The Benefits of Vaccination (with thread drift...)

Coronavirus
265

@tc123
Very interesting and complex question Tom.

I don’t think it is one co-ordinated conspiracy, merely individual people gravitating together for various reasons.
I suspect part of the issue is with increased communication channels, the ease with which people can monetise fame these days has increased. For example YouTubers can make good money, so all someone with a computer needs to do is post something controversial or shocking; then as viewer numbers increase, the YouTuber’s bank account goes up.
(As does G**gle’s revenue because they own YouTube and have no incentive to stop the rubbish being posted). Same applies to other social networks.

I think other more complex areas include the human need for attention in an ever-increasing impersonalised world etc etc.

Thus the need to be wary around the vaccination debate.

1 Like
266

And the treatments debate. Remember Trump’s promotion of hydroxychloroquine (and bleach!)?
On the other hand, it is certainly true that intellectual property law and the profit-seeking of drug companies (and other multinationals) tends to channel research into what can be patented / sold at a profit rather than what might be most useful, and this may have affected the relative neglect to date of some treatments (ivermectin, etc).

The problem is, then, that some ‘conspiracies’ - such as the interaction of legal/financial structures with private interests directing research efforts or other medical behaviours - might actually be real!

2 Likes
267

Yes it was unfortunate that when they did the trial for hydroxychloroquine that the poor souls were administered a lethal dose…way way above the dose that doctors were using to save patients in their own clinical practices…

Let’s hope they don’t do the same with ivermectin…!

1 Like
268

I see that Del Bigtree and ICAN was subject to a hit piece in The Guardian and that he wasn’t available for comment…

Here’s his comment…

“ When someone cannot address the evidence presented against them, the age-old approach is to attack the messenger rather than the substance of their message. By that measure, ICAN is incredibly successful. It has put and brought forth the arguments and evidence for why vaccines, and in particular vaccines given to infants, require far better pre-and-post safety review and oversight before health authorities can claim they are “safe.” Unable to refute these arguments, the resort has been to attack ICAN rather than the arguments and evidence it presents.

Bringing ICAN’s success into sharp focus is an article published today in The Guardian entitled “Anti-vax group mounts legal blitz to sow disinformation against vaccinations.” While this article claims in its title that ICAN is sowing “disinformation against vaccinations,” the article does not include a single example of any disinformation purportedly sowed by ICAN! Not even the few supposed “gotchas” often trotted out about ICAN while the media ignores its large, incredible body of work regarding vaccines, which you can read all about at www.icandecide.org.

A law professor, Dorit Reiss, who is particularly obsessed with ICAN, explains: “If the anti-vax movement is a pyramid scheme, Ican sits at the top.” Well, thanks. Reiss and others need to resort to terms like “disinformation,” “pyramid scheme,” “manipulative,” etc., because they cannot deal with the arguments and evidence presented by ICAN.

It is also deeply ironic that the Guardian article opens by claiming that the “US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has given the go-ahead to employers who want to require vaccines for employees” when this is not accurate as clearly explained in a recent ICAN legal update. The truth does not matter to many for whom supporting vaccines is a belief. Apparently, no amount of evidence will stand in their way of seeking to punish anyone that refuses these products.

In the end, the truth has a stubborn way of sticking and bubbling, especially the harder those in power seek to suppress it through ad hominem attacks. The article is spot-on in stating that “Ican isn’t going away.” That’s right! Everyone should have the right to access a vaccine just as everyone should have the right to decline a vaccine. The freedom and health of every individual is too important and ICAN will never stop fighting to make sure that every person can choose whether or not to get a vaccine, without threats, bullying or intimidation.

1 Like
269

And if anyone is interested in autism then here’s the update and the 196 page lawsuit also linked…

“ ICAN, through its attorneys, has sued HHS for publicly making the unsupported claim that “Vaccines do not cause autism,” in violation of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. ICAN calls out the agency’s illegal behavior and pulls back the curtain on the baseless, oft-repeated claim used to silence parents who know better.

In the past four decades, no claim regarding vaccination has received more attention and publicity than the claim that vaccines cause autism. Likewise, federal health authorities claim to have studied vaccines and autism more thoroughly than any other type of alleged vaccine injury. Federal health authorities assert publicly and matter-of-factly that studies establish that vaccines do not cause autism.

Reflecting this conclusion, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) unequivocally asserts on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”:

1230×560 216 KB

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (the Act), however, mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall … make or assure improvements in … the … research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines” as well as“develop and disseminate vaccine information materials … based on available data and information.”

The Act also provides that “any person may commence … a civil action on such person’s own behalf against the Secretary where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary to perform any act or duty under this part.”

Clearly there is a failure of the Secretary to uphold his duties and so ICAN suedthe Secretary for his failure to perform certain acts and duties pursuant to the Act which have caused direct injuries to ICAN and the Institute for Autism Science. As long as federal health authorities claim is that “the science is settled” with regard to vaccines and autism, there will be no funding for research into this extremely alarming and important issue.

ICAN’s lawsuit lays out for the Court the lack of scientific studies supporting any such assertion that all childhood vaccines do not cause autism through the following relevant history:

  • 1991 : Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) issued a reportexplaining that it could not identify any studies addressing pertussis-containing vaccines and autism.

  • 2012 : IOM issues another report finding only one study that looked at the issue of pertussis-containing vaccines and autism, and that study did find a link between this vaccine and autism. The IOM could also not find any study to support that tetanus or diphtheria vaccines do not cause autism.

  • 2014 : an agency within HHS again found that there are no studies supporting a claim that these three vaccines do not cause autism and the agency was also unable to identify a study to support the assertion that Hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism. Rather, it found only one study regarding Hepatitis B and autism and that study found that babies receiving this vaccine had autism at three times the rate as those not receiving this vaccine.

  • October 12, 2017 : ICAN sent a demand– subscribed to by 55 organizations whose members exceed 5 million Americans – to the Secretary stating that “there are … no published studies showing that autism is not caused by Hepatitis B, Rotavirus, Hib, Pneumococcal, Inactivated Poliovirus, Influenza, … vaccines – all of which HHS recommends babies receive, typically multiple times, by one year of age.” The demand asked the Secretary to “confirm that HHS shall forthwith remove the claim that ‘Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism’ from the CDC website, or alternatively, please identify the specific studies on which HHS bases its blanket claim that no vaccines cause autism.”

  • January 18, 2018 : The Secretary responded but failed to identify any studies that support the assertion that vaccines given to babies do not cause autism. ICAN has sent numerous unrequited follow-up requests to the Secretary asking for this science.

  • June 21, 2019 : ICAN submitted requestspursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requesting that the CDC produce the studies it relies upon to claim that vaccines injected into babies do not cause autism .

  • December 31, 2019 : When the CDC failed to provide any studies responsive to these requests, ICAN commenced an action against the CDC. The action requested that the Court enter an order requiring the CDC to provide the studies it relies upon to claim that the vaccines given during the first year of life do not cause autism or, in the alternative, to admit that it has no such studies.

  • March 2, 2020 : the CDC finally identified, in a stipulated order a total of 16 studies and 4 reviews ( e., a review of studies on a given topic) that it relies on to claim that the vaccines given to babies do not cause autism. Not one of these studies or reviews supports the claim that vaccines injected into babies – DTaP, Hep B, Hib, PCV13, and IPV – do not cause autism.

  • March 10, 2020 : Plaintiffs submitted another FOIA requestfor “All studies supporting the claim that DTaP does not cause autism,” giving yet another chance for the CDC to provide studies to support its public assertion. In this way, the Plaintiffs asked for any studies that support that DTaP does not cause autism regardless of whether or not the CDC relies upon each one.

  • March 23, 2020 : the CDC responded to this FOIA request by pointing to the same unresponsive and inadequate list of twenty studies it had previously pointed to in the stipulation and order of March 2, 2020.

  • March 27, 2020 : ICAN provided the CDC yet another opportunity to provide supportive studies for the claim still being shared with the public by submitting yet another FOIA request, this time for: “Studies created or retained by CDC to support the claim that DTaP does not cause autism.” The CDC again responded by pointing to the same list of twenty studies and reviews, all of which either relate to MMR or thimerosal, a single antigen (not vaccine) study, and one review by the IOM that looked for any support that DTaP does not cause autism and could not find a shred of such evidence.

  • August 27, 2020 : the CDC finally removed the claim that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism” from its webpage:

1400×652 131 KB

  • January 21, 2021 : ICAN widely publicized that the CDC had removed the statement “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism” from its webpage. Within days, the CDC restored this claim to its vaccine-autism page

ICAN, therefore, brought this action to hold the Secretary and the CDC accountable and to hold them to the same standard ICAN is held to: do not make claims that cannot be supported with science. You can read the lawsuit here .

271

There is a really interesting historical document on ICAN’s website showing how with one of the polio vaccines (I forget which one) the infants were only followed up on for 3 days…

Then there’s the controversy surrounding vaccine induced polio and how the exact same symptoms got disguised and renamed…

Prior to the 1986 Act vaccine manufacturers were being sued so heavily for vaccine damages that they said they couldn’t continue to make a profit…The 1986 Act gave them complete immunity from prosecution…

I don’t know about Cholera…is that a core childhood vaccine…???

One of the problems is the sheer number of vaccines that have been added to the vaccine schedule in the first year of life (and then ongoing) with absolutey no incentive or accountability due to the 1986 Act to ensure they are even safe or effective…

It is notoriously difficult for parents of vaccine damaged children to win a court case although the vaccine court has quietly paid out billions …sometimes after years of legal wrangling…

With the experimental “covid 19 vaccines” the situation is even worse…there isn’t even the possibility of compensation for injury…the rising number of victims are completely on their own…

If you ask for the “covid 19 vaccine” inserts they are completely blank…

Homeopathy…do you mean homeopathic nosodes…??? I can’t recall they have ever spoke about it…

(I used the DHLP nosode for my pup…he had to have rabies to get him here…and likewise my old boy never had any vaccines until I had to give him rabies to bring him here…)

272

Tonight’s Highwire featured del’s interview with the inventor of mRNA technology…Dr Robert Malone…

It’s a long show but next week there will be the segments…

273

That sounds rather harsh…

2 Likes
274

No, and cholera changes all the time so the vaccine has to as well.

1 Like
275

“Thanks for the thought” I’m rapidly approaching 60 but once my age range came in to being offered vaccine i accepted and I’ve had my 1st.

I will deem my self old & unfit when I am reliant on others to help or do my chores…including manhandling winter logs and 15kg pellet bags for the burners. Just saying…we are all heading towards infirmity…for me not yet anyway :laughing:

We are fortunate to have moved to France whilst in good health. We enjoyed many years holidaying here too beforehand. Our location is a small village, 1100ish, in the countryside. We have had an easy task to isolate from the hubbub other than the supermarket run. Fortunate in having local shops and weekly market.

Off track a little but once in a while a nerve is pulled…for the most part french & english that I know in my area have preferred the route of vaccination. Looked upon it as a modern add on to MMR, Polio, Tetanus, BCG (the 6 needle circle test, it was a long time ago for me😆) then you have the vaccines accepted, almost without question, to go on holiday to far distant lands, Malaria springs to mind!

So to be offered a vaccine that will offer some protection against the new death threat illness, plus, IMO, it will become a necessity if you want to travel across any border in the future ( I’ve read the variations of travel rules for the vaccinated V non vaccinated and that 2as just between UK & Europe!)

276

I think you may be meaning to answer Helen - I am an active advocate of vaccination and have spent time explaining/promoting/administering vaccines. Although there is prophylaxis there is as yet no vaccine against malaria (which I had in Pakistan and it was no fun even though I got off lightly).

2 Likes
277

Lol…:grinning:

As if…

278

Del’s interview with the inventor of mRNA technology…how it came to be applied to mRNA vaccine technology…

279

I don’t know if your reply was to vero or me as suggested by vero…???

But our age range and above have been pretty fortunate in that for the most part we had childhood vaccines and not much since…(discounting flu vaccines which personally I’ve never had a flu vaccine nor flu)

The childhood vaccine schedule now is relentless…do you not think that aside from the benefit to older people of being able to go on holiday that we should not spare a thought for the children and young people and pregnant women in all of this for whom there is a substantial risk associated with coercing them into taking experimental “vaccines”…???

280

Interesting statistician’s take on the UK finding that now most covid deaths are among the already vaccinated…

281

Robert Malone isn’t the ‘inventor’ of mRNA and what he’s saying has no basis in the evidence we have, according to this article on a reputable French news site https://www.lci.fr/sante/vaccin-contre-le-covid-l-inventeur-de-l-arn-messager-a-t-il-vraiment-reconnu-la-dangerosite-de-cette-technologie-2189832.html

282

I find it very difficult to tell which age range you belong to from your picture Helen.

2 Likes
283

I think you can probably have an educated guess Jane. Helen has grown up children and several grandchildren. I imagine somewhere in her 50’s maybe?
Izzy x

1 Like
284

I went through this on twitter - it’s not that surprising when you consider that those most likely to die remain the elderly and/or those with underlying health conditions and that group is also the most likely to have been vaccinated. It does not mean the vaccine is failing - focus on absolute numbers, not percentages and this becomes clear.

To be fair, even though I have had issue with some of Spiegelhalter’s claims I think the article is trying to explain my point above, just not very well.

1 Like
285

I guess I really should get a move on then if someone in their 50s generally has grown up children and several grandchildren :flushed::see_no_evil::joy:

1 Like