance to your tune’ .
        Yet again, one starting point for your no-short-cuts exploration of the unfamiliar is http://www.naturalnews.com
        ‘Might is right’ in the jungle ‘tooth and claw’ realm.
        ‘Majority rules’ and ‘we’re all in this together’ dictates populist party politics.
        A healthy distrust of contrived consensus via ‘unchallengeable peer-reviewers armed with immaculate CVs’ guides lonely Truth-seekers who remember history’s science foibles.

        Like

      • Well said, but the only way I can make an informed answer to anything you say, is if you quit being so ambiguous and instead, let me know what your position is. Go your way if you want, but just don’t portray yourself as some sort of victim of misunderstanding. For obvious reasons, your posts cannot be answered accurately when they are not even clearly stated. So playing the poor misunderstood commenter, will not do, since that is really the result of your own choices!

        Like

      • “What my position is” you ask:-
        A/ Built into the normal human is a poorly understood assortment of checks and balances (designed by the Creator, imo) which IF associated with 1/ nutritious food, 2/ good hygiene, 3/ pollution-avoidance strategies and 4/ optimum lifestyles, would protect us from the oft-overhyped diseases and their associated BigPharma so-called “cures”.
        B/ That is, if only those gargantuan funds were directed, not into the globalist medical cabal, but into pragmatic grassroots improvements that I’ve outlined, what a transformed world we could then enjoy!
        For me, the burgeoning vaccine schedule is questionable Science, building upon corporate profit-motives and an arrogant evolution-driven belief in ‘improving on’ what is our Creator-given human heritage.
        C/ Individual vaccines, and their combinations, injected into individuals may or may not help or hinder.. as irritatingly ambiguous as that is to the “Prove-it with clear statements !!” brigade.
        D/ Governmentally mandated anything (vaccines et al) tragically erodes personal sovereignty and precious dignity. Excruciatingly, the ‘nanny-state’ Australian govt. here leads the world in such ‘”we know better than you Plebeians” mindset.
        E/ Opinions dogmatically upheld, WITHOUT doing the ‘hard yards’… the thinly-veiled zeitgeist of this ‘vaccinesworkblog’, is anti-intellectual and is a receipt for perpetuating error .

        Like

      • I did open the Natural News link you provided and after searching the site I did find this article concerning bowel problems being related to autism:

        http://www.naturalnewsblogs.com/autism-symptoms-reversed-new-study/

        Firstly, one would think you could have easily provided me with a link to this exact study so I wouldn’t be forced to waste time looking for it. I mean this not as an insult but rather just to question why such an easy task for you to do was not done. As I said I will not become anyone’s google gopher again.

        Secondly, I do know that Dr. Wakefield’s discredited study was also about a possible link between bowel disease and autistic symptoms in children, and that his theories as well as the methodology he used to confirm them have long ago been discredited. Also, nowhere in this study did I see a claim that VACCINES were fundamentally involved in producing autism?

        Thirdly, after examining some of the other articles on Natural News, I became suspicious of the scientific reputation the site may have—since there were various ridiculous anti-science articles like this one:

        “(Natural News) Climate change “mad scientists” from Harvard have been given the green light to pursue a geoengineering experiment that will expel aerosols into the atmosphere to block out the sun in a deranged effort to halt so-called “global warming.”

        The language used is itself a dead giveaway, or at least a natural cause to be suspicious of the above article, since it begins by labeling those who came up with this supposed experiment, as being “mad scientists” from Harvard. Does Harvard really educate Mad scientists? — It certainly has no such reputation for doing so! Instead, it’s usually climate change deniers who stereotype scientists using terms like that. It’s also well known in the climate science community that excess aerosols in the atmosphere cause dangerous holes in the Ozone layer—not just a cooling effect on the climate. So, to ignore that fact would result in destroying all the previous and prudent regulations of aerosols which, (after being done), have restored the ozone layer to its former and healthy natural state. To say otherwise is untrue, and therefore merely pseudo-science.

        Here is a paste from an article about vaccines and Wakefield’s discredited study:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083659/

        “However, just as rates of measles notification were reaching an all-time low, speculation about the safety of the vaccine began to emerge. In February 1998, a paper was published postulating a link between the MMR vaccine, bowel disease and autism.5 Wakefield and colleagues hypothesized that the vaccine caused inflammation of the gut making it more permeable, permitting peptides to leak out, which in turn were said to act as toxins on the brain causing serious developmental disorders (including autism). The paper sparked immediate criticism and concern,6,7,8,9 and researchers were quick to test Wakefield’s hypothesis. However, subsequent scientific support has been absent,10,11 and further experiments designed to identify the measles virus in intestinal tissue 12 or blood 13 have failed to find vaccine viruses. Furthermore, researchers have been unable to identify significant intestinal inflammation post‐vaccination 14; large epidemiological studies have found no evidence of a new form of autism associated with MMR 15,16; there is no evidence of an increased incidence of autism related to the uptake of the MMR or measles vaccines 17,18; studies investigating severe adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine conducted in Finland 19,20 have failed to identify bowel problems or autism following vaccination; and a recent Cochrane review concluded that exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with autism.21”

        Although this article might raise some valid questions about the addition of probiotics being important for infant intestinal health, it makes no real connection between the use of MMR vaccines and Autism—and that’s what the controversy is really all about, isn’t it?

        Like

      • Mr. Skillitzi, your A/ to E/ summary is very succinct and insightful. Congratulations on identifying major blindnesses of this apparently vehemently pro-vaccination blog.

        Like

      • Well, Peter, at least this person, “Cosmos” below, appreciates my wisdom.
        cheers, S.S.
        —-

        “What my position is” you ask:-
        A/ Built into the normal human is a poorly understood assortment of checks and balances (designed by the Creator, imo) which IF associated with 1/ nutritious food, 2/ good hygiene, 3/ pollution-avoidance strategies and 4/ optimum lifestyles, would protect us from the oft-overhyped diseases and their associated BigPharma so-called “cures”.
        B/ That is, if only those gargantuan funds were directed, not into the globalist medical cabal, but into pragmatic grassroots improvements that I’ve outlined, what a transformed world we could then enjoy!
        For me, the burgeoning vaccine schedule is questionable Science, building upon corporate profit-motives and an arrogant evolution-driven belief in ‘improving on’ what is our Creator-given human heritage.
        C/ Individual vaccines, and their combinations, injected into individuals may or may not help or hinder.. as irritatingly ambiguous as that is to the “Prove-it with clear statements !!” brigade.
        D/ Governmentally mandated anything (vaccines et al) tragically erodes personal sovereignty and precious dignity. Excruciatingly, the ‘nanny-state’ Australian govt. here leads the world in such ‘”we know better than you Plebeians” mindset.
        E/ Opinions dogmatically upheld, WITHOUT doing the ‘hard yards’… the thinly-veiled zeitgeist of this ‘vaccinesworkblog’, is anti-intellectual and is a receipt for perpetuating error .
        ===============
        cosmos
        JULY 18, 2017 AT 1:24 AM
        Mr. Skillitzi, your A/ to E/ summary is very succinct and insightful. Congratulations on identifying major blindnesses of this apparently vehemently pro-vaccination blog.

        Like

    • “… ‘ttav’ Transcript…. never-accessed, never-acknowledged, by ‘vaccinesworkblog’ navel-gazing disciples”

      Because it was written by someone who is neither qualified nor reputable. It is literally a former certified public accountant’s way to separate vulnerable folks from their wallets. You have been told this many times, but for some reason you think we should think this shyster is the equivalent to medical researchers who have done actual work. This is not going to happen.

      Classic trolling. Or perhaps more accurately, learn some reading comprehension.

      Like

      • “Because it was written by someone who is neither qualified nor reputable.”
        Do you not understand the difference between “writing” and compiling?
        It’s not at all relevant who (Ty Bollinger in this case) video-recorded then transcript-compiled the verbal statements of the 60 or so ‘experts’ (of whatever status you afford them, via whatever your insightfulness). I had hoped you achieved SOME acceptable academic level, but now I do wonder.

        Like

      • Perhaps after a half century of involvement, I’m too ‘old school’ re tertiary academic and administrative standards for me to readily countenance this blog’s wall-to-wall arrogance.
        If I had an enrolled student who refused to access the key textbook of the unit, (in this context, the ‘ttav’ Transcript… for me a trivial $$$ outlay) preferring instead to rely on related-yet-tangential sources, I would have little option but to FAIL that stubornly assumptive (and arguably, “gullible”) student.
        I was always well aware of (and foreshadowed) the ‘ttav experts’ mixed bag of questionable credentials. But central to my own academic credibility is allowing cerebral space for the latest, albeit unpopular, perspectives.

        Like

      • Well, at least your worrisome insomnia seems cured. No: “I’m bored and yawning my head off with your trolling!” type of comment from you this time.
        ————–
        Did you access this below yet?…Your acerbic tongue is part of my daily routine now. I’m pining for blog-departed superbly-informed gladiator ‘Marge’ though.
        ——————-
        Stephen Skillitzi
        JULY 9, 2017 AT 9:47 AM
        Ahh! At last the end of this marathon scroll-down…. 3 hour later. Yes, I know. Proving I’m a slow reader, and the redoubtable snipe-at-the-ready ‘Chris’ would chime in with “and a slow learner too”.

        The now presumably blog-departed feisty-veteran, ‘Marge’, (and not to discount a ‘Catherine L’) have upheld, with admirable stoical vigour, the much-excoriated concept of a hypothetical questionthevaccinesblog (ok, that’s my wet-dream website). Marge, where do I sign up for your fan-club?

        As for my essentially-PHILOSOPHICAL (as distinct from strictly-data based) contribution:- From my very first blog I opposed consistently: A/ government-imposed ‘mandatory vaccines’… obviously haemoraging precious and dwindling Civic Liberties, and B/ the phalanx of me-too bloggers who ignored the vaccinesworkblog’s specific target, thetruthaboutvaccines and its 229 page transcript of the 7 videos… which effectively invalidated the standard academic protocol re textbooks’/transcripts’ axiomatic relevance.

        At no stage did I attempt to dive through the ‘flaming circus hoops’ on offer from Kathy (blog moderator) or her side-kick Chris (a perpetual self-confessed ‘yawner’), of “give-us-pro-vaxxers-only-the-SCIENCE”. Apples and oranges ARE as different as blog-agendas, ya know!

        Like

      • Chris, In relation to at least one blog-contributor’s implied ethics, I thought this from another aussie ‘ttav’ legally-purchased Transcript owner, a Mark below, would interest you and also your fellow-traveller, Mark David Johnson (although sadly I don’t have a direct blog-contact with Johnson… do you?).
        APRIL 19, 2017 AT 6:40 PM
        I have the .mp3 versions of each episode. I was doing the same thing for each episode for a few anti-vax friends of mine at their request. But same as you I couldn’t find the time to watch each episode each night, so I found the .mp3 versions on Huffduffer.
        If want any of the mp3s please let me know. I’d love to be able to have someone to point to with the other episodes. I don’t think I can bring myself to watch another episode.
        After the first episode I had 4 pages of notes and there was not a single fact presented that I did not dispute. [M.D. Johnson]
        ————–
        Stephen, it looks as though Ty & Co have only put Episode 1 up on YouTube, probably as a promotion of the series.
        What these two guys are proposing seems like a kind act to be kind and spread the word and the tools and beat those greedy capitalists, but to me it’s just copyright theft.
        A bit like taking photos or 3D scans of the artworks at your Art opening, and using any available cheap enough technology to duplicate and sell them.
        It’s still a lot easier to do with digital bits than physical molecules.
        A common argument is no money was made, or it was in the public interest, or didn’t charge full commercial price.
        The work involved in creating copyrighted work usually far far exceeds the work involved in (illegally) duplicating it.
        It’s been the same situation for years now, starting with sheet music and music cassette tapes.
        There were apparently several lovely ‘churches’ which were photocopying sheet music for their lovely choir to sing at their lovely service for their lovely sheep. It was all very lovely until they got fined for thieving.
        Most people don’t get it, because they’ve never experienced the pain and costs involved in creating content.
        Because I can buy a portable angle grinder cheaply, doesn’t mean I have the right to cut through locks and steal things.
        Cheers, Mark.

        Like

      • ‘WITHDRAWN: Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight.
        Hewitson L1, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L, White ER, Wakefield AJ.’
        Chris: your ”not that I care” dismissive tone is noted, as is you playing fast ‘n loose with the implications of this “Oct.2009 withdrawal”.
        A/ Withdrawn by the unnamed EDITOR (for undisclosed reasons).
        B/ Does Wakefield’s name, being the last one of 9 authors, mean maybe he was the least involved?
        C/ For me, bypassing the ‘strictly peer-reviewed’ label, “Wakefield’s most recent published” utterance is contained in the ‘ttav’ transcript. (As you know, an impassioned yet highly-cogent ‘Marge’ back in May 2017, exhastively took moderator Kathy and you Chris to task over Dr. Wakefield’s protracted experience of being unjustly ‘thrown under a bus’ by a series of BigPharma/CDC etc henchmen.)
        Marge (streets ahead of me) also scored the “Troll” medal, so I’m in good company. I’ll allow her the Gold if I can keep my inferior-to-Marge Bronze one. Now for the Silver…. ?

        Like

  40. I did open the Natural News link you provided and after searching the site I did find this article concerning bowel problems being related to autism:

    http://www.naturalnewsblogs.com/autism-symptoms-reversed-new-study/

    Firstly, one would think you could have easily provided me with a link to this exact study so I wouldn’t be forced to waste time looking for it. I mean this not as an insult but rather to question why such an easy task for you to do was not done. As I said I will not become anyone’s google gopher again.

    Secondly, I do now that Dr. Wakefield’s discredited study was also about a possible link between bowel disease and autistic symptoms in children, and that his theories as well as the methodology he used to arrive confirm them have long been discredited. Also, nowhere in this study did I see a claim that VACCINES were fundamentally involved in producing autism?

    Thirdly, after examining some of the other articles on Natural News, I became suspicious of the scientific reputation the site may have—since there were various and ridiculous anti-science articles like this one:

    “(Natural News) Climate change “mad scientists” from Harvard have been given the green light to pursue a geoengineering experiment that will expel aerosols into the atmosphere to block out the sun in a deranged effort to halt so-called “global warming.”

    The language used is itself a dead giveaway, or at least a natural cause to be suspicious of the above article, since it begins by labeling those who came up with this supposed experiment, as being “mad scientists” from Harvard. Does Harvard really educate Mad scientists? — It certainly has no such reputation! Instead, it’s usually climate change deniers who stereotype scientists with terms like this. It’s also well known in the climate science community that excess aerosols in the atmosphere cause dangerous holes in the Ozone layer—not just a cooling effect on the climate. So, to ignore that fact would result in destroying all the previous and prudent regulations on aerosols which (after being done) have restored the ozone layer to its healthy natural state. To say otherwise is untrue and therefore merely erroneous pseudo-science.

    Here is a paste from an article about vaccines and Wakefield’s discredited study:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083659/

    “However, just as rates of measles notification were reaching an all-time low, speculation about the safety of the vaccine began to emerge. In February 1998, a paper was published postulating a link between the MMR vaccine, bowel disease and autism.5 Wakefield and colleagues hypothesized that the vaccine caused inflammation of the gut making it more permeable, permitting peptides to leak out, which in turn were said to act as toxins on the brain causing serious developmental disorders (including autism). The paper sparked immediate criticism and concern,6,7,8,9 and researchers were quick to test Wakefield’s hypothesis. However, subsequent scientific support has been absent,10,11 and further experiments designed to identify the measles virus in intestinal tissue12 or blood13 have failed to find vaccine viruses. Furthermore, researchers have been unable to identify significant intestinal inflammation post‐vaccination14; large epidemiological studies have found no evidence of a new form of autism associated with MMR15,16; there is no evidence of an increased incidence of autism related to the uptake of the MMR or measles vaccines17,18; studies investigating severe adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine conducted in Finland19,20 have failed to identify bowel problems or autism following vaccination; and a recent Cochrane review concluded that exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with autism.21”

    Although this article might raise some valid questions about the addition of pro-biotics being important for infant intestinal health, it makes no real connection between the use of MMR vaccines and Autism—and that’s what the controversy is really all about, isn’t it?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s