Why CDC whistleblower revelations about vaccines and autism never made headlines, and what that mean

[Jim_Smith]

I was sick for three weeks after I got a polio vaccination. I had severe pain in both my legs and I couldn't walk.

But there is evidence that the vaccine is effective in preventing polio:

Polio's return due to vaccine fears in Nigeria
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15005238/...es/t/rumors-cause-resistance-vaccines-nigeria

updated 9/25/2006 8:42:56 PM ET

...
It's been three years since local politicians began a campaign of fear and rumor, claiming the polio vaccine would sterilize children. Those unfounded fears still persist today, and it's this myth, and others like it, that are largely responsible for the spread of polio into almost two dozen other countries where it was once stamped out.

​

 

[Arouet]

I meant cases - not deaths. Polio burned itself out like every other viral epidemic. Vaccination started at the tail end of its natural decline into non-existence. The infection rate spiked when vaccination campaigns began, but this was partially masked by a new disease name for Polio symptoms. (I forget what it was now.. Looked into all this years ago.)

Here's a link with a graph of incident rates in the US going back to 1937: http://vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005964

There had been a decline in the few years before but at 29,000 in the year the vaccine was introduced I'm not sure how you can call it the tail end.

I seem to recall some graphs that make the point even clearer in regards to other countries, where I don't think there was any marked decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine, then the graph goes steadily down. I'll look for them.

I believe there are similar graphs for measles, and other vaccinated diseases.

 

[Jim_Smith]

I'm willing to consider explanations on both sides but when one side is involved in a cover-up and destroys data, then I become extremely suspicious - they forfeit their credibility. There is a possibility that they are right, but when they act guilty, they create an impression that they are not being honest and people have a reason to mistrust them.

 

[Hurmanetar]

Here's a link with a graph of incident rates in the US going back to 1937: http://vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005964

There had been a decline in the few years before but at 29,000 in the year the vaccine was introduced I'm not sure how you can call it the tail end.

I seem to recall some graphs that make the point even clearer in regards to other countries, where I don't think there was any marked decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine, then the graph goes steadily down. I'll look for them.

I believe there are similar graphs for measles, and other vaccinated diseases.

The graph indicates "the polio vaccine was introduced in 1955". The word "introduced" here is key. America was not universally vaccinated in 1955. It is difficult now to find accurate vaccination rates but they were very low at this time. A trial was performed in 1954. It was declared safe and effective in 1955. Vaccine distribution was spotty. It was halted shortly after it began when a number of vaccinated individuals developed paralysis starting with the vaccinated arm. This scared many away from the vaccine. Vaccination campaigns were pushed locally in few areas, but those areas actually saw spikes in the infection rate immediately after the vaccination campaigns began. Sabin's live polio virus vaccine (which contained the SV-40 cancer causing virus and infected millions) wasn't pushed until after 1960 and once again vaccination rates in America were low. The 1980's saw the first big push for universal vaccination after the disease was already almost non-existent.

Found this:
http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

"In 1977, Jonas Salk, the creator of the polio vaccine, testified before a Senate subcommittee that “all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine.” In 1985, the CDC reported that 87% of the cases of polio in the USA between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine and most of the reported cases occurred in fully immunized individuals."
http://thetruthaboutcancer.com/the-truth-about-vaccinations/

 

[Mazda]

I was listening & remembering about a time when I read the autobiography of Andrew Taylor Still - the founder of osteopathy.
& lo! Jon then mentioned chiropractic treatment (a lesser form of osteopathy imo), so I took it as a sign to post this link for anyone interested.

the autobiography is a free download , quite amusing style of writing. not to mention highly enlightening.
http://osteopathichistory.com/pagesside2/BooksATStill.html#Anchor-Autobiography-47857

' In the year 1874 I proclaimed that a disturbed artery marked the beginning to an hour and a minute
when disease began to sow its seeds of destruction in the human body. That in no case could this be done
without a broken or suspended current of arterial blood, which by nature was intended to supply and
nourish every nerve, ligament, muscle, skin, bone, and the artery itself. He who wished to successfully
solve the problem of disease or deformity of any kind in every case without exception would find one or
more obstructions in some artery, or vein. At an early day this philosophy solved to me the problem of
malignant growths and their removal by a restoration of the normal flow of arterial fluid, which when
secured transfers the blood to the venous circulation for return and renewal after the process of
renovation is completed by the lungs, excretories, and the porus system. Fever, flux, headache, heart and
lung troubles, measles, mumps, and whooping-cough, and every disease met and treated since that time,
have proven to my mind that there is no exception to this law. The rule of the artery is absolute,
universal, and it must be unobstructed, or disease will result. '

my summation of the much misunderstood Osteopathic treatment :
The manipulation of the bones is in essence to relieve pressure on the nerves which supply life force to all the organs,
restoring balance & normality to their function - thus health returns.

Chiropractors crack your bones, Osteopaths at least massage the areas first. However A T Still was against this ,
his was always a gentle treatment . Pointing out that you can crack your knuckles easily enough without really doing much else.
( if I remember the book correctly , was a while ago I read it)

 

[fls]

I meant cases - not deaths. Polio burned itself out like every other viral epidemic. Vaccination started at the tail end of its natural decline into non-existence. The infection rate spiked when vaccination campaigns began, but this was partially masked by a new disease name for Polio symptoms. (I forget what it was now.. Looked into all this years ago.)

That would fit with a parapsychology idea we've discussed here before called Decision Augmentation Theory (DAT), which basically postulates that rather than disturbing subsequent events (i.e. a force-like influence), psi enables us to use anomalous information to fortuitously associate ourselves with events which happen to be going the right direction. That is, regardless of whether or not a vaccine was introduced, we would have seen a spontaneous and permanent drop in polio cases from tens of thousands to zero (i.e. it burned itself out like smallpox, measles, diphtheria, etc.). And that the outbreak in 1979 would have occurred amongst the unvaccinated groups regardless of whether or not they were unvaccinated. DAT allowed both the polio researchers and public health care workers to fortuitously select exactly when to introduce the vaccine (imagine how poor it would have looked based on the first graph in Arouet's link to introduce the vaccine just a year or two earlier or a year or two later), and it allowed the selection of which groups of children should remain unvaccinated, so that when they later acquired polio during an outbreak in 1979, it would look like their unvaccinated status was the cause.

http://lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/datjp.pdf
http://vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005964

Linda

 

[Hurmanetar]

That would fit with a parapsychology idea we've discussed here before called Decision Augmentation Theory (DAT), which basically postulates that rather than disturbing subsequent events (i.e. a force-like influence), psi enables us to use anomalous information to fortuitously associate ourselves with events which happen to be going the right direction. That is, regardless of whether or not a vaccine was introduced, we would have seen a spontaneous and permanent drop in polio cases from tens of thousands to zero (i.e. it burned itself out like smallpox, measles, diphtheria, etc.). And that the outbreak in 1979 would have occurred amongst the unvaccinated groups regardless of whether or not they were unvaccinated. DAT allowed both the polio researchers and public health care workers to fortuitously select exactly when to introduce the vaccine (imagine how poor it would have looked based on the first graph in Arouet's link to introduce the vaccine just a year or two earlier or a year or two later), and it allowed the selection of which groups of children should remain unvaccinated, so that when they later acquired polio during an outbreak in 1979, it would look like their unvaccinated status was the cause.

http://lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/datjp.pdf
http://vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005964

Linda

This would fit with an idea much discussed here before called: Linda is full of it.

 

[Vortex]

I'm openly scared about the explicit anti-free-speech turn of our epoch. Google's censorship of vaccine critics is ugly enough; but this is only a part of a general recent tendency to supress contrarian views in all areas. The UK has moved especially far in this direction (and a dangerous direction it is, I would say). For example, look at this piece of news about so-called "Extremism Disruption Diorders", which will provide authorities with an arbitrary, extra-judicial tool to eliminate heretical views and prosecute the thought-criminals who dare to hold them.

There are people who actively oppose this crazy initiative, of course, but I have some disturbing doubts both about the efficiacy of their protest and the particular forms of free speech which they will try to defend. Would fringe science and alternative medicine (or, for much uninformed folk, "pseudo-science" and "quackery") be viewed as worth protecting by them?

Anyway, the current situation of the British free-thinkers appears to be nearly as desperate as the one of Russian dissidents... :(

 

[Vortex]

Gradual elimination of the free speech is terrible enough, but it is not the limit of what our "benevolent" authorities are willing to perform "for our own good". Look at this...

And such projects are proposed by the very people are constantly moans about the terrible "radicalisation" of our society... After learning about such "advances" in annihilating the already vanishingly small leftovers of our privacy and liberty, I'm quite surprised that most of the people are not "radicalised" already, and are not protesting massively against this actual fulfillment of the worst dystopian fiction! :mad:

 

[Reece]

In Northern Nigeria, Islamic leaders claim a United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) polio immunisation campaign is part of a United States plot to depopulate the region by spreading AIDS or sterilising agents as the Northern states say their own lab tests show contaminants in the vaccine. In order to prove the vaccine is safe, the United States government sends a team of scientists, religious leaders and others abroad to witness tests on the vaccine in foreign labs, however once the tests are completed they refuse to release the results.

 

[Vault313]

Controversy doesn't allow for a clear cut answer, which is what most of us really want. Instead it generates more doubts... as with the case of vaccine safety: life is already darn complicated and we'd like a simple Yes or No, Black or White solution instead of more uncertainties.

Problem is, some topics need decades of research and vigorous discussions to reach a consensus, and often times consesus is reached and then overturned again in light of new discoveries... Unfortunately we're not well suited to deal with the staggering complexity of the world around us... and that's why Zen was invented, isn't it? :D

All of that is exactly why one of the few beliefs I do hold is that truth is relative. I'm not sure there is really any such thing as absolute truth. Life is nothing but potentialities. Pure, raw potential. Truth has no place in the potential. It's all perspective based. There is no one true reality. There is only reality as perceived from a given perspective. I'm reasonably convinced that this is all there is, and this is why nothing ever stays the same, why nothing is ever true forever. All we can ever have is the truth of the moment.

 

[Hurmanetar]

My girlfriend works at a hospital where they are trying to force everyone to take the Flu vaccine. They have a religious exemption form, so we are using our house church as our religious organization and either myself or another attending member will sign it.

We have always informally referred to our group as "church" or "Dave's house", but since we had to come up with a formal name we did so which I'll keep secret, but among some of the top contenders were:
Last Baptist
Assembly of Laputa
Good Gnosis
Trifecta Elders Council
and
Church of the Holy Logos, Abyss, and Spirit

Here is the tentative description of religious doctrine that is contrary to vaccinations:
The body is sacred. It is the "temple of God" (1 Cor. 6:19). Individual free choice and complete sovereignty over the individual's body is a sacred natural right. Actions performed upon an individual's body without his or her full consent are violations of that right. Every individual has the right to refuse any and all actions on his or her body for any personal and private reason - especially actions which could be harmful - including medications, medical procedures, and injections. Surrendering this right is unconscionable and endangers the long-term survival of individual human liberty and dignity. Every individual has the right to assess risks vs. benefits of medical procedures and make decisions regarding best course of action for his or her own health and well-being. An individual should not suffer negative professional repercussions for personal health decisions or be coerced to act against conscience.

Thoughts?

 

[Alex]

My girlfriend works at a hospital where they are trying to force everyone to take the Flu vaccine. They have a religious exemption form, so we are forming our own church and either myself or a friend will sign it.

I think we have arrived at a church name which I'll keep secret, but among some of the top contenders were:
Last Baptist
Assembly of Laputa
Good Gnosis
Trifecta Elders Council
and
Church of the Holy Logos, Abyss, and Spirit

Here is the tentative description of religious doctrine that is contrary to vaccinations:
The body is sacred. It is the "temple of God" (1 Cor. 6:19). Individual free choice and complete sovereignty over the individual's body is a sacred natural right. Actions performed upon an individual's body without his or her full consent are violations of that right. Every individual has the right to refuse any and all actions on his or her body for any personal and private reason - especially actions which could be harmful - including medications, medical procedures, and injections. Surrendering this right is unconscionable and endangers the long-term survival of individual human liberty and dignity. Every individual has the right to assess risks vs. benefits of medical procedures and make decisions regarding best course of action for his or her own health and well-being. An individual should not suffer negative professional repercussions for personal health decisions or be coerced to act against conscience.

Thoughts?

nice :)

 

[David Bailey]

My girlfriend works at a hospital where they are trying to force everyone to take the Flu vaccine. They have a religious exemption form, so we are forming our own church and either myself or a friend will sign it.

I think we have arrived at a church name which I'll keep secret, but among some of the top contenders were:
Last Baptist
Assembly of Laputa
Good Gnosis
Trifecta Elders Council
and
Church of the Holy Logos, Abyss, and Spirit

Here is the tentative description of religious doctrine that is contrary to vaccinations:
The body is sacred. It is the "temple of God" (1 Cor. 6:19). Individual free choice and complete sovereignty over the individual's body is a sacred natural right. Actions performed upon an individual's body without his or her full consent are violations of that right. Every individual has the right to refuse any and all actions on his or her body for any personal and private reason - especially actions which could be harmful - including medications, medical procedures, and injections. Surrendering this right is unconscionable and endangers the long-term survival of individual human liberty and dignity. Every individual has the right to assess risks vs. benefits of medical procedures and make decisions regarding best course of action for his or her own health and well-being. An individual should not suffer negative professional repercussions for personal health decisions or be coerced to act against conscience.

Thoughts?

Why not have joined the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

David

 

[Hurmanetar]

My girlfriend works at a hospital where they are trying to force everyone to take the Flu vaccine. They have a religious exemption form, so we are forming our own church and either myself or a friend will sign it.

I think we have arrived at a church name which I'll keep secret, but among some of the top contenders were:
Last Baptist
Assembly of Laputa
Good Gnosis
Trifecta Elders Council
and
Church of the Holy Logos, Abyss, and Spirit

Here is the tentative description of religious doctrine that is contrary to vaccinations:
The body is sacred. It is the "temple of God" (1 Cor. 6:19). Individual free choice and complete sovereignty over the individual's body is a sacred natural right. Actions performed upon an individual's body without his or her full consent are violations of that right. Every individual has the right to refuse any and all actions on his or her body for any personal and private reason - especially actions which could be harmful - including medications, medical procedures, and injections. Surrendering this right is unconscionable and endangers the long-term survival of individual human liberty and dignity. Every individual has the right to assess risks vs. benefits of medical procedures and make decisions regarding best course of action for his or her own health and well-being. An individual should not suffer negative professional repercussions for personal health decisions or be coerced to act against conscience.

Thoughts?

It now seems that the little tyrants in the hospital are going to force those who don't get the flu vaccine to wear masks whenever inside the building for the next 6 months... even at their desks in the IT department... Last year, the only guy in the office who missed work for being sick was the one guy who got the flu vaccine. ...of course he may have been faking it in order to binge on a newly released video game.

 

[Arouet]

It now seems that the little tyrants in the hospital are going to force those who don't get the flu vaccine to wear masks whenever inside the building for the next 6 months... even at their desks in the IT department... Last year, the only guy in the office who missed work for being sick was the one guy who got the flu vaccine. ...of course he may have been faking it in order to binge on a newly released video game.

The concern about the flu in hospitals is not about the safety of hospital staff. Well, not that that's not important, but I think the bigger concern is that there are more people in a hospital who if they catch the flu are particular at risk for having a severe reaction than you would find in your average office building.

 

[Hurmanetar]

The concern about the flu in hospitals is not about the safety of hospital staff. Well, not that that's not important, but I think the bigger concern is that there are more people in a hospital who if they catch the flu are particular at risk for having a severe reaction than you would find in your average office building.

I completely understand the concern. If I were running the hospital and I believed that the flu vaccine was safe and effective, I would probably request employees to be vaccinated for that reason, but I would never require it because that is a violation of people's individual rights.

 

[David Bailey]

The concern about the flu in hospitals is not about the safety of hospital staff. Well, not that that's not important, but I think the bigger concern is that there are more people in a hospital who if they catch the flu are particular at risk for having a severe reaction than you would find in your average office building.

Even though I am very cautious about modern medicine after my brush with statins, I had the flu jab again this year. I haven't had flu since 2003 - which prompted me to try the jab again, and I haven't had and nasty effects from the flu jab since 1975 (when it was a very different product) so it probably is worth it.

To be fair to the hospital, one nurse coming down with flu could infect a lot of very sick patients.

David

 

[Hurmanetar]

To be fair to the hospital, one nurse coming down with flu could infect a lot of very sick patients.

I understand that. It is within reason for a hospital to mitigate risk by mandating policies like hand washing or wearing masks etc... but it is a violation of natural rights to mandate ingesting something or injecting foreign material into the body. We have to maintain the right and authority to decide what we allow into our bodies.

 

[Arouet]

I understand that. It is within reason for a hospital to mitigate risk by mandating policies like hand washing or wearing masks etc... but it is a violation of natural rights to mandate ingesting something or injecting foreign material into the body. We have to maintain the right and authority to decide what we allow into our bodies.

That is an interesting question from the human rights perspective in the legal sense. I haven't followed this issue closely enough to know if there has been legal challenge on that basis.