A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Severe or classical autism is exceedingly rare in all populations. The scary numbers like 1 in 88 is for the whole spectrum, including those who most people wouldn't, or couldn't even identify as impaired. You've probably met at least 1 or 2 people on the autistic spectrum, and may not have even known it.

Bottom line: If all of these adjuvants which are put in vaccines and are way above the toxic limit set by the EPA, I will choose my right as a parent not to inject my children with these vaccines, and I have every right to do what I feel is best, not government. I believe they are basing their statistics on children who have severe or noticeable autistic symptoms, but not sure about that. Even if the statistics include those with milder symptoms, and even if it reduces the percentage of children that have severe autism to a smaller population, if these metals have anything to do with brain development and, as a result, children are not able to fulfill their God given potential, I would not want to take the risk under any condition.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you are wrong that a parent has to wait for science to find out the exact cause of a child's catastrophic reaction. It could take years.

I didn't say that...this is a strawman. What I said was that concluding that vaccines are causal (of whatever you are talking about but won't specificy) due to the sequence of events is fallacious reasoning. post hoc ergo propter hoc, remember? It leads to possible correlation/causation errors.

They have to act on their parental intuition which turns out to be right in all of these cases.

Well that's quite an assertion you cannot support! You have yet to even define these chronic conditions and catastrophic reactions you keep referring to....despite repeated attempts to pin it down.

That's weaseling. You are weaseling right now.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe they are basing their statistics on children who have severe or noticeable autistic symptoms, but not sure about that. Even if the statistics include those with milder symptoms, and even if it reduces the percentage of children that have severe autism to a smaller population

LOL, watch the goalposts fly!

You used the big scary numbers about autism, which include the whole spectrum-which has been explained to you in many posts and many different ways*-, to make your point about catastrophic reactions, then say no, you only meant the tiny percentage of people that have severe autism.

Weasel.

*Expanded diagnostic parameters is the most likely posited reason for the seemingly drastically rising numbers of cases

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bottom line: If all of these adjuvants which are put in vaccines and are way above the toxic limit set by the EPA, I will choose my right as a parent not to inject my children with these vaccines, and I have every right to do what I feel is best, not government.

as a result, children are not able to fulfill their God given potential, I would not want to take the risk under any condition.

Absolutely right, it is way better to not vaccinate the child and let them die from one of these vaccine preventable diseases. That way they can 'fulfill their God given potential' and go straight to heaven and be with God.

[LadyShea]

If all of these adjuvants which are put in vaccines and are way above the toxic limit set by the EPA

WTF are you talking about now?

ETA: Found where you got that. So let's check the math. I am not good at conversions, so I ask others to look at it.

We are trying to find out the parts per billion of X in solution Y

X=12.5 micrograms
Y= 0.5 milliliters

Keep in mind that ethylmercury (in Thimerosal) is not known to bioaccumulate and EPA warnings are for methylmercury. They are not the same thing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I got ill no doctor could pinpoint what was wrong. I lucked out by talking to a pharmacist who changed his profession and used his frustration to open up a health clinic. His associate turned me on to a holistic doctor who ordered the right tests. These tests were not normally ordered because endocrine problems are not the first thing doctors think of in the allopathic field. Now these tests are much more commonplace but you still have to ask for them if you go to a doctor that deals with disease management.

You just illustrated my point exactly, the doctor you were going to couldn't diagnose it, and you, the patient, had no idea what was wrong, but it was a medical professional who happened to deal with your kind of problems that identified the problem.

I had a similar experience with pain in my feet. The first doctor thought it was a 'skin infection' and put me on antibiotics. Since it was my feet, the second time I went to a podiatrist who correctly identified the problem, and I, the patient, had no idea what the problem was even though I knew exactly what the symptoms were.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what they say, but studies have shown that these diseases were getting milder before mass vaccinations became the order of the day.

Diseases don't become milder, medical treatment gets better over time and can mitigate the effects of the disease. Your statistics are misleading, probably biased.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say that...this is a strawman. What I said was that concluding that vaccines are causal (of whatever you are talking about but won't specificy) due to the sequence of events is fallacious reasoning. post hoc ergo propter hoc, remember? It leads to possible correlation/causation errors.

Well that's quite an assertion you cannot support! You have yet to even define these chronic conditions and catastrophic reactions you keep referring to....despite repeated attempts to pin it down.

That's weaseling. You are weaseling right now.

No I am not weaseling. Follow your own reasoning LadyShea. If something follows something else in close proximity where there is a catastrophic change in behavior, you would take this finding very very seriously if you were a parent, and demand answers. The vaccine causing the reaction is as close to being 100% as anyone can get, but there is always that infinitesimal possibility that it didn't come from the vaccine. So that's what you're bets are based on? For government to ignore this and to tell the parent that more studies need to be done, or to even insinuate that it could be some other cause, is unconscionable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Diseases don't become milder, medical treatment gets better over time and can mitigate the effects of the disease. Your statistics are misleading, probably biased.

You are making assertions thedoc. You've been brainwashed just like the rest of society. I have offered more in the way of statistical reports that show disease not only is not what it use to be, but that there is no proof that these diseases will become pandemics if we stop vaccinating.

DoctorYourself.com - Vaccinations

[Vivisectus]

No I am not weaseling. Follow your own reasoning LadyShea and be smart about it. If something follows something else in close proximity where there is a catastrophic change in behavior, you would take this finding very very seriously if you were a parent, and demand answers. The vaccine causing the reaction is as close to being 100% as anyone can get, but there is always that infinitesimal possibility that it didn't come from the vaccine. So that's what you're bets are based on? For government to ignore this and to tell the parent that more studies need to be done, or to even insinuate that it could be some other cause, is unconscionable.

That some interesting logic right there

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, watch the goalposts fly!

You used the big scary numbers about autism, which include the whole spectrum-which has been explained to you in many posts and many different ways*-, to make your point about catastrophic reactions, then say no, you only meant the tiny percentage of people that have severe autism.

Weasel.

*Expanded diagnostic parameters is the most likely posited reason for the seemingly drastically rising numbers of cases

That may be ture, therefore you cannot use these increasing numbers (based on expanded diagnostic parameters) as conclusive proof that the removal of thimerosal had no beneficial effect.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, appeal to future consequences.

What does it matter if I am appealing to future consequences? If there is a possibility that future studies confirm that there is a link between the present vaccine schedule and the alarming number of chronically ill children, it may change the way we think about vaccines. You seem to think that appealing to future consequences is not something that we should consider, but when we don't have the answer it is imperative that we consider that future consequences might give us information that heretofore was unknown. If we didn't appeal to future consequences, our choices in the here and now may be premature at best.

http://www.mygen.com/CDC_Mandatory_V...mparison_a.jpg

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Citations?

There aren't many citations because there haven't been many studies. Why is that?

The Amish are a diverse sect with a number of subgroups. No one, including Dan Olmsted, ever claimed that the Amish never vaccinate, but as Mnookin himself admitted, they're not hauling their children in every couple of months for multiple vaccinations at once like parents in the general population are mandated to do. We also don't hear reports that almost two percent of Amish boys have autism.

The blog Left Brain/Right Brain just ran the piece, Underimmunization in Ohio's Amish: Parental Fears Are a Greater Obstacle Than Access to Care (HERE) , and just like Mnookin, the story proves nothing. LBRB said that while the Amish are "under-vaccinated," they do vaccinate. And, we were told, they do have autism.

"Preliminary data have identified the presence of ASD in the Amish community at a rate of approximately 1 in 271 children using standard ASD screening and diagnostic tools although some modifications may be in order."

So it seems that LBRB confirmed the hypothesis that if a group of children is under-vaccinated, their autism rate would be significantly less than the massively vaxed general population.

All this is just another red herring designed to avoid doing the one critical study to end all studies. Why isn't Mnookin, in all his media interviews, demanding an independent comparison of fully-vaccinated and never-vaccinated kids. Forget the Amish question. Show us a one percent rate of autism among these children. Show us thousands of never-vaccinated kids with the undeniable signs of classic autism. More and more parents in the general population are exempting their children, so the study group is out there. There is no excuse for not seizing the opportunity.

Not only has no one ever done this research, officials have done everything to avoid doing it. It is however, the only way this issue will ever be finally settled.

Amish & Autism - AGE OF AUTISM

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What we can say is that we currently see no reason to believe they are unsafe if we test these vaccines properly, and that while we have seen a level of adverse reactions, it is a very low one, as opposed to the much greater risk of the diseases they seek to avoid. Which have not become more "mild" at all: that is a rather idiotic claim to make. We still see 1 or 2 deaths and a handful of permanent injuries per 1000 measles cases, even in countries with excellent medical services like the Netherlands.

There is a lot of conflicting information out there. To claim that the level of adverse reactions is low as opposed to the disease they seek to avoid without proof is not being very scientific Vivisectus. This happens to be the very thing the anti-vaxers are setting out to disprove.

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-New...-It-Mean-.aspx

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is just a case of ambiguity bias: people tend to prefer known risks (such as preventable diseases) to unknown ones, even if the unknown risk is smaller than the known one.

How do you know the unknown risks are smaller than the known ones, if you don't know what the unknown risks are?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But this message is having a tough time coming across, as people prefer simple emotive stories to rather dry, technical and complicated ones that explain why the reality is sometimes counter-intuitive. People tend to reject what they do not understand, and most people know shockingly little about how their own bodies operate.

Oh really? Then you are putting thousands of doctors, clinicians, toxicologists, immunologists, who are concerned about vaccines into the same category.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As a result, the emotive anecdotal stories, the plain old erroneous information and the naturalistic fallacy-driven explanations spread - they require no real understanding, so they do not have the same competence-threshold. The debunkings do not, as they require a certain level of knowledge.

How can you judge the accurate testimony given by a mother who now has a brain damaged child after receiving a vaccine as being erroneous just because it was emotional?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Combine all this with a healthy dose of confirmation bias, and you get the anti-vax movement. I find it fascinating: it is like a massive natural experiment into how people process and retain information.

Where is there confirmation bias without supporting evidence?

Vaccines are widely recognized as one of the greatest public health successes of the last century, significantly reducing morbidity and mortality from a variety of bacteria and viruses. Diseases that were once the cause of many outbreaks, common causes of loss of health and life, are now rarely
seen, because they have been prevented by vaccines. However, vaccines can in rare cases themselves cause illness. A rare potential for harm can loom large when people no longer experience or fear the targeted disease. In this regard, the public opinion of vaccines can be a victim of their success. The
Institute of Medicine (IOM) was charged by Congress when it enacted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986 with reviewing the literature regarding the adverse events associated with vaccines covered by the program, a charge which the IOM has addressed 11 times in the past 25
years. Following in this tradition, the task of this Committee was to assess dispassionately the scientific evidence about whether eight different vaccines cause adverse events (AE), a total of 158 vaccine-AE pairs, the largest study undertaken to date, and the first comprehensive review since
1994.

http://naturalnews.com/files/Adverse...-Causality.pdf

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sadly, there is evidence that vaccine paranoia is now being exported to developing countries. We will have to see what the effects are going to be there. Without the medical infrastructure - let us face it, without the evidence-based medicine that anti-vaxers in developed countries reject on the one hand, but fall back on when they develop the illnesses vaccines are supposed to prevent and then use the outcome as "evidence" that the diseases are "milder", the results could be rather ugly.

Your entire post is fallacious because there are many studies that do confirm what the anti-vaxers are claiming. You obviously didn't look at the link to the graph I posted that showed different countries are not the same. If a country is more prone to a disease, then for those people a specific vaccine may be warranted. But why should we give a malaria vaccine to an infant who does not live in a malaria infested country? We're not even close to comparing apples to apples.

Here are some official statistics.

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordp...statistics.pdf

[peacegirl]

Get your keenex out!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...type=2&theater

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1161738]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What we can say is that we currently see no reason to believe they are unsafe if we test these vaccines properly, and that while we have seen a level of adverse reactions, it is a very low one, as opposed to the much greater risk of the diseases they seek to avoid. Which have not become more "mild" at all: that is a rather idiotic claim to make. We still see 1 or 2 deaths and a handful of permanent injuries per 1000 measles cases, even in countries with excellent medical services like the Netherlands.

There is a lot of conflicting information out there. To claim that the level of adverse reactions is low as opposed to the disease they seek to avoid without proof is not being very scientific Vivisectus. This happens to be the very thing the anti-vaxers are setting out to disprove.

There is not a lot of reliable conflicting information.

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-New...-It-Mean-.aspx

How do you know the unknown risks are smaller than the known ones, if you don't know what the unknown risks are?

We know it is smaller than the risks posed by the measles alone, for starters.

Oh really? Then you are putting thousands of doctors, clinicians, toxicologists, immunologists, who are concerned about vaccines into the same category.

*sigh* they are a tiny, TINY minority. I doubt there even are more than one thousand.

How can you judge the accurate testimony given by a mother who now has a brain damaged child after receiving a vaccine as being erroneous just because it was emotional?

You prove my point most elegantly by labelling the testimony "accurate" a priori: people who like anti-vax scaremongering have a tednency to not very good at understanding rational arguments, but like simple emotive stories better. You yourself are one of the finest examples I know of this.

Where is there confirmation bias without supporting evidence?

You fail to understand the point again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sadly, there is evidence that vaccine paranoia is now being exported to developing countries. We will have to see what the effects are going to be there. Without the medical infrastructure - let us face it, without the evidence-based medicine that anti-vaxers in developed countries reject on the one hand, but fall back on when they develop the illnesses vaccines are supposed to prevent and then use the outcome as "evidence" that the diseases are "milder", the results could be rather ugly.

Your entire post is fallacious because there are many studies that do confirm what the anti-vaxers are claiming. You obviously didn't look at the link to the graph I posted that showed different countries are not the same. If a country is more prone to a disease, then for those people a specific vaccine may be warranted. But why should we give a malaria vaccine to an infant who does not live in a malaria infested country? We're not even close to comparing apples to apples.


Here are some official statistics.

No, there are not. There is a lot of junk science out there that makes those claims: so far not a single one of your examples has stood up. That does not seem to change your mind in the slightest.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making assertions thedoc. You've been brainwashed just like the rest of society. I have offered more in the way of statistical reports that show disease not only is not what it use to be, but that there is no proof that these diseases will become pandemics if we stop vaccinating.

DoctorYourself.com - Vaccinations

Interesting article, Thankyou, I noticed the writer finished using Tetanus cases during the civil war as an example. The unfortunate fact is that after contracting the disease there is an incubation period that could be from a week to months. It is very likely that a soldier could contract the disease and then die before the illness presented as symptoms. This is very likely why the occurrence of Tetanus was so low. A solder goes into action, contracts tetanus, and is killed before the disease develops.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF are you talking about now?

ETA: Found where you got that. So let's check the math. I am not good at conversions, so I ask others to look at it.

We are trying to find out the parts per billion of X in solution Y

X=12.5 micrograms
Y= 0.5 milliliters

Keep in mind that ethylmercury (in Thimerosal) is not known to bioaccumulate and EPA warnings are for methylmercury. They are not the same thing.

Activist Post: Flu Shots Contain More than 250 Times the EPA’s Safety Limit for Mercury
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people, including many physicians, believe and will tell you “There is no mercury in vaccines anymore. They took that out years ago!” This is not true. (For a list of vaccines that still contain mercury above EPA safety levels click here.)

Many people, including physicians, will tell you “There is no thimerosal in the childhood vaccine schedule.” This statement, which is also not true, is often used by those who are attempting to make the claim that there is no link between autism and vaccines. These folks will frequently say things like, “They removed mercury from the shots and the autism rate has continued to go up! That proves vaccines don’t cause autism!”

Ummm….. No. and No.

At almost the exact same time they took a large percentage of mercury out of what was then the childhood schedule, the CDC and ACIP made a new recommendation. The vaccine-pushers recommended every pregnant woman receive a flu shot during the second trimester. In addition, the recommendation was made that every child receive annual flu vaccines, beginning at six months of age.

Flu vaccines often contain high levels of thimerosal, which is 50% mercury. Those pregnant mothers and infants who are most likely to get the flu vaccines with mercury are those who are the least likely to have adequate health care. Physicians in private practices generally use single-dose vials. It’s the multi-dose vials that contain thimerosal: 25 mcg. for the adult dose and 12.5 mcg. for the pediatric dose. That means when a pregnant woman gets a flu shot from her local health department, Walmart, CVS, University Health Center, etc… her tiny fetus is being injected with levels of toxic mercury that are hundreds of times above the “safe limit” (as defined by the EPA).

That means when a pregnant woman gets a flu shot from her local health department, Walmart, CVS, University Health Center, etc… her tiny fetus is being injected with levels of toxic mercury that are hundreds of times above the “safe limit” (as defined by the EPA).

If the fetus survives and if he/she is vaccinated again at six months, 18 months and every year after that, and if those vaccines are administered from multi-dose vials, he or she is getting a whopping dose of mercury every year.

Myth dispelled. There is still mercury in the vaccines given to infants and children. They just changed the schedule and adjusted the dose so that now, infants are getting their doses of mercury at a much earlier stage of neurological development, and when their body weight is significantly lower, which makes the dose per pound much higher.

A lot of discussion has been had about the link between autism and mercury. I sometimes wonder if the reason mercury continues to remain in the forefront of the argument is because those who want us to believe vaccines are safe want it that way. If we make it all about mercury, then nobody questions the other ingredients in vaccines. This is why, I believe, many people are just now beginning to consider whether or not all the aluminum in vaccines may be a problem.

When people like me point out that aluminum is a neurotoxin and exhibits many of the exact same effects on the brain as mercury, people who are “pro-vaccine” often get very upset. They are known to spout, “Oh, Right! You complained about mercury and they took mercury out. The autism rate has continued to climb, so now you start complaining about aluminum!”

This is usually followed by, “You’re moving the goalpost.” I think this statement is meant to say, “You will never be satisfied. People like you are always going to find problems no matter what they (we) do.” I think this is also an intentional attempt to discredit people “like me” who DO want to know if the things being injected into the bodies of infants and children are safe. I don’t think that’s “moving the goalpost,” I think that’s just common sense.

I would think medical professionals, especially pediatricians who profess to want only the best for their young patients, would also want to know if vaccine ingredients are safe. Is that too much to ask?

Aluminum in vaccines is dangerous. Aluminum in vaccines damages not only the neurological system, it also damages the immune system and is a major contributor to the huge increase in autoimmune disease in children.

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/aluminum...er-on-the-vic/

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Activist Post: Flu Shots Contain More than 250 Times the EPA’s Safety Limit for Mercury

What steps have you taken to verify the information in the link you just posted?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is not a lot of reliable conflicting information.

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-New...-It-Mean-.aspx

There is a lot of reliable information, but you, in your pro-vaccine bubble won't hear any of it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is just a case of ambiguity bias: people tend to prefer known risks (such as preventable diseases) to unknown ones, even if the unknown risk is smaller than the known one.

How do you know the unknown risks are smaller than the known ones, if you don't know what the unknown risks are?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We know it is smaller than the risks posed by the measles alone, for starters.

Who is we? And how do you know the unknown risks are smaller than the risks posed by measles when you don't know the extent of the problem?

Oh really? Then you are putting thousands of doctors, clinicians, toxicologists, immunologists, who are concerned about vaccines into the same category.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

*sigh* they are a tiny, TINY minority. I doubt there even are more than one thousand.

Um, I don't think so. There is a growing number of clinicians, researchers, immunologists and toxicologists who are angered by the complacency exhibited by the medical profession on the issue of vaccine safety.

You keep going back to her testimony as being emotive, as if her emotions make her testimony irrational and her observations unsound. Sorry, it doesn't fly Vivisectus.

You fail to understand the point again.

I do understand the point. You are accusing anti-vaxers of seeing what they want to see and confirming the evidence on those grounds.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sadly, there is evidence that vaccine paranoia is now being exported to developing countries. We will have to see what the effects are going to be there. Without the medical infrastructure - let us face it, without the evidence-based medicine that anti-vaxers in developed countries reject on the one hand, but fall back on when they develop the illnesses vaccines are supposed to prevent and then use the outcome as "evidence" that the diseases are "milder", the results could be rather ugly.

Your entire post is fallacious because there are many studies that do confirm what the anti-vaxers are claiming. You obviously didn't look at the link to the graph I posted that showed different countries are not the same. If a country is more prone to a disease, then for those people a specific vaccine may be warranted. But why should we give a malaria vaccine to an infant who does not live in a malaria infested country? We're not even close to comparing apples to apples.


Here are some official statistics.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, there are not. There is a lot of junk science out there that makes those claims: so far not a single one of your examples has stood up. That does not seem to change your mind in the slightest.

Why should I change my mind in the slightest when I don't think you're right in the slightest. And this is not junk science just because you want it to be seen in that way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What steps have you taken to verify the information in the link you just posted?

I could delve into this further and further but I believe their numbers are close enough that I feel confident posting the article. If this website was completely inaccurate in their reporting, it would be a major mark against them. They could possibly lose their reputation as being honest journalists. If it bothers you, why don't you check out their sources and get back to me.

Thimerosal is a widely used vaccine preservative that is present in the majority of flu shots and other vaccines. Thimerosal is 49% mercury by volume, an extremely toxic chemical element that wreaks havoc on the nervous system, neurological function, and overall biological function [1]. Each dose of flu vaccine contains around 25 micrograms of thimerosal, over 250 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit of exposure.

Mercury, a neurotoxin, is especially damaging to undeveloped brains. Considering that 25 micrograms of mercury is considered unsafe by the EPA for any human under 550 pounds, the devastating health effects of mercury on a developing fetus are truly concerning.

Activist Post: Flu Shots Contain More than 250 Times the EPA’s Safety Limit for Mercury

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could delve into this further and further but I believe their numbers are close enough that I feel confident posting the article. If this website was completely inaccurate in their reporting, it would be a major mark against them. They could possibly lose their reputation as being honest journalists. If it bothers you, why don't you check out their sources and get back to me.

So no steps at all then? You have in fact done nothing at all to verify this information?

Why then did you lie to us? Here's the lie:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am making an effort to verify these studies for accuracy...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So no steps at all then? You have in fact done nothing at all to verify this information?

Why then did you lie to us?

I read the report and I trust where the report came from. The EPA standard of what is considered toxic can't be that difficult to find. Why would they lie about something like that? I'm sorry but I cannot spend all day checking up on every single article to make sure they're telling the truth. I agree with what this person had to say:

Hello, everyone. I'm new here.

This subject caught my eye because, hence my name, I've got two babies, a 2-year-old boy and a 4-month-old girl, and the doctors and general public in my small Kentucky hometown act like we're the only idiots in the world who wouldn't dare shoot their little ones up with this crap. Doctors have threatened me, and some people won't even let their kids play with mine because they're afraid their kids will "catch something", which is funny because my boy has only been sick with a minor illness twice in his life (never been on any meds/antibiotics) and my girl has never been sick, while all the vaccinated children catch something every couple months, it seems.

People are just absolutely ignorant when it comes to vaccines. My own mother became hysterical upon learning that my little boy wasn't going to be vaccinated, insisting, "You'll get in TROUBLE!... My friend took her daughter to the emergency room one time and she got in A LOT OF TROUBLE because her kid wasn't vaccinated!... What about school? What about if something goes around and he catches it?"

She even tried to tell me it was the freaking "law". It really saddened me.

It also makes me sick to my stomach to see how many vaccines they force into the bloodstreams of small children nowadays, and sheeple just sit back and allow it to happen even as their baby, whom they are supposed to protect, is laying there screaming bloody murder while some stranger jabs needles into their legs and arms "because you're SUPPOSED TO..."

Completely brain dead, all of them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I read the report and I trust where the report came from. The EPA standard of what is considered toxic can't be that difficult to find. Why would they lie about something like that? I'm sorry but I cannot spend all day checking up on every single article to make sure they're telling the truth.

So why did you lie to us?

Here's the lie:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am making an effort to verify these studies for accuracy...

[peacegirl]

Another interesting report that raises an eyebrow.

At least I'm not the only one to take notice of Dr. Offit :

Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market - AGE OF AUTISM
February 16, 2009

Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market

By Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) took home a fortune of at least $29 million as part of a $182 million sale by CHOP of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine to Royalty Pharma in April of last year, according to an investigation by Age of Autism. Based on an analysis of current CHOP administrative policies, the amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million.

There is nothing improper about receiving compensation for a patented innovation; but the extraordinary valuation placed on CHOP’s patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine -- to effectively vote himself rich.

Offit has steadfastly refused to say how much he made from the vaccine. Based on the income distribution guidelines set forth in CHOP’s current administrative policy manual (HERE) entitled “Patent and Intellectual Property Policy,” Offit’s share of this transaction -- the “inventor’s share of net income” -- would have earned him a personal distribution of 30%. In a Moody’s report dated June 2008, CHOP reported net proceeds from the Rotateq transaction of $153 million, a deal basis that would put the value of Offit’s 30% share at $45.9 million.

Although the royalty transaction amounts and current CHOP inventor shares are publicly known, several factors complicate a precise calculation of Offit’s income. Royalty Pharma paid $182 million for the Rotateq royalty stream, but CHOP reported proceeds of only $153 million. Since most universities calculate income based on net royalties, the lower number might more closely reflect the basis for calculating Offit’s income. If CHOP applied an inventor share of 30% to a transaction value of $153 million they would have then been required to distribute $45.9 million to Offit.

CHOP’s 30% policy for inventor share is consistent with the current practices of other children’s hospitals. But depending on what standard was in effect when the patents were filed and how it was applied to Offit’s proceeds, the amount could be lower. For example, the $29 million difference between the payment made by Royalty Pharma and the proceeds received by CHOP comprises 15.9% of the Royalty Pharma payment (15% is the lowest inventor share percentage we uncovered in our investigation) and could reflect the distribution to Offit,

So although it is clear that Offit’s personal share of CHOP’s royalty transaction was large, the exact amount could range from as little as $29 million to as much as $55 million. Age of Autism chose to feature the smaller amounts in this report.

CHOP spokeswoman Rachel Salis-Silverman, contacted by Age of Autism about Offit’s income from the vaccine, first said, “I don’t even know. That’s not public information.” She initially refused to provide an e-mail to which Age of Autism could send a detailed account of how it determined Offit’s income, but subsequently sent an e-mail saying she was expecting the information.

“We are declining comment to your questions,” she then replied after receiving our inquiry. Offit did not respond to an e-mail sent to his Children’s Hospital address.

While refusing to disclose his personal profit from this transaction, Offit told Newsweek reporter Claudia Kalb last year that he got a “small percentage” of the payment and confessed that “it’s like winning the lottery.”

...

Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created not by consumer demand, but by the recommendation of an appointed body called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a single vote, ACIP can create a commercial market for a new vaccine that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a matter of months. For example, after ACIP approved the addition of Merck’s (and Offit’s) Rotateq vaccine to the childhood vaccination schedule, Merck’s Rotateq revenue rose from zero in the beginning of 2006 to $655 million in fiscal year 2008. When one multiplies a price of close to $200 per three dose series of Rotateq by a mandated market of four million children per year, it’s not hard to see the commercial value to Merck of favorable ACIP votes.

From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP. Before and during his ACIP term, Offit was involved in rotavirus vaccine development activities, the value of which ACIP influenced. Shortly before his term began in October 1998, Offit’s first two rotavirus patents were granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the first on May 6, 1997 and the second on May 12, 1998. During his ACIP term, Offit received two additional patents in 2000 and 2001.

...
Four months before Offit was appointed to ACIP in October 1998, the committee had voted to give the rotavirus category a “Routine Vaccination” status, in anticipation of an FDA approval of RotaShield (oddly, ACIP made this vote before the FDA approved Wyeth’s RotaShield vaccine on October 1, 1998). Shortly after Offit’s term began, there were several additional votes involved in establishing the rotavirus vaccine market and Offit voted yes in every case. In May of 1999, the CDC published its revised childhood vaccination schedule and rotavirus vaccine was included. This series of favorable votes clearly enhanced the monetary value of Offit’s stake in Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, which was five years into clinical trials.

Posted by: maggie | February 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Thank you Mark and Dan!
The person with the loudest mouth out there defending vaccines and denying any link to autism is undoubtedly Paul Offit, MD., usually billed as "Chief of Infectious Diseases--Children's Hospital of Philadelphia." His "expert" opinion can be found in countless articles.

paul offit vaccines autism

The reporters writing this pieces never raise an eyebrow over the fact that this guy has made millions off of the mandated vaccine schedule. And Offit, as a former member of ACIP, the advisory panel that recommends vaccines to the CDC would naturally be expected to declare vaccines to be safe.I've read by now thousands of articles on the autism controversy and reporters never bring up the fact that this isn't just about the science. If it becomes accepted that vaccines do cause autism in susceptible children, someone--lots of people---will be held responsible. Many of those connected to the vaccine program have everything at stake in seeing that this doesn't happen--especially Paul Offit who personally profits from vaccines and has laid his reputation on the line over this.
Anne Dachel
Media editor