South African parents stand accused of murdering their baby.

[pmbguy]

Hi Trickzta

Vaccines are safe, study after study has proved this. Millions of people have been saved from terrible diseases like small pox. Remember that the internet is full of bullshit, you can find “evidence” to back any crazy theory. Big pharma is guilty of many wrong doings, producing drugs that harm people etc etc. But somehow you got fixated on vaccines, which is one aspect of medicine that can’t really be faulted, despite what you read on the internet. You may say “but why is so much negative things written about vaccines” well any story that is sensational and against mainstream practice/belief will get picked up by journalists, quacks and weirdoes.
I think you using this quest against vaccines as a way to deal with your own feelings about what happened to your child. This is not healthy. You need to resolve these issues within yourself and forget about finding resolution through seeking the “truth” about vaccines.

Let the big facts inform your mind and forget the big conspiracies.

[Dave A]

A heck of a lot of this posting is throwing mud against the wall. Case in point -

USATODAY Report.
Psychiatrist: Company hid Prozac, suicide link
Eli Lilly & Co. officials lied 15 years ago in denying there was any evidence the anti-depressant Prozac could cause suicidal behavior, a Harvard psychiatrist has charged.

"'Oh no, no, we never heard of such a thing,' they told me," Teicher said. But studies from the 1980s showed such dangers, he said, and German drug regulators wouldn't license the drug when Lilly first applied in 1985, citing "suicidal risk." The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Prozac in 1987. But when problems started surfacing, the agency held a scientific advisory panel hearing in 1991 and found no evidence of a link to suicide.
Before that hearing, Lilly published studies showing Prozac was safe, Teicher said. "They culled patients from their worldwide trials, they cherry-picked the studies, leaving out the trials showing problems."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...zac-usat_x.htm

What does that have to do with the broad and total condemnation of vaccination programs?

I think we've all conceded that there are problem cases in the pharmaceutical industry. And given the size and scope of the industry, there's sure to be no shortage of volume to point to, even if that volume actually represents a spectacularly small minority of the total industry.

However, as Mvubu points out -

This is a massive public health issue and entertaining quacks is a REALLY bad idea.

In fact, taken too far it's arguably criminal.



Actually, now that I think about it - I've always wondered what motivates people to push these messages that could so easily persuade people to refuse taking help that they might desperately need, and even have massive, fatal consequences. Maybe this is part of the diabolical plot by The Illuminati / Freemasons / (add your own conspiracy theory organisation here) to subjugate the world

Ultimately, yes we need watchdogs. Yes the industry needs close monitoring. Yes, specific products may deserve criticism.
But no, my goodness no, do we need hysterical responses that stops the good pharma getting through.

[pmbguy]

Perhaps it is the work of the Illuminate. They are pushing these false messages to weed out the gene pool. Let me explain, you see only stupid people would believe such nonsense and intelligent people will not. So the stupid people die from not vaccinating and the smart ones survive because they will vaccinate. Go Go Illuminate

[adrianh]

The problem lies in the misuse of statistics. People need to quote bad reaction counts in relation to no reaction counts. If Prozac, which is just another SSRI, was so bad then how come there aren't millions of reported suicides liked directly to the use of SSRI's. The point that people also miss about deaths during the use of SSRI's is that those patients were depressed to start with. Although anti-depressants are able to damp out the physical effects of depression they sure are not able to stop thinking processes which might cause people to harm themselves. What I mean is for example: if a person is depressed because they were responsible for the death of a child then an anti-depressant may dump the physical side of the depression but it will not stop that person from blaming themselves. How can one then say that the anti-depressant causes that person to commit suicide if they were prone to doing so in the first place.

By the looks of it more young people commit suicide due to the side effects of the misuse of social media than anything else today.

[pmbguy]

Technically we can point out to a few fallacies that are contributing to this folly

• Fallacy of composition - assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole (Some Pharma is bad so it’s all bad)

• Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them (So many links and so much “evidence”)

• Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position(Choosing to focus on the little bit of evidence against vaccines, whilst ignoring the huge amount of evidence that supports vaccines)

[Dave A]

And sometimes all three!

A particularly insightful post, pmbguy

[pmbguy]

Dave - sometimes a bit of reason is called for. Human stupidity is eternal. Thank the Greeks otherwise we would all be stuck in the cave. (Excuse the allegory)

[Trickzta]

Thanks for the reply Mvubu,

Some very valid points made in your posts here, and a few things that I need to clear up. Mvubu, thanks for the links, I invite more of the same from any source.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions so I fully support your full support for the charges
As mentioned. My opinion is not in line with yours, but is my own.

In the link you posted concerning the special court setup by the Federal Government to restore the status quo that was being threatened by the Pharmaceutical companies preparing to withdraw from the vaccine arena, in the wake of multiple claims. Another task of the VICP (Vaccination Injury Compensation Program with its Cherry picked Masters was to prevent these Big Pharma Companies from being sued.

A short version of the trial and verdict of the US Court of Federal Claims, not strictly speaking a Federal Court as the title reveals is available here. (for those that have an interest in such matters)
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) web site.

A look at the legal implications is found in the next link.
Sole jurisdiction for adjudicating claims is vested in the US Court of Federal Claims, a court which sits only in Washington, DC. Even finding an attorney to handle a claim can be difficult, as an attorney must be specially admitted to practice before the Court of Claims, and the Program is virtually unknown to most attorneys. The salient fact is that federal law prohibits filing a civil suit until this claims process is completed, and such a suit is necessary if you elect not to accept the award.

http://www.gval.com/legal.htm

I found some interesting info here: I found that ‘regression is not a condition that either exists or does not exist in a particular child and in most cases is simply one variable in the early development of those with autism and beside the fact of regression itself, children with regression do not form a distinct group.’ (a cherry picked summary of the play on words that was presented as expert witness in lieu of scientific evidence) A short but informative post and an anti forced vaccination site.

This site has a poor rating but looking at the WOT report it is the work of idiots that falsely rate it harmful and dishonest. Monsanto’s website was also poorly rated by silly idiots for no genuine reason. This is my unbiased opinion that applies to any site that is falsely labeled as untrustworthy by spiteful idiots with nothing better to do. (opinion)
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/o...ngers-cat.html

*A quick look at the figures concerning payouts made by the Masters of the Special Court reveals more than the ‘Canned Media Reports’ that Mainstream Media dishes up as ‘news’.Payments as of February of 2003,*
As of February of 2003, 3,482 vaccine victims have received compensation totaling over $1.4 billion. For details call (800) 338-2382 or visit the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) web site.
Info supplied by this “badly rated’ site.
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/yourright...ycomplaw.shtml (deadly dangerous
site)

*Another source of this info;*
Vaccine manufacturers have paid out nearly $2B in damages to parents in America whose children were harmed by one of the childhood jabs such as the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) or DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus). In all, around 2,000 families have received compensation payments that have averaged $850,000 each. There are a further 700 claims that are going through the pipeline. None of the claims is for autism as medical researchers say they have failed to find a link between the disease and the MMR vaccine, despite the initial findings made by Dr Andrew Wakefield. Instead they are for a wide spectrum of physical and mental conditions that are likely to have been caused by one of the vaccinations. Around 7,000 parents have filed a claim of an adverse reaction with America's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). To win an award, the claimant must prove a causal link to a vaccine. As the medical establishment has refused to recognise any link to autism, the VICP has so far rejected 300 claims for this outright. (Source: New England Journal of Medicine)
Medicine, 2007; 357: 1275-9).
: http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.co....Lrg3FDNF.dpuf

Those are terrible diseases in your link, there’s no denying that fact. Where is the Scientific Data concerning vaccinations and the efficacy of the drugs that I hear people refer to? How do I come to accept the vaccination ‘Program’ as scientifically sound if the data is not available?

Mvubu, on what scientific research do you base your statement shown below?
“Vaccines, like evolution, is only in a controversy in the heads of those who will not examine the science, have a predetermined position and refuse to listen to reason.”

Please let me know where I can find this ‘science’ to examine. Not a self-praising press release with figures that proves the rate of infections is falling, but real, solid science explaining the way in which vaccines work. Not the ‘herd immunity’ mumbo jumbo but real science.

Thanks again for your reply, I look forward to your or anyone elses' link to the science that is (in my opinion) lacking in real life as well as in this thread.

[Trickzta]

Hi PMGuy,

Thanks for the reply. Dig deep enough and you’ll find some astonishing facts about many weird and wonderful things, some true, some false even some with some truth and some lies, or mistakes in a small % of cases. The CIA and others have the financial means and the ability to have ‘agents’ in the Alternate Media. These agents are often high profile ‘conspiracy’ and corruption exposing reporters, being fed ‘secret info’ by the Feds, MOSSAD or their Masters. We would be short sighted not to believe this.

Agents spend years building a ‘cover’ and recruiting armchair activists and ‘truthers’ as some like to be called. Mossad and other Masters supply their ‘agents’ with ‘highly classified’ info to keep them in the forefront of breaking news and to disguise the real reason for infiltrating the Alternate Media and every other organization and ‘Elite Club of consequence. That way we are fed a lot of baloney dressed with a few nuggets that were deemed expendable by TPTB. (The Powers That Be)

To supply links to these opinions would clutter this post, something I’m guilty of and for which I apologize. However links will be supplied on request. Many gems I’ve cherry picked from old books published before ISBN numbers were introduced. In these cases I name the book, author, publisher, date of printing and country of origin. (Sometimes only supplied on request) Mainstream and (in my opinion) reputable reference books are my sources wherever possible. No use is made on my part, to find obscure books to make my point, unless our definition of obscure differs vastly.

Time and Life (TIME-LIFE Books) are frequently used by myself as a source of information. World War ll; The Home Front: U.S.A. by Ronald H. Bailey and the Editors of Time-Life Books is one such book. Copyright registered in 1973. Although there is no ISBN number there is a Library of Congress catalogue card number 77-87556.

These books along with the vast array of Readers Digest publications were instrumental in the Media’s role of presenting ‘reality’ to the masses. This is not a ‘theory’ to me at all, it is documented in these propaganda promoting books. Propaganda is a two edged sword.

A careful and methodical reading regime will usually reveal the truth or perceived truth cleverly hidden in carefully chosen terms. Bear in mind that Government Agencies often had to be comfortable with the contents of the book, ‘un-patriotic’ or anti-USA/USA policy stories were considered taboo. This is especially true during times of war when censorship, although often abused, is critical to national security.

The authors could however sneak a cleverly worded sentence in here and there, usually not in the relevant chapter and didn’t need to resort to the tactics used by Nostradamus to escape the censors and/or the death penalty.

People are still being persecuted to varying degrees for publishing articles or leaking secret info that drives regime or religious zealots to distraction. A modern example is Bradley Manning.

A mention in The Home Front; USA, about Winston Churchill during his 3 week stay at the Whitehouse after Pearl Harbour states that the chubby Statesman, when awakened was served Scotch by the butler. The rest of the day he drank Brandy. Drinking from morning till night can be deduced from this statement which could mean that some decisions by this Famous man may well have been influenced by “Dutch Courage” or other effect, especially if the alcohol was mixed with other medication/s such as painkillers and the like. I have no reference to other medications being used simultaneously, but the chances of this having occurred are real.

The previous deduction is a theory. That segregation in the armed forces in the USA at the beginning of WW2, segregation of the magnitude of our own Apartheid Regime was rife, is not theory but bare factual truth.

A few snippets, to re-enforce my point, appear below and the bulk of the source material is being held in reserve, available on request or as and if it becomes relevant. The racial issue is central to this (opinion) presentation of the ‘bigger picture’ necessary for me to get my opinion at the very least, better understood. I admit defeat (in hindsight on my part, immediate recognition on the part of others) in my feeble attempt to convey any coherent points and my inability to solicit an intelligent exchange of ideas so far.

Intermingling of the races, said the official government policy – approved by President Roosevelt in 1940 – “would produce situations destructive to morale and detrimental to the preparation for national defense.”

A black officer could not outrank a white officer. The old SAP worked on similar lines – a white officer without rank was actually ranked higher than a black sergeant. (Opinion -formed by experiencing this ludicrous system at work in SA, first hand)

Furthermore, the Army, with the support of the American Red Cross, went so far as to segregate the blood plasma donated by blacks and whites, even though the man who had perfected the method for preserving plasma, Dr Charles R. Drew, was himself black.

Although there is no direct link to my suspicions concerning vaccines and these random stories and factual occurrences from Yesteryears, they will play a role as the story unfolds, whereas if these stories were collected until the point of the story calls for “proof of examples” or suchlike, then there is no need to flood the post with links and other distractions by posting…correction …over-posting. (I’m using the past to demonstrate the present, or at least to demonstrate the feasibility of the present being a product of circumstance and deliberate conditioning. Opinion only.)

I’ve gotten myself into this corner and judging from the replies, have diverse topics to cover before I’m out of the woods, so to speak. I’ve no hidden agenda (usually unsolicited comments like this, are indicative of hidden agendas, the very thing they deny) but time will show that I’m not being untruthful, vindictive or malicious and there is really not a hidden agenda behind this post.

And no, I do not harbor any grudge or ill-feeling towards anyone or any industry in regards to my child. At the time I was not aware of vaccine related harm, I’d only read of the wonderful benefits of a class of wonder drugs that was saving the world. There was a lot of PR and fanfare that ushered this billion dollar business into our daily lives.

Had I been planning a vendetta I’d like to think I’d have been able to present a more coherent, less bulky post than some of the hastily made ‘copy and paste’ jumbled posts I threw together. In other words I’d have had my ducks in a row instead of those ducks flying off at different tangents and flinging ‘mud’ at the wall. Please accept my apologies for this and any other transgression of protocol.

I’ll change tact to limit my scatter brained ranting about diverse topics. I did say in a previous post that I’d be posting about the corruption in the FDA, but I’m not using that as an excuse for the sloppiness of my posts, I take the full blame for that.

As to your statement concerning the “Science or Research” of the efficacy of vaccines, the ‘scientific reports’ that prove the vaccine is “…….” fill in your dream word or wish in this space, I’m still waiting (at last glance) for a link to this research. Where is this scientific evidence?

In the meantime read about the (at last glance) still uncollected reward offered to the first person ………read it if you have the time, it gives the reason Mainstream Medicine uses to assert that double-blind, etc., tests are not needed in the case of vaccine “science”

Mike Adams from NaturalNews.com;
A year ago, I offered a $10,000 reward to any person who could find scientific proof that H1N1 vaccines were safe and effective .No one even made a claim to collect that reward because no such evidence exists.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html#ixzz2kT7yqlFS

This post of mine is, in my opinion (and everyone else’s I’m sure) far too long. Shorter, clearer and more user friendly posting is the next goal I’ve set myself.

Thanks all.
I promise not to post such tediously long speeches, to the best of my ability, again. At least I’ve slowed down to a run when it comes to mud fights and active links. Take care.

[Trickzta]

Will post more replies as soon as possible. Thanks & take care.

[Marq]

An interesting discussion is coming out of this long winded dissertation. It should probably have its own thread.

The bottom line is that for a decent debate to take place there must be two opposing sides. Either one of which could be correct.........its an old argument - do vaccines work or not?

I can see the argument being lost here, by the first one to pull out the ridicule scenario. State an obvious fact that has nothing really to do with the debate and then close it all on a statement that reasoning of the clever ones has prevailed.

The three fallacies used as a examples can be applied equally to both sides - that is another folly in the fallacy.

Let me add some more - how about the 'backfire effect” when you show people facts that contradict their opinions they close down. Probably as a result of the ego being directly attacked and that agreement with fact would be admitting defeat. Also known as denialism.
How about Grahams disagreement hierarchy which I have seen used many times in discussion here. Attached below.

What about argument from authority - most of the time, those offering this as a for basis for being right do not have the correct authority or are not in receipt of all the facts or have applied them incorrectly. Most debates seem to end in what is known as informal fallacy where the logic fails to support the conclusion.

So if we add a statement to the medical vaccine and medicine argument that says - You as the final consumer only get to see 10% of the research because 90% doesn't actually support the objective. Or how about the cure for cancer is being withheld by the pill companies as to release it would put tens of thousands out of work and create a huge dent in the economic viability of the world. Given that would you still be a nay sayer, would you still be so sure that you know stuff and that vaccine really does work?

Personal argument - first hand input surely counts for something. I can tell you that they only time I have had flu in the past fifteen years, was the year I was duped into having a flu shot and will never go there again. Is your argument based on the fact that since you had the shots you have not had flu. Does that make me stupid and a believer in the illuminati or a member of Anonymous. Maybe....but you already knew that didn't you?

[Trickzta]

A sample of the post in "Spotlight on vaccinations". Any info remotely scientific to repudiate these facts, graphs, figures presented in the full post will be more than welcome. If this site can be proven to be false, incorrect, mistaken or mis-informed in any way, then please expose them. If (intentionally) false then these claims are criminal. Interesting read, genuine was my first impression but if this is BS then I'll shave my head (both hairs) and vaccinate every under nourished baby on the planet.

In a recent article Peter Doshi, Ph.D reiterated this position. He declared that:
The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated… This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes.[8]
He also stated that public officials only need to claim that the vaccine saves lives and that most people, including doctors, assume there is solid research behind the claim and unfortunately that is not the case. So in seniors – the group that has the greatest need – there really isn’t any good science to backup the use of the flu vaccine.
What about in children under 1 year of age where there is also a higher mortality rate? After all, the CDC currently recommends children 6 months and older get a flu vaccine. A 2008 study found no evidence as to the benefits of flu vaccination in children under two years of age.
…vaccine effectiveness was not clearly shown in children under 2 years of age. Further studies using different methods, in different locations, and in different seasons, are needed to clarify the effectiveness of influenza vaccine among young children.[9]

[pmbguy]

“A vaccine contains a killed or weakened part of a germ that is responsible for infection. Because the germ has been killed or weakened before it is used to make the vaccine, it cannot make the person sick. When a person receives a vaccine, the body reacts by making protective substances called "antibodies". The antibodies are the body's defenders because they help to kill off the germs that enter the body. In other words, vaccines expose people safely to germs, so that they can become protected from a disease but not come down with the disease” http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/...cines_work.htm

As my lecturer explained to us 101: The active core is removed and our bodies react with appropriate antibodies to the virus shell. The “vaccinated” virus is inert and mute. It cant replicate. Therefore it cant make you sick. You might experience some side effects (typical to the virus), BUT it wont make you sick.
Vaccines in general are good..
Personally I wont go for flu shots because by the time it is synthesized the actual Influenza virus has mutated, so I think that a flu shot is pointless. BUT make no mistake. Vaccines against the big baby killers is no joke so don’t be a fool.

By NOT having your kids vaccinated you risk all!

[Dave A]

I was wondering when you'd move the spotlight onto flu vaccines. May I take it you concede the points favouring polio vaccinations then?

In a recent article Peter Doshi, Ph.D reiterated this position. He declared that:
The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated… This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes.[8]
He also stated that public officials only need to claim that the vaccine saves lives and that most people, including doctors, assume there is solid research behind the claim and unfortunately that is not the case.

There are some interesting redactions in that snippet. You'd almost think that mainstream medical opinion had been duped into thinking that flu vaccines were a reliable way to prevent influenza, particularly in old people

My experience is the medical profession is well aware of the inherent limitations of flu vaccines, as well as the nature of the threat the flu virus poses to health - which is a little like the threat posed to earth by asteroids; the vast majority are barely significant but in the past and likely at some point in the future, one comes along that has far reaching consequences.

[pmbguy]

Like the 1918 influenza outbreak which killed more people than the Great war itself