Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Yet you cannot claim vaccines are 100 percent safe and this is what we keep hearing day in and day out. Two Merck scientists filed lawsuit in 2010 against Merck for falsification of MMR efficacy. The lawsuit hasn’t yet been dismissed yet you don’t hear about it in mainstream media.

      US military ship has been recently quarantined and cannot get to any port due to its mumps outbreak on board despite all personnel having been vaccinated. Why don’t we hear about this in the news? Maybe because it means that even 100 percent vaccination rate doesn’t guarantee immunity from disease. And getting mumps as adults is way more problematic than getting it as a kid.

      CDC gets 4.9 bln out of their 11 bln budget from selling vaccines. Isn’t that a conflict of interest? Who has patient’s interest in mind when so much money are at stake?

      Would you buy a car from a manufacturer if you know this manufacturer cannot be sued in case of your car’s malfunctioning? If vaccines are 100 percent safe, why did Congress provide vaccine manufacturers complete immunity from lawsuits in 1986? How about getting rid of this clause since their vaccines are safe and efficient and only one in a million can ever have a reaction. If this is so, you wouldn’t need immunity from lawsuits.

      I now understand why it is called herd immunity. They relate to people believing in vaccine safety as if it is a religion. In true science you continue questioning, you never settle especially when so many unknown causes of auto immune diseases and neurological disorders are among younger generation, when this generation for the first time in recent history is expected to have shorter life span than their parents. Despite very high immunization rates, we have the sickest kids. Look at school statistics and check how many kids now have special needs and aides assigned to them. While there are unanswered questions, we have to look everywhere. When we compare vaccines we received as children, it is like comparing apples and oranges. I got maybe three or four vaccines as a child with no more than 12 doses which were well spread. Today’s kids get 65 doses on average with the first dosage administered at the age of few hours after birth and usually 3 to 4 vaccines at a time.

      Now think just logically. Let’s say you got a small pox vaccine in the past. Your body recognized this as a pathogen and got programmed to fight it. It got one and only. I am sure even then were people who reacted adversely but maybe majority benefited from it.

      Now kids get 3-4 vaccines at a time with various pathogens plus adjuvants. The body’s immune system isn’t designed to fight multiple diseases plus adjuvants (unnatural for us) all at once. On top of it, vaccines are nowadays administered even when you fighting cold or flu (in the past it was not allowed), so the body is already fighting some virus. As a result, it often overloads immune system and if you are lucky you develop allergies and if not so lucky, some other severe conditions.

      Just study vaccine inserts, they are available online and see what you think about ingredients. Would you give your baby formaldehyde in formula? How about aluminum, bovine serum, polysorbate 80? Maybe you will be ok with that, but somehow for me it is a big no-no. Even vaccine inserts require that a pediatrician discuss associated risks with parents, yet I was never offered this information.

    • So I read the 215 page FOIA. The first thing that jumps out is it's from the 70s when mothers like mine were terrified of measles. A lot of parents had been losing children to it recently (chart below). The FDA was under pressure in those days to do fast approvals (like the agencies are now for cancer), hence only 875 children tested. But they were led by different credible teams like in Children's Hospital Philadelphia. The 8 independent studies were consistent, not done by pharma, and those doctors had no reason to falsify data.

      It's true the upper respiratory infection rate was high post vaccines but from what I can tell it was the normal rate independent of vaccinations for the time and places these tests took place. There were various other complaints like teething, but I don't think anyone thought the vaccines were causing common colds or teething problems.

      It's actually a pretty confidence-inspiring read. We have a modern example of nothing-to-see-here (the Barr letter) but then you read the actual report and get a different picture. This seems to be the reverse. I wonder how many people actually read it.

      I also wonder why it's a thing 50 years later that only 875 children were represented. We've since collected data on millions of vaccinations.