Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross

Better Orgasms. Better World.

 0 items

• Login
• Join

Search this site:

Here is a very impressive www.mercola.com article on two vaccines that were just recently banned by the Japanese government on suspicion of causing five infant deaths within days of each other.

You'll see the CNN video at the start of the page but please do not stop reading there. Don't get lazy and just watch the video. The video shows bias in my opinion.

Much more compelling information is within the body of Mercola's post. He talks about two things, with supporting evidence. First, how there has been a big reluctance to test mortality rates and other medical issues, like autism and others, of vaccinated infants against the rates of occurence in non-vaccinated children. Allegedly it's been difficult to do that on a large enough sampling of people in the developed world. However, studies out of Africa that Mercola mentions are changing all that.

Second, we see blatantly imposed on the reader in this New York Times report on the supreme court's ruling on the immunity from lawsuits of vaccine producers a quote from the writer of the article saying, quite flippantly:

"But the biggest effect of the court’s ruling, lawyers said, will be on
hundreds of pending lawsuits that contend a link exists between
childhood vaccines and autism. Repeated scientific studies have found no
such connection."

No such connection.... Period. End of sentence. No more to discuss along those lines, huh? Whew! Glad we don't have to worry about that anymore, right? Lots of scientific studies show all's well and dandy. Well, Mercola's article and this one I found when doing personal research into the incidence rates of autism in countries outside the United States show otherwise. Incidentally, the report I found is one that is primarily on the corresponding dip in autism rates in Japan when vaccination rates were slowed down during a given period before being brought back up to the levels they were at before. I urge you to also read all of the commenting at the end of that article to see how effectively the posters of that article defend their position from critics' comments. Mercola's article in particular cites:

Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has spoken out about the pervasiveness of scientific bias—and worse. In her book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposes many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted, stating that:

 
Likewise, in an essay published in PLoS Medicine in 2005, Dr. John  Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece,
claims there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true.

Three years later, Dr. Ioannidis again showed that much of scientific research being published is highly questionable. According to his study:

 
He noted problems with experimental and statistical methods as the  main culprits, including factors such as small sample sizes, poor study  design, researcher bias and selective reporting.

Dr. Aaby's review of studies on mortality post-vaccination does not mention whether the source of funding had any impact on the results, but that's a very important consideration as well. Typically, independently funded studies are more  prone to discover potential problems with the drug, while studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry tend to have favorable findings.
 

I once spoke to a doctor friend once, about two years ago before I had as much data on this issue, asking him what he knew about vaccines and autism. He told me he wasn't a researcher, but he did say that the pharma companies had taken the older, time-proven vaccines (the ones I was given as a child) formulated with ingredients proven to be the safest we could produce at the time... off the market. Why? Because the new vaccine updates were cheaper to produce and they found a way to justify charging more for them, both of which leads to more profits. This doctor said his mother, who was also a family physician at the time these changes were made starting in 1988, asked the pharma rep in her office why they were taking vaccines off the market that are proven and replacing them because she was worried about the first thing you have to be concerned about with new vaccines: vaccine safety.

Medical history shows that the biggest problem since day-one with vaccines has always been does it give the person the disease instead of preventing it and then, how catastrophic the side effects are. His mother knew it takes a long time (and/or a lot of money in research funding) to develop an extremely safe vaccine product, so to take ones off the market that were proven after decades of use was frighteningly absurd.

My point in mentioning this is not that I am against vaccines. Vaccines wiped polio and small pox of the face of the earth. The vaccines I had as a little one may have been the reason, along with many others of my peers, for why things like measles didn't kill me too soon. I keep seeing, as is done in the closing words of the CNN video I mentioned, the media using the subtle tactic of saying anyone who questions vaccine makers is a questioner of vaccines. I've got one word for that: Bullshit! Manipulative bullshit. What I am very against is this apparent change of heart towards more profit for big Pharma via accelerated vaccine releases, cheapening of formulations via possibly dangerous new ingredients with mercury in them, and finally vaccines that possibly don't even work as often as they should (I wrote on my HPV vaccine concerns in the past as well) in the companies we have trusted from the beginning to make these vaccines for our children and adults as well.

To say nothing of how children are now subjected to far more vaccinations given in very short periods of time than ever before in medical history. My research indicates that the United States gives the highest number of vaccinations to infants in all the world. Then there's mandatory vaccinations of children or you can't get them into public schools. A friend of mine with a new baby, 17 months old now, was told by his friend, who slowed his child way down on this new vaccination schedule, that his kid won't be able to attend public school without a completed schedule. He had to crash-course his child through it in the end. Will we see an increase in home schooling for those who can afford to do so until this possible crisis is resolved? I'm certainly considering doing so in the event I decide to have children. The next five years will be very interesting to me in autism rates, which according to my research has multiplied to over 2300% from the rates the were in the early 90's. Now, they're seeing autism appearing in age 2 to 22 in higher numbers than what was typically found: 3 to 22. Here's the link to my source for this autism incidence information.

By the way, that article from the New York Times was written prior to the Supreme Court's decision on whether pharma companies would receive immunity to lawsuits from vaccine-related problems. Two days ago, the court handed down its ruling. 6-2 in favor of big pharma getting its immunity. Here's the mercola article that covered the immunity for big Pharma story. A story which I googled to see what news outlets were covering it. I noticed NPR ran it and a bunch of others I'd never heard of. As of two days ago, the day the ruling was given, I didn't see any major news media outlets covering it online in the first two pages of my google search. That was when I found the lone New York Times article I mentioned before. Where's their story on the ruling and big Pharma getting immunity?! Why aren't they covering that?

So, for now, there is zero incentive, besides the goodness in their hearts, for vaccine producers to make a safe product. The two dissenting votes were both from the two women Justices on the court. Now, one could pose a neutral argument that it's the Justices' job to interpret the law, not make it. If you don't like how it is interpreted, change the law. That's how the system works. Well, I hope they change that law as quickly as possible, right guys? So that our babies will have the best possible vaccines now that they're state-mandated to have more vaccines than ever before or they won't be allowed into public or private schooling. Then there's colleges who won't allow you in without your shots even if you do elect home schooling to sidestep this little issue.

My final word, I remember way back there came through the wires on how big Pharma didn't like spending money on vaccine research because, yes, it took time and millions if not more to create a stable, functional vaccines. That was the old model. Now, we have the state mandating more and more vaccines way beyond what I was required to have and have at one time, for children to be allowed into school and universities. That's almost every single child in this country and all those kids in developed countries beyond. New vaccines are being released at heretofor unprecidented rates... and they have immunity from lawsuits. Can you imagine how much money the pharmaceutical companies are making with the new model in place? Seems they found a way to make vaccines profitable after all.

Back to Eric Amaranth's Blog   

Subscribe to Eric's RSS feed [i][/i]

[i]Eric Amaranth's Bio[/i] [i][/i]

[i]Contact Eric for a consultation[/i] [i] [/i]

[i]Follow Eric Amaranth on Twitter [/i]

[i] [/i][i]Join Eric Amaranth's Facebook Page[/i]