Violent metaphors

2,204 thoughts on “The truth about vaccinations: Your physician knows more than the University of Google”

1. Anon July 12, 2014 / 10:25 am

   Let’s see here. What I’m getting from most of these comments is that all vaccines cause autism, right?

   So, let me introduce you to a special little disease I like to call smallpox.

   Smallpox was a virus that would create blisters on the skin, was highly infective, and highly deadly. In its run on human lives, it killed 300 to 500 million people just in the 20th century.

   However, you never hear about it anymore, do you? That’s because its all but been eradicated.

   By vaccines.

   After all, it was a virus. Antibiotics wouldn’t have worked.

   “But you said all but been eradicated!”

   Ah, very astute of you to notice that. Smallpox still does exist, but it is held in labs in Atlanta and Russia under security.

   “Why don’t we get the vaccines anymore? It must be something to do with the vaccines themselves!”

   Well, for one thing, its gone.

   Poof.

   Disappeared.

   And, if you think the vaccine causes autism, then check yourself if you did get it, or ask your parents, or any other person that was alive in the 60s to 70s. They most likely got it. Anybody who were kids during that time got it too!

   That is all I have to say for now. Comment if you want, but you don’t have to.

   Reply
   • Juan Villasenor July 5, 2015 / 3:59 pm

     Well, look at what this article is saying, the rich are not vaccinating there kids, there has to be a why, it mentions marin county and Malibu, two of the richest areas in California, do you know how many doctors, law makers, public leaders and ceo’s live in these two areas? There’s got to be a reason why they are not vaccinating there kids, they must know something we dont.

     Reply
     • shay July 14, 2015 / 11:59 am

       “There’s got to be a reason why they are not vaccinating there kids.” Yes, it’s called arrogant entitlement (with a dressing of Dunning-Krueger).

       Reply
     • Anonymous September 16, 2015 / 10:39 pm

       I could just scream. Please take a course in the history of disease in world history! Please!! I had my three daughters immunized, and my daughters, thank GOD, have had their children immunized. Read “The Helen Keller Story”. ALSO— study up on what these diseases do to children in the womb. Do they deserve to be stillborn, or with multiple birth defects???? There is risk with anything. None of us has a guarantee that we will live to see tomorrow, but any sane individual takes care crossing the street!

       Reply
   • rosross August 13, 2015 / 9:03 am

     Smallpox was in decline long before vaccines appeared. Don’t believe me. Check Government records from the 19th century.

     Epidemics and diseases in general went into dramatic decline wherever nutrition, sanitation and hygiene were improved. It had nothing to do with vaccines.

     Reply
     • Chris August 13, 2015 / 10:05 am

       “Check Government records from the 19th century.”

       Um, small flaw in your reasoning: Dr. Jenner developed the smallpox vaccine in the 18th century! If you do the math right 1796 is earlier than 1800.

       Also, as anyone who has tried to do genealogical research: government records were not comprehensive and often in error even just a century ago. (my paternal grandmother’s family is listed twice in the 1910 census, each in different states as her father traveled to as a produce broker)

       Reply
       • rosross August 14, 2015 / 10:19 am

         Check Government records for disease and mortality figures. The UK began keeping them from 1830 and the US and others a few decades later.

         This allows you to track disease and death records and to factor in improvements in hygiene and sanitation and nutrition and to assess the impact of vaccines when introduced.

         Perhaps the English were better at it. You will find that mortality and disease records, for all sorts of logical reasons, were meticulously recorded.

         Ancestry research is a very different matter. But, as someone who has traced ancestors back to the early 1700’s in UK, Scotland, Germany with families as large as 10 or more children, there were very few child mortalities. Perhaps they had the benefit of good nutrition.

         From the mid 1800’s living in Australia they had sunshine, plenty of food and good sanitation and hygiene and again, ten, twelve or more children – all surviving childhood.

         Ancestry research is a very good indicator that even with epidemics and little medical care or vaccines, where there was good sanitation, hygiene and nutrition, the mortality rates were low.

         Reply
         • Chris August 14, 2015 / 12:56 pm

           “The UK began keeping them from 1830 and the US and others a few decades later.”

           And that is still decades after the vaccine was introduced. They also used quarantine. You seriously do not have a clue.

           Reply
           • rosross August 15, 2015 / 3:29 am

             Vaccine programmes were not in place at the end of the 18th century. The smallpox vaccine experiment actually killed more than protected.

             Quote: In the graphs notice the large numbers of deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine itself. By 1901 in the UK, more people died from the smallpox vaccination than from smallpox itself. When during 1880-1908 the City of Leicester in England stopped vaccination compared to the rest of the UK and elsewhere, its survival rates soared and smallpox death rates plummetted [see table below]. Leicester’s approach also cost far less.

             On any scientific analysis of the history and data, crediting smallpox vaccine for the decline in smallpox appears misplaced. Any vaccine which takes 100 years to “work” did not. You can read more about how ridiculous and unscientific the claim vaccination vanquished smallpox looks against documented historical fact, here: Small Pox – Big Lie – Bioterrorism Implications of Flawed Theories of Eradication and how vaccination became a political tool to placate the emerging pre Victorian and Victorian middle classes that the literally “great unwashed” disease-ridden working class slum dwellers would not bring the disease to them: Smallpox Eradication – One of History’s Biggest Lies & How Vaccination Did Not Eradicate Smallpox

             The severity of the disease diminished with improved living standards and was not vanquished by vaccination, as the medical “consensus” view tells us.

             https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Smallp_UK_US_Swed

             Reply
             • Chris August 15, 2015 / 12:38 pm

               LOL… Clifford Miller and John Stone are not actually valid sources of data. They are both very silly.

               Reply
     • Colin August 13, 2015 / 10:16 am

       If I save a penny every day, then my savings account is increasing every year. So is it irrelevant if I win the lottery? After all, my savings account was already increasing.

       The rate of decrease in smallpox is extremely significant: http://ourworldindata.org/data/health/eradication-of-diseases/

       Smallpox waxed and waned, but never went into long-term dramatic decline until the vaccine was introduced. And, of course, the vaccine eradicated it. The eradication of smallpox morbidity tracks the introduction of vaccines, not any metric of “nutrition, sanitation and hygiene” I’ve ever heard of.

       Reply
       • rosross August 14, 2015 / 10:03 am

         The eradication of smallpox does not track the vaccine timeline.

         What does track the vaccine time-line as it increased dramatically was Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, previously unknown; Autism, previously so rare it was virtually unknown; epidemics of behavioural and learning difficulties in children; high rates of asthma, auto-immune diseases, coeliac disease, allergies, obesity, cancer, particularly brain cancer….

         Surely tracking vaccine timelines should count across the spectrum?

         From a site set up by medical professionals who question vaccination.

         http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

         Reply
         • Colin August 14, 2015 / 10:52 am

           There are crackpots of every stripe out there. UFO believers, anti-vaxers, 9/11 truthers, whatever. You can find someone to support any belief, especially if they can make a fast buck off of it (like Humphries).

           What does the consensus of experts say? If you surveyed 100 immunologists about whether vaccines are effective, what would the results be? If you surveyed 100 pediatricians and neurologists about whether they cause autism or SIDS, what would the results be? 99+ in favor of vaccines.

           If your beliefs are only supported by conspiracy theorists online, they’re probably not true. And in this case, what a conspiracy you believe in! The national health organizations of EVERY major country, in on it. 99% plus of all specialists in relevant fields (immunology, peds, epidemiology, neurology, etc.), in on it. The Rotary Club, in on it. March of Dimes, in on it. Medical schools, in on it. PhD researchers, in on it. All these people in on the biggest coverup in human history! But Suzanne Humphries, lone gunman of vaccine truth, has figured it out… just give her some ad impressions and buy her book and she’ll tell you all about it.

           Reply
           • rosross August 15, 2015 / 3:22 am

             Suzanne Humphries is a qualified MD. I doubt you have ever heard her speak. She is not making a fast buck and she is credible. Never let facts get in the way of propaganda seems to be your approach.

             It would be amusing if it were not so tragic that the only defence pro-vax-maxxers can make for their position is to attack those who question vaccination and seek to discredit them personally.

             If 100 immunologists were surveyed publicly I suspect you would get 80% supporting. If they were surveyed privately I suspect it would be 40%. There are immunologists who question vaccines. Here is one for you:

             http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/20/an-interview-with-research-immunologist-tetyana-obukhanych-phd-part-2/

             If you surveyed paediatricians and neurologists publicly I suspect you would get similar results to surveying immunologists and ditto for private opinions.

             There are paediatricians who question vaccination.

             http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/top-california-pediatricians-dont-dictate-vaccines-to-parents/

             Americans are unfortunate in that their Government is corrupted by the practice of lobbying and big business controls Governments in ways impossible in other developed countries. The US is the only developed nation to have what amounts to mandatory vaccination and certainly on such a massive scale where a child may get 50 vaccinations in the first five years of life, beginning within hours of birth. The domination by the pharmaceutical companies in the US makes this possible.

             I don’t do conspiracy theories. I find human beings arrogant, ignorant, misinformed, deluded, greedy, incompetent, corrupt and stupid enough to create any and every disaster in human history.

             There is no doubt however that American doctors are more corrupted by BigPharma than are others but that is just your system. There are doctors who question vaccines, many of them, and the key question is not if they support vaccination but do they follow the schedule for their children. Many do not. A recent study showed 80% of doctors would reject most common treatment procedures for cancer for instance.

             http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/pediatrician-believes-vaccines-are-messing-nature

             We have a ridiculous situation where children prior to the mid-Seventies, the era when Autism, SIDS appeared and when serious and chronic disease began to rise dramatically in everyone but more so in children, might have had a couple of vaccines – Polio, Smallpox, Diptheria – usually after the age of a year because a baby does not have independent immune function until after six months (breastfed babies are protected by their mothers), and not in multiple form to a situation today where

             a baby within hours of birth is injected for a sexually transmitted disease for heaven’s sake, without anyone bothering to check if the mother is infected, 99% are not, and then jabbed countless times within the first five years for diseases which children prior to the mid-Nineties had as a matter of course.

             A child’s immune response is not fully developed until the age of 14 by which time they might have had 60 or more vaccines, including the highly experimental ones in the name of maybe medicine, for diseases they do not have and may never get!

             The vaccine mania is ridiculous and unnecessary. And it is dangerous.

             We have today levels of serious and chronic disease in children in ways never seen before in human history. We have parents, teachers, child psychologists drowning in children with behavioural and learning difficulties in ways never seen before in human history. The US is the worst of all the developed nations but its children are the most vaccinated.

             The US has the worst infant mortality rates of any developed nation and worse rates than many Third World countries and indications are linking to the obsession with vaccination.

             Quote: Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

             http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

             Those lunatics you trust, those medical experts, have even been vaccinating premature babies and killing them in the doing although finally some are beginning to wake up.

             Quote: Adverse events following vaccination in premature infants.
             Sen S1, Cloete Y, Hassan K, Buss P.

             http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11529542

             Go and do a thorough search through NCBI. Where do you think Suzanne Humphries and others get their data from?

             Humphries is most definitely not alone.

             http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/doctors-against-vaccines-the-other-side-of-the-story-is-not-being-told/

             This link cites doctors and scientists who question vaccination:

             http://www.medicinekillsmillions.com/articles/doctors-scientists-warn-dangers-of-vaccination-immunisation.html

             Reply
             • shay August 15, 2015 / 12:08 pm

               rosross — you realize that Suzanne Humphries abandoned medicine and became a homeopath, right? That tells any sane person all they need to know about her “scientific” qualifications.

               Reply
               • rosross August 16, 2015 / 3:43 am

                 Humphries added Homeopathic medicine to her skills base as an MD. Your comment simply reveals ignorance and prejudice. Where is that rigorous, objective approach so famed in science?

                 Reply
                 • Chris August 16, 2015 / 1:09 pm

                   Check out all the science on homeopathy here:
                   http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

                   Reply
                 • shay August 16, 2015 / 3:20 pm

                   Where is a rigorous, objective clinical study that proves homeopathy works for anything other than dehydration?

                   Reply
                   • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:26 am

                     You will find plenty on the site set up by medical professionals:

                     http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/
                   • Chris August 17, 2015 / 10:24 am

                     Please restrict your citations to PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers. The writers on that website are not reputable. Again, Humphries and Bystrianyk are neither qualified nor reputable.

                     Also, if you made a claim you do not tell us to find the evidence of that claim. It is up to you to provide the verifiable documentation… in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers.
                   • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:01 pm

                     “You will find plenty on the site set up by medical professionals:

                     http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/”

                     Actually, I’m not finding anything of the sort at that link.
               • rosross October 17, 2015 / 12:11 am

                 Correction. I have since discovered that Dr Humphries is not a trained or practising Homeopath and remains an Allopathic doctor,but one who accepts Homeopathy as a valuable medcal modality.

                 Reply
                 • Chris October 17, 2015 / 1:43 am

                   Does it matter? Homeopathy is still pure nonsense. Here is a cost effective way to make your own:

                   Recipe for Nat Mur or Natrum Mur or Natrium Mur or Natrum muriaticum:

                   1) Take ½ teaspoon of sea salt and dissolve into 1 cup of distilled water in a bottle.

                   2) Shake well.

                   3) This is a 1C solution (ratio 1/100).

                   4) Take ½ teaspoon of the 1C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 1C solution.

                   5) Shake well.

                   6) This is a 2C solution (ratio 1/10000).

                   7) Take ½ teaspoon of the 2C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 2C solution.

                   8) Shake well.

                   9) This is a 3C solution (ratio 1/1000000).

                   10) Take ½ teaspoon of the 3C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 3C solution.

                   11) Shake well.

                   12) This is a 4C solution (ratio 1/100000000).

                   13) Take ½ teaspoon of the 4C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 4C solution.

                   14) Shake well.

                   15) This is a 5C solution (ratio 1/10000000000).

                   16) Take ½ teaspoon of the 5C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 5C solution.

                   17) Shake well.

                   18) This is a 6C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000).

                   19) Take ½ teaspoon of the 6C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 6C solution.

                   20) Shake well.

                   21) This is a 7C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000).

                   22) Take ½ teaspoon of the 7C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 7C solution.

                   23) Shake well.

                   24) This is an 8C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000).

                   25) Take ½ teaspoon of the 8C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 8C solution.

                   26) Shake well.

                   27) This is a 9C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000).

                   28) Take ½ teaspoon of the 9C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 9C solution.

                   29) Shake well.

                   30) This is a 10C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000).

                   31) Take ½ teaspoon of the 10C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 10C solution.

                   32) Shake well.

                   33) This is a 11C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000).

                   34) Take ½ teaspoon of the 11C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 11C solution.

                   35) Shake well.

                   36) This is a 12C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000).

                   37) Take ½ teaspoon of the 12C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 12C solution.

                   38) Shake well.

                   39) This is a 13C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000).

                   40) Take ½ teaspoon of the 13C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 13C solution.

                   41) Shake well.

                   42) This is a 14C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000).

                   43) Take ½ teaspoon of the 14C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 14C solution.

                   44) Shake well.

                   45) This is a 15C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000000000).

                   46) Take ½ teaspoon of the 15C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 15C solution.

                   47) Shake well.

                   48) This is a 16C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000000000).

                   49) Take ½ teaspoon of the 16C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 16C solution.

                   50) Shake well.

                   51) This is a 17C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   52) Take ½ teaspoon of the 17C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 17C solution.

                   53) Shake well.

                   54) This is an 18C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   55) Take ½ teaspoon of the 18C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 18C solution.

                   56) Shake well.

                   57) This is a 19C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   58) Take ½ teaspoon of the 19C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 19C solution.

                   59) Shake well.

                   60) This is a 20C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   61) Take ½ teaspoon of the 20C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 20C solution.

                   62) Shake well.

                   63) This is a 21C solution (ratio 1 in 10^42 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   64) Take ½ teaspoon of the 21C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 21C solution.

                   65) Shake well.

                   66) This is a 22C solution (ratio 1 in 10^44 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   67) Take ½ teaspoon of the 22C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 22C solution.

                   68) Shake well.

                   69) This is a 23C solution (ratio 1 in 10^46 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   70) Take ½ teaspoon of the 23C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 23C solution.

                   71) Shake well.

                   72) This is a 24C solution (ratio 1 in 10^48 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   73) Take ½ teaspoon of the 24C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 24C solution.

                   74) Shake well.

                   75) This is a 25C solution (ratio 1 in 10^50 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   76) Take ½ teaspoon of the 25C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 25C solution.

                   77) Shake well.

                   78) This is a 26C solution (ratio 1 in 10^52 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   79) Take ½ teaspoon of the 26C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 26C solution.

                   80) Shake well.

                   81) This is a 27C solution (ratio 1 in 10^54 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
                   (the zeros are running off of the page!)

                   82) Take ½ teaspoon of the 27C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 27C solution.

                   83) Shake well.

                   84) This is a 28C solution (ratio 1 in 10^56 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   85) Take ½ teaspoon of the 28C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 28C solution.

                   86) Shake well.

                   87) This is a 29C solution (ratio 1 in 10^58 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   88) Take ½ teaspoon of the 29C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 29C solution.

                   89) Shake well.

                   90) This is a 30C solution (ratio 1 in 10^60 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

                   And then you are done! To make the pills, go to baking center of your grocery store and get some plain cake decorating sprinkles. You can try dropping some of the solution on the sprinkles, or just set the bottle next to the solution for it to absorb the energy (which is the typical method used for over the counter homeopathic remedies).

                   You can make up other remedies by knowing what the mother tincture is… For instance “Nux Vomica” (or Nux Vom) is from the Nux Vomica plant which contains the poison strychnine, Nux Sulph uses sulpher, and the stuff advertised on the radio for colds, Oscillococcinum is from duck liver.

                   Reply
                   • shay October 17, 2015 / 11:37 am

                     I can think of a better way to ingest duck liver, but it involves butter and cognac.
                   • rosross October 18, 2015 / 1:48 am

                     I love it when the prejudiced and ignorant display prejudice and ignorance and in the doing, make a case for Homeopathy. Keep up the good work.
                   • Scott Nelson October 18, 2015 / 4:09 am

                     And how does Chris make a case for Homeopathy? She plainly states the central tenet of homeopathy-that extremely dilute solutions of pathogenic solutions are curative of the same.

                     I’m sure that in your extensive research, you have come across this thing called the atomic theory-its the basis of modern chemistry. Involved in the theory is a concept called Avogadro’s number, which is 6.023×10^23 of anything constitutes a mole. Thus one can have a mole of feathers, oxygen, or DNA, anything that exists within the physical world (we tend not to deal in metaphysics in the sciences). Homeopathy violates this central tenet of chemistry, because, in the case Chris put forth of a 60 C solution, there would be far less than a single atom of the original sodium or chloride left in the solution, an in fact there would far less than a single molecule of the original water left in the solution (water is about 55.5 moles/liter or there are about 3.3×10^25 molecules of water in a liter) of anything over a 13 C solution.

                     Water does not “retain” structure, if it did, it would retain the structure of every plant it passed through, every kidney of every animal it passed through, the structure of every cloud it was in, every bottle and every line that it had been in since its creation about 13 billion years ago (for the hydrogen) or more than 4.5 billion years ago for the oxygen (created in the core of a supernova(s) that gave rise to this solar system) That is an awful lot of information for water to hold!
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 12:42 am

                     At this point there is no way of knowing what information water holds. What is known is that water has a capacity to record, retail and release information through the Homeopathic process of preparation. In time, as science advances, it will understand how that happens. I the meantime, Homeopathy will continue to cure as it has done for more than two centuries.
                   • Scott Nelson October 19, 2015 / 7:10 am

                     Really!!!
                     Rosross, you really stepped in it this time. You just put forward a testable hypothesis-which you have seemed reluctant to do or test in the past. Since you claim the water is storing information about its past,
                     1) Please show how this does not violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics (information is a form of energy, a reversal of entropy if you will)(you may need to consult Stephen Hawking, he has worked considerably with the information problem and black holes)

                     2) given a liter of water, ascertain the past of all 3.348788×10^25 molecules, which- have been involved in photosynthesis reactions-and in which plants, which molecules have been involved in hydrolytic reactions in which plants and animals and when, which kidneys it has been filtered in-and in what animals, which filtration plants it has been through, which nuclear reactors it has been used as a coolant, which chemical plants it has been used as a coolant, which clouds it has been in, where it has been deposited, in short the complete hydrolytic cycle. That would be fascinating information to have.
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 12:50 pm

                     “Oh it works alright which is why it is the second most used medical modality after Allopathy.” Thank you for confirming that the majority still prefer real doctors instead of water bearers.
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 7:25 pm

                     Sigh. There is a Homeopathic process which utilises the capacity of water to receive, record, retain, release information. The Homeopathic process is required for this to happen for Homeopathic medicine. What other capacity water may have in terms of this function has to be ascertained and is different and not relevant to Homeopathy.

                     What is known is that the Homeopathic process allows the ‘information’ from an ingredient/material to be retained and to be released into the organism, human, animal, plant etc., when consumed.

                     And yes, this process I beyond what is currently understood to be fundamental laws.

                     Fundamental laws are no more than the ‘knowledge’ science has attained at a given moment and no more fundamental, nor a law, than anything else. They are part of a process of understanding within the limitations of the current scientific paradigm.

                     Your example simply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Homeopathy.
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 7:57 pm

                     Something something magic something.
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 8:08 pm
                   • shay October 18, 2015 / 11:28 am

                     Chris has demonstrated what homeopathy is — diluted water. You can’t make a case for something that has never been shown to work.
                   • foreverh October 18, 2015 / 11:50 am

                     Oh.. so RosRoss..

                     Your willful disregard for the medical community and its continued research that show how homeopathy in the form of tinctures does not have any value is NOT prejudice?

                     Your willful accusations that the better the medical community has become at detecting and understanding mental defects as well as detecting cancers and diseases along with better treatment options being arbitrarily attributed to things that coincide with the age at which diagnosis can take place.. again is NOT prejudice?

                     I don’t think you know what prejudice actually is?.. It means to pre-judge things or ideas in which actual fact is ignored or dismissed.. a preconceived notion absent any factual evidence.. You are the only one exhibiting this.. any study that does not agree with your ideas? You dismiss..
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 12:35 am

                     Odd then, for something ‘never shown to work’ that it is practised by MD’s and hospitals around the world, taught in medical schools and universities and included in State medical systems by Government.

                     Those facts make your position the joke that it was, is and will remain.
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 12:43 am

                     Oh it works alright which is why it is the second most used medical modality after Allopathy and the fastest growing. It is also why numerous universities, medical schools, hospitals, doctors and governments around the world embrace it officially.

                     The US may be behind the times compared to Europe but even you will get there one day.
                   • foreverh October 19, 2015 / 3:55 pm

                     http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx#evidence
                     http://www.no-naturopaths.org/naturopathic-education.html

                     RosRoss..
                     Once again you are both mistaken and completely ill informed. Medical schools that “teach” about homeopathy; do so to warn and inform the ILL INFORMED of both the dangers and the nonsense that their choices can bring.

                     Why is it so easy to believe that all of the entire world’s medical community are liars and intentionally set out to harm, while it is equally assumed that singing Kumbaya and eating an orange will suddenly cure you of cancer or any other malady?

                     How did people like you leap to that choice; when every fiber of your being can see that eating a pot brownie, or sucking on orange pulp isn’t “curing” anything (an no, Scurvy doesn’t count)?
                   • Chris October 19, 2015 / 8:00 pm

                     RR: “There is a Homeopathic process which utilises the capacity of water to receive, record, retain, release information.”

                     Can you record music on them? Is this the normal way to listen to music and watch videos on Htrae?
                 • shay October 17, 2015 / 11:44 am

                   Humphries announced in 2010 that she had studied homeopathy for four years and was abandoning what she called conventional medicine.

                   Reply
                   • rosross October 18, 2015 / 1:29 am

                     You need a link to that. If it is just a comment on a blog it does not count. But, by all means, let’s see the source.
                   • shay October 18, 2015 / 11:31 am

                     “You need a link to that. If it is just a comment on a blog it does not count.” Her statement on leaving conventional medicine is on her website on drsuzanne.net.
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 12:36 am

                     Um, the comment on Dr Humphries site, is about herself…. a rather different matter but then one needs to be able to process with reason, logic and common sense to perceive that.
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 12:52 pm

                     “Um, the comment on Dr Humphries site, is about herself.” That’s who were were talking about. Remember?
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 8:05 pm

                     Um, yes, but you seemed to think it odd that someone would state something about themselves and that somehow, doing so would make you less credible?????????????????????
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 8:12 pm

                     Have you been drinking? Or is this another example of your oft-demonstrated lack of reading comprehension skills?
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 9:12 pm

                     You are so predictable. You cannot make a coherent case so you attack the poster. Thanks for yet again making my case for me.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 12:08 am

                     Perhaps you should look in a dictionary. Here is Websters definition of coherent:

                     logical and well-organized : easy to understand

                     able to talk or express yourself in a clear way that can be easily understood

                     working closely and well together

                     We’ve asked for a coherent explanation of homeopathy-consistent with what is known with real world. The explanations so far have been the equivalent of “The Flying Spaghetti Monster wants it that way.”
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 12:28 am

                     Websters definition of coherent:
                     logical and well-organized : easy to understand
                     able to talk or express yourself in a clear way that can be easily understood
                     working closely and well together…..

                     we have on one hand a group which claims Homeopathy is pure placebo, useless, does nothing and is in essence fraud….

                     and we have on the other a reality which sees MD’s and hospitals around the world practise it; medical schools and universities teach it and Governments include it in their State medical systems.

                     For most people who can reason that is a coherent explanation that Homeopathy does work in the real world.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 12:58 am

                     Really! So you are willing to take me up on my offer to IV infuse you homeopathic saline. You claim homeopathy works,I posted the challenge well over a month ago, the offer stands, or do you lack the courage of your convictions?

                     I can tell you that Normal Saline (140 mM NaCl) is used routinely Allopathic medicine to rehydrate, deliver drugs, support blood pressure, flush toxins (such as occur in crush injuries). You’re willing to have homeopathic equivalent (which I would assume to be water with the memory of sodium) infused into you. I look forward to the experiment.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 1:22 am

                     I did not see your earlier silly post. But I have been travelling. The mere fact you suggest an IV of Homeopathic remedy reveals yet again, you know nothing about the modality. But then you cannot afford to research because your closed mind cannot allow any facts to filter in.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 5:18 am

                     No, I perfectly understand the healing modality of homeopathy. It is supposed to infuse the water with the “memory” of a pathogen or healing substance. What we haven’t gotten from you is how water is supposed to “know” what is is to remember. Where is your response to this simple query?

                     “1) Please show how this does not violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics (information is a form of energy, a reversal of entropy if you will)(you may need to consult Stephen Hawking, he has worked considerably with the information problem and black holes)

                     2) given a liter of water, ascertain the past of all 3.348788×10^25 molecules, which- have been involved in photosynthesis reactions-and in which plants, which molecules have been involved in hydrolytic reactions in which plants and animals and when, which kidneys it has been filtered in-and in what animals, which filtration plants it has been through, which nuclear reactors it has been used as a coolant, which chemical plants it has been used as a coolant, which clouds it has been in, where it has been deposited, in short the complete hydrolytic cycle. That would be fascinating information to have.”

                     You claim that in homeopathy the water conveniently forgets about all the pasts that it has been through-except for time you put it in a bottle and shook it real well, took a small portion out and mixed it with more water, shook it real well, ad absurdum. I severely doubt that the human body imparts more energy to the water than say a hurricane, and can prove that evaporation imparts far more energy than the human arm (you do know that temperature is a measure of the net kinetic energy of a substance)(or I would like to hear your idea of temperature).

                     You would find me more than willing to accept homeopathy if you can explain the information paradox, satisfy Occam’s razor (given two equally likely explanations, accept the simpler), and make predictions about the world that can be tested and found valid. Right now I accept the version of the world based on the Schrodinger equation/quantum mechanics, and in a reduced complexity form, chemistry and classical physics-because it works. Its at the basis of the computer you are typing on, the electrical grid that powers it, the information grid that brings your thoughts to me.You demonstrate to me that your explanations can do more and I’ll accept them in a second-but you have a high hurdle to clear.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 11:12 pm

                     If you perfectly understood homeopathy you would not have made the following silly comment:

                     “ It is supposed to infuse the water with the “memory” of a pathogen or healing substance. “

                     And the computer on which I work is mechanical and can be reduced to the material and mechanical in ways the human organism, well, any organism, cannot.

                     How the great minds of science cannot understand this simple reality is what continues to surprise me. But believing your own bullshit is common in any system and systems drive behaviour and often leave reason behind.
                   • shay October 20, 2015 / 7:28 pm

                     and we have on the other a reality which sees MD’s and hospitals around the world practise it; medical schools and universities teach it and Governments include it in their State medical systems.
                     For most people who can reason that is a coherent explanation that Homeopathy does work in the real world.

                     No, only for those people who do not understand that outcomes rather than popularity determine whether something works.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 10:33 pm

                     Whatever bubble you inhabit, I can only say, it clearly prevents you from having knowledge of the real world and gaining the understanding that science, medicine, academia and Government are all industries which live in terror of being sued or looking stupid.

                     For that reason alone, any modicum of intelligence can conclude that if they embrace Homeopathy they feel sure they will not look stupid or be sued, i.e. it works, it is effective and it is not fraud.

                     Popularity is irrelevant when such organisations fear the legal hit and the stupid label.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 10:44 pm

                     Rosross-Since you seem to know so much more than those people who have spent their lives studying the immune system, physiology, electronics, chemistry or physics, why don’t you give us a detailed model of how any of these things work. You could start with a computer-show us how you think the light is being generated, either from LED, LCD, or CRT screens, how the electrons are moving about, how the information is transmitted, how the chips in the computer function. You are obviously familiar with a computer-the product of all the nasty industry, academia, and government. Since you know better-demonstrate it.

                     You never gave us a homeopathic view of how the immune system works, but yet you obviously know more than all those people who spent years trying to figure things out. Please share your information with the world.

                     In fact, you seem to be an expert on many things-but you have never gotten around to spelling out exactly how things work. Its time to put up or shut up!!
                   • rosross October 21, 2015 / 2:01 am

                     You make an assumption that just because someone has a degree in immunology, or one in medicine of any kind, that they know and understand all there is to know and understand about the human organism.

                     The fact that modern science and therefore modern medicine is immersed in a belief that everything can be reduced to the material and the mechanical, despite logic, reason, common sense and reality, ensures that Allopathic medicine will be prone to distortions and errors because the basic premise is quite simply wrong.

                     The fact that the third biggest killer is now Allopathic medicine should be enough for anyone of reason to see that there are major, major problems with the paradigm in which this form of medicine operates. When one of the top causes of your death is likely to result from a visit to an Allopathic doctor, it is pretty clear, whatever modern medicine is good at, and it does have skills, it remains a deeply flawed and dangerous medical modality.

                     I could be an absolute expert in physiology and yet not really understand the physiological body. I could be an expert in electronics and yet fail to comprehend or understand many aspects of this field. Ditto for chemistry and physics.

                     Being an expert in one small area of any field does not make you an expert in general. A top psychiatrist does not necessarily understand the human organism nor the process of disease. A top oncologist does not necessarily have the faintest idea what part thoughts, beliefs and emotions play in cancer. In other words, being a selective specialist makes you an expert only in your very narrow field and the human organism is far too complex to be reduced to bits and pieces as one would say, a plane, car or washing machine.

                     Even there, I doubt experts in those fields would apply the Allopathic approach to their plane, care or washing machine and simply ‘cut the wire to the warning light’ to ‘fix’ the ‘problem’ of the flashing alarm.

                     Do you really believe academia, industry and government are ‘nasty.’ I don’t. They are simply systems which function according to the best and worst of human nature. They serve a purpose. Where they go wrong and this applies to all of them, is when they sell themselves to big business and lose objectivity and integrity, but that seems to be a part of our world and no doubt always has been.

                     There is not a Homeopathic view per se: of how the immune function works and since Homeopathic doctors undergo conventional Allopathic medical training as well, I am sure that the conventional approach to biology and physiology is embraced by them as well. No doubt this is why MD’s have no problem spending another couple of years training as Homeopathic doctors because it all fits together.

                     Where Homeopathic doctor would see things differently to an Allopath is in understanding that all disease and all immune function is sourced in a variety of factors – emotional, psychological, physiological, biological, mental, spiritual, environmental, circumstantial and more – and not in that order.

                     An Allopathic doctor is likely to take a material reductionist view and see the disease as purely biological/physiological. Some of the more enlightened medicos, but they are still rare, would accept that emotions and psychology play a part, but generally the body is seen as a machine, a piece of equipment and treated as such. There is a growing move to ‘blame’ lifestyle factors for disease but this is just a cop-out on the part of Allopathic medicine given that two people with the same lifestyle can have very different health outcomes, i.e. one robust and healthy and one sickly. Ergo, the lifestyle does not create the disease and never did.

                     As Louis Pasteur, finally recognised, quoting a more enlightened holistic medical practitioner, but at least he recognised: ‘It is not the pathogen, but the terrain.’

                     A Homeopathic doctor, like all practitioners of holistic medicine, sees the body as an organism, and as a whole, where everything is inter-related and inter-connected.

                     As to spelling out exactly how things work – no-one ever knows exactly how anything works, not in any field. If you are interested in knowing how Homeopathy works, do the research. Work it out for yourself.

                     Your last comment sounds both angry and sarcastic. But that is about you, not me or Homeopathy.
                   • rosross October 21, 2015 / 2:21 am

                     p.s. I suggest we call it quits. We are going around in circles.

                     You are determined that Homeopathy is useless at best and fraud at worst. No amount of fact or reason will change that.

                     I take a position that science, while excellent in areas which can be reduced to the material and the mechanical, is often deeply flawed where this approach does not and cannot work, Allopathic medicine being a clear example.

                     I believe in the best of worlds, and there are already moves toward this, all medical modalities will be available with the ‘hard-core’ chemical and surgical approach of Allopathy left to last, not first. However, given the profits which come from both and the resistance from the profit-driven science and medical industries this may well take some time. But come it will because no methodology can afford the kill-rate which Allopathy currently has, when it claims to save lives and bring health.

                     And science will advance beyond its mechanical and material nature into realms beyond what is now accepted – we have already seen that happen to some degree with quantum physics – and it will, one day, understand how Homeopathy works, at which point, much that is today accepted as medicine will be seen to be barbarism at worst and useless at best, at least in terms of providing cure and optimal health.

                     I am sure you are very good at what you do but I am also sure that on this count you allow prejudice and subjectivity to influence your beliefs and your research practices.

                     It does not really matter. I am sure your way works for you and I know mine does for me. I also know Homeopathy will continue to cure and heal as it has done for centuries and while patient and practitioner may be curious about the How of the What, understanding How Homeopathy works is actually not required for it to be one of the most brilliant medical modalities ever developed.

                     Take care. I shall not respond to further posts.
                   • Scott Nelson October 21, 2015 / 4:57 am

                     So then, allow me to summarize your stance-there is something magical about life, what it is you don’t know, but puts it you separate from the rest of the world. Some rules get to apply, sometimes-such as gravity, but they can be violated when they don’t fit your world view.

                     You have no idea of what the rules are that govern the physical world, such as Maxwell’s equations that govern the interaction of electrical and magnetic fields, or Ohm’s law, which together nicely can describe the working of both a computer and a nerve-but you are sure they don’t apply to you. You have no concept of the atomic theory, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, but those who do are part of a massive conspiracy to hide the “TRUTH”, but for their amusement have built the electrical grid, information grid, and modern hygiene (did you ever wonder where the chlorine that disinfects water comes from?). You also lack courage to test your convictions, but you are sure you are right. I certainly hope that you enjoy living in your pre-renaissance world of gods and magic.
                   • shay October 21, 2015 / 12:36 pm

                     “Take care. I shall not respond to further posts.” I have as much faith in that statement as I do in homeopathy.
                   • shay October 21, 2015 / 12:34 pm

                     “Whatever bubble you inhabit, I can only say, it clearly prevents you from having knowledge of the real world ..” Documented outcomes, ros — where are they?
                   • Anonymous October 21, 2015 / 1:38 pm

                     Shay, you must remember that double-blind, placebo controlled studies prove nothing to a person who doesn’t have the vaguest idea of what an experiment is or what a valid result is (valid is only supporting your preconceived notions). Experiments that challenge preconceived notions are I believed she called them “silly”-but had insufficient courage to actually test her notions. According to her, gravity only works some of the time on living things (maybe she thinks that’s how birds fly?) and the laws of chemistry and physics are only valid some of the time-but she gets to choose when they break down.

                     Damn, I just realized it, I was arguing with the creator of all things! No wonder she could never be wrong.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 12:40 am

                     Quote: In spite of the remarkable growth of homeopathy and the testimony of millions of satisfied patients who swear by its effectiveness, critics insist upon spreading a number of unsubstantiated falsehoods regarding this unique healing modality. The worst offenders are the ones who call themselves scientific “skeptics.” Although they claim to speak for science, their willful refusal to consider the facts exposes them as anti-scientific defenders of scientistic dogma. Their pathological disbelief in all things holistic and unconventional is a violation of the open-minded spirit of genuine scientific inquiry.

                     Let me be clear; for those who seek to discredit homeopathy purely out of bias there should be no obligation on the part of homeopathy to defend itself. It is a waste of energy to quarrel with a relatively small band of medical fundamentalists who wish to argue their case using disingenuous tactics. The truth of homeopathy stands on its own merit for any open-minded individual to examine for him or herself.

                     http://realitysandwich.com/318906/in-defense-of-homeopathy/
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 1:02 am

                     Again, lets do the experiment. Treat 1000 people homeopathically for a non-self limiting disease-cholera would be a good choice, but choose your own disease, and we will treat 1000 people allopathically and look at the difference in survival rates. This is called a controlled experiment. Good luck getting past your equivalent of an IRB.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 1:21 am

                     You could certainly set that up in the Third World but I doubt it would be allowed.

                     With the Allopathic failure for Ebola there were Homeopathic doctors who offered to treat patients in Africa but they were ridiculed and rejected.

                     I am sure may Homeopathic doctors would be more than happy to take part in such an experiment. I am also sure it would never be allowed.

                     By the way, you do realise such data was gathered in the 19th century and early 20th century and Homeopathy outperformed Allopathy in spades. Hardly surprising that within a decade or so the American medical industry and pharmaceutical industry mounted a campaign to lock out Homeopathy.

                     NB: Bear in mind that Homeopathic medicine is not ‘one drug fits all’ as Allopathy has it. Or tries to have it.
                   • shay October 20, 2015 / 7:11 pm

                     With the Allopathic failure for Ebola there were Homeopathic doctors who offered to treat patients in Africa but they were ridiculed and rejected*. Science based therapies save about 50% of EVD victims — and with what has been learned in west Africa in the last 18 months, chances for success in future epidemics have increased. You see, that’s one of the many differences between homeopathy and real medical care –science-based medicine is always looking for what can be improved. What is the success rate of homeopathy when treating viral hemorrhagic fevers?

                     I am sure may Homeopathic doctors would be more than happy to take part in such an experiment As the subjects?

                     By the way, you do realise such data was gathered in the 19th century and early 20th century and Homeopathy outperformed Allopathy in spades. Do you have a neutral data source? However, if true, it would be because standard medical care 100 years ago was pretty bad (I refer you to works like Bleed, Blister and Purge, and The Great Influenza) Your insistence on out of date references has surfaced before.

                     NB: Bear in mind that Homeopathic medicine is not ‘one drug fits all’ as Allopathy has it. Or tries to have it.</> Strawman. Science-based medicine, at least in the US, is patient-focused.

                     (*one of the reasons the homeopaths were summarily ejected was that they were less than honest about what they were planning to do. The Liberian government had issued them visas and provided them with scarce PPE resources and training because Liberia assumed they were MDs — and the homeopaths and the organizations who sent them were careful not to say anything different until they arrived at the Ebola treatment unit and broke out their magic water. At that point the real medical staff threw them out).
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 10:46 pm

                     What saves people in epidemics is hygiene, sanitation and nutrition. Some were saved by Allopathic practice, some by local medical practice, some by pure luck but basically the disease burned itself out, as it does.

                     Well, all medicine is patient-focused. That was not the issue. Forty patients with asthma will get the same medication give or take, from an Allopath. Forty patients seeing a Homeopath are likely to get forty different medications. That is the difference.

                     See an Allopathic doctor and you get ten minutes. See a Homeopathic doctor and you get an hour.

                     Are you seriously telling me that a doctor has patient focus in a ten minute appointment?

                     Your little story about the Homeopaths needs to be sourced. But your use of the term ‘magic water’ means we both know you made it up.

                     Oh where is that scientific rigour when you need it?
                   • shay October 21, 2015 / 12:30 pm

                     “What saves people in epidemics is hygiene, sanitation and nutrition.” News flash – hygiene, sanitation and nutrition are part of evidence-based medical treatment.

                     “Forty patients seeing a Homeopath are likely to get forty different medications. “ No, they’re all going to get water.

                     “Your little story about the Homeopaths needs to be sourced. “ http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/treating-ebola-with-homeopathy-393

                     “But your use of the term ‘magic water’ means we both know you made it up.” When you claim something works but you can’t explain how, what do you expect us to call it?
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 1:06 am

                     Also, allow me to introduce to a free resource for peer reviewed scientific articles. Its called Pubmed. Here is the address http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed Anybody can post on a blog-you have to have real chops to get your thoughts on this page.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 1:17 am

                     I use ncbi frequently. You will also find research confirming Homeopathy as effect and is more than placebo but it is not enough to access ncbi, you need to read it as well.
                   • shay October 20, 2015 / 7:16 pm

                     I use ncbi frequently This, coming from the woman who has posted here that peer-reviewed research is worthless.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 10:42 pm

                     Worthless was not the word I used. Where is that rigour in quoting.

                     I said, according to noted medical professionals much, perhaps most of it is wrong.
                     My reference to ncbi was in terms of reading what is published there.

                     The relevance of ncbi, as referenced by Scott, was, quite simply, that since it is a source accepted by the science brigade then it should have no studies into Homeopathy showing anything positive, if they were right. It does, so that says you/he are wrong.

                     How accurate the information is in general I open to question. But that applies across the board.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 1:38 am

                     Anti-proliferative effects of homeopathic medicines on human kidney, colon and breast cancer cells.

                     Arora S1, Aggarwal A, Singla P, Jyoti S, Tandon S.

                     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24050774
                     Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models.

                     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101766

                     Effect of homeopathic medicines on transplanted tumors in mice.

                     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18159975
                   • drscottnelson2014 October 20, 2015 / 12:56 pm

                     I actually read all 3(!) of those articles. None of them presented data that would seem in the least convincing, further none presented any mechanism for their supposed effects. I can give a detailed critique of the faults of each of the papers should you like, but what i found was that

                     1) Given the information presented, there is no way I could possibly replicate the results

                     2) They ignored known complications (such as diluting culture medium to roughly half its ionic strength)

                     3)The data presented in know way convinced me that they were measuring that which they claimed. In the Tandon paper, they claimed to be observing apoptosis. I look at that daily in my work, and saw no pictures of what could be reasonably called apoptotic cells. I saw no evidence of vacuolation, blebbing, or DNA fragmentation, and the photos claiming to show apoptotic cells were no different from controls. That’s probably enough biology for the moment.

                     I also looked for meta-analysis papers of Homeopathy. I found 118 reviews, most of which found words to the effect of “Meta-analysis provides some very limited evidence that clinical intervention in animals using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from corresponding intervention using placebos. The low number and quality of the trials hinders a more decisive conclusion.” Translation: most of the reported studies were either lousy or had an obvious bias.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 10:50 pm

                     But according to you it can’t happen. This is not about convincing, this is about demonstrating effect. You say that is impossible. Clearly it is not.

                     Meta-analysis is flawed at the best of times and while it can be useful where all can be reduced to mechanics, it is not much use otherwise.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 1:41 am

                     According to you there should be nothing on ncbi which demonstrates efficacy or effect for Homeopathy.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 4:52 am

                     I look forward then to a list of thousands of NCBI listed studies studies demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy, as do the other readers here, instead of your usual blogposts and one off articles in newspapers.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 11:13 pm

                     Thousands are not required. If you were right there would be none. You hoist yourself on your own ncbi petard!
                   • shay October 21, 2015 / 12:24 pm

                     “If you were right there would be none.” There are no studies showing that homeopathy works — and he is right..
                   • shay October 20, 2015 / 7:43 pm

                     How ironic that the only poster here who has demonstrated any understanding of how homeopathic remedies are concocted and how they are supposed to work are you and Chris, Scott.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 9:43 pm

                     Shay,-I can say they used a t rosross did teach me something today. There is actually a journal called Homeopathy in the NCBI database.
                   • Chris October 19, 2015 / 8:16 pm

                     Perhaps it is time to ignore this citizen of Htrae? RR is not quite connected to reality.

                     
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 8:20 pm

                     She’s like those kid’s toys..what are they called, weebly-wobblies?
                   • Scott Nelson October 19, 2015 / 8:36 pm

                     You guys are probably right, but when sees such abominable ignorance, its too much fun not to call them on it, its fun to see them resort to “But it works!!! (because I can’t be wrong)” or “something, something, magic, something”
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 9:02 pm

                     ‘We’ don’t understand how homeopathy works…nor does she. It will all be revealed someday, though.
                   • Chris October 19, 2015 / 9:50 pm

                     RR: “You are so predictable. You cannot make a coherent case so you attack the poster.”

                     Sweetie, you are only coherent on Htrae.
                 • shay October 17, 2015 / 11:47 am

                   It’s interesting, however, that in spite of Humphries’ belief that people should take their medical problems only to osteopaths, chiropractors and homeopaths, she’s still working at a nephrology clinic in Bangor, Maine.

                   Perhaps she’s figured out that homeopathy isn’t as lucrative as real medicine.

                   Reply
                   • rosross October 18, 2015 / 1:28 am

                     She never gave up Allopathic medicine. Her approach is in line with the growing field of Integrative Medicine where all effective medical modalities are accessed.

                     And no, Homeopathy is a very, very, very poor payer compared to the extortionate nature of Allopathic medicine. Another reason why it is so popular.
                   • shay October 18, 2015 / 11:27 am

                     Of course homeopathy pays poorly — why should people shell out good money for water?
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 12:34 am

                     Average Homeopathic costs, including medicine, a couple of hundred dollars a year.

                     Average Allopathic doctor costs including medicine, many thousands of dollars a year. In the US even worse.
                   • Colin October 19, 2015 / 11:45 am

                     Average Homeopathic costs, including medicine, a couple of hundred dollars a year.

                     Average Allopathic doctor costs including medicine, many thousands of dollars a year.

                     And doing nothing at all is free. (Or hundreds of dollars a year, if you buy your nothing from a homeopath.)
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 12:42 pm

                     “Average Homeopathic costs, including medicine, a couple of hundred dollars a year.” Wow. People pay that much for bottled water?

                     Barnum was right.
             • Scott Nelson August 15, 2015 / 7:03 pm

               Roross-Since you appear to think yourself an authority on immunity and immune function, perhaps you will walk us through the immune system function and address the current shortcomings of immune theory. Please start with antigen uptake (tell us the cells responsible and what they do), followed antigen presentation, T-cell activation, B-cell activation, antibody synthesis and maturation of the immune response, and down regulation of the system. Please also include controls on autoimmunity-then tell us where in your experience and experimental knowledge the theory of immunization goes awry. Please cite Pubmed references to peer reviewed journals where possible, textbooks for common knowledge.

               Reply
               • rosross August 16, 2015 / 3:33 am

                 I never said I was an authority or an expert. I said I was informed and I am.

                 The issue is not ‘antigen uptake’ etc., the issue is that vaccination is an artificial process, delivering artificial diseases, along with toxins, to the body, in ways impossible in nature and for which the human organism has never evolved and for which the immune function is not prepared.

                 There is an enormous difference between a disease contracted normally, which the body handles through normal and natural processes, and one administered artificially, in artificial form where the goal is to deceive the body into acting against its natural function on many counts.

                 All disease results from a failure of the body. All healing is the result of the body’s ability to deal with disease. All medical intervention, of any kind, is merely a support for the natural healing function.

                 Modern mechanical medicine may have forgotten this but good doctors of all medical modalities know this.

                 Vaccination is part of ‘maybe medicine’ where you are treated for a disease you do not have and may never get. You are also treated as if your body is a machine or bag of chemicals, which patently it is not, hence the iatrogenic kill-rate by Allopathic medicine is today up in the big three and in the US, the most medicated, vaccinated country on the planet, heading for number one.

                 Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that something is very wrong with the practice of modern Allopathic medicine with a kill and injure rate up there with the most deadly of diseases.

                 A healthy body will deal with all pathogens and toxins and diseases. The defence against disease is a healthy body.

                 That begins with the best and first medicine, diet.

                 Vaccination is a theory which says if you inject artificial disease, artificially into a body, the body can be tricked and will react in a certain way. That remains theory.

                 Vaccines inject not just disease but toxic ingredients and materials – foetal and animal – in ways utterly impossible in nature and for which the body cannot be prepared.

                 No doubt if ignorance, arrogance and greed were not the main drivers in science medicine we might still only give children a couple of vaccines, at older ages, and this would not be an issue.

                 But in the vax-max madness age we are injecting disease and toxins into the bodies of our babies in ways which, within a few years, will be recognised as criminal insanity.

                 Ways in fact which some doctors have identified as dangerous for the past century. Now, as vaccination grows, so do the numbers of doctors who can see the damage it is done.

                 Peer review is a joke. Publication is a joke. Science medicine today is a joke and the good thing is that scientists and doctors of integrity are now saying just that.

                 http://acsh.org/2015/05/science-publication-is-hopelessly-compromised-say-journal-editors/

                 Reply
                 • Scott Nelson August 16, 2015 / 9:14 am

                   Roross-you are hopelessly ignorant. To be informed means to have a current understanding of the state of knowledge on a subject, not to have read a few opinions that you happen to agree with. To be informed means to be able to analyze the current state of knowledge, state which portions are consistent with your knowledge, those that are inconsistent with your knowledge, and those areas where knowledge is non-existant. Informed and inquisitive people will routinely say “I don’t know-what can you teach me about that”, uninformed people will not do this.

                   You have just amply demonstrated that you have no knowledge of how the immune system works-immunization actually exploits the normal function of the immune system. We are routinely bombarded by thousands of antigens everyday, by mouth, by airway, GI tract, and yes, injection-unless you have never broken your skin, or ruptured a mucous membrane. We immunize by all those routes.

                   Eating a healthy diet will certainly help your immune system function, but it will NOT prevent disease. Think of the recent Ebola epidemic. You can certainly argue that the African natives who originally contracted the disease did not have the best diet (although it was probably organic and locally raised), but certainly the healthcare workers in England and the US who contracted the disease from patients transported back to their countries of origin for treatment were eating a healthy diet. Now add in the fact that a recent trial of a new vaccine demonstrated 100% protection among primary contacts of patients who had diagnosed Ebola, vaccinated within 10 days of diagnosis of the primary patient. The efficacy was 75% in people vaccinated 21 days after exposure. Given that the incubation period of Ebola is 21 days, this is pretty impressive efficacy.
                   What is your explanation of the data based on your understanding of physiology and the immune system?

                   Sources (both available open access at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)61117-5/abstract).

                   Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine expressing Ebola surface glycoprotein: interim results from the Guinea ring vaccination cluster-randomised trial.
                   Henao-Restrepo AM, Longini IM, Egger M, Dean NE, Edmunds WJ, Camacho A, Carroll MW, Doumbia M, Draguez B, Duraffour S, Enwere G, Grais R, Gunther S, Hossmann S, Kondé MK, Kone S, Kuisma E, Levine MM, Mandal S, Norheim G, Riveros X, Soumah A, Trelle S, Vicari AS, Watson CH, Kéïta S, Kieny MP, Røttingen JA.
                   Lancet. 2015 Aug 3. pii: S0140-6736(15)61117-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61117-5. [Epub ahead of print]

                   The effect of dose on the safety and immunogenicity of the VSV Ebola candidate vaccine: a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 trial.
                   Huttner A, Dayer JA, Yerly S, Combescure C, Auderset F, Desmeules J, Eickmann M, Finckh A, Goncalves AR, Hooper JW, Kaya G, Krähling V, Kwilas S, Lemaître B, Matthey A, Silvera P, Becker S, Fast PE, Moorthy V, Kieny MP, Kaiser L, Siegrist CA; VSV-Ebola Consortium.
                   Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Aug 3. pii: S1473-3099(15)00154-1. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00154-1. [Epub ahead of print]

                   By the way, this is what a refereed citation looks like)

                   Reply
                   • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:50 am

                     Try spacing. Hold down Shift and hit Enter.

                     Yes, we do receive pathogens through nose, mouth, broken skin etc., but these do not bypass the first lines of immune defence like vaccines but utilise the entire immune response in natural form.

                     A healthy body prevents and deals with disease. A nutrient rich, varied diet gives the best chance of a healthy body.

                     There are many factors involved in disease including psychological, physiological, biological, mental, emotional, spiritual, circumstantial, environmental and more. And there is luck!

                     Someone with a healthy and robust system will have a better chance of dealing with disease. There are no guarantees.

                     Even with Ebola, not everyone gets it and not everyone who gets it dies. Why? Because of their capacity for immune response.

                     The biggest killer is always poor nutrition, sanitation and hygiene and this also affected those Western aid workers as well and these played a huge factor in the Ebola epidemic where you had people living without sanitation an hygiene caring for the sick. In fact the disease spread because people were taken to hospital. But the dynamics of life in Africa, something I know well, is not the issue here.

                     As to an Ebola vaccine, research into one would be more flawed than normal. Why? Because the media and industry driven hysteria surrounding Ebola will be used to push vaccination.

                     It was very clear that Americans in particular got hysterical about Ebola but then you have the worst media in the world and the most agenda-driven Government and society so it is not surprising, but riding on the wave of Ebola hysteria – no-one gives a toss about Africans – will be the way of the vaccine industry to push its product and profits.

                     I live in Africa and have done for a long time. Let’s just say that it is a huge continent and from beyond the borders of the few countries involved, no-one thought twice about it.

                     It did not spread in Africa even though the place is utterly corrupt, incompetent and incapable of organising anything. People drove and flew across the continent as they had always done and Ebola did not spread.

                     But I am sure Ebola mania will be used as much as it can be.

                     I know what refereed citations look like and I also know how meaningless most are.
                   • Scott Nelson August 17, 2015 / 6:31 am

                     And I’ll stand by my comments. You are hopelessly ignorant and desire to remain so. You fail to answer the question presented to you, instead answering the question you prefer. Everything I asked you amount immune function is not cutting edge research, but well established knowledge, familiar to anyone college level education in biology.

                     I do agree with you that a varied diet, rich vegetables leads to a healthy immune system-now give me the mechanism why this is statement is true.

                     If you believe that science is so flawed, please close the computer, blow out the light and remove all clothing. The computer, lights (even a kerosene lantern), internet, electrical grid and clothes (unless you are wearing untanned animal skins) are all products of science. Are there things that science gets wrong? Absolutely! It is inherent in the process. People put their findings out to the community, others verify them or refute them and build on the results. All the things we have asked of you are findings that have been verified hundreds of times, and you have demonstrated no knowledge of the basics, and no desire to acquire the basics-therefore you are ignorant, by definition, and desire to remain so.
                   • rosross August 17, 2015 / 7:36 am

                     Scott, what you seek to do, is attempt to prove that no-one can hold an opinion unless they have a qualification in a particular subject.

                     That is ridiculous. One can, with a good understanding of basic biology and physiology, and a great deal of common sense, reach conclusions regarding health without a science or medical degree.

                     In fact, with iatrogenic now a top killer, one could also make the assumption that not having a science or medical degree is in fact a plus.

                     Science/medicine is so corrupt that we have reached a point where whatever pronouncements are made are best ignored.

                     Are you seriously telling me an industry which kills and hospitalises millions around the world is to be trusted?

                     I did not say diet had to be rich in vegetables, you said that. Diet needs to be varied and as natural as possible if chemical levels are to be kept low and nutrition high. Everyone is different and what suits one does not necessarily suit another but variety and freshness and minimal processing, suits everyone.

                     We are discussing here science/medicine and the flaws and corruptions inherent in that massively profitable industry.

                     I am the first to admit that, locked as it is into a materialistic-mechanistic paradigm, that where science sticks to what it knows and what it believes, it can do well.

                     A computer, light, clothing, electrics are all material mechanics. Science should be good at that because that is how it thinks and works.

                     The body however is not mechanical, it is not a machine and neither is it a bag of chemicals and this is why science is so destructive in this field and why the kill-rate of Allopathic medicine, trapped in the scientific paradigm, is so high.

                     If you were correct, science/medicine (note science medicine) would not be killing and injuring at the rate that it is.

                     More to the point, people would be healthier and they are not!!

                     We have higher rates of chronic and serious disease in everyone and even higher in children.

                     All of it is worse in the US because of the destructive influence of corporations which buy Governments and the fact that the society is so medicated – consuming most of the world’s pharmaceuticals and 80% of the world’s painkillers, – and being the most vaccinated. You have additional problems in huge levels of toxins in your food production given the ability of manufacturers to bribe Government to allow the use of dozens of ingredients banned in the rest of the developed world.

                     With epidemics in children of autism, behavioural and learning difficulties, auto-immune diseases, allergies, coeliac disease and the biggest killer of children and young people, cancer, whatever modern medicine is doing it is not making people healthier.

                     Medication for life or having parts of your body regularly removed is not a cure. Vaccines do not bring better health and they don’t even immunise or boosters would not be required and the vaccinated would not succumb to the disease.

                     Thalidomide was verified many times as well. Guess what, science medicine got it terribly wrong!
                   • Scott Nelson August 17, 2015 / 9:26 am

                     Actually, what I’m saying is that one cannot have an INFORMED opinion without extensive learning and an inquisitive mind. Much of what we know about the world is counterintuitive. To think that one cannot know the position and vector of a particle seems ridiculous, yet the the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle holds. To think that matter and energy are interconvertible is ridiculous yet Einstein is correct. To think that light is quantized is ridiculous, yet it is, or to think that light can behave as both a particle and a wave is beyond absurdity, yet it is the truth-and the fact that you are reading this is proof of this.

                     You assert that millions of people die from iatrogenic causes (its an adjective, not a noun), where is your data-in the form that I previously should you. At what age are these people dying, and what is the nature of iatrogenic death. Did somebody write the wrong prescription, fill it improperly, take it improperly, or were there other underlying causes. Those are all iatrogenic causes of death, yet it has nothing to do with the state of our knowledge, they are simply human error.

                     You state that science is so corrupt that we should just ignore yet-and if that is your belief I do suggest that you get off the internet, drink polluted water, and never use any sanitary facility-for those are all products of a corrupt system and not to be trusted.

                     I also regret to inform you that the body is indeed a physiochemical machine. Fick’s law of diffusion very well describes the distribution of a neurotransmitter at a synaptic cleft. Gibbs free energy equations govern the reactions in the body, the Planck equation governs the absorption of light by retinal in your rods and cones in your retina, the Nernst equation and Ohm’s law governs the propagation of those signals in nerves, and I could go on for about a decade.

                     We are living longer now than we ever have, and the childhood mortality rate is far lower than it ever has been in history.

                     Also, you are quite incorrect in your assumption that if you know something about a subject, it reduces the likelihood of you doing damage. It is actually only with knowledge of a system that one can do damage. If ones efforts have absolutely no impact on a system, by definition you cannot harm it. It takes knowledge to have effects on a system. Additionally, assuming that there are millions of iatrogenic deaths a year, what is the error rate? There are billions of humans on the planet, 7 billion+ at last reading. Assuming 10,000,000 doctor caused deaths a year and that each person sees an allopathic doctor once a year (I know that many will never see a doctor, but also some see a doctor several times a year so it averages out), that gives an error rate of 0.14%-which is far better than I ever did in school, I believe very few people could get things right 99.86% of the time.
                   • rosross August 18, 2015 / 3:10 am

                     Scott, I agree one cannot have an informed opinion without extensive learning and an inquisitive mind. I would also add a goodly amount of scepticism works well with curiosity, as does a lot of common sense.

                     You think it seems ridiculous that one cannot know the position and vector of a particle, but I don’t.

                     Neither do I think it is ridiculous that matter and energy are incontrovertible. A determination to see the world purely materially and to reduce all to the material makes it ridiculous. Change the view and it is not so ridiculous.

                     Why is it absurd to think light can behave as both particle and wave? Surely if all is frequency or wave it can manifest in various forms?

                     Modern science is locked into a materialist paradigm and has been for a few centuries. That is enormously useful if you want to build something materially and mechanically but less useful, in fact useless, if you want to understand the natural world. When it is applied to the human body it has enormous potential to be destructive, hence the high iatrogenic death rates today.

                     You can find information on iatrogenic deaths, broken down into various factors. Medication seems to be the major cause and this is not surprising because it works on the erroneous premise that the body is no more than a bag of chemicals and there is a generic human for which a pill can be produced. The concept is delusional and dangerous. Yes, human error plays a part but human error plays a part across the board in science, in medicine, in process, practice, procedure.

                     I did not state that science on all counts should be ignored – just that science needs to recognise that its materialist reductionist approach is not suited to all things and particularly not to medicine.

                     I have stated elsewhere that I value the mechanical skills of science but question their application to that which cannot be reduced to the material and mechanical. The most successful aspect of medicine is surgery and crisis/trauma, because mechanics can apply to a greater degree although even here less harm would be done and more healing if it was appreciated that the body is not just a machine or bag of chemicals.

                     The body is not a machine. End of story. Full stop. If the body were a machine it could be repaired like a machine, treated like a machine and it would always be effective and it is not. If the body were a physiochemical machine then medication would not be killing and injuring tens of millions around the world every year.

                     If the body were a machine then vaccines would kill or injure no-one, ever! If the body were a machine then every Allopathic procedure would bring cure. It does not.

                     Human beings are not living longer. That is science/medical propaganda. A healthy human, barring accidents, lives no longer than one did thousands of years ago as research into Egyptian and South American mummies reveals.

                     The distortion used by science/medicine comes by the skewing of infant and maternal mortality, rates which improved not because of medicine but because of improved sanitation, hygiene and nutrition. And sure, science played a part in those mechanical improvements.

                     The child mortality rate should be lower with improved nutrition, sanitation and hygiene. One exception is in the US, which has one of the highest infant mortality rates, higher even than some Third World countries, and it is the most medicated, most vaccinated, most procedure society on the planet.

                     Iatrogenic has been the third biggest killer in the US for a few years and fourth in many other developed countries. More recently it has been said that in the US it is nearly the Number One killer.

                     That is criminal! You may not see a problem with modern science/medicine because of that kill-rate but increasingly many people do. If anything else was killing so many people – nuclear power, Homeopathy, food additives they would be banned in a nanosecond.
                   • Scott Nelson August 18, 2015 / 7:50 am

                     You make the assertion that the body cannot be reduced to chemical reactions and the laws of physics. Prove it. Lets try first having you deny gravity by walking to the top of a large cliff and stepping off it. If Einstein’s gravity (or Newton’s, they are the same at non-relativistic speeds) don’t apply, it shouldn’t be a problem.

                     My assertion is that you should accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 towards the Earths core, slightly retarded by air resistance, until you reach a terminal velocity of ~200 km/hr (or slightly greater than that if you adopt a more streamlined profile) until you interact with the the electrostatic interactions of the substrata. Failing that, tell me what makes humans, or any animal, not bound by the laws of chemistry and physics in the form of a DENIABLE hypothesis-one that can be shown not to be true. My above experiment is a deniable hypothesis-if you walk off a cliff and don’t accelerate as defined you have proven me wrong. My bet is that you don’t have the courage of your convictions.

                     It is meaningless to continue this conversation, but I would like the name of your mechanics and engineers, who fix everything perfectly, the first time, every-time, and never have anything fail on them, and also design everything perfectly. I also know of a number of engineers who would like to meet them.
                   • rosross August 18, 2015 / 8:00 am

                     I never made the assertion that the body can be beyond the known laws of physics – it can of course, but generally it is not.

                     We live in a material world and we are subject, to lesser and greater degrees, to the ‘laws’ of that world.

                     Walking to the top of a large cliff and stepping off would, in this material world, have a body fall. What would not and could not be guaranteed is exactly what would happen to each body because each body is different and there are varying outcomes. Even in a situation where most would be terribly injured or dead, one might be barely injured and not all would die. These are the realities which make it impossible and unwise to seek to view the body as an absolute on any count.

                     What I said was that the body is not a machine and cannot be reduced to the purely material or purely chemical and that is a fact.

                     When you cite chemistry and physics you are talking classical chemistry as it now stands pretty much and classical physics, which is very different to quantum physics.

                     You are applying a materialist reductionist mechanistic mindset and coming up with a scenario which involves it. I am sure we would reach general agreement on walking off a cliff for all sorts of understandable reasons.

                     However, we are not talking about walking off a cliff, we are talking about the body and its reaction to pathogens and toxins. Even Louis Pasteur recognised before he died that ‘it is not the pathogen but the terrain,’ although he ‘stole’ the idea and the quote. The same pathogen does not have the same effect on every person in the same way for instance that pouring boiling oil onto your laptop is going to bring the same sort of effect.

                     During epidemics not everyone gets the disease, not everyone gets it in the same way and not everyone gets the same outcome.

                     Of course mechanics and engineers fail, they are human. But while one can write a manual and follow instructions for instance on how to repair a generator, shall we say where expertise of technicians is demonstrably equal, one cannot write a manual and follow instructions on how to repair a human being. Mechanical medicine thinks it can and where it can reduce more readily to the material, surgery, for instance, it can look as if that is what is happening but every surgeon will also admit that every patient and every surgery is different. And that is because the body is not a machine or a piece of equipment.

                     Ditto for the use of chemicals in medication – everyone is not equal which is why the kill-rate for pharmaceuticals is so high and the injure rate even higher.

                     If you were even close to being correct, that would not happen.
                   • Scott Nelson August 18, 2015 / 9:39 am

                     Ahhh!, so we come to the crux of the matter. You are either a creationist (there is something irreducibly complex about humans) or a vitalist (there is something about life, we can’t define it, that makes it different from other matter). I have sad news for you, both theories were overturned at the end of the 19th century. The laws of chemistry and physics are the same throughout this universe, and they apply equally to EVERYTHING within this universe. You are a thing. If you claim you are not subject to rules of chemistry and physics, prove it.

                     I asked you before for a deniable hypothesis to test your assertions. I deny your hypothesis that we cannot determine what will happen were you to walk off a cliff. If I were to measure your mass, the compressive strength of your bones, the angle of impact, height of the cliff, g local to your area (it does vary depending on what’s beneath your feet) and a number of other parameters, I would be able to predict the nature and severity your injuries. Prove me wrong. This is how scientific inquiry is done. You make an assertion and see how well it complies with the real world.
                   • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:52 am

                     Given the levels of corruption in the scientific industry your refereed citations are meaningless.

                     And that is the opinion of people who work in and know the industry.

                     Corruption Is Destroying Basic Science
                     Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.
                     It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.
                     http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/editors-in-chief-of-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journals-much-of-the-scientific-literature-perhaps-half-may-simply-be-untrue-it-is-simply-no-longer-poss.html
                   • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:03 pm

                     “A healthy body prevents and deals with disease. A nutrient rich, varied diet gives the best chance of a healthy body.”

                     Diet of indigenous central American peoples, op cit.
                   • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:50 am

                     “Thalidomide was verified many times as well. Guess what, science medicine got it terribly wrong!”

                     Not in the US, where thalidomide was never approved. Scientists at the FDA (those horribly corrupt people, totally in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry) found that the manufacturer’s studies raised too many questions on its safety.
               • rosross August 16, 2015 / 8:41 am

                 Quote: FROM REPEATED medical investigations, it would seem that antibodies are about as useful as a black eye in protecting the victim from further attacks. The word “antibody” covers a number of even less intelligible words, quaint relics of Erlich’s side-chain theory, which the greatest of experts, McDonagh, tells us is “essentially unintelligible”.

                 Now that the old history, mythology and statistics of vaccination have been exploded by experience, the business has to depend more upon verbal dust thrown in the face of the lay public. The mere layman, assailed by antibodies, receptors, haptophores, etc., is only too pleased to give up the fight and leave everything to the experts. This is just what they want, especially when he is so pleased that he also leaves them lots and lots of real money.

                 The whole subject of immunity and antibodies is, however, so extremely complex and difficult, especially to the real experts, that it is a relief to be told that the gaps in their knowledge of such things are still enormous.

                 We can obtain some idea of the complexity of the subject from The Integrity of the Human Body, by Sir Macfarlane Burnet. He calls attention to the fact—the mystery—that some children can never develop any antibodies at all, but can nevertheless go through a typical attack of, say, measles, make a normal recovery and show the normal continuing resistance to reinfection. Furthermore, we have heard for years past of attempts made to relate the amount of antibody in patients to their degree of immunity to infection.

                 The, results have often been so farcically chaotic, so entirely unlike what was expected, that the scandal has had to be hushed up—or put into a report, which is much the same thing (vide M.R.C. Report, No. 272, May 1950, A Study of Diphtheria in Two Areas of Great Britain, now out of print). The worse scandal, however, is that the radio is still telling the schools that the purpose of vaccinating is to produce antibodies. The purpose of vaccinating is to make money!”—Lionel Dole

                 http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/antibody-theory-fatal-flaw-vaccination-agenda

                 Reply
                 • Scott Nelson August 16, 2015 / 9:46 am

                   And here we have yet another example of the Dunning-Krueger effect. In 1950 we did not know about DNA (that came out August 25,1953), T-cells, and the state of our protein chemistry was poor at best. We have come a long way since then. Try some recent publications, say from the 80’s on.

                   What are the oft repeated medical investigations-please cite Pubmed referenced sources. As far as the public being intimidated by knowledge and trusting experts, that is why experts exist. Have you tried to have a technical conversation with a civil engineer, rocket scientist, farmer, computer scientist, astronaut, ect…? They all have their shorthand to allow them to communicate with each other, and frequently it becomes impossible to fully communicate without this shorthand. If I had to talk about a protein in terms the lay public could understand, it would be impossible to communicate because I would have to re-plow 10 years of training with each sentence.

                   People do not do science to become rich. They do it because they are passionately interested in the world around them. If we wished to become rich, we would be CEO’s of companies. The Nobel Prize pays out ~$1,000,000, usually divided amongst several recipients. Top professors might make $300,000/yr, after 30 years in the field. CEO’s can make $20,000,000/yr, or in other terms, CEO’s make in a week what a scientist will make in a year.

                   The purpose of vaccinating is not to make money, in fact it is ridiculously difficult to make money off a vaccine. In money terms, a vaccine might run $10-$30 for most vaccines, I believe Gardasil is $1500 for a complete series and those are one time costs. The real money is in the treatment of disease. A day in the ICU will easily run $10,000, and few people stay a single day. Some chemotherapeutics run $50,000 a dose! Treatment of hepatitis C will run you $80,000-$160,000 which is still cheap compared to a liver transplant ($250,000). Drug companies know where the money is, and its not in the treatment of disease.

                   Reply
                   • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:38 am

                     Science is a system. Like any system people enter it for all sorts of reasons. Many scientists have integrity and many do not.

                     The system itself is deeply flawed and corrupt.

                     And yes, Americans have an utterly corrupt political system so they have corrupt medical systems as well.

                     In the rest of the developed world people have free universal health care so a day in ICU costs nothing.

                     But I understand the fear factor in the US might drive the mad max-vax movement.

                     However, science is increasingly corrupt and even more corrupt in the US where your lobbing system allows people to buy political power.

                     Quote: • Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.
                     And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”
                     In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:
                     And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.
                     I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists.
                     http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/
                     • Quote: Editors In Chief of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue” … “It Is Simply No Longer Possible To Believe Much of the Clinical Research That Is Published”
                     Corruption Is Destroying Basic Science
                     Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.
                     It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.
                     http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/editors-in-chief-of-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journals-much-of-the-scientific-literature-perhaps-half-may-simply-be-untrue-it-is-simply-no-longer-poss.html
                   • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:09 pm

                     “The system itself is deeply flawed and corrupt.” Which is not only patently untrue, but still does not offer any documentation to support your claims of nutrition and homeopathy as effective substitutes for vaccination.
         • Joe Seatter August 23, 2015 / 2:31 pm

           You know what inversely correlates with vaccination? The infant mortality rate. From 10% in 1915 to well below 1% in every western nation.

           Reply
           • rosross August 24, 2015 / 3:19 am

             And if you look at changes in hygiene and sanitation practices, particularly in hospitals, but also in homes you will see that the infant mortality rate began to decline dramatically wherever there was improved nutrition, sanitation and hygiene and that was well before vaccination became common practice.

             The vaccination age came after the improvements in child mortality and simply ‘rode on the back’ of an existing reality, which the vaccination propaganda machine seeks to distort for its own agenda.
             If you look at ncbi research, it makes the same point:

             Quote: The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of child health and overall development in countries. Clean water, increased nutritional measures, better sanitation, and easy access to health care contribute the most to improving infant mortality rates in unclean, undernourished, and impoverished regions of the world.

             http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

             You will find in this report interesting data linking SIDS to increased vaccination.

             Quote: Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

             Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.14 Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.15,16 In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD. SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system.17 By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.18

             Reply
             • Chris October 17, 2015 / 1:41 am

               You do understand that neither Neil Zimmer nor Gary Goldman are qualified reputably medical researchers. One is a journalist, and the other is a computer scientist with a dubious educational institution (mail order diploma). So the “study” is bad, at best it is bogus.

               Try again, but with real citations/

               Reply
               • shay October 17, 2015 / 11:36 am

                 Chris — do not expect a valid citation from someone who believes that homeopathy works.

                 Reply
               • rosross October 18, 2015 / 1:49 am

                 Given the heights of lies, damned lies, propaganda and distortions in science, a journalist and computer geek may well be more reliable.
                 Here are some good articles for you:
                 Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.
                 https://www.newscientist.com/a…
                 http://www.economist.com/news/…
                 Quote: Most scientific research unreliable or completely fraudulent says ex editor of Lancet.
                 http://www.drugawareness.org/e…
                 Scientific peer review useless…..
                 http://www.independent.co.uk/n…
                 Quote: Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ)[sic],which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:
                 “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly CAand reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
                 http://acsh.org/2015/05/scienc…

                 Reply
                 • shay October 19, 2015 / 12:48 pm

                   Everyone knows that peer reviewed research has limitations. However, when someone publishes a really stupid paper that has made it past peer review — as Brian Hooker did last year with his autism study — the rest of the scientific community leaps on it like a duck on a June bug.

                   You seem to have a problem with the concept of preponderance of evidence. Why is that?

                   Reply
     • John October 16, 2015 / 8:29 am

       I agrre with some of your views, but disagree with others. Although it is true that INDIVIDUAL vaccinations have a very low to almost no risk of autsim, I think we are missing the main point.

       Look at statistics. The rate of autism is clearly much lower in European countries than in America, the only country in which shots are given at the same time at birth is not banned. Autism occurs in 1 in 50 children in America now. Everywhere else, rares are more like 1 in 600. Look at the facts. Doctors need to stop being so money grabbing and do what is safe instead.

       Reply
       • Chris October 16, 2015 / 2:03 pm

         “Look at statistics.”

         Sure, provide a link to those statistics.

         Reply
       • foreverh October 16, 2015 / 8:59 pm

         Why does it never occur to you people, who are so ready to string up the entire medical profession, that detection methods and abilities have ALSO increased?.. not to mention the Autism spectrum has increased exponentially.. what we used to call something else (or nothing at all) is NOW known to be related to Autism..

         Not to get off topic, but the same analogy can be attributed to “smoking diseases”. As if a baby born with Asthma HAD to be related to smoking? Um.. NOOOO.. but now that they’ve labeled Asthma as a “smokers problem”? It’s now a smokers disease..

         Just because the label of Autism is not accepted until the child is of a certain age? Does not suddenly make vaccines given at that time the culprit.. most if not ALL people are unaware that the diagnosis can NOT be given, even if it is known, until the child reaches a specific age. And I don’t know ANY parent who just accepts that their child has a defect.. they generally go into denial and begin to look for blame.. how easy it was to pick vaccines when it coincides with the accepted age of official diagnosis..

         Reply
         • Chris October 16, 2015 / 9:36 pm

           ” not to mention the Autism spectrum has increased exponentially.. what we used to call something else (or nothing at all) is NOW known to be related to Autism..”

           My son’s diagnosis twenty five years ago was “oral motor dyspraxia”, now it is autism.

           One of his preschool classmates had a diagnosis of “hyperlexia”, it may be autism now.

           Reply
           • foreverh October 16, 2015 / 10:04 pm

             My nephew was born deaf, and multiply disabled. When I babysat him at 1 month old I knew something was wrong. He wouldn’t respond to my voice ever.. I told her I thought it was odd.. at 8 months his VERY astute pediatrician finally flat out showed her how my nephew was deaf.
             He was later diagnosed as Aspergers, then Bipolar 1- Schizo-effective, then ADHD, and finally relegated to PDDNOS..

             At 22 we now know that he is paranoid schizophrenic, and pddnos.. thanks to my sisters vigilance he got the care and treatment he needed so he will never become a statistic.. but he will always be her “child”..

             Not one time did we ever believe it was vaccines.. they had nothing to do with any of this.. smh

             Reply
             • Chris October 16, 2015 / 10:37 pm

               Wow. Just wow.

               And I thought our friends had it bad because their child was diagnosed with a both autism and bipolar at age nine after the first suicide attempt. Oh, and they thought we had it bad because our autistic kid needed to go to the Mayo Clinic for open heart surgery.

               Our son’s first seizures occurred when he was two days old (before the hepB vaccine). We were always alert to any delays, which did happen. His first expressive communication was sign language.

               By the way, the first test given to a nonverbal child is with an audiologist.

               Reply
               • foreverh October 17, 2015 / 8:47 am

                 My nephew did not need surgery for anything. He escaped physical problems… and you’re right about the first test.. the first test for my nephew was a brain stem audiology test. The John Tracy Institute in LA is trying to make that test mandatory by 10 mon.. it will catch hearing problems and deafness early enough to start help before 2 years old (which is typically when hearing problems are discovered).

                 Reply
       • rosross October 17, 2015 / 12:10 am

         Agreement on all counts is neither wise nor required.

         Quite simply I support freedom to choose and utterly reject compulsory or coerced vaccination.

         No-one at this point can say that vaccines are as good as some believe or as bad as others believe but we all need to know the truth.

         Everyone should be demanding comprehensive studies comparing the health of unvaccinated children compared to vaccinated and also the health of partially vaccinated.

         We need to look at what difference it makes if children have vaccines later and have less of them and we need to look at cancer rates in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated.

         Such research is in everyone’s interests. It either says those who embrace vaccination are correct, those who reject it are correct, or neither are correct or both are partly correct. We need that information.

         Doctors are mainly acting as they are because they believe in what they do and they do not want to be sued.

         The public needs to demand absolute proof that vaccines and vaccine practice are completely safe.
         Our children’s lives and health depend on it.

         We have gone from three or four, generally around the age of one, in the early Seventies to more than fifty vaccinations in the first five years, beginning within hours of birth.

         There is no human capacity to evolve to cope with having disease and toxins and human and animal material injected into our bodies in this way.

         Sure, some kids may be more sensitive than others but we are seeing rates of serious and chronic disease in general at levels never seen before and even higher in children.

         Reply
         • shay October 17, 2015 / 11:39 am

           Citation needed for rates “never seen before and even higher in children.” Anything from the WHO or Medecins sans Frontieres will do. Or even CIDRAP.

           Reply
           • rosross October 18, 2015 / 1:35 am

             Quote: Conclusion Since the 20th century, chronic diseases have begun to dominate the health scene (AIHW 2002a). While the impact of this increase has mostly been witnessed among older people in our population, children too are experiencing higher levels of chronic illness than in the past. W

             Selected chronic diseases among Australia’s children

             http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442453396

             Reply
           • rosross October 18, 2015 / 1:46 am

             Quote: The burden of chronic diseases is rapidly increasing worldwide. It has been calculated that, in 2001, chronic diseases contributed approximately 60% of the 56.5 million total reported deaths in the world and approximately 46% of the global burden of disease (1). The proportion of the burden of NCDs is expected to increase to 57% by 2020. Almost half of the total chronic disease deaths are attributable to cardiovascular diseases; obesity and diabetes are also showing worrying trends, not only because they already affect a large proportion of the population, but also because they have started to appear earlier in life.

             The chronic disease problem is far from being limited to the developed regions of the world. Contrary to widely held beliefs, developing countries are increasingly suffering from high levels of public health problems related to chronic diseases. In five out of the six regions of WHO, deaths caused by chronic diseases dominate the mortality statistics (1). Although human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis, along with other infectious diseases, still predominate in sub-Saharan Africa and will do so for the foreseeable future, 79% of all deaths worldwide that are attributable to chronic diseases are already occurring in developing countries (2).

             It is clear that the earlier labelling of chronic diseases as “diseases of affluence” is increasingly a misnomer, as they emerge both in poorer countries and in the poorer population groups in richer countries. This shift in the pattern of disease is taking place at an accelerating rate; furthermore, it is occurring at a faster rate in developing countries than it did in the industrialized regions of the world half a century ago (3). This rapid rate of change, together with the increasing burden of disease, is creating a major public health threat which demands immediate and effective action.

             It has been projected that, by 2020, chronic diseases will account for almost three-quarters of all deaths worldwide, and that 71% of deaths due to ischaemic heart disease (IHD), 75% of deaths due to stroke, and 70% of deaths due to diabetes will occur in developing countries (4). The number of people in the developing world with diabetes will increase by more than 2.5-fold, from 84 million in 1995 to 228 million in 2025 (5). On a global basis, 60% of the burden of chronic diseases will occur in developing countries. Indeed, cardiovascular diseases are even now more numerous in India and China than in all the economically developed countries in the world put together (2). As for overweight and obesity, not only has the current prevalence already reached unprecedented levels, but the rate at which it is annually increasing in most developing regions is substantial (3). The public health implications of this phenomenon are staggering, and are already becoming apparent.
             http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/2_background/en/

             The goal, deluded but understandable, is to blame lifestyle but it doesn’t wash.

             Reply
             • Scott Nelson October 18, 2015 / 4:36 am

               Interesting word salad, now how about a logical argument? First tenet of a logical argument-correlation does not imply causation, cf The Flying Spaghetti Monster (www.venganza.org/) correlating increasing world temperatures with the loss of pirates (/s). Correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causation.

               Many of the chronic diseases that one sees are a known result of affluence. We have access to more calories at a cheaper price than ever before in the world (even in the third world).. Excess weight due to over consumption of calories is a well known cause of heart disease and hypertension, even in young people. Diseases such as various cancers are a result of lifestyle choices such as the well known causative mechanisms of cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Finally, many cancers are a result of old age-which are caused by vaccines. Quite simply, one cannot die of a cancer at age 70 if you are dead at age 5 from any number of vaccine preventable diseases (cf smallpox, polio, diphtheria, measles, tetanus eat…). Thus vaccines do cause cancers, by allowing you to survive to an age to acquire them.a

               One must remember that the selection pressures that lead to the human race only favored survival into ones 30’s to 40’s-long enough to procreate (around 12-15 years older females) raise your young (another 12-20 years, so we’re up to ~35), and if the grandmother hypothesis is to be believed, another dozen years to raise grandchildren (so now we are up to the late 40’s). After that, there is no selective pressure to keep us alive, and in fact, there maybe a pressure to get out of the way and let our genes pass on.

               Reply
               • shay October 18, 2015 / 11:25 am

                 Scott — I am reminded of a case we studied in b-school stats class. Someone had written a paper on cancer rates on the island of Okinawa before and after WWII and came up with the shocking statistic that the number of Okinawans over age 60 diagnosed with cancer had tripled after 1950. A number of suppositions were made as to why, including of course lifestyle changes* but also the effects of Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

                 It was left to us (the students) to figure out why, easily done when we looked up the age of mortality and access to medical care on Okinawa before the war — when the average Okinawan died before 50 and never saw a doctor in his/her entire life.

                 (*Okinawa went from a poverty-stricken, fairly isolated backwater — often described as the Appalachia of Japan — to a thriving commercial center catering to three major military bases).

                 Reply
               • rosross October 19, 2015 / 12:38 am

                 What brings your theory crashing in a heap, i.e. older people more cancer, is that the highest rates are in children and young people.

                 The most vaccinated group, children, have the most cancer! How that equates with living longer is hard to see.

                 Reply
                 • Colin October 19, 2015 / 11:43 am

                   Are you saying that children have more cancers than older people? Why do you believe that?

                   Reply
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 7:21 pm

                     No, I am saying that the incidence of cancer in general has increased and faster in children.
                   • Colin October 19, 2015 / 7:32 pm

                     Has it? What’s your source?
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 8:07 pm

                     Quote: According to a report released this week by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., the rate of cancer among white American children up to 14 years old increased more than 4.1 percent from 1973 to 1988, the latest year for which statistics are available. 30.5% Rise in Brain Tumors

                     For the most common childhood malignancy, acute lymphocytic leukemia, the rate of increase over the 15-year period was 10.7 percent, and for brain tumors, the second most prevalent cancer among the young, the incidence soared by 30.5 percent. As stark as those figures sound, scientists stressed that the numbers of cases involved were small. In the case of leukemia, the rate rose to 3.2 cases for every 100,000 children in 1988 from 2.4 cases per 100,000 children in 1973. For brain cancer, the figure increased to a rate of 3.4 cases for every 100,000 children in 1988 from 2.3 cases per 100,000 children 15 years earlier.
                     http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/26/us/study-finds-mysterious-rise-in-childhood-cancer-rate.html?pagewanted=all
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 8:16 pm

                     Rose, do you ever check the dates on your citations?
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 9:11 pm

                     Shay, do you ever check your spelling? We all err and the article posted was relevant, even more so because it talked about a rise in 1991 which has not fallen, but continued to rise as can be easily demonstrated.

                     My name is not Rose.
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 10:12 pm

                     Of course your name isn’t Rose. My tablet’s autocomplete function thinks it is, though. And your twenty five year old citation has been replaced by newer data that does not support your statements.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 12:26 am

                     So, just sloppy on your part. And I have posted some newer data as well which fully supports my statements.
                   • shay October 20, 2015 / 7:31 pm

                     So, just sloppy on your part Desperate diversionary attempt noted. Hey, you should be able to find at least one example where I failed to close an italic! Maybe even some mis-spellings!

                     And I have posted some newer data as well which fully supports my statements. And a real scientist, which you are not, has already pointed out why that data does not in fact do so.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 12:49 am

                     Rosross-Do you ever consider alternative hypotheses? For childhood cancer rates, which are quite low relative to the general population, here are some alternative hypotheses for an increase in rates, consistent with the etiology of the diseases.

                     1)Altered germline genomes due to increasing age of mother (age of mother at conception correlates positively with increased germline aberrations )

                     2)Improved neonatal care allows children with substantial germline aberrations to make into the population.

                     3) Improved pre-term care allows fetus with germline aberrations to make it into the population.

                     4) Improved detection results in a perceived increase

                     5) a mixture of all the above

                     For the United States, in the years 2001-2007 , there were 32.1 cancer diagnoses/100,000, a 1% increase would take that to 32.4%. For purposes of comparison, the cancer rate was 2053.8/100,00 for people aged 40+.(http://www.cancer.gov/types/childhood-cancers/child-adolescent-cancers-fact-sheet).

                     There is an inherent problem in dealing with small numbers, in that small variations can lead to large (apparent) percentage changes. Going from a single case of a disease, to 2 cases double the rate in a country, but practically speaking, its more a statistical fluke
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 1:16 am

                     Absolutely. My view is that all possible causes have to be considered and vaccination is one of them.

                     But vaccination is also the one most easily tested by studying the cancer rates and general health in unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated.

                     Everyone should support this because it would settle the issue once and for all in terms of the safety, or not of vaccines.

                     Why is it not being done? Why are doctors not demanding it be done?

                     Let’s either remove or confirm vaccines in the equation and then move through the long list of other possible factors.

                     The other medical criminalities including elective C-section; over-use of antibiotics for mother and baby; over-use of medication for mother, baby, children; the practice of induction, usually unnecessary; the practice of epidurals, and then we can move on to electro-magnetism, chemicals in food and the environment, etc. etc.

                     Again, the following fact which reflects the age at which children now are vaxxed to the max

                     Quote: “Almost half of all cases are diagnosed in children under four years of age,” she says.

                     “Of concern, the incidence rate for children under four years old is gradually increasing, although the reasons for this are unclear.
                     https://ajp.com.au/news/childhood-cancer-survival-rates-growing/

                     NB: Note the attempt to hide the really important fact with the froth and bubble of ‘survival’ to pretend that modern medicine is effective.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 5:44 am

                     Rosross- you find me a population of people that are totally unvaccinated, with the same health status as vaccinated people, and we’ll talk. The same health status means similar childhood morbidity and mortality rates (those are two different things), as well as adult mortality and morbidity rates-from all causes.

                     While you are at it, you explain to me and the general audience why people far and wide gathered to vaccinated with cowpox in the 18th century (before there were vaccinations-this is where the term comes from-vacca is latin for cow), and why people lined up for blocks for the Salk and later the Sabin vaccine for polio, and maybe you could finally explain to Chris why rates of measles dropped 90%+ coincident with introduction of a vaccine for it.

                     You can also post the homeopathic mechanism of disease by which vaccines cause cancer, consistent with what is currently known about the mechanism of the disease. Please note that mercury is not a viable mechanism-you’ll get more mercury from a can of tuna fish than from a vaccine, and most vaccines no longer use thimersol anyhow.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 11:09 pm

                     It might be difficult in the US to find a large enough unvaccinated group with comparable lifestyle but you also have in the US such varied lifestyle with high levels of poverty so it is unlikely to be the best place for a study. You also have the worst infant mortality rates of any developed nation, worse than some Third World countries, so the US would not really fit the bill. Although with such a large population I am sure, if the vaccine industry wanted to find a few thousand unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated they could. If they wanted to.

                     Australia has about 23million people and around 10% unvaccinated and a large middle class where lifestyles are comparable. As in the US, the parents opting to limit or reject vaccination fall into the most educated category so the middle class is a good place to research.

                     Europe has homogenous societies as well and perhaps higher levels of unvaccinated, along with bigger populations. I am sure we could find a Western country where we could study groups big enough to be considered comprehensive.

                     As to the history of Smallpox, if you do research across the spectrum you will also find that many people rejected the vaccination campaigns and in fact, some English cities refused to carry them out. Interestingly, disease and mortality rates in those places were better than in those which embraced the basic vaccination process.

                     Also, many doctors at the time recognised that Jenner’s procedure killed more than it helped.

                     People will line up for anything if they are frightened and told something will help. Swine Flu in recent times is a classic example and yet now with thousands damaged by the vaccine and compensation programmes in the billions, you can bet a new outbreak would not have people lining up again. The same thing happened with Smallpox.

                     The interesting thing about the Polio epidemic was the link between tonsillectomies and the disease. But the vax-max industry does not like such links and prefers to pretend the vaccine did away with Polio, which is still around, just under different names.

                     As to the drop in Measles, the vaccination may well have played a part along with improved nutrition, sanitation and hygiene and the ‘burnout’ factor common with epidemics, but that does not make it a good thing since artificially repressed Measles, a harmless disease in childhood where you have optimal nutrition, sanitation and hygiene – then again, without those three even the common cold can kill you – has now led to outbreaks of the disease in adults who did not receive lifelong immunity from having the disease as a child and the disease is more dangerous for adults than for children.

                     You know, I am sure you are a committed and very intelligent scientist but to prevent yourself from looking prejudiced and ignorant, you really should do some research into Homeopathy before commenting. This comment is just, well silly, for anyone with any understanding of the modality:

                     “You can also post the homeopathic mechanism of disease by which vaccines cause cancer,”

                     As to the part vaccines may play in causing cancer, even Jonas Salk and Sabin, talked at the time about the possibility of cancer being linked to vaccination. And they were not alone.

                     As to mercury and the ‘can of tuna fish’ theory….. let’s be real, it is one thing to eat a level of naturally occurring mercury in canned fish and quite another to remove that mercury and inject it into the body of a baby. Would you do that?

                     And some vaccines- I not you say ‘most vaccines’ – do still use Thimerosal, but you know that, hence the wriggle by using ‘most.’

                     Quote: There was one major and generally unacknowledged drawback to variolation – those inoculated could and did spread smallpox creating more deaths than there would have been naturally. In a 1764 article the author recognized that smallpox was a contagious disease and that the practice of variolation would create new vectors to spread it. He compared the smallpox deaths in the 38 years before the introduction of variolation to the 38 years after, and found that smallpox deaths had increased⎯not decreased. He was forced to conclude that variolation on the whole, led to worse problems, because it caused more deaths than lives saved. It is incontestably like the plague a contagious disease, what tends to stop the progress of the infection tends to lessen the danger that attends it; what tends to spread the contagion, tends to increase that danger; the practice of Inoculation manifestly tends to spread the contagion, for a contagious disease is produced by Inoculation where it would not otherwise have been produced; the place where it is thus produced becomes a center of contagion, whence it spreads not less fatally or widely than it would spread from a center where the disease should happen in a natural way; these centers of contagion are manifestly multiplied very greatly by Inoculation . . .[7] However, while the popularity of variolation varied, the problem of it spreading smallpox, was largely unrecognized. Because variolation had become a very lucrative procedure it was enthusiastically continued by most of the medical profession through the 1700s and into the early 1800s. Smallpox continued to be spread by this medically-sanctioned procedure. – See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/#sthash.jncuPfM3.dpuf
                   • shay October 20, 2015 / 7:25 pm

                     But vaccination is also the one most easily tested by studying the cancer rates and general health in unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated Well, it isn’t the most easily tested, as has been explained to you with unbelievable patience.

                     However, the question on whether current vaccine schedules play a part in chronic diseases in children is well worth asking — which is why thousands of researchers in over a dozen countries have conducted hundreds of studies on that very topic.

                     For the past three decades or so. Did you know there are over 120 such studies on the MMR alone? Aren’t you happy to learn that neurologists, virologists and immunologists have taken your concerns so seriously?

                     Are you familiar with the German study that looked at all German children to study the difference in health outcomes among vax/unvax’d populations?

                     Schmitz R, Poethko-Müller C, Reiter S, Schlaud M. Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents – findings of the German health interview and examination survey for children and adolescents (KiGGS). Dtsch Arztebl Int, 2011; 108(7): 99%u2013104

                     In addition to atopic disorders, we further compared diseases–such as obstructive bronchitis, pneumonia and otitis media, heart disease, anemia, epilepsy, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)–in unvaccinated and vaccinated subjects. No relevant differences in the lifetime prevalences were found, neither for different age groups nor between girls and boys. Schneeweiß et al. conducted a comprehensive literature review of vaccine safety, the central part of which was the evaluation of vaccine critical arguments on the basis of the current state of scientific knowledge. None of the hypotheses were found to be valid (5).
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 10:39 pm

                     Quote: Other Conditions Found To Be Almost Non-Existent In Unvaccinated Children

                     Dr. Andreas Bachmair continued his report by stating that their study found the prevalence of sinusitis, warts, skin problems and middle ear infections were also much lower in the unvaccinated children, as were the cases of diabetes and epilepsy.

                     He went on to say that the results demonstrated that the prevalence of many conditions in the unvaccinated children were also significantly lower. These were:

                     “Other disorders and diseases

                     As we included open questions in our survey we evaluated the prevalence (of the first 10,070 participants) of some other disorders and illnesses. Unvaccinated children show very low prevalences of the following disorders:
                     •Dyslexia: 0.21%
                     • Speech delay/articulation problems: 0.38%
                     • Sensory Processing disorder: 0.28%
                     • Anxiety: 0.25%
                     • Depression: 0.12%
                     • Bedwetting: 0.12%
                     • Celiac disease: 0.12%
                     • Gluten sensitivity: 0.41%
                     • GERD (Gastroesophageal reflux disease): 0.06%”
                     http://vactruth.com/2014/02/26/unvaccinated-children-healthier/
                   • shay October 21, 2015 / 12:33 pm

                     Oh, by all means cite Andreas Bachmair online survey of vaccine-refusing parents — scroll down to the comments.

                     http://shotofprevention.com/2011/11/29/its-not-cool-for-kids-to-skip-shots-but-go-to-school/
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 8:07 pm

                     http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/adult-cancer-cases-drop-rates-go-among-children-16538
                 • Thomas Holm October 19, 2015 / 11:48 am

                   Rosross,

                   that is a blatant lie and untruth!

                   In no way are children the age group most at risk for cancer or the age group with new cancer case:

                   UK: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Eight

                   US: http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2014/

                   Australia: https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/what-cancer/cancer-australia-statistics

                   Reply
                   • shay October 19, 2015 / 12:40 pm

                     ros made a similar claim on one of her posts last month, and backed down when it was demonstrated that she’d jumped to conclusions after reading statistics on adult cancer rates. I guess she’s a slow learner.
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 7:20 pm

                     So you don’t think brain tumours up by 30% is cause for concern?

                     I never stated children were most at risk. I note how misquoting is common amongst those committed to rigorous science. Which no doubt is why science is not so rigorous and largely flawed.

                     I said cancer rates were rising in general and higher in children.

                     Quote: The overall rate of cancer among children is mounting steadily, and the increase for the two most common childhood malignancies, leukemia and brain tumors, is particularly sharp, a new study reports.

                     http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/26/us/study-finds-mysterious-rise-in-childhood-cancer-rate.html?pagewanted=all
                   • Scott Nelson October 19, 2015 / 8:29 pm

                     You can’t do better than a 1991 New York Times article? I don’t know what century it is where you are (I’m inclined to believe pre-enlightenment based on your postings) but in the States that is a 24 year old citation. According the American Cancer Society,”Childhood cancers make up less than 1% of all cancers diagnosed each year. About 10,380 children in the United States under the age of 15 will be diagnosed with cancer in 2015. Childhood cancer rates have been rising slightly for the past few decades.

                     Because of major treatment advances in recent decades, more than 80% of children with cancer now survive 5 years or more. Overall, this is a huge increase since the mid-1970s, when the 5-year survival rate was about 58%. Still, survival rates vary depending on the type of cancer and other factors. Survival rates for different cancer types are listed in the section “Surviving childhood cancer.”

                     Cancer is the second leading cause of death in children (after accidents). About 1,250 children younger than 15 years old are expected to die from cancer in 2015.” (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerinchildren/detailedguide/cancer-in-children-key-statistics)

                     Last Reviewed 1/13/2015
                   • rosross October 19, 2015 / 9:10 pm

                     Yes, mea culpa. I had it on file and did not look at the date but as you can see, rates continue to rise…..

                     of course, the blame will be pushed elsewhere and since we do not know the cause, understandably everything must be considered. But since it would be just so easy to compare cancer rates in unvaccinated, partially vaccination and fully vaccinated one simply questions why it is not done.

                     Quote: Jan. 26, 2011 — Childhood leukemia and brain cancer are on the rise,
                     http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=125152

                     There is no doubt cancer rates are rising and particularly in children
                     and WHY is the correct question.

                     Naturally the cancer industry prefers to push focus to ‘survival’ were figures can be readily tweaked, but the key question is why is there now so much cancer, and no, the living longer does not wash since rates are rising in kids?
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 12:25 am

                     And thinking outside the square means that fudging numbers by referring to ‘cancer diagnosis increase’ does not wash. This is propaganda-speak to deny the reality that cancer is increasing by pretending that there is not more cancer but just more cancer diagnosis, which, given the severity cancers affecting children and how readily they have been diagnosed for decades, is, well, crap.

                     For instance anyone of sound and logical mind looks at stats of 250% increase for melanoma and knows it is not just ‘more diagnosis.’

                     1973 marked the beginning of the max-vax age which saw vaccination skyrocket from three or four, at older ages, to as many as 50 or more vaccinations within the first five years of life, beginning within hours of birth, ironically for a disease common in drug addicts and prostitutes and not common otherwise. Whoever came up with that little money-spinner knew he was onto a winner. What beggars belief is the stupidity of medical professionals going along with it.

                     https://www.roswellpark.org/media/news/melanoma-rates-dramatically-increasing-children-and-young-adults
                   • shay October 20, 2015 / 7:41 pm

                     beginning within hours of birth, ironically for a disease common in drug addicts and prostitutes and not common otherwise And…wrong again. Between 700,000 and 1.4 million people have HPV in the US and most of them don’t even realize it because they are asymptomatic — but still can pass along the disease — for decades.

                     Furthermore, HBV can live on surfaces for up to seven days. In the words of pediatric hospitalist Clay Jones, Think about that as your infant crawls around the floor of the gym at their daycare center putting everything within reach straight into their mouth.

                     Long term complications from HPV include cirrhosis of the liver. Fortunately, those who are infected when they are older stand an excellent chance of fighting off the disease. Unfortunately, 90% of infected newborns do not and 1 in 4 who develop chronic HBV infections will die.
                   • Scott Nelson October 20, 2015 / 9:50 pm

                     Shay-just a quick heads up. There is both an HPV (human papilloma virus) some forms of which cause much of the cervical cancer, and HBV(Hepatitis B virus) which does nasty things to the liver. HPV is what Gardasil guards against and is an STD. HBV, has the properties you described, its most typically a blood borne illness
                   • shay October 20, 2015 / 10:21 pm

                     Thanks, Scott! Another typo catches up with me.
                   • rosross October 20, 2015 / 10:31 pm

                     Here is the thing, an infant crawling around on the floor of the gym or daycare centre is how it is meant to work and how the immune system develops.

                     I have just had a toddler crawling around on the floor of half a dozen African airports, dropping his dummy and comfort toy and sucking them after and guess what – did not get sick in the three weeks and did not get sick in the eight weeks following. Still waiting!

                     The modern medical view of the immune system is deluded because it is mechanical.

                     We have evolved through millennia with babies and toddlers ‘sucking’ their way across floors and when I raised kids in the Seventies I considered it a part of the process – ditto for grand-children today. The end result, healthy kids although avoiding vax-max also helped.

                     None of my children, friend’s children, cousin’s children etc. etc. etc. had this vaccination for their babies and while it may astonish you, not one ever developed HPV – still waiting more than 40 years on.

                     You have worse disease and mortality figures in the US because, disgracefully for a rich, developed nation you have much more poverty.

                     Fixing poverty with functional government welfare programmes is the way, not vaccines of toxins and disease, injected, into a baby’s body to ‘work on the immune system’ when their immune system is barely functional.

                     One remains astonished at how rigorous, logical, reasoning science can be so irrational when it comes to vaccines.
                 • shay October 19, 2015 / 12:41 pm

                   “The most vaccinated group, children, have the most cancer! ” The most vaccinated demographic — in the US and other 1st world countries — is the military, with 100% vaccination rates.

                   Reply
2. universal souljah August 2, 2014 / 5:00 pm

   A CDC scientist, spokeswoman on vaccines said the science was settled. Anyone in science KNOWS that science is never or seldom settled. The truth is that vaccines are effective because of our own immune system is stimulated by them. Irrespective of vaccines, we do have an immune system that works if you arenot immuno-compromised.

   We do not need vaccines to live, if we did no one would be alive today. In fact, natural exposure to disease will strengthen your immune system and convey life long immunity to the same specific pathogen in most cases. Vaccines rarely give life long immunity, which is why you need booster shots.

   My immunolgy and virology professor told me all medicines are poisons; they are poisons given in small increments. Vaccines are not just vaccines: they have other chemicals, carcinogens, animal cell and blood products, preservatives, and adjuvants that cause mild to serious side effects. This cannot be ignored when injecting all these shots in young babies. We are all slightly biochemically unique beings and how each person reacts to these injected chemicals is different.

   Just as we have to take the side effects into consideration with other medications, we should also with vaccines. Many pediatricians do not know why they are administering vaccines and it is peer pressure from the medical/scientific/pharmaceutical industrial complex.

   Side effects ARE an issue. I have witnessed it with my own eyes. There is a reason the vaccine makers and even doctors have immunity from liability for vaccine injuries, because they DO occur.

   Reply
   • Chris August 3, 2014 / 10:45 am

     “A CDC scientist, spokeswoman on vaccines said the science was settled”

     Please provide the name, and a link to the original quote so it can be read in context.

     This statement “We do not need vaccines to live, if we did no one would be alive today” indicates that this one is questionable: “My immunolgy and virology professor.” You obviously did not learn that diseases are not 100% fatal, there are always survivors. Diseases, and starvation because those who procured food were sick, wiped out 90% of the native population of both American continents. That leaves at least 10% who survived. Read Plagues and Peoples by William H. McNeill.

     “Side effects ARE an issue.”

     Certainly, but what are they compared to those of the actual diseases? I have a suggestion, instead of “argument from blatant assertion” or “I have witnessed it with my own eyes”, try to actually provide some evidence. Choose one vaccine on the American pediatric schedule, and then provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers comparing the relative risk between the vaccine and its intended disease. If you believe the MMR vaccine is dangerous, then show that it causes more harm than measles.

     Here is some additional reading for you:
     Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States

     And this older 1985 paper that was published a bit over ten years after the MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA, note how it compares the diseases and does address the known risk from the vaccine in its appendix:
     Benefits, Risks and Costs of Immunization for Measles, Mumps and Rubella

     Reply
   • Shay Simmons September 3, 2014 / 6:46 pm

     “My immunolgy and virology professor told me all medicines are poisons”

     I suspect your professor added “If given in large enough doses. It is the dose that makes the poison.”

     Reply
     • Humble Man August 9, 2015 / 10:44 pm

       Ever heard of CUMULATIVE effects? I didn’t think so…

       This means that a small dose will stay in the body(stored in the kidneys, liver, heart, brain, spine and other ares) and build up over time. So over the course of say…. 40 years, you keep getting shots and eating this garbage you think is food, with just as many chemicals in it….. Please don’t be sad about having diabetes, heart failure, cancer, etc., etc., etc….. All those chemicals are good for you 😀

       Reply
       • foreverh August 10, 2015 / 8:33 am

         Riiiight.. cause if all these years of vaccination has taught us anything, it’s that we’re all dying horrible deaths from the diseases they’re supposed to protect and we’re all dying much earlier deaths due to mass produced fruits and veggies..

         You are entitled to have an opinion.. but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. It’s become fashionable to deny the science behind this. Being part of the “in-crowd” deniers has become more important than eesearch.. and before you jump to say how researched you are? Looking up one side of an issue and ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your belief system? That’s NOT research.. That’s called confirmation bias

         Reply
       • shay August 10, 2015 / 9:50 am

         And of course you have data showing that the cumulative dosage that remains in the body is high enough to cause harm?

         Reply
       • Scott Nelson August 10, 2015 / 10:11 am

         You can of course prove that there are an residuals (primarily transition earth metals) over a significant time frame?

         Reply
   • rosross August 15, 2015 / 7:59 am

     Quote: Parents want the truth

     Have you been led to believe that vaccination was the magic bullet that saved us from the scourges of the past?

     This is the most convincing argument made by those who market vaccines to us. Chances are it has influenced your decision at a fundamental, and perhaps even subconscious, level. It certainly did mine.

     Many thousands of children in industrialised countries died from measles during the 1800s and early 1900s. The death rate steadily declined from the late 1800s. The following graph shows the decline in Australia from 1870 to 1970. The arrow indicates the point at which measles vaccine was introduced.

     Graph showing death rates from measles. Vaccines had little or no impact on the overall picture, having been introduced well after the major decline. Similar story for whooping cough, diphtheria and other infectious diseases

     One thing is clear: the vaccine had little if anything to do with the demise of measles as a killer. Why? Because it wasn’t around.

     All other infectious diseases of the time, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, typhoid fever, etc went through a similar decline during the same period. Some of these diseases had vaccines introduced for them. Others didn’t. Their death rates all declined just the same, over the same period.

     The simple fact is vaccination had little, if anything, to do with the overall decline in deaths from infectious diseases.

     http://vaccinationdilemma.com/parents-want-the-truth

     Reply
     • Chris August 15, 2015 / 12:48 pm

       “Graph showing death rates from measles. Vaccines had little or no impact on the overall picture, having been introduced well after the major decline”

       So what? The reason deaths declined was due to improved medical treatment. People still got measles, but instead of drowning by their lungs filling with fluid from measles pneumonia, they are hooked up to expensive ventilators.

       “All other infectious diseases of the time, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, typhoid fever, etc went through a similar decline during the same period.”

       Yeah, the same thing with surviving due to mechanical ventilation for diphtheria and pertussis. Ever heard of antibiotics? That is why strep infections do not turn into scarlet fever. Typhoid is prevented by treating water.

       Last I heard strep infections still happen. But why are there so few cases of measles? The following is US Census data on measles incidence in the USA during the 20th century. You need to tell us exactly why the incidence of measles dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970. Now read very carefully on things you should not do: do not mention deaths, do not mention any other decade, no not mention any other disease, and definitely do not mention any other country (England and Wales are not American states, something the folks at “childhealthsafety” refused to believe)….

       ….just tell what caused the number of measles to drop 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970:

       From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
       Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
       1912 . . . 310.0
       1920 . . . 480.5
       1925 . . . 194.3
       1930 . . . 340.8
       1935 . . . 584.6
       1940 . . . 220.7
       1945 . . . 110.2
       1950 . . . 210.1
       1955 . . . 337.9
       1960 . . . 245.4
       1965 . . . 135.1
       1970 . . . . 23.2
       1975 . . . . 11.3
       1980 . . . . . 5.9
       1985 . . . . . 1.2
       1990 . . . . .11.2
       1991 . . . . . .3.8
       1992 . . . . . .0.9
       1993 . . . . . .0.1
       1994 . . . . . .0.4
       1995 . . . . . .0.1
       1996 . . . . . .0.2
       1997 . . . . . . 0.1

       Reply
3. iSVQ September 21, 2014 / 12:24 am

   Reblogged this on Health Infiltration – Tras las líneas 'enemigas' and commented:
   La verdad sobre las vacunas: tu médico sabe más que la Universidad de Google

   Reply
   • Marsha September 22, 2014 / 6:05 pm

     You people buying into the polio myth need to do real research. This deceptive article begins speaking of polio so I would like to address this much misunderstood myth.

     But before I post the ground breaking news I told Jennifer, (Anonymous), I’d be right back to post I’ll tell you this bombshell is not so new but explosive & incredible considering…

     So before that, first I’d like to start with a doctor who’s done extensive research on Polio.

     Dr Suzanne Humphries

     Look her up.

     “The History, Myths, And Flawed Science, Of Polio And Vaccinations”

     http://thehealthcaresurvivor.com/library/dr-suzanne-humphries-the-history-myths-and-flawed-science-of-polio-and-vaccinations/

     Be right back. I did find that undeniable proof I was looking for on the ‘Polio Myth’.

     Oh! There’s the Small Pox Myth’, too but we’ll save that for later.

     Reply
     • Chris September 22, 2014 / 6:31 pm

       “Dr Suzanne Humphries

       Look her up.”

       We have, she is not a reputable source of medical information.

       If vaccines had nothing to do with the reduction of polio, then you need to tell us why the incidence dropped after 1955, as noted in this US Census data from the 20th century:

       From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
       Year…. Rate per 100000 of polio
       1912 . . . . 5.5
       1920 . . . . 2.2
       1925 . . . . 5.3
       1930 . . . . 7.5
       1935 . . . . 8.5
       1940 . . . . 7.4
       1945 . . . 10.3
       1950 . . . 22.1
       1955 . . . 17.6
       1960 . . . . 1.8
       1965 . . Less than .05
       1970 . . Less than .05
       1975 . . Less than .05
       1980 . . Less than .05

       Reply
       • Pill April 19, 2015 / 11:17 am

         compared to other diseases, it was never high. Polio was never high. Also Dr. Suzanne Humphries, MD is a very credible researcher and respected doctor…well, until she disagreed with the likes of you.

         Reply
         • Colin April 19, 2015 / 11:19 am

           Where can we find her published immunology research?

           Reply
           • Chris April 19, 2015 / 11:26 am

             You can start here:
             http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/11/783-suzanne-humphries.html

             Reply
       • rosross August 15, 2015 / 9:30 am

         From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
         Year…. Rate per 100000 of polio
         1912 . . . . 5.5
         1920 . . . . 2.2
         1925 . . . . 5.3
         1930 . . . . 7.5
         1935 . . . . 8.5
         1940 . . . . 7.4
         1945 . . . 10.3
         1950 . . . 22.1
         1955 . . . 17.6
         1960 . . . . 1.8
         1965 . . Less than .05
         1970 . . Less than .05
         1975 . . Less than .05
         1980 . . Less than .05

         Beyond the anomaly in 1920, there is a generally steady rise in polio rates, following a time-line with the prevalence of tonsillectomies and removal of adenoids.

         As the surgical procedure diminished from the 1960’s, so did polio rates.

         Quote:This article explores the rise and decline of tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy (T&A) in twentieth-century America. Between 1915 and the 1960s, T&A was the most frequently performed surgical procedure in the United States.

         The rise and fall of tonsillectomy in twentieth-century America – ResearchGate. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51390224_The_rise_and_fall_of_tonsillectomy_in_twentieth-century_America [accessed Aug 15, 2015].

         Quote: According to a longitudinal New York State study, two-thirds of males born between 1910 and 1929 no longer had tonsils by the age of 19. And most weren’t actually sick at the time of the surgery; their tonsils were removed as a precautionary measure. The trend continued, and by the middle of the century, between 1.5 million and 2 million tonsillectomies were being performed annually in the United States. The operation had turned into a rite of passage—a normal part of growing up.

         http://mentalfloss.com/article/27246/tonsillectomy-massive-pain-neck

         Reply
         • Chris August 15, 2015 / 12:51 pm

           “Beyond the anomaly in 1920, there is a generally steady rise in polio rates, following a time-line with the prevalence of tonsillectomies and removal of adenoids.”

           Tonsillectomies were very common after 1955. But the rate of polio dropped.

           Reply
4. SEJ September 21, 2014 / 1:21 am

   Just the fact that the author admits there is peer reviews because of available information is questionable. Any educated person sees right through that. This is an indication that even this author should not be staunchly guiding others this way without more of a leg to stand on, peer reviews are highly important in research and if you can’t get it, you have to build it SO GET ON WITH IT!

   Reply
5. J Dean September 21, 2014 / 11:48 am

   I did ‘t read all of the comments above, but was intrigued by the reference to Ezra Pound, who was of course a poet. Eustace Mullins was not a scientist but a friend of Pound’s in Pound’s later life. Mullins wrote about the Federal Reserve and was not a scientist. According to Wikipedia (I know, its not peer-reviewed) Russell Blaylock is a physician and a fascinating figure. He was a neurosurgeon who published some important papers on issues related to his field. Lately he has become a fierce exponent of the idea that small quantities of chemicals (such as fluoride in water) cause major health problems. So far as I am aware, he has not attempted to analyze these claims according to scientific approaches such as epidemiology.

   Reply
6. ladylazarus September 21, 2014 / 11:53 am

   I 100 percent agree with you Dr. Jenn and support your efforts to battle misinformation regarding vaccines. We have forgotten the true devastation that these diseases caused here and continue to do elsewhere in the world. My children were all fully vaccinated. I look forward to your further blog posts. Keep up the good fight doctor.

   Reply
   • Marsha September 21, 2014 / 1:46 pm

     Please do the proper research Ladylazarus 1 in 68 with autism & 1 in 8 with other sickness & injury. These CDC stats cannot be ignored even though their corruption has been exposed many times over if investigated honestly. Children are dying actually & the cover up is at it’s close.

     Reply
     • Chris September 21, 2014 / 4:07 pm

       “Children are dying actually & the cover up is at it’s close.”

       Please tell provide the scientific studies that show the vaccines are responsible.

       Reply
       • Marsha September 22, 2014 / 7:41 am

         Debate’s over Chris. You need pay attention to all the evidence you will find doing the proper research for yourself. It’s all at #CDCwhistleblower & #hearthiswell if you’re really looking for the real science & fact. Many studies will be found telling it like it is. MANY! They were ignored & shunned until now. And those you beLIEve real science are brought to you by those with vested interests. This cat’s not going back in the bag & that’s fact!

         Many whistle blowers, too, have come forward through the years which soon will be even more to follow suit.

         Want proof? Go to the hash tags & see the undeniable evidence for yourself.

         Reply
         • Chris September 22, 2014 / 9:30 am

           What evidence? Twitter hashtags? That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read.

           Marsha, you need to provide real science, and presently the best way to know that it did not come out of thin air are papers indexed in PubMed by qualified reputable researchers. Where is it? What is your evidence?

           And no, videos and social networking sites do not qualify.

           Reply
           • Marsha September 22, 2014 / 1:28 pm

             I see what’s going on here, Chris. Big tell & old tactic right out of the play book. People paying attention know how to look past you who are Vaccine Pushers For profit or their parrots trying to detour them with old worn out rhetoric that used to work. No more. People know they can glean truth & fact embedded in said twitters, videos & all the other sites, cites & sources your team works hard to discredit.

             Reply
             • drscottnelson2014 September 22, 2014 / 1:36 pm

               Marsha-there is a reason scientist rely on peer-reviewed data and replication. Its very easy to say anything on the web, its much harder to be able to verify the source, document the authenticity and reproducibility. I could say that “The nuts of Ricinus communis are delicious and a great treat”, but I would challenge to verify the veracity of that statement.

               Reply
             • Chris September 22, 2014 / 2:09 pm

               Marsha, why don’t you go tell the parents of these children that science is better served by tweets and videos:
               Vaccine Preventable Disease – The Forgotten Story

               Reply
             • foreverh April 19, 2015 / 11:50 am

               Life Finds a way dear Marsha. Population control is incredibly vital to Mother Earth, she has long created plagues and other petulance to rid the Earth of excessive people. Just as science has allowed babies (who would likely die in their womb circumstances without Science) to live? She must also find a way to balance it..

               This does include by finding “Suckers” to deny blatant Scientific evidence, by creating fictionally GENIUS movies that put a truthful subject into fictional circumstance. There are so many of you who have bought Sci-Fi movies SO willingly as if they were the “true truth”.. You call yourself researched, but immediately dismiss ANY research that shows you to be incorrect. You explain it away instead of adding it to balance. That’s called Confirmation Bias, not research, and you don’t seem to know the difference.

               Your ability to raise the level of the immune system to a Demi-God status, only speaks to the fact that vaccines have proven so successful that you have benefited by not having to witness the horror of The Plague, Small Pox outbreaks, Spanish Flu, the list is long.

               I beg of you.. Of ALL people who think vaccines are nothing but poison, to go live in a country that denies vaccines long enough to witness the “God-Like immune system” in action.. Drink the water, make your food from there, mingle with the general population…I think it would be of great benefit to experience first hand what this God Like Immune system can do… I find it hysterical that you would likely shudder at the thought.. but want to still shout that vaccines are Da Devil..GTFOH

               Reply
               • foreverh April 19, 2015 / 12:21 pm

                 I should clarify a couple of things.. One) the word should have said “pestilence” I got auto-corrected.. AND Marsha you are entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own set of facts. There are no “shills” working for any of this. This is EXACTLY the Sci-Fi Movie junk science you’ve bought into.

                 You are reading from Blogs written by maybe a fat guy in his basement playing World of Warcraft on one computer while simultaneously writing multiple “End of the World” Blogs on his other computer.. or the Simpson’s Comic Book Store owner who’s elitist mind can’t conceive that he’s not “THE authority” on all things Comic, nor can he tell the real world apart from the Comic Book ones anymore, or it could be the Hippy Mom who started a little blog of her own and thought no one was reading it.. She then realized she had some real followers who started to believe her.. And JUST like David Koresh, Jones, Manson, L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige? Have the “Cult of Personality” to gather a following and make you “believe”. Now here you are… Now here it is.. Confirmation Bias VS Research. Start realizing what voice you’ve allowed in..

                 Reply
7. Marsha September 21, 2014 / 2:09 pm

   While waiting for my prior comment to post here’s another important matter.

   Now if Poul Thorsen wanted by the FBI would give himself up maybe he could go for immunity? He could tell the truth of 20 some studies he was part of & save the children for posterity. He could become our next of many, whistle blowers, a hero instead of the zero he is now.

   The studies Thorsen represents were being denied that he had anything to do with them by the pro vaccination crowd but were pointed out by Congressman Dan Burton to Colleen Boyle, the CDC doctor, who also tried to deny but documents were presented.

   Boyle, one of three complicit with the CDC whistle blower fraudulent MMR study hung herself at the 2002 Congressional Hearing. Look it up.

   Thorsen’s studies also had to be fake claiming no link.

   Media was quick to drag the good name of Wakefield through the mud in the orchestrated witch hunt against him but not a word on the real criminal, the scientist behind the Danish studies who ran off with the CDC’s autism research money.

   Again, I repeat what Tutti said:

   “God bless the whistleblowers that are not afraid to tell the truth no matter what!”

   And on a final note I will say it’s true that we have hundreds of whistle blowers who have surfaced through the years & are still surfacing to this day. Some who have been blowing that whistle for years but ignored & stifled until now.

   And also in that final note many names of those behind the vaccine cover up have been recorded & are being investigated. The ax has fallen & heads will roll.

   The words are Nuremberg Code & Geneva Convention. And justly so!

   Reply
   • Chris September 21, 2014 / 4:17 pm

     “Thorsen’s studies also had to be fake claiming no link.”

     What “Thorsen” studies? Please provide the citation showing he is the principal investigator and author.

     Because it is certainly not any of these:

     Vaccine. 2012 Jun 13;30(28):4292-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.01.093.
     The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia.
     Uno Y1, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N.

     Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
     Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.
     Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kieltyka A, Majewska R.

     PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
     Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
     Hornig M et al.

     rch Dis Child 2008; 93(10):832-7.
     Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
     Baird G et al.

     J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7
     MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
     Uchiyama T et al.

     J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.
     No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
     Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.

     Pediatrics 2006; 118(4):1664-75
     No Evidence of Persisting Measles Virus in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
     D’Souza Y et al.

     Lancet 2004; 364(9438):963-9
     MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study.
     Smeeth L et al.

     Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
     Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
     Makela A et al.

     BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
     Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
     Taylor B et al.

     Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58
     No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.
     Fombonne E et al.

     Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155(3):354-9
     Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines Do Not Increase the Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
     Davis RL et al.

     BMJ 2001; 322:460-63
     Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.
     Kaye JA et al.

     J Med Virol 2000; 62(3):377-82
     Further Evidence of the Absence of Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Full Thickness Intestinal Specimens from Patients with Crohn’s Disease.
     Afzal MA, et al.

     Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
     Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
     Taylor B et al.

     J Med Virol 1998; 55(3):243-9
     Absence of Detectable Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Tissues and Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes.
     Afzal MA et al.

     Lancet 1998; 351:1327-8
     No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study.
     Peltola H et al.

     Reply
     • Marsha September 22, 2014 / 8:55 am

       Chris, people paying attention know all studies used by Vaccine Pushers For Profit & their parrots are paid for by the foxes guarding the hen house.

       True studies are out there & have been ignored & stifled until now. I could show you many if you just ask. You should be able to do the research yourself but I will answer any questions you have.

       Poul Thorsen was involved with 21 of the 24 studies, Chris. To be precise you said to prove he is principal investigator and author. That doesn’t matter. His being involved is enough.

       Here’s the proof>>>

       Look up ‘Posey Questions CDC on Autism Research’ to see Dr. Coleen Boyle from the CDC say Thorsen was only involved in two studies. Caught lying again & she is involved herself, (complicit), in the fraudulent MMR study in the recent CDC whistle blower scandal.

       Boyle was outed by Dr. Thompson so principal investigator or author matters not with so many complicit in the cover up.

       Reply
       • Chris September 22, 2014 / 9:36 am

         Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem, Marsha? I asked “What “Thorsen” studies?”, and then provided you almost twenty studies showing the MMR vaccine has nothing to do with autism, none of them that were Danish. And you come up with a video of a congressional hearing!

         Marsha, videos are not scientific evidence. Also science is not determined by politicians, especially very silly ones with agendas.

         Try again, list those “Thorsen” studies and provide a scientific critique by someone who is actually qualified. Not a silly politician or an engineer and definitely not someone with a Master’s of Business Administration.

         Reply
         • Marsha September 22, 2014 / 2:56 pm

           You find Thorsen’s studies yourself, Chris. I proved they exist with that document you see the congressman presenting as evidence in that 26 second clip at a ‘REAL’ congressional hearing. You can’t fake that kind of stuff so videos are certainly important in many cases. They can’t be omitted or denied even if you say so.

           And I told you about those fake studies you sent, Chris.

           Anyone can look up ‘fake studies and paid doctors to put their name on them’ in order to see this long time practice through many credible articles, sources & references.

           Current studies accepted due to real science black out are ALL backed by the makers of vaccines & their partners in crime they are in bed with like the CDC, FDA, ETC…This is now common knowledge.

           They will stand no more as so many whistle blowers are coming out of the woodwork to go with the mountain of evidence our people hold to prove fraud, truth & real science.

           There are hundreds & hundreds of whistle blowers, actually, from past to present. All ignored & silenced until now.

           There’s going to be an article soon on all the many whistle blowers. Media blackout won’t stop our people from learning all of the truth.

           Word travels fast when there’s something important under foot.

           And this our children we’re talking about. Nothing is more important. If we don’t save them, soon, nothing else will matter. 1 in 68 with autism & 1 in 8 with other injury & illness. Right in step through the years with the increase in vaccines.

           It’s not rocket science!

           Reply
           • Chris September 22, 2014 / 3:08 pm

             “You find Thorsen’s studies yourself, Chris.”

             No, Marsha, I will contend that there are no vaccine studies where the principal investigator and first listed author is Poul Thorsen, because you simply cannot list them. Therefore they do not exist.

             He is definitely not the first listed author of
             N Engl J Med 2002; 347(19):1477-82
             A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism.
             Madsen KM et al.

             and

             Pediatrics, Sept. 2003, Vol. 112(3 Pt 1):604-606
             Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data
             Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, et al

             “It’s not rocket science!”

             Isn’t it fortunate for you that I used to be one! I was an aerospace engineer before my first born had seizures.

             Reply
         • Marsha September 22, 2014 / 3:03 pm

           Science is determined by fact & truth, Chris. Not the fake science that’s been exposed now to the degree of undeniability.

           I don’t have time to play the distract from truth game where anything factual to do with the real science is lost in back & forth banter if that’s what you’re up to, Chris.

           Our parents & activists have been advised to answer sincere questions, make points & share the facts but not allow the distract tactic to work as it used to. This is one tactic of several right out of the playbook for people hired to help in the cover up.

           Look past what you call videos, tweets, etc. for real content as people paying attention are, Chris. I say this in hope you’re just a parrot & not one holding children purposely in pHARM’s way.

           If you are just a parrot many of us were once like you. Willing to beLIEve what we were told. Not realizing we needed to do our own research.

           Many names believed guilty & directly responsible for this worst crime against humanity & the cover up have been recorded & are being investigated.

           The talk is of Nuremberg Code & Geneva Convention. All involved in the cover up should know the ax is falling & heads will roll.

           Reply
           • Jennifer Raff September 22, 2014 / 3:10 pm

             Can you be more specific about what the cover-up is, and who is involved?

             Reply
             • Marsha September 22, 2014 / 5:36 pm

               I thought I was replying to you Jennifer Raff but this reply box has the name Anonymous. Is that you?

               Anyway, I believe you know the answer to what the cover up is about or you wouldn’t have written this bogus article right out of the Vaccine Pushers For profit hand book. As for who is involved you’ll need wait for the article after verification for publishing. Many articles have been written naming names but the surge is coming.

               Jennifer you need to research the ‘Polio Myth” as you are misinformed on the matter. I have some ground breaking news for you on the polio scam. Be right back after I locate it.

               Reply
               • Chris September 22, 2014 / 6:21 pm

                 “Anyway, I believe you know the answer to what the cover up is about ”

                 If she did she would not have asked you to be specific. Telling her to “research” something because you claim is misinformed seems to tell us that you don’t have anything but vaporous conspiracy theories.

                 Reply
           • Chris September 22, 2014 / 3:12 pm

             “Science is determined by fact & truth, Chris.”

             Which you have failed to provide. You claim there are “Thorsen” studies, but will not provide their title or PubMed Identification Numbers. When asked for scientific evidence you point to twitter hashtags.

             “Chris. I say this in hope you’re just a parrot & not one holding children purposely in pHARM’s way.”

             So exactly how are the vaccines more dangerous than the diseases? Why do you want more children to suffer like those depicted in Vaccine Preventable Disease – The Forgotten Story?

             Reply
           • Scott Nelson September 22, 2014 / 3:23 pm

             Marsha,
             Here is the result of search of Pubmed for Thorsen P. Nineteen articles, none on vaccines, that I can see.
             C-Reactive Protein and Preterm Delivery: Clues From Placental Findings and Maternal Weight
             Bertha L. Bullen, Nicole M. Jones, Claudia B. Holzman, Yan Tian, Patricia K. Senagore, Poul Thorsen, Kristin Skogstrand, David M. Hougaard, Alla Sikorskii
             Reprod Sci. 2013 June; 20(6): 715–722. doi: 10.1177/1933719112466302

             PMCID:
             PMC3713547

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–146K
             Select item 36299072.
             Cytokine Profiles of Preterm Neonates with Fungal and Bacterial Sepsis
             Beena G. Sood, Seetha Shankaran, Robert L. Schelonka, Shampa Saha, Danny K. Benjamin, Jr, Pablo J. Sánchez, Ira Adams-Chapman, Barbara J. Stoll, Poul Thorsen, Kristin Skogstrand, Richard A. Ehrenkranz, David M. Hougaard, Ronald N. Goldberg, Jon E. Tyson, Abhik Das, Rosemary D. Higgins, Waldemar A. Carlo, for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network
             Pediatr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 April 18.
             Published in final edited form as: Pediatr Res. 2012 August; 72(2): 212–220. doi: 10.1038/pr.2012.56

             PMCID:
             PMC3629907

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–1.2M
             Select item 37042123.
             Association Between Blood Spot Transforming Growth Factor-β and Patent Ductus Arteriosus in Extremely Low-Birth Weight Infants
             Girija Natarajan, Seetha Shankaran, Scott A. McDonald, Abhik Das, Richard A. Ehrenkranz, Ronald N. Goldberg, Barbara J. Stoll, Jon E. Tyson, Rosemary D. Higgins, Diana Schendel, David M Hougaard, Kristin Skogstrand, Poul Thorsen, Waldemar A. Carlo
             Pediatr Cardiol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 July 8.
             Published in final edited form as: Pediatr Cardiol. 2013 January; 34(1): 149–154. Published online 2012 June 10. doi: 10.1007/s00246-012-0404-7

             PMCID:
             PMC3704212

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–386K
             Select item 32157874.
             Cytokines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants
             Waldemar A. Carlo, Scott A. McDonald, Jon E. Tyson, Barbara J. Stoll, Richard A. Ehrenkranz, Seetha Shankaran, Ronald N. Goldberg, Abhik Das, Diana Schendel, Poul Thorsen, Kristin Skogstrand, David M. Hougaard, William Oh, Abbot R. Laptook, Shahnaz Duara, Avroy A. Fanaroff, Edward F. Donovan, Sheldon B. Korones, David K. Stevenson, Lu-Ann Papile, Neil N. Finer, T. Michael O’Shea, Brenda B. Poindexter, Linda L. Wright, Namasivayam Ambalavanan, Rosemary D. Higgins
             J Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 December 1.
             Published in final edited form as: J Pediatr. 2011 December; 159(6): 919–925.e3. Published online 2011 July 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.05.042

             PMCID:
             PMC3215787

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–388KSupplementary Material
             Select item 29898725.
             Parental infertility and cerebral palsy in children
             Jin Liang Zhu, Dorte Hvidtjørn, Olga Basso, Carsten Obel, Poul Thorsen, Peter Uldall, Jørn Olsen
             Hum Reprod. 2010 December; 25(12): 3142–3145. Published online 2010 November 2. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq206

             PMCID:
             PMC2989872

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–116K
             Select item 27148506.
             Racial disparity in pathophysiologic pathways of preterm birth based on genetic variants
             Ramkumar Menon, Brad Pearce, Digna R Velez, Mario Merialdi, Scott M Williams, Stephen J Fortunato, Poul Thorsen
             Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009; 7: 62. Published online 2009 June 15. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-7-62

             PMCID:
             PMC2714850

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–8.4M
             Select item 25532677.
             Preterm Birth in Caucasians Is Associated with Coagulation and Inflammation Pathway Gene Variants
             Digna R. Velez, Stephen J. Fortunato, Poul Thorsen, Salvatore J. Lombardi, Scott M. Williams, Ramkumar Menon
             PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(9): e3283. Published online 2008 September 26. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003283

             PMCID:
             PMC2553267

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–185KSupplementary Material
             Select item 15814748.
             Acquisition and Elimination of Bacterial Vaginosis During Pregnancy: A Danish Population-Based Study
             Ida Vogel, Poul Thorsen, Bernard Jeune, Bo Jacobsson, Niels Ebbesen, Magnus Arpi, Annie Bremmelgaard, Birger R. Møller
             Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 2006: 94646. Published online 2006 May 25. doi: 10.1155/IDOG/2006/94646

             PMCID:
             PMC1581474

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–492K
             Select item 1496259.
             Determination of Immunoglobulin A against Gardnerella vaginalis Hemolysin, Sialidase, and Prolidase Activities in Vaginal Fluid: Implications for Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes
             Sabina Cauci, Poul Thorsen, Diana E. Schendel, Annie Bremmelgaard, Franco Quadrifoglio, Secondo Guaschino
             J Clin Microbiol. 2003 January; 41(1): 435–438. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.1.435-438.2003

             PMCID:
             PMC149625

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–53K
             Select item 386971010.
             Separable Sustained and Selective Attention Factors Are Apparent in 5-Year-Old Children
             Mette Underbjerg, Melanie S. George, Poul Thorsen, Ulrik S. Kesmodel, Erik L. Mortensen, Tom Manly
             PLoS One. 2013; 8(12): e82843. Published online 2013 December 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082843

             PMCID:
             PMC3869710

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–1.0M
             Select item 361912711.
             Cytokines and Post-hemorrhagic Ventricular Dilation in Premature Infants
             Namasivayam Ambalavanan, Waldemar A. Carlo, Scott A. McDonald, Abhik Das, Diana E. Schendel, Poul Thorsen, David M. Hougaard, Kristin Skogstrand, Rosemary D. Higgins, for the Cytokine and GDB Subcommittees of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Neonatal Research Network
             Am J Perinatol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 October 1.
             Published in final edited form as: Am J Perinatol. 2012 October; 29(9): 731–740. Published online 2012 July 6. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1316443

             PMCID:
             PMC3619127

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–983K
             Select item 304289212.
             T cell cytokines and the risk of blood stream infection in extremely low birth weight infants
             Robert L. Schelonka, Akhil Maheshwari, Waldemar A. Carlo, Sarah Taylor, Nellie I. Hansen, Diana E. Schendel, Poul Thorsen, Kristin Skogstrand, David M. Hougaard, Rosemary D. Higgins
             Cytokine. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 February 1.
             Published in final edited form as: Cytokine. 2011 February; 53(2): 249–255. Published online 2010 December 9. doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2010.11.003

             PMCID:
             PMC3042892

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–587K
             Select item 287377913.
             Perinatal Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and Retinopathy of Prematurity
             Beena G. Sood, Ashima Madan, Shampa Saha, Diana Schendel, Poul Thorsen, Kristin Skogstrand, David Hougaard, Seetha Shankaran, Wally Carlo
             Pediatr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 April 1.
             Published in final edited form as: Pediatr Res. 2010 April; 67(4): 394–400. doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181d01a36

             PMCID:
             PMC2873779

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–537K
             Select item 320295114.
             Interrelationship of Cytokines, Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Hormones, and Psychosocial Variables in the Prediction of Preterm Birth
             B.D. Pearce, J. Grove, E.A. Bonney, N. Bliwise, D.J. Dudley, D.E. Schendel, P. Thorsen
             Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010 July; 70(1): 40–46. Published online 2010 February 17. doi: 10.1159/000284949

             PMCID:
             PMC3202951

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–149K
             Select item 283153515.
             Circulating β chemokine and MMP 9 as markers of oxidative injury in extremely low birth weight infants
             Girija Natarajan, Seetha Shankaran, Scott A. McDonald, Abhik Das, Barbara J. Stoll, Rosemary D. Higgins, Poul Thorsen, Kristin Skogstrand, David M. Hougaard, Waldemar A. Carlo
             Pediatr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 January 1.
             Published in final edited form as: Pediatr Res. 2010 January; 67(1): 77–82. doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181c0b16c

             PMCID:
             PMC2831535

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–192KSupplementary Material
             Select item 271326616.
             Genome-wide scans using archived neonatal dried blood spot samples
             Mads V Hollegaard, Jonas Grauholm, Anders Børglum, Mette Nyegaard, Bent Nørgaard-Pedersen, Torben Ørntoft, Preben B Mortensen, Carsten Wiuf, Ole Mors, Michael Didriksen, Poul Thorsen, David M Hougaard
             BMC Genomics. 2009; 10: 297. Published online 2009 July 4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-297

             PMCID:
             PMC2713266

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–274KSupplementary Material
             Select item 290321017.
             Cytokines Associated with Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia or Death in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants
             Namasivayam Ambalavanan, Waldemar A. Carlo, Carl T. D’Angio, Scott A. McDonald, Abhik Das, Diana Schendel, Poul Thorsen, Rosemary D. Higgins
             Pediatrics. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 July 13.
             Published in final edited form as: Pediatrics. 2009 April; 123(4): 1132–1141. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0526

             PMCID:
             PMC2903210

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–348KSupplementary Material
             Select item 268366318.
             Mid-pregnancy circulating cytokine levels, histologic chorioamnionitis and spontaneous preterm birth
             Julia Warner Gargano, Claudia Holzman, Patricia Senagore, Poul Thorsen, Kristin Skogstrand, David M. Hougaard, Mohammad H. Rahbar, Hwan Chung
             J Reprod Immunol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 October 1.
             Published in final edited form as: J Reprod Immunol. 2008 October; 79(1): 100–110. Published online 2008 September 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jri.2008.08.006

             PMCID:
             PMC2683663

             ArticlePubReaderPDF–696K
             Select item 253250419.
             Serum Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor in the Prediction of Preterm Delivery
             Brad D. Pearce, (Ms.) Sicily E. Garvin, Jakob Grove, Elizabeth A. Bonney, Donald J. Dudley, Diana E. Schendel, Poul Thorsen
             Am J Obstet Gynecol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 July 1.
             Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 July; 199(1): 46.e1–46.e6. Published online 2008 February 1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.066

             PMCID:
             PMC2532504

             Reply
       • foreverh April 19, 2015 / 1:20 pm

         While the FULL video attempts to defame the CDC… It is this Dr. Thorsen that is vilified by Posey and treated as an enemy here.. NOT introduced.. You provided a video against your own evidence and ONLY 28 seconds of it.. “Humongous Scum Bag” is neither professional nor any form of endorsement of your precious Thorsen.. What made you think this wouldn’t be found?

         Reply
8. Marsha September 22, 2014 / 6:18 pm

   This is BIG & speaks for itself. Written in the archives of history not to be denied. Here This Well ‘Salk Testified’

   http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-2-2/

   “Doctors and scientists on the staff of the National Institutes of Health during the 1950s were well aware that the Salk vaccine was causing polio. Some frankly stated that it was “worthless as a preventive and dangerous to take [26:142].” They refused to vaccinate their own children [26:142]. Health departments banned the inoculations [26:140]. The Idaho State Health Director angrily declared: “I hold the Salk vaccine and its manufacturers responsible” for a polio outbreak that killed several Idahoans and hospitalized dozens more [26:140]. Even Salk himself was quoted as saying: “When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine you don’t sleep well for two or three weeks [26:144;43].” But the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and drug companies with large investments in the vaccine coerced the U.S. Public Health Service into falsely proclaiming the vaccine was safe and effective [26:142-5].

   In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used in the 1950s, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost exclusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the “principal if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since 1961 [44]. (The virus remains in the throat for one to two weeks and in the feces for up to two months. Thus, vaccine recipients are at risk, and can potentially spread the disease, as long as fecal excretion of the virus continues [45].) In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio in the United States [36]. In fact, according to CDC figures, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 was caused by the oral polio vaccine [36]. Authorities claim the vaccine was responsible for about eight cases of polio every year [46]. However, an independent study that analyzed the government’s own vaccine database during a recent period of less than five years uncovered 13,641 reports of adverse events following use of the oral polio vaccine. These reports included 6,364 emergency room visits and 540 deaths (Figure 3) [47,48]. Public outrage at these tragedies became the impetus for removing the oral polio vaccine from immunization schedules [36:568;37;38].

   Figure 3. Polio

   Go to the link for the rest of the story. Please don’t bother to try to discredit this site because the sources & cites used are credible as those looking for truth will see.

   Reply
   • Chris September 22, 2014 / 6:24 pm

     Marsha, that does not seem to be a verified source of information.

     Reply
     • Marsha November 2, 2014 / 10:11 am

       Then you didn’t do the proper research Chris. It’s there for those paying attention & want to know the real science.

       Reply
       • Chris November 2, 2014 / 12:02 pm

         Okay, Marsha explain how to do “proper research.” Obviously I did it wrong as an engineering analyst using published engineering/mathematics research for my job. Was I supposed to go to some random guy who said he had an alternative method for getting eigenvectors and eigenvalues for structures?

         Well excuse me for using PubMed and only willing to take the word of those scientists who are qualified and reputable, and not Neal Z. Miller. Miller is a journalist with no scientific education:
         http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/03/950-neil-z-miller-gary-s-goldman.html

         Marsha, though it is not perfect, please stick to providing PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers in the future.

         Reply
         • Marsha December 21, 2014 / 9:39 pm

           You mean studies done by the foxes guarding the hen houses?

           Reply
           • Chris December 21, 2014 / 9:47 pm

             So exactly which researchers are approved by you? And when you do provide a detailed educational and vocational resume so that we may determine your level of expertise.

             I just have a degree in engineering, and have been dealing with medical experts who have kept my son alive from seizures, diseases and a severe genetic heart disorder. So I can assume that you have at least the same level of education as an epidemiologist. Perhaps you even know how to get eigenvectors and eigenvalues from multivariable nonlinear second order differential equations.

             Reply
           • Jennifer Raff December 22, 2014 / 8:11 am

             Marsha, how would you design a study to test the safety of a vaccine?

             Reply
             • JN January 30, 2015 / 12:31 pm

               I am not Marsha, but I like this question, and want to think about what kind of vaccine study I would like to see.

               I like the premise of this article you’ve written, because I am that exact kind of parent in the middle – tired of hearing only fear-mongering on both sides, and a completely polarized issue with no hope of conversation.

               Previous generations were o.k. with just trusting their doctor, but I don’t think we’ll ever get back to that. Parents now have many advanced degrees, and want to have lots of real information, not be told they aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions, and to just listen blindly to your doctor. They are constantly made to hear “you are anti-science if you have any questions about vaccines.” Since the measles cases in the news lately, I have been reading (yet again) about the vaccines and history of the disease – primarily on the CDC website. It is very clear, although you have to spend a lot of time looking, that there are pros and cons to vaccination (for example, the epidemic of measles in 1989-1991 killed primarily babies under 1, in whom the vaccine is not effective. This was higher than pre-vaccine deaths of babies because mothers during the outbreak did not pass on effective antibodies since they didn’t have wild measles as children, but were vaccinated.) That may not outweigh the benefit of vaccines, but is one among many facts that I would like to read in a book or document accessible to lay people, listing all facts on either side, not just all positives. When the news from official sources (doctors, pamphlets from hospital, official spokespersons for government agencies) is only glowingly positive, it makes it seem suspect.

               Another thing that could help more people decide to vaccinate, is for tons of research to be done on what IS causing the modern conditions like allergies, autism, and auto-immune disease. When parents look at their kids and friend’s kids, they don’t see measles or polio (for which I am truly thankful), they see the immediate threat of ADHD, autism, life-threatening food allergies, and have to deal with that reality. The fact that modern science has NO idea what these are from and how to prevent or cure them creates a great lack of confidence in other things studies, government, and doctors are telling them, which makes information that questions things like vaccine safety seem like something to consider. Especially considering conditions that are connected to the immune system – it makes a parent start to look at why the immune system is disordered.

               So advice I would give the CDC and epidemiologists is:
               1. Give parents an accessible history of the vaccines and how they were developed, including trial and errors, failures, reactions, etc. Follow up to this with current information as it becomes available. It can’t be one-sided or it will be seen as propaganda. Life is not perfect, and people know it. When something is presented as perfect, it seems there is something to hide. When they don’t have an answer, admit it.

               Realize that the current issues most parents are facing today (especially parents who start to question current conclusions of science) are ADHD, Autism, severe food allergies, many auto-immune diseases, etc. These are the realities of the modern parent. They get tired of having no answers when their kids are chronically sick and suffering, so they start to look around themselves, and suspect anything that’s happened in the last couple generations. THIS IS WHY people don’t vaccinate. Research into vaccines won’t convince anyone until some of these modern diseases are acknowledged and understood. Doctors and other people who think these are sort of fake or exaggerated are adding to the problem of pushing people to find their own, often fringe, information.
               Full disclosure on the money trail. Easy to read publication of who paid for what studies and what treatments or vaccines, and who profits. With honesty. If it’s totally incriminating, and couldn’t ever be disclosed, then re-think the ethics of this and fix it. Not easy to do, if there is corruption or personal interest, but that would solve a lot of suspicion.

               …basically have respect for parents and the reality of their children’s health, and take the time to understand what their concerns are. Trust needs to be established by the medical community by treating parents as peer-adults, not fanatic idiots. Realize that even non-medically trained adults are capable of processing information. Even if they are not, forced vaccination laws just polarizes people more, not convinces them or future generations that the government and science is trustworthy. Most people opting out of vaccines are in upper classes and educated. Medical experts should get to know people who opt out of vaccines, and ASK them why. ASK them, in person, without threat of taking their kids away or losing their friends, WHY they don’t vaccinate, and what could be done to change their mind.

               Reply
               • JN January 30, 2015 / 12:40 pm

                 My numbers and paragraph spacing got deleted at the end. There should be a 2 before the “Realize” paragraph, and a 3 and a line space at “Full disclosure”.

                 Reply
               • Jennifer Raff January 30, 2015 / 12:55 pm

                 Thanks so much for your thoughtful answer JN! I agree that the main issue is trust, and I know that parents who are concerned about vaccines often feel that they aren’t being listened to by doctors. The flip side of this is that doctors are providing evidence that vaccines are safe and effective–there’s virtually no disagreement on this subject by anyone who has expertise in infectious disease, immunology, or pediatrics–but their evidence is being ignored. But you know all of this, I’m sure.

                 As far as your other point, that parents are scared of allergies and things like autism, I know that very well and I have nothing but sympathy for these fears. However, research to better understand the causes of these syndromes is ongoing–just about the only thing that it has produced so far is that vaccines AREN’T the cause, and that much of it can be attributed to genetics. But that research gets rejected by these same parents who don’t like hearing it for whatever reason.

                 I agree wholeheartedly that parents are capable of processing information–after all, there’s nothing special about we doctors and scientists except, in part, that we’ve had rigorous and formal training in how to do so (and in all the technical knowledge that makes up our disciplines). While it’s hard to replicate that experience, I do think that there are ways that parents can learn to process scientific/medical information better. That’s exactly why I wrote a guide for non-scientists to reading scientific papers! (it’s here : https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-2/ )

                 Anyway, I want to think more carefully about the points you raised when I have a bit more time. I think that you’ve done a great job in articulating them, and you deserve a much more thorough response than my off-the-cuff remarks here. Maybe, if it’s all right with you, I’ll use your comment as the basis for a post, in which I heavily moderate comments to encourage a different tone in discussion. I’ll give this some thought. Thanks!

                 Reply
               • Chris January 30, 2015 / 1:31 pm

                 “(for example, the epidemic of measles in 1989-1991 killed primarily babies under 1, in whom the vaccine is not effective.”

                 Citation needed. Something similar to this (and the full paper is free to read online):
                 J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
                 Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

                 Which says: “Age at death ranged from 25 days to 57 years of age; there were no significant differences in the age distributions of measles deaths recorded in NCHS and those reported to NIP.”

                 “1. Give parents an accessible history of the vaccines and how they were developed, including trial and errors, failures, reactions, etc”

                 The CDC Pink Book is available for free online, and includes all that information in an accessible format. Here is the Table of Contents:

                 Cover and front matter: Cover, table of contents, etc.
                 Chapter 1: Principles of Vaccination
                 Chapter 2: General Recommendations on Immunization
                 Chapter 3: Immunization Strategies
                 Chapter 4: Vaccine Safety
                 Chapter 5: Vaccine Storage and Handling
                 Chapter 6: Diphtheria
                 Chapter 7: Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
                 Chapter 8: Hepatitis A
                 Chapter 9: Hepatitis B
                 Chapter 10: Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
                 Chapter 11: Influenza
                 Chapter 12: Measles
                 Chapter 13: Meningococcal Disease
                 Chapter 14: Mumps
                 Chapter 15: Pertussis
                 Chapter 16: Pneumococcal Disease
                 Chapter 17: Poliomyelitis
                 Chapter 18: Rotavirus
                 Chapter 19: Rubella
                 Chapter 20: Tetanus
                 Chapter 21: Varicella

                 There is also this website: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/

                 There are also several good books on vaccines that include “trial and errors, failures, reactions,”. One I would suggest is The Cutter Incident by Dr. Paul Offit (his biography of Maurice Hilleman, Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases is also very good). Another one would be Pox: An American History by Michael Willrich.

                 “Realize that the current issues most parents are facing today (especially parents who start to question current conclusions of science) are ADHD, Autism, severe food allergies, many auto-immune diseases, etc. These are the realities of the modern parent.”

                 Those have been studied, extensively. There are several links in the above article, especially in the paragraph titled “Do vaccines cause autism?” (by the way, the answer is no). And this is a list of studies using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (includes some of your autoimmune concerns):
                 http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/library/vsd_pubs.html

                 “Full disclosure on the money trail. Easy to read publication of who paid for what studies and what treatments or vaccines, and who profits. With honesty. If it’s totally incriminating, and couldn’t ever be disclosed, then re-think the ethics of this and fix it. Not easy to do, if there is corruption or personal interest, but that would solve a lot of suspicion.”

                 That is required for every paper and study. The study I listed on the 1990 measles epidemic includes all of the authors affiliations, The last paragraph explains who paid for the study (the CDC and Dept. of Energy, in other words your federal tax dollars). Papers do get corrected and/or retracted if that is not disclosed. I have reached my limits for links, but there is a blog called “RetractionWatch”, it has a search box. Search it for “conflict of interest.”

                 “I am not Marsha, but I like this question, and want to think about what kind of vaccine study I would like to see.”

                 This is your first sentence, but I did not see you answer Dr. Raff’s question: “Marsha, how would you design a study to test the safety of a vaccine?”

                 Reply
           • foreverh April 20, 2015 / 2:54 pm

             Confirmation Bias.. Right here.. Right in this answer.. If the scientist does their job in any way shape or form with respect to the facts.. They are facts.. Your denial of them does not constitute wrong doing.. If anything it makes you look like a looney toon incapable of rational thought.. No.. I’m not CALLING you a Looney toon.. Just pointing out that this is what YOUR agenda has cost you.. Denial of factual evidence in favor of your belief system.

             Reply
   • foreverh April 19, 2015 / 2:45 pm

     Your source.. Your SOURCE.. is vaxtruth.org? You’re quoting from a blogger who pays an average of $10 a month for a domain name.. Probably subsidised by advertising so not even $10 per month..

     These are riddled with Cognitive dissonance and Confirmation bias.. If you don’t know what those are? You need to look it up.. They rely on anecdotes and rhetoric as “proof”..

     Just like the political representative in the CDC videos.. No one can answer those questions, because despite the research proving over and over there is no link? They keep saying “prove it I still don’t believe you”

     Reply
9. Pingback: NVIC, Paul Offit, and the “Hear This Well” Campaign | Let's Be Honest About The NVIC
10. Pingback: Vaccination, traduction de "Chers parents, on vous ments" | Blog d'Aurian
11. Pingback: About Vaccines | Flaviano Tarducci
12. Drew Armstrong January 14, 2015 / 1:33 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o65l1YAVaYc Enjoy some SCIENCE!!!!

    Reply
13. Pingback: Padres: Les han mentido, la salud de sus hijos está en peligro
14. David January 31, 2015 / 7:22 pm

    I really don’t understand what the big issue with vaccines is. I mean if they did cause autism or ADHD (which they don’t) is that worse than burying a child due to mumps, measles, or rubella?

    Reply
15. Pingback: 부모들이여, 당신은 지금까지 속고만 살았다 - 보이스뉴스
16. Pingback: Herd Immunity: Anti-Vaxxers Are Killing It - Sisterhood of the Sensible Moms | Sisterhood of the Sensible Moms
17. Pingback: Dear Parents, You Are Being Lied To
18. Pingback: The truth about vaccinations: Your physician knows more than the University of Google | My BlogThe Philosopher's blog.
19. eleven nätbutik March 29, 2015 / 4:21 pm

    Hemskt självklar historia! Dör för looken!!

    Reply
20. Pingback: – ReBlog: How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists
21. Pingback: Cari genitori, e se sui vaccini vi stessero mentendo? - Blue Planet Heart
22. Pingback: ძვირფასო მშობლებო, თქვენ შეცდომაში შეჰყავხართ! « National Center for Disease Control and Public Health of Georgia
23. Pingback: ძვირფასო მშობლებო, თქვენ შეცდომაში შეჰყავხართ! « National Center for Disease Control and Public Health of Georgia
24. Jo April 22, 2015 / 5:00 pm

    Hello, I am very grateful that I didn’t listen to my family (all doctors) or my pediatrician when it came to vaccinating my two sons. For both, I refused the Hep B shot. For both, I waited until they were 4-6 months to give them one shot, with the intention of giving one more shot every few months thereafter, cutting out as many as I felt were unnecessary (varicella before age 10, HepB, flu, some boosters since fewer are required when children get their shots at a later age, etc).

    I am happy because we found out when my older son turned 6 that he had a very rare metabolic disorder. Receiving several vaccines at once has caused countless other children with his disorder to develop chronic seizure disorders and sometimes become comatose, causing long-term brain damage. Thankfully, due to listening to my common sense instead of the fake god of “science” (which is, in truth, only observations made by fallible and unknowing human beings), my son has an IQ over 140 and has only had one illness his entire life, requiring a call to the doctor once. That’s with traveling all over the world, being in school and daycares, and on about 30 plane rides.

    My other son is now 10 mos old. He had two vaccinations — the first seemed to correlate with a massive break-out of eczema all over his body. But I wasn’t sure if it was coincidence so he got another a couple months later. It happened again.

    Since then he has received blood tests that show he is allergic to milk, egg whites, egg yolks, peanuts, tree nuts, wheat, rice, oatmeal, potatoes, tomatoes, and peppers. Berries cause his face to break out. The eczema flares when he touches polyester or when my neighbors spray pesticides.

    Does your common sense really tell you that this baby should be vaccinated on schedule like everyone else? Even his conservative doctor has no problem with my decision not to vaccinate on schedule now. And they were pushing me to give him a HepB shot when he was 2 minutes old BEFORE THEY EVEN KNEW IF HE WAS ABLE TO PEE.

    This god of science you reference, he only knows the average. Thank God I could listen to common sense, which told me my kids just might not be the norm. And they weren’t.

    Meanwhile, policy makers are battling government efforts to curb power plant emissions. They know that doing so would prevent about 150,000 asthma attacks in children and 6600 early deaths per year. But they would rather save corporate money and hurt the kids.

    What does that show about what truly rules our policies — money, or our childrens’ health?

    Reply
    • Colin April 25, 2015 / 12:51 am

      Does your common sense really tell you that this baby should be vaccinated on schedule like everyone else?

      Responsible medical decisions aren’t made on a gut instinct, but by balancing known or knowable risks and benefits. What are the odds that your child would be allergic to a HepB shot? What are the odds of such a shot harming a child? If you aren’t trained to understand and compare those risks, your instincts aren’t a good guide to whether such shots are actually likely to be harmful.

      I’m curious about your older child’s metabolic disorder. Does it have a name? How was he diagnosed?

      Reply
      • Jo April 25, 2015 / 8:00 am

        Colin, he is seeing a metabolic doctor. She tested him. He has been in therapy for two years for the resulting hypotonia and coordination problems. Also, he is not autistic, but shows symptoms that are often color id with autism. He is dealing with a few disorders — carnitine deficiency (late onset — he tested normal at birth), zinc malabsorption, ketotic hypoglycemia, and a MTHFR gene mutation. He can handle one vaccine shot at a time. However, when he has multiple, his body is overwhelmed. By that I mean that he does not eliminate toxins as efficiently as others. He then has difficulty eating and staying hydrated enough which causes an episode of ketotic hypoglycemia, which turns nonketotic if he does not have enough carnitine. This happened to my friend’s son who has the same disorder. He had multiple seizures and they didn’t know what was going on until he developed brain damage. His insurance wouldn’t pay for the tests so they went years not knowing what was wrong, until finally he seized so badly that they had to put him in a medically induced coma and the insurance finally tested and found the disorder. Now he is fully autistic and attending an ABA school.

        She had what you would call a gut instinct that something was wrong with him, and she was concerned about receiving multiple vaccinations at once. Especially live vaccines. However, her in-laws are doctors who convinced her that she’s stupid and they knew more than her.

        Who was right? What you call gut instinct, I call common sense. When doctors told my mom who was dying of cancer in 1989 that she could smoke in her hospital room, my common sense told me that wasn’t good. But they cited a study that it didn’t matter. So she had chemotherapy and radiation, then smoked in front of her children in the hospital. Then she died a few months later. Doctors also told my grandma in the 1930s that smoking would help her relieve stress. That led to her smoking a pack a day for 70 years, to all her kids smoking, and to my mother smoking through her pregnancies. Again, common sense would dictate that it’s not healthy. But they trusted the doctors. Who are wrong time and time again. Like with giving pregnant women x-rays. Or giving mercury fillings.

        I’m not talking about allergic responses to vaccines in regard to this son (although my other son very well could experience that, or could simply have an immune system that responds in unconventional ways). I’m talking about a body that is simply more sensitive and cannot handle a lot at once. So we could also argue that vaccines are essential for him, because he wouldn’t handle the actual illnesses very well either. However, the standard vaccine routine is too much for him as well. He needs them spaced far apart. And I still thank God that I took that precaution.

        As for the HepB at birth, again I’m not just talking about an allergic reaction. My concern with it is literally that they give it before knowing if the newborn can urinate. A safe response to vaccines requires that the body be able to eliminate toxins from it. They don’t know if newborns can urinate until they do. My last son didn’t urinate until he was 14 hrs old. They were starting to be concerned he had a structural problem, or some other issue. Yet they wanted to give him a vaccine for HepB, most commonly a STD, when he was 5 mins old.

        Why don’t they take the precaution of waiting until he urinates and defecates? Is he going to get HepB while still in the hospital? I don’t have it and my husband and I have been monogamous for 10 years and we don’t use drugs or go to any scenes remotely like that. So why should they have tried to guilt-trip me into giving it to him then?

        Sometimes, we become too comfortable with the idea of safety, that we lose our common sense and learn to trust the system a little too much.

        Reply
        • Colin April 26, 2015 / 1:51 am

          Doctors also told my grandma in the 1930s that smoking would help her relieve stress. That led to her smoking a pack a day for 70 years, to all her kids smoking, and to my mother smoking through her pregnancies. Again, common sense would dictate that it’s not healthy.

          Actually, scientific observations of the effects of smoking are what taught us that it’s not healthy. “Common sense” was all over the map, because “common sense” is usually just people believing what they want to believe.

          But they trusted the doctors. Who are wrong time and time again. Like with giving pregnant women x-rays. Or giving mercury fillings.

          Science and doctors scrutinize the effects of their work to make sure their recommendations are as helpful as possible, and change their practices in accordance with those observations. That’s one of the most important differences between science and “common sense” – common sense is about justifying what you want to believe, while science is about finding out what’s true in a progressively more accurate way. One of these things cured polio and sent a rocket to the moon. (It wasn’t “common sense.”)

          Sometimes, we become too comfortable with the idea of safety, that we lose our common sense and learn to trust the system a little too much.

          Conversely, sometimes we become enamored of the idea of being a brave contrarian and start to see frightful risks that aren’t really there. But it feels good to stand up against the system, I know. Does the feeling of resisting the system maybe lead you to find justifications for making contrarian choices?

          I think you have remarkably bad luck, to have two children with what you describe as very rare conditions that make them susceptible to vaccine injuries. And it’s even more striking that you were hostile to vaccination before they were born and later learned that they had these rare conditions that confirmed your preconceptions.

          Obviously I don’t know you or your children, but I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m a little curious about whether your preconceptions and your conviction that they’re susceptible to vaccine injuries are linked at all.

          Why don’t they take the precaution of waiting until he urinates and defecates? Is he going to get HepB while still in the hospital? I don’t have it and my husband and I have been monogamous for 10 years and we don’t use drugs or go to any scenes remotely like that. So why should they have tried to guilt-trip me into giving it to him then?

          If you don’t know the answers to these questions, then you don’t know enough to make an educated decision about whether a child should be given the vaccine.

          Reply
          • Chris April 26, 2015 / 10:57 am

            “And it’s even more striking that you were hostile to vaccination before they were born and later learned that they had these rare conditions that confirmed your preconceptions.”

            If her children have a medical contraindication against vaccination, then she should encourage all who can to vaccinate. Her children need as much protection as possible from the community. Because if their metabolism would have a rough time with vaccine, their reaction would a hundred to a thousand times worse with the wild pathogens.

            Reply
            • Jo April 26, 2015 / 11:51 am

              That sounds like a logical conclusion, but I stick to my belief that parents have the right to look into all the available information and make their own decisions based upon their situations, without facing undue coercion or guilt. So no I’m not interested in trying to persuade everyone else to do something with their children just for the sake of mine. And if I were going to, there are many other areas I’d concentrate on first.

              Also as I said before, my sons have had some vaccines. My oldest is now 6 and has received all the most significant vaccines, albeit without some unnecessary boosters (he got the MMR at 4 yrs and we later tested for titers before giving the booster; he showed sufficient immunity so he didn’t need it, etc.). The one I’m debating for now is varicella.

              My youngest, the one with allergies, has only had two, both of which greatly aggravated his eczema. So yes, although I keep him at home most of the time, I am grateful that these childhood diseases are no longer epidemics. But I don’t think his reaction to diseases would be a thousand times worse than anyone else’s. My concern with him is how his immune system reacts to the adjuvants in vaccines, and with them going straight into his bloodstream sans a filter. True diseases don’t have those confounding factors.

              But in the end, of course I’m glad to reap the rewards of their peers being vaccinated (and some aren’t). My oldest has hardly had any illness his entire life (which I also thank good diet, exercise, and healthy hygienic living for). But I don’t find it ethical to coerce others to do something to their kids in order to further protect mine.

              Take care.

              Reply
              • Chris April 26, 2015 / 1:11 pm

                “…but I stick to my belief that parents have the right to look into all the available information and make their own decisions based upon their situations, ”

                Even if they get wrong unverified information and/or do not know the full extent of the situation.

                “My oldest has hardly had any illness his entire life (which I also thank good diet, exercise, and healthy hygienic living for).”

                And because almost everyone else is vaccinated. Please thank your responsible neighbors who vaccinate because they are protecting your children by maintaining your community’s immunity to many nasty diseases. Hope for your boys health that your luck does not run out if that immunity is eroded.

                “ethical to coerce others”

                Encourage is not the same as coerce.

                Reply
                • Jo April 26, 2015 / 2:20 pm

                  Chris, I think you’re trying to continue arguing just because you want to argue. I already said that my older son has been vaccinated. As for my younger, I already said I’m grateful that we aren’t surrounded by childhood diseases.

                  And yes, still, parents have a right to make their own decisions without other people telling them or implying that they’re morons. Providing supporting evidence is great, but demeaning and belittling and stereotyping them like too many hard-core pro-vaxxers do is wrong.

                  I did write what you left out: “in the end, of course I’m glad to reap the rewards of their peers being vaccinated.” But I hope that they all did so for their own reasons, so they don’t need my thanks. I don’t want them to get vaccinated for our sake. Because I don’t want to be responsible for any adverse reactions they may have. They should do it for themselves, if they feel that path is most prudent.

                  You say: “Even if they get wrong unverified information and/or do not know the full extent of the situation.”

                  It looks like you didn’t read what I wrote. I wrote “parents have the right to look into ALL the available information..” If one looks into ALL available information, then that person would know the full extent of the situation just as much as anyone else. If that means that they have reasons that they’d rather trust what you consider unverified information, even after seeing the other side, then yes that’s their choice and no I don’t think they should be belittled, because maybe they have found factors that discredit information that you might consider legitimate. What is legitimate and not is often a judgment call, despite peer reviews and PubMed publishing and what they taught us in school. After all, those studies even contradict each other. They aren’t infallible, no matter how many people call them legitimate and verifiable. And there ARE legitimate opposing arguments.

                  There is a vast amount of politics in science. And human error.

                  Reply
                  • Chris April 26, 2015 / 2:35 pm

                    How am I arguing? I just pointed out that not all of the “information” is truthful, and that you should really thank your neighbors who protect your family.

                    Yeah you said “parents have the right to look into ALL the available information..”…. but lots of it is dreck. It is not like websites like NaturalNews, AgofAutism, HealthyHomeEconomist, FoodBabe, and others do not exist.

                    Reply
                    • Jo April 26, 2015 / 2:37 pm

                      Im sorry if you weren’t arguing. I got the impression that you were, but in a nicer way. There is dreck all around.
25. Jo April 26, 2015 / 7:45 am

    Colin,

    I’m afraid that your responses are getting a little too emotional, or that you’re doing what you claim to be against, meaning finding ways to justify your preconceived notions about me and my situation.

    Scientific observations of the effects of smoking are what /eventually/ led to us knowing that it’s not healthy. But there was a span of time that doctors felt it was fine, recommended it to their patients for stress relief, and even smoked in front of their patients. So the point is not that scientific observations are never useful. I certainly would never claim that. The point is that doctors are still normal human beings who sometimes get things wrong — for a period of time, at least, until opposing evidence mounts and public policy changes. Yes, it’s true that science helped provide the foundation for future public smoking bans and warnings, but that does not change the fact that doctors did recommend smoking to my grandmother to ease anxiety, and that right in front of my face, my mother’s oncologist told her it would be ok to smoke in front of me, in the hospital room because it wouldn’t hurt her much.

    I say that with all due respect to doctors. There are 7 doctors and a pharmacist in my close family, and 2 of my close friends are doctors. I respect all of them, their work and their intelligence. But saying that people and systems are not always infallible is not the same as disrespecting them. It’s being realistic.

    Common sense means using our God-given logic to put two and two together. For example, “chewing tobacco causes mouth cancer. Smoke hurts my lungs and makes people cough. Therefore, smoking cigarettes probably isn’t good for people.” That’s not all over the place. That’s called logic and common sense. Now is the conclusion always going to be correct? No, but scientific studies aren’t either. Again, that’s not disrespect, that’s being realistic. Scientific studies are always limited or influenced by time, numbers, money, the funder’s personal interests, public policies and perceptions, related as-yet-unknown information, and amount of observable angles.

    And recommendations change. When my mother in law, an anesthesiologist, had her children, she went straight to formula. No nursing. Because she was inundated with medical advice that formula was better than breastmilk. My mom, a science teacher, didn’t nurse for the same reason. Older women still always tell me to stop nursing and give formula. But look at that now. Now doctors recommend nursing full-time and cite the endless positive health effects of that, one of them being a lowered risk of allergies in the infant. Well, now as my son is dealing with his allergies, after 9 months of nursing, I find newer studies saying “oh wait, it’s good for some infants, but if the mother has some allergies, it could INCREASE the risk of allergies in the infant and might be harmful.” I don’t blame my doctor. He told me the best that he knew. But he was limited by the studies available. This more recent information just hadn’t come out yet. So point being again, doctors and health organization recommendations and policies may be well-intentioned, but realism teaches us that they aren’t gods who know everything, that they are limited by the available information, and it makes sense to be prudent and use logic.

    Just as you said:

    “Science and doctors scrutinize the effects of their work to make sure their recommendations are as helpful as possible, and change their practices in accordance with those observations.”

    I agree, but what happens in the mean time if people are taught to never think for themselves? Having one’s own brain is not rebellion, and I think it’s a sad time in American history when it’s perceived to be.

    Science is entirely based upon common sense and couldn’t exist without it, so yes, common sense did help send people to the moon. My high school friend is now an engineer at NASA. Ask her what she does — she uses her common sense.

    If I felt that the available studies on vaccines were sufficient, I wouldn’t feel the need to be cautious with them, and might follow the recommended schedule. But there are a great amount of flaws with the totality of the studies which leads me to not believe that they are as thorough as suggested.

    ” Does the feeling of resisting the system maybe lead you to find justifications for making contrarian choices?”

    No, the desire to see my children grow to be as healthy as possible leads me to think for myself, using available evidence, others’ recommendations, and our situation to make the most prudent choices possible. And none will be perfect.

    “I think you have remarkably bad luck, to have two children with what you describe as very rare conditions that make them susceptible to vaccine injuries. And it’s even more striking that you were hostile to vaccination before they were born and later learned that they had these rare conditions that confirmed your preconceptions.”

    You can think as you please and you might call it bad luck. But in the end, I still have two kids who aren’t the norm, and who are seeing an allergist at Riley hospital, a metabolic doctor at Riley hospital, and an OT at St. Vincent’s. I don’t feel the need to try to convince you of any more as you’ve already shown that your emotions will cause you to doubt me no matter what I say.

    “Obviously I don’t know you or your children, but I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m a little curious about whether your preconceptions and your conviction that they’re susceptible to vaccine injuries are linked at all.”

    Yes, obviously you don’t know them, and it seems like you get off on being a skeptic, yourself. I never was totally against vaccines. My sons have received vaccines. I’m against practices such as what I described — giving a hepB shot to a newborn with no predisposing factors before knowing if the newborn has any special medical needs and before knowing if he can even urinate in order to rid himself of the toxins. Because studies that show vaccine safety are pretty much all done on subjects that can urinate, and several studies show the importance of being able to urinate. So the studies might be there, but our current policy isn’t replicating their conditions. THAT is what I’m skeptical of. People feeling a little too safe and therefore pushing too much.

    “If you don’t know the answers to these questions, then you don’t know enough to make an educated decision about whether a child should be given the vaccine.”

    They were rhetorical questions, Colin. If you don’t know what those are or can’t recognize them, then maybe you don’t know enough to be able to accurately understand other peoples’ comments.

    Reply
26. Jo April 26, 2015 / 10:07 am

    Colin, I am happy to take pictures of my son’s carnitine medicine and the 4 boxes of Epi-pens they were prescribed, though I don’t see a way to upload them here. The older also has a prescription for ketostix but I lost that so just ordered them from Amazon instead. He has an appointment the first week of May so I can ask for another script and send a copy of it, if that would help ease your skepticism.

    One of the worst public health issues we have is that those in the medical field have been taught, through media and various sources, to quickly overlook, diminish, or even infantilized the concerns and stories that their patients and patients’ parents share. I view this as a form of prejudice — lumping everyone together in one stereotyped group, thinking they’re all the same, discrediting their character and intelligence, dismissing what they have to say, and finding ways to discredit them, due to knee-jerk reactions and assumptions.

    Reply
27. Jo April 26, 2015 / 2:35 pm

    On another interesting note, I just asked my dad, who was born in 1938, if he ever knew anyone who died or was permanently injured from of a childhood disease or a disease that we vaccinated against now.

    His answer: “no, I never have. Polio was an epidemic when I was growing up, they didn’t even let us stomp in puddles because of it, and I knew a lot who got it, but all pulled through.”

    Note that I do NOT doubt the statistics about polio or that it permanently destroyed many lives. I met a kid in Jordan who was paralyzed from it. But he also was homeless and very malnourished.

    But it’s interesting that a 77 year old man who always attended large public schools, moved a lot due to his dad’s job, was raised poor, who had 2 brothers, 5 wives, 4 kids (2 in their 50s), 4 stepchildren, and many grandkids, who lived in rural and urban areas as a kid, has never once known or heard of anyone who was permanently injured due to these diseases. He partially lost his hearing due to Scarlet Fever. That was all.

    I’ve asked so many older people here. So far, all have said that everyone they knew with measles pulled through fine. Every kid I knew who got chicken pox was fine.

    Our anecdotes do not show the whole picture. These diseases do maim and kill. But I see no reason why they’re considered so gravely dangerous that we can’t even listen to opposing viewpoints. As I wrote before, pollution from coal plants is a much bigger killer. But that’s not so sexy a topic, so very few seem to even care.

    Reply
    • Chris April 26, 2015 / 6:50 pm

      “Our anecdotes do not show the whole picture. These diseases do maim and kill.”

      Which is precisely why the plural of anecdotes is not data. Your father was lucky, plus parents are keen on telling kids bad things.

      Here is an anecdote from me you are free to ignore:

      My kids all got chicken pox a year before the vaccine was available. One of them was just six months old who was reluctant to eat solid food so she was only breast fed. (so much for the “breast feeding will protect them from disease” myth).

      I could have lived happily without that horrible month between a baby who could not sleep and cried in pain, and her six year old brother who was so sick he wet his bed at night. I was shocked when I reviewed the almost twenty year pictures and saw show how close some of the pox got very close to their eyes.

      My personal opinion that only a very very cruel parent would allow a child to suffer up to two weeks with dozens of open itchy sores (the pox). But that is just me, I hate seeing kids suffer

      Reply
    • Chris April 26, 2015 / 6:51 pm

      “plus parents are not keen on telling kids bad things.”

      Reply
28. Pingback: Bufale un tanto al chilo Cari genitori, vi stanno mentendo - Bufale un tanto al chilo
29. Kelley June 30, 2015 / 3:49 pm

    Vaccines can and DO cause autism. Do more homework. Being jabbed with mercury, aluminum, thimerosal, MSG and sundry other chemicals, directly into the bloodstream, where the digestion and lungs cannot filter the poisons, CAN and does cause harm. Come off it. Polio disappeared due to cleaned-up sanitation and water supply, and came BACK via the nasal polio vaccine. How uninformed you are. Jesus! Now tell me why these diseases break out regularly within vaccinated populations. Also can you tell me why Hep B is jabbed into newborns? Because they’re subjected to rough sex, intravenous drug use and AIDS-infected blood, right? Do some research on how unvaccinated kids are healthier. (they are) I could go on …

    Reply
    • Chris July 3, 2015 / 11:38 pm

      Really? Some things you need to address with citations and evidence:

      Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases.

      Also which vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Don’t say “influenza” because half of those approved for children do not contain it.

      If the MMR causes autism, where is the documentation dated before 1990 that it increased in the USA coincident during the 1970s and 1980s with it use after being introduced in 1971. The USA is much larger than the UK, and was using it for almost two decades longer: so if it caused autism it should have been noticed earlier. Where is that documentation?

      “Polio disappeared due to cleaned-up sanitation and water supply, and came BACK via the nasal polio vaccine. How uninformed you are.”

      What “nasal” polio vaccine? I think you may need to read up on polio a bit more. It is a disease that is less harmful the younger the child is when exposed, but more vulnerable after toddler-hood. Improved sanitation delayed infection, and it was often caught in the summer while swimming in ponds and lakes. You might want to do a bit more research into that phenomena.

      “Also can you tell me why Hep B is jabbed into newborns?”

      Because lots of tests for hepatitis b in mothers turn up false negatives, and they can pass it to their newborns. Plus young children tend bleed and bite, and pass it to their school mates. Also it is an endemic chronic infective in certain populations and tiny children can get it when a nice aunty who does not know she has a chronic infection gives the kid a smooch on an skinned knee.

      “Do some research on how unvaccinated kids are healthier.”

      You made the claim, therefore you must provide the citations in the form of PubMed indexed studies by qualified reputable researchers, and not self selected online surveys by homeopaths.

      Reply
30. Kelley June 30, 2015 / 3:50 pm

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/doctors-against-vaccines-the-other-side-of-the-story-is-not-being-told/

    Reply
    • Chris July 3, 2015 / 11:49 pm

      That is not a PubMed indexed study by reputable qualified researchers.

      None of those doctors are reputable nor qualified. And that article even exploits a family mental health tragedy by turning it into a conspiracy.

      Since our family had also endured such a tragedy due to mental illness all I can say: shame on you and that tactless website!

      Reply
31. shay August 10, 2015 / 9:47 am

    Kelley — no vaccine is given directly into the bloodstream. You tell others to “do the research” — perhaps you should try a little, yourself. You could start by downloading the ACIP study on vaccine safety.

    Reply
32. rosross August 13, 2015 / 9:01 am

    Your article has so much propaganda it is difficult to know where to start so I shall not bother since those who question vaccines will do the research and those who don’t won’t care about researching across the spectrum.

    However, the core point is the right for individuals to make their own choices in regard to their health and in particular, to what medical procedures they inflict on themselves or their children.

    In a modern democracy that is a given right and a protected right. Or it should be.

    The movement to question vaccination began with parents who had children injured or dead following vaccination. As sensible and responsible parents they did the research and decided not to inflict further vaccines on an already vaccine-injured child and some opted to reject or limit for other children. All very, very sensible.

    A parent choosing to continue to vaccinate a child already injured by vaccination is akin to giving a child who suffered First Degree burns from playing with a box of matches, another box of matches to play with, time and time again. No sane, sensible, responsible parent would do it.

    Now, given the insane increase in vaccination from around three or four forty years ago to more than fifty in the first five years of life, some educated, intelligent parents are also questioning not so much vaccine theory perhaps, but vaccine policy and procedure. Again, all very sensible.

    Even more sensible given that minor childhood diseases which kids had in the Seventies and before, without any issue given the high levels of sanitation, nutrition and hygiene with which most live in this day and age, were being vaccinated against for no just cause.

    Anyone reading what goes into vaccines would have to question why you would allow this toxic disease/chemical mix to be injected into your child’s body, in ways utterly impossible in nature and in ways which allow for quick uptake by the bloodstream where the first lines of immune defence are avoided and the body is in fact ‘deceived’ into believing it has a disease – in fact, at times, not one disease, but three, another impossibility in nature.

    Here is what goes into vaccines, and this from an Oxford University Site which promotes vaccination. Would you drink it? Your child has no choice, it goes into his or her body and it does so through injection in artificial form for which the human body has never evolved:

    Live and dead, synthesized and ‘natural’ DISEASE in bacterial and viral form;
    ALUMINIUM (linked to dementia and Alzheimers);
    MERCURY thimerosal( and yes still used in some vaccines);
    GELATIN FROM PIGS;
    SERUM FROM HUMAN BLOOD;
    SORBITOL a stabiliser (used in food which is not meant to be injected because it is a cardiac toxin and diabetes exacerbater )
    EMULSIFIERS,( the sort of thing which holds processed mayonnaise together and which has links to obesity);
    ANTIBIOTICS;
    EGG AND YEAST PROTEINS;
    FORMALDYHYDE(a chemical linked to cancer and used to preserve corpses);
    ACIDITY REGULATORS (another food additive);
    HUMAN CELL LINES FROM ABORTED FOETUSES grown in laboratories;
    ANIMAL CELL LINES;
    GENETICALLY MODIFIED INGREDIENTS
    Source: http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/

    Reply
    • Chris August 13, 2015 / 10:19 am

      “The movement to question vaccination began with parents who had children injured or dead following vaccination.”

      Really? Who were these parents, and where are the medically confirmed case studies in the PubMed index? Do they outnumber the deaths of infants from pertussis and haemophilus influenzae type b?

      “Anyone reading what goes into vaccines would have to question why you would allow this toxic disease/chemical mix to be injected into your child’s body, in ways utterly impossible in nature…”

      So no child of yours ever scraped their knees, had a bug bite, breathed in air (Intranasal influenza vaccine) or drank any fluids (rotavirus vaccine)? Next question: how is inhaling wild virus, drinking in actual rotavirus viruses or polio virus, breathing in pertussis, getting tetanus spores in a cut, and contracting any other disease better?

      Oh, now a scary list of ingredients! You forgot one thing about formaldehyde: it is also used in cell metabolism. How do propose to remove all the formaldehyde from a child without causing its death?

      “MERCURY thimerosal( and yes still used in some vaccines);”

      Please tell us which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Do not mention influenza, since half of those approved for children do not contain thimerosal.

      “the sort of thing which holds processed mayonnaise together and which has links to obesity”

      How big a dose do you think a vaccine uses? Did you really just equate a vaccine dose to a jar of mayo?

      Reply
      • rosross August 14, 2015 / 10:14 am

        A modicum of research will provide you with answers as to the beginning of the movement to question vaccines. I suggest you do it and by all means, check PubMed and NCBI.

        There seems to be a strange mindset that prior to vaccination children dropped like flies from things like Pertussis and the Flu. They did not, at least not in the First World with the protection of optimal sanitation, hygiene and nutrition. Younger generations seem quite brainwashed on this issue. Somehow a mild disease like Measles has morphed into the Black Death.

        Scraping your knee, being bitten by an insect and breathing in pathogens all allow the first lines of immune defence to be activated. Injecting a cocktail of disease and toxins into a child’s body for quick uptake by the blood, in ways utterly impossible in nature, bypasses the first lines of immune response. Vaccines in essence involve the body in trickery. One wonders if that confusion leads to the sort of confusion which now has cancer the biggest killer of children.

        Yes, naturally acquired disease is better. For one thing it is natural and not a synthetic version and for another the body has evolved to deal with it. In addition, all immune function is involved so the body has evolved to respond as it should. And it does not come with a dose of toxins and all sorts of things like human foetal matter, animal matter, etc., something for which the body has never evolved. Neither would a child in nature find three diseases introduced to the body at the same time.

        Formaldehyde used in cell metabolism is naturally produced and is not a synthetic version injected into the body in ways impossible in nature.

        Thimerosal is still in Flu vaccines. I think it is found in some others. You can look it up.

        The dose in vaccines has been tested on animals. The use of vaccines on humans, particularly babies and children is experimental. The dose may do little harm to one child and injure another and kill a few.
        ..

        Reply
        • Chris August 14, 2015 / 12:53 pm

          “Scraping your knee, being bitten by an insect and breathing in pathogens all allow the first lines of immune defence to be activated. Injecting a cocktail of disease and toxins into a child’s body for quick uptake by the blood, in ways utterly impossible in nature, bypasses the first lines of immune response. ”

          Wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong. The reason vaccines are given subcutaneously and intramuscularly is is to activate the immune system, and to keep them out of the blood vessels as long as possible. You are really failing basic Google U.

          “Formaldehyde used in cell metabolism is naturally produced and is not a synthetic version injected into the body in ways impossible in nature.”

          Did you skip taking chemistry in high school? Next you are going to tell me that “organic salt” is a real thing.

          “Thimerosal is still in Flu vaccines. I think it is found in some others. You can look it up.”

          Ah, I see the problem now: you have issues with reading comprehension. Look at my request again and see what you did wrong:

          “Please tell us which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Do not mention influenza, since half of those approved for children do not contain thimerosal.”

          Have someone help you with what the bolded words mean. Also, ask them what I meant when I in the last sentence by explaining what “do not mention” and “half of those approved” means.

          I had looked it up on a certain FDA page, but you can’t be bothered to look at the real data as you blindly regurgitate websites from cranks like Suzanne Humphries. You need to try harder to convince us you are smarter than the average immunologist, or even the lawyer and engineers who are answering you:

          Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedules causes more medical issues than the disease. You need to give us the relative risk of studies by those who are qualified in the area of study. Examples of what is acceptable include this list and this other list.

          Reply
          • rosross August 15, 2015 / 5:33 am

            Read more carefully. I said, for quick uptake by the bloodstream. Of course they are not injected into veins. But they are injected into areas of high capillary function for ‘quick uptake by the blood system.’ This from a medical professional.

            Please note, reference to ‘greater blood supply.’

            Quote: Intramuscular injections are used to deliver drugs and vaccines. They are a common practice in modern medicine. Several drugs and almost all inactivated vaccines are delivered this way.

            The speed of absorption is faster for intramuscular injection compared to subcutaneous injection. This is because the muscle tissue has a greater blood supply than the area just under the skin. Muscle tissue may also hold a larger volume of medication than subcutaneous tissue.

            http://www.healthline.com/health/intramuscular-injection#Overview1

            So I am right, right, right and you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

            I know the theories of chemistry regarding natural and synthetic but it has already been established that synthetics and natural are not equal. The below comment from a pharmacist….

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/08/28/6-reasons-synthetic-marijuana-spice-k2-is-so-toxic-to-the-brain/

            Herbal and Synthetic Drugs: A Comparison

            JOEL ALBERS
            Pharmacist, Pharm.D., Ph.D.
            Quote: Herbs are medicinal plants (also called phytomedicinals) that can be administered as the whole plant or plant parts or by extracting one or more ingredients with solvents to yield tinctures, tea or other extracts. Synthetic drugs (what the drug industry calls “pharmaceuticals”) are synthesized chemically in the laboratory to produce drugs not found in nature. One quarter of these drugs used in the U.S. are derived from plants (i.e., opiates, digitalis, Taxol) by extracting the active ingredient from a plant, replicating its structure in the lab and mass-producing it.

            Herbal drugs are considered less potent than prescribed medicines. The latter usually contain one highly concentrated active ingredient, while herbs may have several active ingredients that are chemically similar. Herbal ingredients work synergistically to contribute to, or detract from, the therapeutic effect of each individual ingredient.

            See more at: http://www.doitgreen.org/green-living/herbal-and-synthetic-drugs-comparison#sthash.8f0qGODx.dpuf

            If you want to inject your child with Thimerosal, go for it. If you want to inject human foetal material from aborted babies. Go for it. If you want to inject animal material, synthetic formaldehyde, emulsifiers, go for it. There are many people who do not. Removing Thimerosal from most vaccines given to children does not render them safe.

            The biggest problem with vaccine is that the theory is flawed, it has become a huge money-making industry sourced in the delusion that the human body is a machine, and there are too many, too soon, too often, too multiple, too experimental.

            I suspect if sanity had reigned and profit and power were not the drivers, and kids got a couple of vaccines at an older age as they did forty or fifty years ago we would not be having this conversation. But we are.

            Some thoughts from doctors for you:

            Since vaccine development information is considered proprietary, government and researchers shield potential safety issues from public scrutiny. In essence, health care professionals and the general public know little about the possible dangers.”

            Dr. W. John Martin MD, PhD

            “Death from brain and spinal chord diseases resulting from immunizations sometimes are attributed to other causes because doctors are not alerted to the connection between immunizations and the deaths.”
            H.S. Martland, former Chief Medical Examiner, Essex County, NY
            Bonnie Dunbar

            “It is essential in my opinion that physicians are better educated on the potential risks of this vaccine, (Hepatitis B) as well as the interactions with other vaccines and the increased risks of vaccinations of sick children…”
            Bonnie Dunbar PhD, Professor of Department of Cell Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas (worked in vaccine development for over 25 years)

            “When we look at the symptoms that we see in a child that has been vaccinated – high ever, high pitched screaming…sometimes even almost hemapletic, these are symptoms that if they were seen in a child that had not just been vaccinated, all us doctors would be concerned…we wouldn’t simply sit back and say ‘that’s fine'”

            Robin Cosford MD, Documentary, ‘Vaccination: The Hidden Truth’

            Russell Blaylock
            “It’s important to understand that most practicing physicians have no idea of the pathological effect on the brain of giving multiple vaccines on a large scale… These affects are widely discussed in the neuroscience literature, but few practicing physicians, especially pediatricians, Ever read such articles… Older doctors have no concept of the newer discoveries in immunology especially neuroimmunology.”
            Russell Blaylock MD, Neurosurgeon, ‘Vaccines, Neurodevelopment and Autism Spectrum Disorder

            Reply
            • Chris August 15, 2015 / 12:57 pm

              “Read more carefully. I said, for quick uptake by the bloodstream”

              Repeating something does not make it less wrong. The MMR vaccine is given subcutaneously, it is literally a little nick on the skin.

              Reply
              • rosross August 16, 2015 / 3:41 am

                MMR is injected into muscle. It is not a little nick on the skin. It is injected into an are with high capillary action for quick uptake by the blood system.

                Reply
                • Chris August 16, 2015 / 1:02 pm

                  You fail at Google U: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mmr+vaccine+subcutaneous

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:33 am

                    You are kidding? Pinching up nearly two inches of flesh to inject into the fatty layer beneath the skin is not a nick in any sane person’s book. It is also a very painful form of injecting and nicks are not painful.

                    http://www.drugs.com/cg/how-to-give-a-subcutaneous-injection.html

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 17, 2015 / 11:59 am

                      Insulin and tuberculin are not the same as the MMR vaccine. The skin is not pinched two inches on the arm for the MMR vaccine:

                      Click to access p3085.pdf

                      Please stop lying.
                    • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:36 am

                      Quote:Subcutaneous Injections
                      To administer a vaccine with a subcutaneous injection, you want
                      to “pinch up” the subcutaneous tissue on the back of the upper
                      arm with your noninjecting hand and inject the needle at a 45-
                      degree angle—a much narrower angle than that for an IM injection.
                      Vaccines that you will give SC are:
                      • MMR • Varicella
                      • Meningococcal
                      • Pneumococcal polysaccharide (can also be given IM)

                      Click to access aov06_administer.pdf
                  • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:50 am

                    Yes, another typo – well done. Injected into ‘fat’ not muscle, but definitely not a nick. If I was in error then so are you.

                    Reply
    • Colin August 13, 2015 / 10:25 am

      Your article has so much propaganda it is difficult to know where to start so I shall not bother since those who question vaccines will do the research and those who don’t won’t care about researching across the spectrum.

      “Research” is a funny word. Sometimes people say “research” and mean, “I googled it.” Among people who have that layperson’s knowledge about vaccines, the vast majority are pro-vaccine and vaccinate their kids.

      Other times, people say “research” and mean, “I spent years in school learning how the immune system really works, and more years in a post-doc doing first-hand lab work and experiments, and have published papers or treated patients, and can actually tell you in great detail how vaccines work without having to google anything.” Among those people–mostly MDs and PhDs and the gonzo MD/PhDs–there are virtually no anti-vaxers.

      So your statement isn’t really true no matter how you slice the word “research.”

      However, the core point is the right for individuals to make their own choices in regard to their health and in particular, to what medical procedures they inflict on themselves or their children.

      As a legal and moral matter, I think it’s everyone’s right to decide what risks to run themselves–up until that decision puts someone else at risk. The question gets a lot clearer when it comes to children. No one has the right to do whatever they want to a child, because the child has his or her own rights. Medical decisions for children have to respect what’s best for the child. Would you let someone give a child bleach enemas because they read online it cures autism? This is a real thing some anti-vaxers do.

      Here is what goes into vaccines, and this from an Oxford University Site which promotes vaccination. Would you drink it?

      Yes, if it was shown safe and effective to the same standard to which medical experts hold vaccines. Trying to scare people with ingredient lists appeals to emotions, not reason. Reason tells us, and research shows us, that the dose makes the poison. Aluminum salt (not elemental aluminum) and mercury salts (not elemental mercury) aren’t dangerous in the quantities found in vaccines, even for underweight kids. There’s a reason no one has ever actually been able to pin an increase in any disease on those ingredients–the doses are far too small to have an impact.

      Reply
      • rosross August 14, 2015 / 9:59 am

        Research is not actually a funny word – it means taking the time to gather as much information as one possibly can, across a spectrum and to assess it in combination with common sense and knowledge gained through experience where possible.

        ‘googling’ in the modern age is not a negative although it can be. Unfortunately internet search engines can be influenced in terms of what they ‘throw up’ and so it takes time to wade through the obvious and to gather credible data. I am sure you are aware that along with blogs, op-ed, propaganda sites, on many if not most issues, one can also access scientific data, across a spectrum, and credible academic sites.

        One does not need to spend years learning how the immune system works but a good basic understanding of biology certainly is important when assessing vaccine theories and methodology. Some of the most intelligent and well-researched people might be a parent without a university degree and some of the most stupid and biased might have a PhD. A university degree does not confer intelligence.

        You are wrong that there are not MD’s amongst those who question and recommend limiting or rejecting vaccination – there are many and the number is growing. I shan’t bother you with links to sites run by medical professionals as I am sure if you had any interest, you would find them yourself, no doubt by googling.

        There is no way to slice research. It means what it says – gathering as much information as possible across a spectrum, reading extremes where they exist along with the moderates. The latter are more difficult to find, particularly online, in regard to vaccination, but with patience it can be done. A better source is books much of the time but the internet is useful.

        The only rights of a child are to be cared for. If a parent, after having a child die or be injured following vaccination makes a decision not to vaccinate other children, then those children are being cared for. If a parent with a vaccine-damaged child who is still struggling desperately, or is on the road to recovery, makes a decision that the child is to have no more vaccines then that child is being cared for. Vaccinating a vaccine-injured child is akin to giving a child who has suffered First Degree burns from playing with a box of matches, another box of matches to play with!

        When you use terms like ‘anti-vaxers’ you display your subjectivity and prejudice. Neither should play a part given your claims to scientific expertise.

        Any parent who gives a child bleach enemas is severely dysfunctional and since you don’t source the story it is more likely to be an urban myth. It would kill or severely injure the child.

        There are no anti-vaxers. There are simply parents who demand freedom of choice in regard to vaccination for their children. You can vaccinate ad infinitum and no-one cares. What they care about is being forced to do something they believe is detrimental to their child’s health and possibly life.

        The people who began the movement to question vaccination, and I realise prejudice gets in your way and perhaps subjectivity and a touch of bigotry, but not everyone rejects vaccination completely – many simply limit and demand the right to set the how, when, where etc. Those who do reject are likely to do so after having an injured child and after having done enormous amounts of research. Most parents care desperately about their children and would do nothing to hurt them.

        Are you seriously making an argument, given the enormous pressure if not vilification from science, medicine, society etc., that any parent would challenge vaccination without serious and considered reasons? Why would a parent not do something which protected their child? Logic, common sense and reason dictate that of course they would.

        For a parent to stand up to the enormous and often viciously aggressive attacks because they have opted to limit or rejection vaccination requires enormous commitment on their part. Most of the parents I know don’t tell anyone because they fear the vitriol which will ensure. There is a fanaticism on the part of the vax-max brigade which reflects on those who push vaccination and makes one wonder why, if they believe in vaccines, and are protected, they so fear the unvaccinated.

        Yes, you might drink it but I bet you would not let your baby or small child drink it. But you would let it be injected into their body for quick uptake by the bloodstream.

        Research tells us that the toxins cited are not dangerous in the quantities found, correct. Research has never been done into the combined effect of so many toxins. Why would that be?

        If the doses were so small to have no impact then why do we have dead and injured children and why are their vaccine damage compensation programmes? Why are billions now being paid out in the UK and Europe and elsewhere to those severely injured by the Swine Flu vaccine?

        One other thing which has not been done, strangely, is research into the health of unvaccinated children compared to vaccinated. Real, comprehensive research. There has been a little but not enough. Funny about that. It would be interesting, would it not, to do said research and settle this issue once and for all. Then again, if vaccine manufacturers refuse to produce vaccines if they can be sued for harm, they probably don’t want that research done.

        The other interesting research would be, now that brain and spinal tumours are the biggest killers of children and young people in this, the vaccination age, the rates of such cancer in the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated.

        Surely such research is in everyone’s interests.

        Reply
        • Colin August 14, 2015 / 10:48 am

          You want to believe that vaccines are dangerous; look at the pretzels you have to twist yourself into to do it. “Research” can be doing medical research, or just googling, and they’re equally important? No. Actual scientific research is fundamentally different from googling. And the people who do that research? They vaccinate their kids.

          You want to maintain your beliefs against the criticism of experts, so you deny the concept of expertise: anyone with google is just as good as all of those immunologists, pediatricians, neurologists, epidemiologists. And if we need an anti-vax MD? Well, there’s Susan Humphries. She’s not any of those specialties, of course—she’s a kidney specialist, who not coincidentally has made a career off of demonizing vaccines and promoting quackery like homeopathy. But she says what you want to hear, so you’ve removed any requirement that she actually know as much as the experts.

          Do you apply the same standards to global warming, ignoring the scientists in favor of the bloggers? Or the use of antibiotics? Or the use of bleach enemas to cure autism? Google “MMS autism enema” (and now you’re just as good as a PhD!) and see what you get. These people, too, have decided that the experts—the ones who say “don’t put bleach in there! It won’t cure autism!” don’t know as much as the concerned parents with google. And as you now know, google will tell you all sorts of nonsense, such as that bleach enemas cure autism. Experts are the ones who can cut through the bullshit. It’s not a coincidence that a consensus of experts agree that vaccines are safe and effective. It’s because they really are, the subculture of paranoia notwithstanding.

          Reply
          • rosross August 15, 2015 / 4:35 am

            research

            [ rɪˈsəːtʃ, ˈriːsəːtʃ ]

            NOUN (researches)

            the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions:

            As I said, study into across a broad spectrum, involving also experience and the application of common sense.

            And no, the people who do the research across the spectrum generally decide to limit or reject vaccination.

            Sadly your experts within the science/medical industry are compromised by the influence and often control, of vested agendas whose focus is profit.

            Doctors and scientists get a lot wrong. And increasingly so given the corruption of the system by vested agendas.

            Even medical professionals are concerned and have been for decades but they have been ignored.

            quote: At the University of British Columbia’s Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dr Lucija Tomljenovic obtained documents that showed that, “vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day.”

            Lancet’s Dr. Horton concludes, “Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counter-argument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

            Corruption of the medical industry worldwide is a huge issue, perhaps more dangerous than the threat of all wars combined. Do we have such hypnosis and blind faith in our doctors simply because of their white coats that we believe they are infallible? And, in turn, do they have such blind faith in the medical journals recommending a given new wonder medicine or vaccine that they rush to give the drugs or vaccines without considering these deeper issues?
            First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/…/shocking-report-from-medical…/

            http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html

            http://acsh.org/2015/05/science-publication-is-hopelessly-compromised-say-journal-editors/

            You can bleat all you like about Dr Humphries but she remains a credible medical professional and she is not alone.

            I apply the same approach to all issues including global warming. I read scientists across the spectrum, those who support the orthodox view and those who do not and any in the middle and then I apply common sense and other knowledge sources and make up my own mind.

            If common sense had been applied to antibiotics they would not have been turned into a commodity in the name of profit, like vaccines, and become useless and often killers. Antibiotics should only have been used in life or death situations and not doled out like lollies by ignorant and greedy doctors or used in livestock industries in the name of stupidity and greed.

            You can thank scientists and doctors if there is an antibiotic resistant infection which kills millions.

            I have never heard of bleach enemas to cure anything. I imagine it would kill you. It sounds like propaganda and makes you look foolish repeating it. Then again deluded doctors immersed in arrogant and stupid materialist reductionism began the practice in the early 20th century of removing adenoids and tonsils, later found to predispose people to Polio infection and probably the source of the 1950’s epidemic.

            There are plenty of idiots around and lots of them in science/medicine.

            Experts cut through the bullshit do they? Those same experts who said Thalidomide was safe for pregnant women; said Asbestos was safe as a building material; said DDT was safe as a herbicide; said it was okay to carry out medical experiments on blacks and the mentally retarded; said babies in utero felt no pain; said a baby boy having his foreskin surgically removed, too young for an anaesthetic had no capacity to feel pain; campaigned for cigarette companies…. ah yes, those experts.

            The same experts who keep changing their minds because they get so much wrong. Those experts.

            http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

            http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

            Institutional Corruption and Pharmaceutical Policy

            Lab fellows from the Edmond J. Safra Center put together 16 articles that investigate the corruption of pharmaceutical policy, each taking a different look at the sources of corruption, how it occurs and what is corrupted. The articles address five topics: (1) systemic problems, (2) medical research, (3) medical knowledge and practice, (4) marketing, and (5) patient advocacy organizations. They are now available online and will appear in the fall issue of The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

            http://ethics.harvard.edu/news/institutional-corruption-and-pharmaceutical-policy

            Reply
        • Scott Nelson August 14, 2015 / 11:18 am

          rosross-You proposed an experiment on the combined effects of toxins and wondered why the experiment had not been done. There are many reasons why that hasn’t been done, if you had experience in research (and I don’t mean google), it would be obvious why. To do the appropriate experiment you require two groups for each toxin you wish to test-a control group that doesn’t receive the toxin, and one that does. If you want to test the interaction of two toxins, there are 4 groups-one to receive each toxin individually, one to receive no toxins, and one to receive both. If you want to look at 3 toxins-you’re up to 9 groups. All the groups must be age matched and socio-economically matched, and tested both before and after the treatment, perhaps repeatedly if you anticipate longitudinal effects. If you want to pick up rare events you need substantial numbers-10,000-100,000 /GROUP, or 1,600,000 age/socio-economic matched children for a 4 factor analysis. Oh-nobody gets to know who got what until the end of the experiment-not even the investigators, so as to not bias the data.

          This analysis is going to be expensive-it takes a lot of people to track 1.6 million children, administer the test(s), analyze and store the data. They have to be paid, facilities rented, ect…

          The reason we have vaccine compensation programs is because nobody has ever said that vaccines are risk free, only that they dramatically lower the risk of morbidity/mortality (please google the terms so you know the difference). When is the last time you saw someone in an iron lung or on a positive pressure ventilator? It used to be quite common-think FDR (he was from a wealthy family and certainly did not lack from assets or sanitation, yet contracted polio). Mortality rates did drop prior to the Salk vaccine-because we could keep people alive who couldn’t breathe, but the morbidity remained quite high, dropping a couple of years after the introduction of the vaccine (because it does take time to vaccinate an entire country), to the point where it is unknown in the US.

          Why hasn’t an experiment been done comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children? Because it would extremely unethical to randomly expose children to pathogens for which effective treatments are known-children cannot give informed consent-and remember, nobody gets to know who is vaccinated and who isn’t until the end of the experiment. Also remember that everybody has to be age/socio-economic status, sometimes ethnicity matched.

          There is also a reason (please site a reference) as to cancer being the largest killer of children-I’m willing to be accidents/trauma are very high on the list. You can’t die of cancer at 16, if you’ve died of diphtheria, smallpox, dysentery, polio by age 5. In other words, when you eliminate the largest causes of childhood mortality, more uncommon events rise to the top of the list-because what was #5 or #10 slide up the list because the top killers aren’t there anymore.

          Reply
          • rosross August 15, 2015 / 4:50 am

            I realise that such research is difficult. The fact that it has not been done was raised by a scientist which is how I realised it had not been done. However, surely cost is irrelevant when it comes to the safety of our children.

            You might like to do some research into the links between the medical practice of removing tonsils and adenoids and the Polio epidemic in the 1950’s. This was raised by some medical professionals at the time but was not pursued for all sorts of reasons one can surmise.

            There is a good chance the iron lungs existed because of this practice so citing the lack of them does not make a case for vaccines. You can also study the decline by doctors for this practice. It was commonplace in the early 20th century in that mechanical way of ‘whack it out’ modern medicine but less so today.

            Polio had always been with us. Like all disease the major factors in reducing mortality were improved nutrition, sanitation and hygiene. The real question is what caused the epidemic and why were so many affected so badly?

            By the way, research FDR, I did and you will find he had had his tonsils removed and his doctors at the time did question whether this predisposed him to the Polio. I think he had them removed about 18 months earlier. You can check it yourself.

            Your excuse for not comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated children does not hold up. There are more than enough unvaccinated children in many countries around the world and the research could be easily done. The fact that it has not been done raises questions about vaccines.

            Mortality rates in countries with good sanitation, hygiene and nutrition dropped dramatically. When doctors finally decided to believe in bacteria and washed their hands, maternal and infant mortality rates plummeted.

            The biggest factor in reducing epidemics and children not dying before the age of five happened before vaccine programmes were put in place – improved hygiene, nutrition and sanitation.

            With brain cancer and spinal tumours the biggest killer of children and young people, and this occurring following a vaccine time-line because there were decades before the vax-max age when brain cancer was not killing kids, it is easy enough to see that this is a new development and has absolutely nothing to do with mortality rates of a century ago. Nothing.

            http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/30904/news-media/latest-news-news-media/media-releases-news-room-news-media/brain-cancer-is-leading-cause-of-cancer-death-in-young-people/

            And given new research showing links, something any holistic doctor would know anyway, between the immune system and the brain, logic and common sense suggest this is an area where research needs to be done.

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601122445.htm

            So, we have a medical process, vaccination, which works on the immune system, well, in kids before the age of 14 a partially functioning immune system, which is connected to the brain, and within the time-line of the max-vax age, about 40 years, we have the development of brain cancer in children as their biggest killer. Who would not investigate that possibility?

            And since we have more than enough unvaccinated children we can study rates of brain cancer in vaccinated kids compared to unvaccinated. Surely that would settle the issue quite easily? Surely that is in everyone’s interests?

            Reply
        • Chris August 14, 2015 / 12:36 pm

          “Research is not actually a funny word – it means taking the time to gather as much information as one possibly can,…”

          This is hilarious coming from someone who claimed smallpox was going down in the 19 century before the vaccine was introduced in the 18th century! Even before that there had been variolation.

          You use lots of words, but lack basic sense.

          Reply
          • rosross August 15, 2015 / 4:16 am

            Those who question vaccine theory and particularly modern practice have more common sense than most.

            Read the history of the early days of ‘inoculation’ for Smallpox…. the practice killed more than it helped.

            My comment was regarding vaccines in general from the time of comprehensive public vaccination programmes.

            Reply
            • foreverh August 15, 2015 / 11:20 am

              Those that question vaccines (and nearly all medical practice and the scientific community as bunk), are,the same lot that followed Manson, Jones, Koresh, and.. we’ll you get the point. Todays blogger was yesterdays Jones. Take medical trials and blog a bit about “what if” and the ignorant public who have no direct knowledge of the whole science will easily pick up pitch forks.

              Take the Halloween scare of the 80’s.. a “what if” editorial puff piece was taken out of context and displayed as YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE TRYING TO POISON AND KILL YOUR CHILDREN!! Run!! Hide!!.. and so they did.. no more trick-or-treating for John Q Public.. now their neighbors were their tormentors trying to harm children only on Halloween. It NEVER happened. The damage was done.. and everyone too embarrassed to admit fault suddenly “knew the family it happened to”. Now that the info was out there? Someone actually did do it.. mostly teenage/early 20’s idiots who thought it would be funny..

              This vaccine nonsense is following the same path.. yes a select group of people will have adverse reactions up to and including death.. that fact is unavoidable and is an anomaly that nothing can prevent. You are far more likely to die in a car crash, but you don’t give up your car.. you poison yourself on purpose to get ‘drunk’.. You walk/run to your car in a thunderstorm.. all possible ways to die.. completely avoidable, and completely by choice.. Mention getting vaccinated!? “How DARE you tell me that I HAVE to put poison in me and subject me to your cruel lies!”

              You have no logic in your argument. Only rhetoric, and you bash anyone who dares question your beliefs over medical practice.. sorry but there’s no propaganda in continuing research and development. The IS however propaganda in belief systems.. good luck with that.

              Reply
              • rosross August 16, 2015 / 3:45 am

                You must know some crazy people. The people I know questioning are highly educated, professional, capable of research.

                The least educated are the ones who simply do the vax-max as instructed – as research shows.

                Reply
                • foreverh August 16, 2015 / 10:28 am

                  “Unfortunately, this lack of a solid historical, scientific, or rational basis upon which to form opinions is what makes many willing to defer to the opinions of others-especially if they consider them to be experts of some kind or to be endowed with a mantle of scientific authority. As such, if an environmentalist claims that the world will run out of energy in twenty years or a televangelist enthuses about how the headlines are demonstrating that Jesus could return at any time, many believe them without question-often without evidence to support their claims or counter arguments being considered. In effect, we are often simply too willing to accept people’s words on things, which is always a dangerous thing to do.

                  But shouldn’t we defer to those who might know more than we do? Certainly, a scientist who warns us that the Earth is warming at an alarming rate doubtlessly knows more on the subject than does the average man on the street, so wouldn’t we be wise to take him seriously? And theologians who have spent a lifetime studying ancient texts are clearly in a better position to interpret those writings than a mere layman would be, so wouldn’t we be wrong to ignore them?

                  Obviously we need to listen to professional scientists and should respect the teachings of credentialed scholars, but these are not normally the people causing all the problems. It is the self taught experts who usually make the most remarkable predictions; real scientists and theologians are normally too cautious to boldly set dates or write books recounting doomsday in detail. It is the eccentric, the obsessed, the presumptuous and the just plain reckless who make most of the boldest and outrageous claims. Paradoxically, it sometimes appears that it is the very outrageousness of their claims that makes their ideas so attractive in the first place, which is what makes their success even more inexplicable.

                  What makes such people especially dangerous is that many are willing to give these people intellectual authority over themselves rather than accept responsibility for their own beliefs, which makes them especially susceptible to accepting the most absurd claims without question regardless of their level of intelligence, social status or educational level. Some people prefer to live in a world of absolutes; one that worships a type of certainty that is unwavering even in the light of reason, science, or subsequent events. Such a mindset is what makes it possible for a cult to convince its followers to commit mass suicide or, for that matter, for any fantastic claim to be taken as truth by large numbers of people. Evidence is not what matters here, but faith. Trust becomes a more valuable commodity than truth, and conformity to the group mindset becomes a virtue to be pursued with unceasing devotion. In effect, belief trumps knowledge, leading many a sincere and otherwise honest person to embrace the most outrageous premise and suffer as a consequence of doing so.”

                  Nothing to do with crazies.. just choosing faith and intuition over proof.. you belong to this subset.. making up your mind on conjecture and belief.. every publication you point to is a blog or an opinion site.. you have yet to post links to verified factual sites. For the very reason quoted here.. your Spidey sense has you convinced these puff sites are truthful because you are incapable of understanding the pub med publication, and the creator of the site knew how to speak to your belief system to get your attention. You have equated big medical words with authority, and links to debunked conspiracy theories as proof.

                  You are exercising your right to your opinion and choices. It’s your denial that you’ve done so that is offensive. If you just own up to not believing the scientific proof, that even though the proof is there.. you choose to see it as flawed and prefer to believe the Government lies and are willing to concede that you freely make that choice? I imagine you would stop seeing all of this animosity. It’s coming from your insistence that everyone else is wrong and still living in “The Matrix”.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:35 am

                    You should space your copy. It makes it easier to read.

                    Hold down Shift and hit Enter for each space.

                    Beyond that, you have no idea what you are talking about. I assess material, read most of it in book or research paper form and don’t access dodgy sites on either count.

                    I am not American so I am not paranoid about Government. I read widely and question everything. Science is an industry increasingly corrupt.

                    • Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.
                    And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”
                    In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:
                    And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.
                    I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists.
                    http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/
                    • Quote: Editors In Chief of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue” … “It Is Simply No Longer Possible To Believe Much of the Clinical Research That Is Published”
                    Corruption Is Destroying Basic Science
                    Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.
                    It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.
                    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/editors-in-chief-of-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journals-much-of-the-scientific-literature-perhaps-half-may-simply-be-untrue-it-is-simply-no-longer-poss.html

                    Reply
33. shay August 14, 2015 / 2:36 pm

    “There are no anti-vaxers. There are simply parents who demand freedom of choice in regard to vaccination for their children. You can vaccinate ad infinitum and no-one cares. What they care about is being forced to do something they believe is detrimental to their child’s health and possibly life.”

    If they are refusing to vaccinate their children based on no medical or scientifically sound reason, then they are anti-vax.

    Reply
    • rosross August 15, 2015 / 4:14 am

      Yes, they have chosen not to vaccinate and so reject vaccination theory and practice and sure that makes them anti-vaccination, but trust me, their decisions are based on very, very sound medical and scientific reasons, real medicine, real biology, real science, not vaccine industry propaganda, and it is based on real experience.

      Reply
      • shay August 15, 2015 / 12:06 pm

        “Their decisions are based on very, very sound medical and scientific reasons” — what are those? Where is the research that supports those decisions?

        Reply
        • rosross August 16, 2015 / 3:43 am

          Read the scientists and doctors who question vaccination. Do some research.

          Reply
          • Chris August 16, 2015 / 1:45 pm

            We have. We found that those “scientists and doctors who question vaccination” are often not qualified, and some have figured out that some wealthy persons will pay for “research” that confirms their beliefs, and helps with their lawsuits.

            Your “research” seems to be only looking at websites you like. Which is why you had no clue about the MMR vaccine (by the way, due to questions about my history with measles, I received an MMR booster earlier this year).

            Reply
            • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:28 am

              By all means vaccinate as much as you wish. I hope you enjoy robust health.

              But let others make their own choices.

              Reply
34. rosross August 15, 2015 / 4:12 am

    Quote: In 1818 Thomas Brown, a surgeon with 30 years of experience in Musselburgh, Scotland, published an article discussing his experience with vaccination. He stated that he was originally extremely positive in promoting vaccination and that no one in the medical profession “could outstrip me in zeal for promoting vaccine practice.”

    But after vaccinating 1,200 persons, he became disappointed in the promise of vaccination. His experience was that, after vaccination, people still could contract and even die from smallpox, and that he could no longer support the practice.[13] Like today, surgeons and doctors of the time were handsomely compensated for performing vaccination and thus had a tendency to embrace it as a new form of income. It is therefore quite significant for a doctor to have spoken out against it as Dr. Brown did.

    Continued observations showed that smallpox could still infect those who previously had smallpox and that those who were vaccinated could also be infected. . . . during the years 1820, 1, and, 2 [1820-1822] there was a great hubbub about the small-pox. It broke out with the great epidemic to the north . . . It pressed close to home to Dr. Jenner himself . . . It attacked many who had had small-pox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers.[14]

    William Cobbett was a farmer, journalist, and English pamphleteer. In 1829 he wrote about the failure of vaccination to protect people from smallpox. Cobbett considered vaccination to be an unproven and fraudulent medical practice. He noted that: . . . hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF, have taken the real small-pox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives![15]

    See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/#sthash.49y0XdRX.dpuf

    Reply
    • Chris August 15, 2015 / 1:01 pm

      Oooh, two century old research! Woo hoo! Are you channeling John Scudamore, the denizen of illuminati scares, cloud busters against satanic ley lines!

      Suzanne Humphries is still a homeopath.

      Reply
      • rosross August 16, 2015 / 3:39 am

        You sound hysterical. Always a sign the other person cannot mount a coherent case against what was said.

        Reply
      • rosross August 16, 2015 / 3:46 am

        Many qualified MD’s have spent years training to qualify as Homeopaths and always have done. Homeopathy is practised by MD’s and in hospitals in many countries; taught in universities and medical schools and embraced by many Governments as part of their official medical systems.

        Reply
        • Chris August 16, 2015 / 1:57 pm

          So how much training to you have to get in order to prescribe sugar pills? Do they spend years learning how to dilute stuff?

          It is really easy to make:
          Recipe for Nat Mur or Natrum Mur or Natrium Mur or Natrum muriaticum:

          1) Take ½ teaspoon of sea salt and dissolve into 1 cup of distilled water in a bottle.

          2) Shake well.

          3) This is a 1C solution (ratio 1/100).

          4) Take ½ teaspoon of the 1C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 1C solution.

          5) Shake well.

          6) This is a 2C solution (ratio 1/10000).

          7) Take ½ teaspoon of the 2C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 2C solution.

          8) Shake well.

          9) This is a 3C solution (ratio 1/1000000).

          10) Take ½ teaspoon of the 3C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 3C solution.

          11) Shake well.

          12) This is a 4C solution (ratio 1/100000000).

          13) Take ½ teaspoon of the 4C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 4C solution.

          14) Shake well.

          15) This is a 5C solution (ratio 1/10000000000).

          16) Take ½ teaspoon of the 5C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 5C solution.

          17) Shake well.

          18) This is a 6C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000).

          19) Take ½ teaspoon of the 6C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 6C solution.

          20) Shake well.

          21) This is a 7C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000).

          22) Take ½ teaspoon of the 7C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 7C solution.

          23) Shake well.

          24) This is an 8C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000).

          25) Take ½ teaspoon of the 8C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 8C solution.

          26) Shake well.

          27) This is a 9C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000).

          28) Take ½ teaspoon of the 9C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 9C solution.

          29) Shake well.

          30) This is a 10C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000).

          31) Take ½ teaspoon of the 10C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 10C solution.

          32) Shake well.

          33) This is a 11C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000).

          34) Take ½ teaspoon of the 11C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 11C solution.

          35) Shake well.

          36) This is a 12C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000).

          37) Take ½ teaspoon of the 12C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 12C solution.

          38) Shake well.

          39) This is a 13C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000).

          40) Take ½ teaspoon of the 13C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 13C solution.

          41) Shake well.

          42) This is a 14C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000).

          43) Take ½ teaspoon of the 14C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 14C solution.

          44) Shake well.

          45) This is a 15C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000000000).

          46) Take ½ teaspoon of the 15C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 15C solution.

          47) Shake well.

          48) This is a 16C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000000000).

          49) Take ½ teaspoon of the 16C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 16C solution.

          50) Shake well.

          51) This is a 17C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000).

          52) Take ½ teaspoon of the 17C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 17C solution.

          53) Shake well.

          54) This is an 18C solution (ratio 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          55) Take ½ teaspoon of the 18C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 18C solution.

          56) Shake well.

          57) This is a 19C solution (ratio 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          58) Take ½ teaspoon of the 19C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 19C solution.

          59) Shake well.

          60) This is a 20C solution (ratio 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          61) Take ½ teaspoon of the 20C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 20C solution.

          62) Shake well.

          63) This is a 21C solution (ratio 1 in 10^42 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          64) Take ½ teaspoon of the 21C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 21C solution.

          65) Shake well.

          66) This is a 22C solution (ratio 1 in 10^44 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          67) Take ½ teaspoon of the 22C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 22C solution.

          68) Shake well.

          69) This is a 23C solution (ratio 1 in 10^46 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          70) Take ½ teaspoon of the 23C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 23C solution.

          71) Shake well.

          72) This is a 24C solution (ratio 1 in 10^48 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          73) Take ½ teaspoon of the 24C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 24C solution.

          74) Shake well.

          75) This is a 25C solution (ratio 1 in 10^50 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          76) Take ½ teaspoon of the 25C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 25C solution.

          77) Shake well.

          78) This is a 26C solution (ratio 1 in 10^52 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          79) Take ½ teaspoon of the 26C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 26C solution.

          80) Shake well.

          81) This is a 27C solution (ratio 1 in 10^54 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).
          (the zeros are running off of the page!)

          82) Take ½ teaspoon of the 27C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 27C solution.

          83) Shake well.

          84) This is a 28C solution (ratio 1 in 10^56 or 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          85) Take ½ teaspoon of the 28C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 28C solution.

          86) Shake well.

          87) This is a 29C solution (ratio 1 in 10^58 or 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          88) Take ½ teaspoon of the 29C solution and put it a bottle with 1 cup of distilled water, throw out the 29C solution.

          89) Shake well.

          90) This is a 30C solution (ratio 1 in 10^60 or 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

          And then you are done! To make the pills, go to baking center of your grocery store and get some plain cake decorating sprinkles. You can try dropping some of the solution on the sprinkles, or just set the bottle next to the solution for it to absorb the energy (which is the typical method used for over the counter homeopathic remedies).

          You can make up other remedies by knowing what the mother tincture is… For instance “Nux Vomica” (or Nux Vom) is from the Nux Vomica plant which contains the poison strychnine, Nux Sulph uses sulpher, and the stuff advertised on the radio for colds, Oscillococcinum is from duck liver.

          Reply
          • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:28 am

            Neve let facts get in the way of propaganda. So much for scientific rigour.

            Reply
            • Chris August 17, 2015 / 2:57 pm

              How is showing exactly how homeopathy works “propaganda”? What part of what I wrote was wrong?

              It seems you are not aware of the definition of homeopathy onr its history. Are you blissfully unaware of Hahnemann’s “Law of Infinitesimals” and “Law of Similars”, and the serial dilutions? There is even this video demonstrating the process:

              Reply
              • rosross August 18, 2015 / 1:58 am

                You were showing propaganda against Homeopathy.

                Homeopathy works. That is not what you were showing.

                I suspect I know a lot more about Homeopathy than you do. Anyone who studies it, knows its history, utilises it, knows that it works.

                There are lots of silly video out there on all topics. I find real research works better.

                Reply
                • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:04 am

                  Prove it. Provide the PubMed indexed study that homeopathy cures rabies in rodents better than the modern vaccine.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 18, 2015 / 7:10 am

                    Silly question.

                    Reply
                    • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:46 am

                      Why is it silly? If homeopathy works, there should be masses of research data available. After all, it’s been around for just over two centuries.
                  • Jennifer Raff August 18, 2015 / 9:24 am

                    Rosross I’m assuming based on your belief in the efficacy of homeopathy that you’d find this (or the equivalent adult beverage of your choice) a sufficiently enjoyable drink, then. http://www.homeopathicvodka.com/

                    Reply
            • shay August 17, 2015 / 4:45 pm

              Homeopathy can’t work in any universe where the laws of physics apply. Don’t take my word for it — look up Avogadro’s Number.

              Reply
              • rosross August 18, 2015 / 1:55 am

                Wrong. Homeopathy does work of that there is no doubt and it has worked for more than two centuries.

                What you can say is that under the laws of Classical Physics, where Avogadro’s Number applies, science cannot explain how Homeopathy works.

                Science can say it cannot explain how Homeopathy works but it cannot say Homeopathy does not work, because it does.

                Homeopathy works on the material but beyond the material in its ‘form’ and effect. Explanations will never come from Classical Physics or Classical Chemistry, at least as they function for the moment, but Quantum mechanics and Biophysics are areas which have potential for explanation.

                In the meantime Homeopathy will continue to cure, doing no harm as it has done for centuries.

                By the way you might like to inform the many MD’s and hospitals which practice it; the universities and medical schools which teach it and the Governments which officially embrace it as part of their health systems that it cannot work and they are frauds!!

                Also, no-one, including your good Self can say what can or cannot work in any universe since you do not know how any other universe might work.

                Be assured however, homeopathy works very well in this universe.

                Reply
                • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:03 am

                  Prove it. Andre Saine claims homeopathy works better for rabies than the modern vaccine. That is easily provable with animal studies.

                  Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by non-homeopaths that homeopathty worked to cure mice with rabies compared to untreated mice, and mice that had received the modern rabies vaccine.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 18, 2015 / 7:10 am

                    Who is Andre Saine? Provide a link and then I can read it and respond.

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 18, 2015 / 11:22 am

                      http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/my-day-with-the-homeopaths-part-ii/

                      A quote: “He even claims that homeopathy can cure rabies with 100% success. Rabies is almost 100% fatal, even with modern treatment, so this is quite an astounding claim. An audience member helpfully suggested that we can test this claim on animals that contract rabies, since they are just put to death in any case. I pointed out that if Dr. Saine’s claims are even remotely true it is amazing that such a simple study has not been done in the last two centuries, that we have been sitting on a cure for such a deadly disease all this time and yet homeopaths have never been able to silence critics with a controlled experiments.”
                • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:44 am

                  “What you can say is that under the laws of Classical Physics, where Avogadro’s Number applies, science cannot explain how Homeopathy works.”

                  It explains why homeopathy can’t work.

                  “In the meantime Homeopathy will continue to cure, doing no harm as it has done for centuries.”

                  Doing nothing =/= curing.

                  Reply
                • drscottnelson2014 August 23, 2015 / 5:01 am

                  You do know from your extensive studies, that quantum physics is integral to classic chemistry and that quantum physics arose from observations in chemistry. One actually cannot do chemistry without a rudimentary understanding of quantum physics (i.e. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Pauli Exclusion Principle, one frequently resorts to Feynman diagrams to explain fluorescence and phosphorescence ect…) and that biophysics is nothing more than the study of how forces interact in physiological systems, and there is not anything intrinsically un-understandable about them.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 23, 2015 / 6:37 am

                    I do understand that. I also understand that Quantum Mechanics was a step into ‘unknown realms’ and one doubted by Einstein and most others, and yet it is the stepping into unknown realms and disbelieved realms which is required not just for progress but for something like Homeopathy to be understood.

                    Biophysics is a bridge between physics and biology and as such represents a new focus and area of research and it is in ‘new ways of thinking’ about biology, with knowledge gained from Quantum Physics, that progress will be made and understanding gained.

                    I never suggested they could not be understood although it would be foolish to claim they are capable of complete understanding because no system is.

                    Reply
                  • rosross August 23, 2015 / 7:42 am

                    p.s. Homeopathic medicine works at an energy (frequency/vibration/wave) level on he material and the brilliance of it remains advanced even today, after more than two centuries.

                    But Science will progress and develop and in time, understand how it works. Until then it will simply continue to heal and to cure, doing no harm and at very little cost.

                    And yes, when Science finally understands how it works, careers, egos, profits and power systems will fall but that is the price of progress and not new to science.

                    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/09/27/this-is-the-world-of-quantum-physics-nothing-is-solid-and-everything-is-energy/

                    Reply
                  • rosross August 23, 2015 / 9:33 am

                    Can you clarify what you mean by this?

                    phosphorescence ect…) and that biophysics is nothing more than the study of how forces interact in physiological systems, and there is not anything intrinsically un-understandable about them.

                    Reply
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 9:35 am

                      Ignore. Wrong post. I have redone it.
            • Chris August 20, 2015 / 12:21 pm

              I was right! Ms. Ross does not even know anything about homeopathy:
              http://anarchic-teapot.net/2015/03/roslyn-ross-defends-homeopathy/

              She is totally oblivious to the basic tenets of Hahnemann’s dreamed up system, especially the serial dilution process. And she has the audacity to tell others to “research” homeopathy, when it is clear she does not even know its definition.

              Reply
              • rosross August 21, 2015 / 4:40 am

                I love it when people get so desperate because they cannot counter intelligent and substantiated posts that they have to do ad hominem, ‘search and destroy’ the individual because you cannot make a coherent case in response.

                I had no idea this existed. Beyond misquotes and misinterpretations and things out of context, which I cannot be bothered correcting, it makes you look so desperate.

                I have studied Homeopathy for many years, out of fascination and interest triggered by personal exposure to is highly effective curative powers.

                I saw and see little point in discussing Homeopathy with you, given your prejudice and ignorance and since it is not the theme of this discussion anyway.

                Reply
              • rosross August 21, 2015 / 5:03 am

                p.s. for what it is worth, whoever bothered to spend the time collecting information on me, mixed up quotes of mine with quotes from others, and made an absolute mess of it.

                I really have no problem with anyone hunting up comments I have made but I prefer not to be misquoted, or to have statements others have made attributed to me or to be quoted out of context.

                I happen to abide by rigorous standards, akin to those claimed by science actually, when it comes to writing and to quoting others.

                Sloppy is as sloppy does and sloppy thinks and you just linked to serious sloppy.

                I am more than happy to provide you with links to my blogs if you would like to read more.

                Reply
                • shay August 21, 2015 / 10:16 am

                  Why not just provide links to research — real research, conducted by qualified researchers and not journalists — proving homeopathy works.

                  A randomized, double-blinded, controlled study on a statistically significant population would do, or even a chemical analyses of a homeopathic remedy.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 22, 2015 / 4:27 am

                    Because this is not a discussion about Homeopathy. Because I doubt you have a shred of open-minded interest. Because I simply don’t care if you are interested or not. Because if you are interested you can easily do your own research.

                    Homeopathic medicine and methodology cannot be reduced to mere chemistry, that is the salient point. Biophysics and Quantum Physics are areas where Science might first advance in terms of understanding how Homeopathy works but it will never be done through classical Chemistry or classical Physics.

                    Homeopathy works, of that there is no doubt. The only question is how it works and Science rejects it because, sourced as it is in material reductionism, it is incapable of answering the question and in fact incapable of studying Homeopathy without introducing distortions. Having said that, Homeopathy has demonstrated effect in many studies and been shown to be more than pure placebo.

                    The mere fact that lawsuit and ego and image-sensitive bodies utilise Homeopathy, makes a clear case that it works.

                    If Homeopathy did work there would not be one MD or hospital in the world practising it and there are many; there would not be one university or medical school teaching it, and there are many; there would not be one Government officially embracing it as part of a State medical system and there are many.

                    There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that any of that would happen if it were a given that Homeopathy did not work because that would make them all frauds and liable to lawsuits and worse, looking like fools.

                    Homeopathy works and it will continue to work until Science develops enough to understand how it works and beyond. It will be interesting to have an understanding of the How of the What but it is not necessary for it to work.

                    And if I misjudge you and you are serious, try these:

                    https://www.homeopathic.com/Articles/Homeopathic_research/Scientific_Evidence_for_Homeopathic_Medicine.html

                    http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research-reports/

                    Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells.
                    Frenkel M1, Mishra BM, Sen S, Yang P, Pawlus A, Vence L, Leblanc A, Cohen L, Banerji P, Banerji P.
                    Author information
                    Abstract
                    The use of ultra-diluted natural products in the management of disease and treatment of cancer has generated a lot of interest and controversy. We conducted an in vitro study to determine if products prescribed by a clinic in India have any effect on breast cancer cell lines. We studied four ultra-diluted remedies (Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja) against two human breast adenocarcinoma cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) and a cell line derived from immortalized normal human mammary epithelial cells (HMLE). The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis. These effects were accompanied by altered expression of the cell cycle regulatory proteins, including downregulation of phosphorylated Rb and upregulation of the CDK inhibitor p27, which were likely responsible for the cell cycle delay/arrest as well as induction of the apoptotic cascade that manifested in the activation of caspase 7 and cleavage of PARP in the treated cells. The findings demonstrate biological activity of these natural products when presented at ultra-diluted doses. Further in-depth studies with additional cell lines and animal models are warranted to explore the clinical applicability of these agents.

                    https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/agrohomeopathy/

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 22, 2015 / 4:05 pm

                      Please provide the less than fifty year old PubMed indexed animal study that proves Andre Saine’s statement that homeopathy works better for rabies than the modern vaccine.
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 4:13 am

                      Why? You have no interest in Homeopathy.
                    • Scott Nelson August 23, 2015 / 4:37 am

                      Well, your getting close-this abstract has lots of nice, pretty, scientific words-except for the fact that it was not published in a peer reviewed journal. You do know that anyone can throw drivel up on the web-you being a prime example.
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 6:43 am

                      It is a dead give-away when people begin to insult others, that they are feeling frustrated because they cannot make a coherent response to what is being presented.
                • Chris August 21, 2015 / 2:00 pm

                  It is only because you commented elsewhere. Where a quick click on your name brings up all of your many blog. And apparently someone thought you analysis of a homeopathy critique was worth exploring. And it is, since it shows you have absolutely no idea how homeopathy is defined, nor its silly two hundred year old history. Have you even heard of of Hahnemann?

                  By the way, how well did the homeopath treat Penelope Dingle?

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 22, 2015 / 3:35 am

                    Chris, the blog site was not analysing my critique. He had mixed up some comments of mine with comments from another person, or persons, and he had cobbled together bits and pieces probably taken from threads like this.

                    I really have no problem being quoted. I just prefer it in context and to be quoted for what I have said and not what others have said. I am sure you understand that.

                    I have read dozens of books on Homeopathy, including histories of Hahnemann, a fascinating man, and books on methodology and process.

                    I am still working my way through the original, The Organon. What have you read?

                    The Dingle case is a tragic case of a person poorly advised but also making poor choices herself, as is our right.

                    Just as not all Allopathic doctors are equal, so neither are all Homeopathic doctors. I believe the Homeopath, Dingle saw was a Naturopath doing Homeopathy on the side, something I believe is unwise because Homeopathy is so complex it requires, I believe, full commitment.

                    MD’s who train as Homeopathic doctors, and in France no-one can become a Homeopath without first qualifying as an MD, spend two years of intensive study. Without being an MD, it is twice as long because physiology, biology, osteopathy etc., needs to be mastered.

                    This conversation is not about Homeopathy, hence why I see no need to demonstrate to you or anyone my grasp of the methodology.

                    p.s. an excellent history of Hahnemann can be found in David Lilley’s book, Healing the Soul.

                    http://www.saltirebooks.com/dl.htm

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 22, 2015 / 4:08 pm

                      “The Dingle case is a tragic case of a person poorly advised but also making poor choices herself, as is our right.”

                      Truly a pathetic excuse. So how well did homeopathy work for Gloria Thomas Sam. It must have been very good since the homeopath who was treating was her father. Is he out of prison yet?
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 4:11 am

                      If one were to take the Dingle case and demonise Homeopathy because of it then Allopathic medicine would be banned tomorrow because it has a thousand times the number of incompetents and more to the point, kills millions every year. Millions.

                      It is the third and rising biggest killer in the US and fourth and rising in many other highly medicalised countries.

                      If your principle were applied across the board it is Homeopathy which would be retained and Allopathy which would be banned.

                      Penelope Dingle, for anyone who has studied the case carefully, was a person living her own truth but making possibly poor choices in her medical practitioner. However, she may well have died with more suffering under Allopathic care.
                • Chris August 21, 2015 / 4:03 pm

                  By the way left out the method of getting stronger homeopathic remedies by pounding them on a leather bound Bible, only because the concept of serial dilutions is ridiculous enough:
                  http://www.naturalworldhealing.com/notes-on-dynamization.htm

                  What is sloppy is going on about things you obviously know nothing about, and too lazy to even look up.:

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 22, 2015 / 3:20 am

                    Chris, sigh, your comment regarding homeopathic preparation just reveals prejudice and ignorance. I have a sound understanding of Homeopathic history, theory, methodology and potentization. I have been studying Homeopathy for ten years and barely made a dent in the thousands of books on the subject…. I suspect a few more than you have read.

                    Reply
                  • rosross August 22, 2015 / 3:28 am

                    I had a quick look at the site. It is not one I would access. There are Homeopathic Associations in most countries and they are the best source of information.

                    Dr Ralph looks a bit flaky to me and I just don’t bother with such sites although no doubt he has thoughts and material of value.

                    If you want to read a credible doctor on the topic, Allopathic and Homeopathic qualified, try this, Dr Larry Malerba:
                    http://spiritsciencehealing.com/about
                    You are in the US and have quite a few Homeopathic doctors who are also Allopathically trained.

                    Dr Stephen Goldsmith, a New York psychiatrist is another. He wrote, The Healing Paradox.

                    And Dr Bill Gray, MD, who wrote Homeopathy: Science or Myth.

                    http://www.billgrayhomeopathy.com/dr-bill-gray/

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 22, 2015 / 4:10 pm

                      Did it hurt when they welded your skull closed? You really have no clue about homeopathy and its history, and I even used an alternative medicine site to show how they make the stuff. Truly pathetic.
                    • foreverh August 22, 2015 / 4:48 pm

                      What I find interesting is that RosRoss will deny and refuse any published verifiable studies, while quickly accepting any and all favorable holistic unverifiable information from unknown sources.

                      When confronted with the failure of this chosen belief system through verifiable sources? Once again he resorts to suggesting that only that source (since it’s not favorable) isn’t part of their sources.

                      Do not argue with stupid people.. they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 4:08 am

                      Chris, personal insults are an indication that the individual is frustrated because he or she can make no coherent response.

                      If you mean by alternative, non-Allopathic, then yes you did. If you mean credible, responsible, intelligent grounded non-allopathic then no you did not.

                      ‘to show how they make the stuff’ you say and you expect me to consider a serious discussion on the methodology, history, modality of Homeopathy with you is remotely possible?
35. rosross August 15, 2015 / 6:43 am

    Here is a question for those who think it is ridiculous to question vaccination. How much do you know about concerns from vets, animal breeders and pet owners, regarding the negative effects of vaccines on animals?

    http://www.doglistener.co.uk/depth-annual-dog-vaccination-dangers

    One woman became so concerned about her pets that she decided if vaccines were dangerous for animals, it was even more critical that people became aware of any dangers in regard to their children and themselves.

    This is Elizabeth Hart’s website:

    http://over-vaccination.net/about-2/

    Reply
    • Chris August 15, 2015 / 1:11 pm

      Elizabeth Hart? She is hilarious. She bombarded the Bad Science Forums years ago.

      Yesterday one of our cat’s got a distemper vaccine. It is given intranasally, just like a cat would get the measles-like disease.

      Almost fifty years ago I saw what happens when a cat gets distemper. The feline seizures are not something one can forget, even though I was a child at the time. Only a cruel fool would let their pets get sick.

      Just like only a cruel sadistic child hater would want a child to suffer from measles, mumps, diphtheria, strep throat, etc.

      Reply
      • rosross August 16, 2015 / 3:38 am

        Elizabeth Hart is not alone.
        Yes, distemper is terrible but cancer from a vaccine is just as terrible. The age of feeding pets from cans has created poor health. Anyone can work that out.

        Measles, mumps are two days in bed for kids. It was for me and my kids. Lifelong immunity. Strep throat results from a failure of the immune system, since strep is present in many throats all the time.

        Diptheria is more serious but less so if a child has optimal nutrition, sanitation and hygiene as we do in the First World. My mother had it at the age of ten in 1933 and recovered fully and no, not hospitalised.

        Diptheria was in decline before vaccines.

        For healthy children do the following:

        Healthy diet in pregnancy.
        Natural birth – C-section compromises gut function which compromises immune function which can compromise brain function.
        Breast-feeding – optimal for health.
        Avoid antibiotics unless it is a life and death situation.
        Healthy diet.
        Avoid vaccines and if you opt for them, none before the age of 12 months. No multiples. Each one three months apart at least. And only those necessary – i.e. avoid most of them since very few can be argued as necessary.

        Your last hysterical comment reflects on you, not me.

        Reply
        • rosross August 16, 2015 / 4:27 am

          p.s. healthy diet means optimal nutrition. Natural foods, minimally processed, freshly prepared. Organic or home-grown is great if you can do it but not necessary.

          Medical advice on food for pregnant women is best avoided. French and Italian women have their wine, salami and soft cheeses without problems – it is all just a fad! What matters is nutrition and rest.

          Reply
          • shay August 16, 2015 / 3:25 pm

            The native peoples of central America enjoyed a diet rich in nutrients, far superior to that of the average Spaniard or Englishman. What happened when they came into contact with European diseases?

            Reply
            • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:25 am

              The human body evolves and the immune system develops through exposure to disease. The indigenous peoples of the Americas had not been exposed to many European diseases and so had no evolved immune function to deal with them.

              Just as Europeans had no resistance to Syphilis, brought back from the Americas in the 16th century to devastate for centuries to follow.

              This is exactly why vaccination is so deeply flawed because it circumvents the natural immune response and in essence ‘tricks’ the body into behaving unnaturally.

              The price for that may well be akin to the devastation wrought on people in the past who had not evolved immune responses to disease.

              Reply
              • shay August 17, 2015 / 1:46 pm

                “The human body evolves and the immune system develops through exposure to disease.”

                So someone who has never been exposed to measles, mumps or rubella or has never received the MMR vaccine will have the same susceptibility as the central Americans. Glad we agree on that.

                Reply
                • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:12 am

                  No. You don’t get this do you?

                  Many indigenous people in centuries past had never been exposed to Measles, Mumps, Rubella etc. Now everyone has. Now, at least until the vaccination age, everyone had developed some immune response to these diseases.

                  The MMR is a combination of artificial disease which has never occurred in nature and so the human body has not evolved to handle it.

                  Reply
                  • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:39 am

                    Really? Oh, please do provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any MMR vaccine causes more harm that measles, mumps and rubella.

                    Hey! Where is the verifiable documentation on how measles incidence in the USA dropped 90% between 1960 and 1970? I gave you the US Census data, but you have yet to answer.

                    You do remember to not mention deaths (which is only a measure of medical care), not to mention any other decade (need a history lesson), do not mention any other country (no, England and Wales are not American states), and to not mention any other disease (no, measles is not the same as a bacterial yersinia plague infection).

                    Reply
                  • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:42 am

                    “Many indigenous people in centuries past had never been exposed to Measles, Mumps, Rubella etc.”

                    Which would explain why so many soldiers in the US Civil War on both sides died of the measles…how?

                    Reply
        • Chris August 16, 2015 / 1:05 pm

          “Diptheria was in decline before vaccines.”

          Prove it. You can start by spelling it correctly. And really do tell it to the parents of the little boy in Spain who died from it.

          You are either very clueless, or you love seeing children suffer with high fevers, pneumonia, seizures, rashes, etc from actual diseases.

          Reply
          • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:30 am

            Concentrating on typos are we because we can make no coherent case in response.And hyperbole. Both dead give-aways.

            Reply
          • rosross August 17, 2015 / 3:08 am

            The graph, sourced in Government data, clearly shows diphtheria mortaliy in decline before a vaccine in 1920, remembering that vaccination was not common until the mid 1940’s – but in decline from 1900.

            

            Quote: Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

            Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics.

            In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.14

            Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.15,16 In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD. SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system.17

            By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.18

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

            Reply
            • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:09 pm

              You wrote: “Diptheria was in decline before vaccines.”

              That said nothing about deaths, and refers to incidence. You need to prove that the incidence of diphtheria declined before vaccines. Do not mention deaths. I should also remind you that you have not answered my question on why measles incidence in the USA dropped 90% between 1960 and 1970. Remember I specifically said you could not mention deaths, any other country, any other decade nor any other disease.

              Again, I repeat, deaths only measure the ability to keep sick people alive with things like antibiotics and expensive mechanical ventilation.

              Your SIDS paper: Neil Z. Miller is neither qualified (journalist) nor reputable. Gary Goldman is also not qualified (PhD in computer science), nor reputable. They are both statistically incompetent, plus also failed to report their conflicts of interests.

              Here are two more relevant papers:

              Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union: reemergence of a pandemic disease.

              and

              Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

              Reply
              • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:32 am

                No, mortality rates also indicate incidence rates. Not surprisingly, mortality rates were more likely to be recorded.

                Like Communist China, Russia, formerly the Soviet Union, has had high rates of vaccination because you can force people to do anything pretty much.

                What we are beginning to see is disease outbreaks in the vaccinated, demonstrating that not only do vaccines not immunise but they create new forms of the diseases no doubt.

                http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time

                Reply
                • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:43 am

                  “No, mortality rates also indicate incidence rates. Not surprisingly, mortality rates were more likely to be recorded.”

                  Wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong. Even though mortality rates went down, the morbidity rates still fluctuated as they typically do. In fact, 1970 was an epidemic year. So even though the incidence rates were only 10% of them ten years before, it was still relatively high.

                  So why exactly did measles incidence in the USA drop 90% between 1960 and 1970?

                  And one vaccinated person does not a trend make.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 18, 2015 / 3:29 am

                    If you look at any graph, before vaccines and after, you get spikes! Disease is cyclical in nature.

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 18, 2015 / 11:27 am

                      Please point to the cycle on the USA census data I provided that shows measles incidence after 1975 being even half as high as they were in 1970. Oh, here is that table again:

                      From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
                      Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
                      1912 . . . 310.0
                      1920 . . . 480.5
                      1925 . . . 194.3
                      1930 . . . 340.8
                      1935 . . . 584.6
                      1940 . . . 220.7
                      1945 . . . 110.2
                      1950 . . . 210.1
                      1955 . . . 337.9
                      1960 . . . 245.4
                      1965 . . . 135.1
                      1970 . . . . 23.2
                      1975 . . . . 11.3
                      1980 . . . . . 5.9
                      1985 . . . . . 1.2
                      1990 . . . . .11.2
                      1991 . . . . . .3.8
                      1992 . . . . . .0.9
                      1993 . . . . . .0.1
                      1994 . . . . . .0.4
                      1995 . . . . . .0.1
                      1996 . . . . . .0.2
                      1997 . . . . . . 0.1
            • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:51 pm

              SIDS has been around and identified for centuries…I suggest you find and read “The Social and Medical History of Crib Death” by Todd L. Savitt. Oh, and SIDS deaths have been declining since 1988.

              Reply
              • rosross August 18, 2015 / 1:58 am

                I suggest you read the ncbi paper which disagrees with you.

                Reply
                • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:07 am

                  Is that the one by the lying journalist Miller and the incompetent computer scientist Goldman?

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 18, 2015 / 7:09 am

                    No, that is ncbi –

                    The National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.
                    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 18, 2015 / 11:28 am

                      That is not a paper, but a website to access data.
                • shay August 18, 2015 / 11:05 am

                  The one published in the Journal of Human and Experimental Toxicology? The one that was not conducted by biologists, virologists, or pediatric specialists?

                  The study that conveniently ignores the 50% drop in SIDS deaths in the US between 1992 and 1999 after the Back to Sleep campaign was launched?

                  Reply
        • shay August 16, 2015 / 3:30 pm

          “Measles, mumps means two days in bed for kids.” Tell that to my youngest brother. Make sure he’s got his hearing aids in first.

          Reply
          • Chris August 16, 2015 / 3:39 pm

            He should try to reach to the mother of Junior Cortes and the dying four year old boy in this article:
            http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-measles-sspe-20150624-story.html

            Reply
            • shay August 16, 2015 / 4:53 pm

              Has he ever even heard of mumps orchitis?

              Reply
              • Chris August 16, 2015 / 5:37 pm

                Obviously not.

                His decades old tropes, including decades and century old “citations”, are very amusing. It looks like he is cobbling off of whale.to, along with other cranky web sites he has listed.

                It is hilarious that he insists that the MMR vaccine is not given subcutaneously, when it is just a simple thing to look up.

                Reply
                • shay August 16, 2015 / 6:41 pm

                  The good thing about that “injected directly into the bloodstream” trope — when you read it, you know right off you’re dealing with someone who hasn’t a clue.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:14 am

                    It is wise to quote accurately. I never said injected directly into the bloodstream – I said, injected for quick uptake by the blood system or bloodstream which is what you will find on any official medical site talking about how vaccines are administered.

                    When you read misquotes you know right off you are dealing with someone who never lets accuracy of facts get in the way of propaganda.

                    Reply
                  • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:18 am

                    Quote: What are Intramuscular Injections?
                    An intramuscular injection is a technique used to deliver a medication deep into the muscles.

                    [PLEASE NOTE: This allows the medication to be absorbed into the bloodstream quickly.

                    NB: I accept your apology.

                    What are Intramuscular Injections Used For?
                    Intramuscular injections are used to deliver drugs and vaccines. They are a common practice in modern medicine. Several drugs and almost all inactivated vaccines are delivered this way.

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:10 pm

                      “[PLEASE NOTE: This allows the medication to be absorbed into the bloodstream quickl”

                      Still wrong.
                    • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:28 am

                      I suggest you contact the medical professionals who provide the information regarding the injection and let them know they are wrong.

                      I simply quoted them.
                    • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:31 pm

                      “NB: I accept your apology.”

                      When and if you get something right, I’ll be glad to apologize.
                    • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:01 am

                      I am not sure you could recognise something right which challenged your mindset. Sadly, the approach in science all too often these days.
                  • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:45 am

                    RosRoss, you are still wrong.

                    Reply
                • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:20 am

                  I did not insist that MMR is not given subcutaneously and this is the recommendation. However, the goal remains uptake by the blood system even if this method slows it down somewhat.

                  However, uptake by the blood system or bloodstream is the goal.

                  And unfortunately, MMR is often not administered in this way.

                  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469133

                  Reply
                  • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:16 pm

                    Which says: “However, the efficacy of this vaccine is probably not adversely affected by the intramuscular rather than subcutaneous route. In addition, it is unnecessary to repeat doses of vaccine administered by the intramuscular route rather than by the subcutaneous route.”

                    Essentially, not a big deal if it is done in error. Also, you are really showing your lack of knowledge on immune responses.

                    Reply
                  • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:54 am

                    “I am not sure you could recognise something right which challenged your mindset.” Provide statements that are backed up by the preponderance of research data, then. So far, you have not been able to sustain your arguments.

                    Although I have no hope for anything from someone who honestly believes water can cure anything but dehydration.

                    Reply
            • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:57 am

              The LA Times has clearly cut down its sub-editing staff or is outsourcing it to India. What hyperbolic, unsubstantiated purple prose this contains. It should have been properly subbed into shape but no doubt the LA Times like much media is in thrall to vested corporate interests.

              The American tragedy, and thankfully it is confined to the US in the main, is that big business runs everything.

              Reply
              • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:22 pm

                So you are now also revealing you are a racist based the journalist’s name? He is very much an American (click on his name). Believe it or not: people from all over the world have been settling in California for at least three centuries.

                By the way, Germany has also seen an increase in SSPE deaths:
                http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068909

                Reply
                • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:26 am

                  You misunderstood. Newspapers today, sadly, have begun outsourcing sub-editing to India. It is cheaper. However, having lived in India for quite some years I can assure you the standards are lower.

                  That is not racist. That is fact.

                  I was not talking about the journalist.

                  Reply
                  • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:49 am

                    Please explain how a young man with a Chinese name who grew up in San Francisco (which is in the state of California), and graduated from the University of California in Berkeley (which is very near San Francisco), and has won a Pulitzer Prize for his articles is a subeditor from India?

                    I am sorry, you are racist. Or extremely stupid.

                    Reply
                    • rosross August 18, 2015 / 3:28 am

                      You really are having comprehension problems.

                      My comment was the journalist needed a good sub-editor and since one seemed to be lacking, perhaps the LA Times, had, like so many others, outsourced this process to India.

                      I think stupidity or lack of ability to process is your problem.
                    • rosross August 18, 2015 / 3:59 am

                      You don’t know what a sub-editor is, do you?
                  • Chris August 18, 2015 / 11:34 am

                    “I was not talking about the journalist.”

                    So you decided you did not like the article because it is from the LA Times, one of top metropolitan newspapers in the USA. You are just making an idiotic racist statement because you don’t like what the article is about: children dying from SSPE from measles.

                    And, no, claiming an article is unworthy because someone who checks the grammar and spelling may be from India is also racist. But mostly it is a really stupid reason to dismiss a news article.

                    Reply
                    • rosross August 20, 2015 / 9:51 am

                      No, you really misunderstand. The article was poorly written and needed a good subbing by a qualified editor. I questioned if the LA Times had outsourced – common these days.

                      And no, not racist – I lived in India for many years and know the standard of English as a second language.
                    • Chris August 20, 2015 / 10:59 am

                      Not exactly a review I would value from someone who had demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. This was demonstrated when you answered this:

                      Please tell us which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Do not mention influenza, since half of those approved for children do not contain thimerosal.

                      … by saying: “Thimerosal is still in Flu vaccines.”

                      What you are doing is ignoring the content of the article. It is like you are totally denying the existence of SSPE. If you cannot understand an article written in English, perhaps you would prefer seeing a video of child with SSPE in German:
              • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:33 pm

                So, someone with an Indian name can’t be an American? That’s gotta be news to the Surgeon General.

                Reply
                • Chris August 17, 2015 / 2:47 pm

                  The author has a Chinese name. It was also quite obvious he had interviewed the mother in that article. It shows how well RosRoss reads.

                  Reply
                  • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:54 pm

                    That’s worse. The author is obviously a ChiComm.

                    Reply
                  • rosross August 18, 2015 / 4:00 am

                    Hmmm, I you could read coherently you would no have misunderstood what I said. I said the LA Times needed a good sub-editor to process the journalist’s copy.

                    Reply
                • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:00 am

                  I think you ‘ran with a ball not thrown there.’
                  I have no idea what you are talking about.

                  Reply
                  • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:11 am

                    That you are a racist? You judged a news article by the author’s name.

                    Reply
                    • rosross August 18, 2015 / 4:04 am

                      No, I made no reference to the journalist and did not even read his/her name, beyond saying that a sub-editor was required to process the copy and to make it credible and substantial. I then said, perhaps the LA Times, like many newspapers outsources sub-editing to India where standards are lower. As a journalist, editor, sub-editor and someone who has lived in India for more than four years, I consider myself able to make such a comment.
                    • rosross August 18, 2015 / 7:08 am

                      No, my reference was to the sub-editing department of the LA Times and not t the journalist involved.
                    • shay August 18, 2015 / 1:47 pm

                      “That is fact. I was not talking about the journalist.” Really? Your comment about purple prose was not about the journalist?

                      Tell you what, why don’t you deconstruct their arguments, using verifiable citations.
              • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:34 pm

                “The American tragedy, and thankfully it is confined to the US in the main, is that big business runs everything.”

                Then you’ll be happy to hear that vaccine researchers in Europe, the Middle East, South America, Africa, and Asia have produced hundreds of studies verifying what American researchers have learned about vaccine efficacy and safety.

                Reply
                • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:00 am

                  You will be happy to hear that many have produced hundreds of studies saying the opposite but the power of the American pharmaceutical industry has prevented them from being made available.

                  Reply
                  • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:09 am

                    Prove it.

                    By the way, at least two vaccines on the American pediatric schedule were developed in Japan. So your argument is laughable.

                    Reply
                  • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:59 am

                    Really? I thought you said that this was confined to the US in the main.

                    But if this is so widespread and there are hundreds of studies being suppressed, you ought to be able to provide lots of documentation to support your statement.

                    Reply
          • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:09 am

            There are exceptions to every rule. Your brother is an exception.

            Exceptions generally happen when there is compromised health and immune function, or when there are medical procedures which create problems.

            For instance, the high death rate in the Flu pandemic at the beginning of the 20th century amongst Allopathic doctors, the Homeopathic doctors did vastly better, was later attributed to the practice of prescribing aspirin. Ignorance combined with the arrogance of mechanistic medicine was the killer as no doubt it remains in terms of the iatrogenic death rate.

            Most kid who get measles, mumps etc., spend a couple of days in bed and recover with lifelong immunity.

            With compromised health someone can die of the common cold so it is delusional to try to turn a minor childhood disease like measles into the Black Death!

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/health/13aspirin.html

            Reply
            • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:23 pm

              “Most kid who get measles, mumps etc., spend a couple of days in bed and recover with lifelong immunity.”

              Stop lying: The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

              Reply
              • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:24 am

                There is a worst case scenario, i.e. clinical significance for everything including the common cold.

                But just as an emergency department in a hospital is not representative of the world in general, neither are WCS for illness.

                I was not fussed when my kids got measles because my parents were not fussed when I and my siblings got measles.

                In the Seventies it was a topic of humour on The Brady Bunch because back then, before the propaganda and hysteria, everyone knew it was a benign disease for kids.

                Sure things can go wrong but it is not a norm,

                http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-explains-why-he-lets-kids-avoid-the-measles-vaccine/

                http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0531101/

                Reply
                • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:52 am

                  So you consider 1960s television sitcoms equivalent to PubMed indexed studies?

                  I am sorry, but fictional television stories are not valid as scientific evidence.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 18, 2015 / 3:27 am

                    The point, which seems to have escaped you is that in the Seventies people considered Measles to be what it was a minor childhood disease, hence it becoming the butt of humour.

                    Just because people today are ill-informed and paranoid enough to believe it is akin to the Black Death, does not make it so.

                    Reply
                    • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:35 am

                      “The point, which seems to have escaped you is that in the Seventies people considered Measles to be what it was a minor childhood disease, hence it becoming the butt of humour.”

                      I was born in 1955. I can assure you that people did not consider measles to be a minor childhood disease, regardless of sitcoms. You are conflating TV with reality.
            • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:15 pm

              “Your brother is an exception.” Actually, he isn’t. In the US, 20% of children who catch the measles have a complication serious enough to require hospitalization.

              (btw, he was quite healthy, lived in a white collar suburb with access to excellent healthcare and clean water,, was a great deal more physically active than children today and probably had a healthier diet (fewer processed foods).

              Reply
              • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:09 am

                Yes, American children are sicker than others but then they receive far more vaccines, have far more chemicals and toxins in their food and environment so I am not surprised that you have such high figures.

                In healthy children, measles is not a problem. American kids are the least healthy in the developed world.

                Your brother remains an exception to the norm even though he might not be as an American in the particular.

                What is a healthy diet in the US is not healthy in a real sense very often.
                There are dozens of chemicals allowed in your foods which are banned in the rest of the developed world.

                You have the highest vaccination rates, antibiotic, medication rates in the entire world.

                You have the highest C-section rates which guarantee poor health.

                none of that contributes to health.

                Reply
                • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:14 am

                  Stop lying.

                  By the way, the reason the USA ranks higher in many statistics in developed countries is that is is the third largest country by population in the world. It is only surpassed by India and China, which have their own issues.

                  If you lump the entire European Union together you will find those two populations equivalent.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 18, 2015 / 7:08 am

                    You cannot compare the US, a supposedly developed nation to India and China, which are developing nations.

                    And it is very easy to factor population differences into the equation and come up with per capita and when one does, the US ranks worst on many counts compared to all other developed nations.

                    I can do basic maths as well as basic biology.

                    Reply
                • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:30 am

                  “Yes, American children are sicker than others.” Do you have data comparing US children’s health outcomes to, say, Canada or West Germany?

                  Reply
                • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:33 am

                  “In healthy children, measles is not a problem.” 20% hospitalization rate is a problem. A couple of days off school is not the norm, no matter what you claim your experience was.

                  Reply
36. rosross August 16, 2015 / 4:32 am

    For all those who trust vaccines because they trust scientists:

    https://www.focusforhealth.org/pharmaceutical-companies-have-corrupted-science-and-government/

    Reply
    • Chris August 16, 2015 / 5:53 pm

      Oooh, an article by David Lewis, a former microbiologist who provided data thinking it would exonerate Wakefield, but it did not.

      And it is about Brian Hooker’s use of the data from an old MMR paper, which he botched up so badly it was retracted.

      It would be more accurate to say that Mr. Hooker corrupted basic statistics to bolster his vaccine court lawsuit. Just like Gaylel DeLong,. a former SafeMinds board member, was trying to do with her horrible paper trying to claim every child who gets speech/language intervention has autism (hint: they don’t).

      Reply
      • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:04 am

        Quote: The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote last month:

        Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

        Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.

        Similarly, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in 2009:

        It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

        In her must-read essay, Dr. Angell skewers drug companies, university medical departments, and medical groups which set the criteria for diagnosis and treatment as being rotten with corruption and conflicts of interest.

        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/fda-gathers-personal-information-then-smears-whistleblowers-on-faulty-medical-devices.html

        Reply
        • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:24 pm

          So what? That does not make David Lewis nor Brian Hooker competent.

          Reply
    • shay August 16, 2015 / 6:48 pm

      Oooh, David Lewis. The guy who refuses to believe Brian Deer on the grounds that his research was too thorough and displayed far too more knowledge than an investigative reporter should have had?

      David Lewis, who claims to be qualified to evaluate vaccine studies based on his background in industrial waste. I guess knowledge is a relative term for Dr. Lewis.

      Reply
      • rosross August 17, 2015 / 1:53 am

        It is so predictable. When you can make no case you resort to ad hominem. You don’t like David Lewis. Okay, how about ex editors of the British Medical Journal and The Lancet in regard to corruption, distortion and incompetence in scientific research?

        Quote: Editors In Chief of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue” … “It Is Simply No Longer Possible To Believe Much of the Clinical Research That Is Published”

        Corruption Is Destroying Basic Science

        Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.

        It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.

        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/editors-in-chief-of-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journals-much-of-the-scientific-literature-perhaps-half-may-simply-be-untrue-it-is-simply-no-longer-poss.html

        Please feel free to launch ad hominem attacks on these two.

        Reply
      • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:00 am

        Or, this, I am sure you can dismiss him as you seek to do with Lewis:

        Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

        And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

        In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

        And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

        I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists.

        http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/

        Reply
        • shay August 17, 2015 / 1:43 pm

          “Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002..”

          As has already been pointed out to you — this does not make David Lewis competent.

          Reply
          • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:13 am

            No, but it does not make Lewis incompetent either since he is saying similar things to Brenner and clearly you cannot refute Brenner.

            Reply
            • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:14 am

              You are probably the most clueless person on this planet.

              Reply
            • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:29 am

              Since Lewis is a sewage engineer who writes articles defending Andrew Wakefield’s research, please explain how he is saying similar things to Brenner?

              Reply
        • shay August 17, 2015 / 4:51 pm

          “I think peer review is hindering science.”

          Interesting, all but one of the peer-reviewed studies I’ve seen recently that have been retracted because after publication they were proven to be amazingly wrong — were ones supporting the anti-vaccination camp.

          (Brian Hooker, anyone? Andrew Wakefield? The Geiers?)

          Reply
          • Chris August 17, 2015 / 5:25 pm

            “I think peer review is hindering science.”

            I missed this in the massive hay piles of nonsense. What is the alternative: papers from stuff that was just made up? That was Wakefield’s favorite method. And have you seen Shawn Siegel’s graph that I linked to?

            Peer review is not perfect, some things do skim under the radar. There are folks who are trying to make it better, One result is this:
            http://retractionwatch.com/

            Reply
          • rosross August 18, 2015 / 1:51 am

            exactly the point, as Nobel Prizewinner in Physiology and Medicine, Sydney Brenner says:

            And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.”

            The system is rigged. Of course anything which questions and challenges vaccination is subject to distortions so it can be removed.
            You missed my point and Brenner’s but made the point all the same.

            Reply
            • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:00 am

              Still this does not make David Lewis competent.

              “The system is rigged. Of course anything which questions and challenges vaccination is subject to distortions so it can be removed.”

              Really? The system that found that Wakefield was just making stuff up? Which was discovered when Dr. Brent Taylor did the studies Wakefield was asked to do by the Royal Free Hospital. Except Wakefield ran away, so Taylor did them and found the data did not match Wakefield’s claims:

              Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9.
              Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.

              BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6.
              Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.

              Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7 Suppl 2:S7-8.
              Autism and MMR vaccination in North London; no causal relationship

              Why should we care about what you “believe” since you get so much so wrong?

              Reply
37. Thomas Holm August 17, 2015 / 2:10 am

    ” Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, …”

    Quite perfectly describes most of the anti-vaccine crowd’s so-called literature and sources.

    Reply
    • rosross August 17, 2015 / 2:54 am

      so much for the literature and sources of those pushing vaccines – science/medicine,.

      Corruption Is Destroying Basic Science

      Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world.

      It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.

      http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/editors-in-chief-of-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journals-much-of-the-scientific-literature-perhaps-half-may-simply-be-untrue-it-is-simply-no-longer-poss.html

      Reply
      • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:17 pm

        Which still does not invalidate Holm’s point.

        Reply
        • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:05 am

          Maybe not to you but then to a closed mind the capacity for objective reasoning is limited.

          Reply
          • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:16 am

            I sincerely doubt you understand the concept of a “closed mind.” You have been corrected several times, yet blithely go on making the same factual errors.

            Reply
          • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:28 am

            “Maybe not to you..” So explain how Brenner’s statements on research papers invalidate Holm’s point.

            Reply
38. rosross August 17, 2015 / 3:36 am

    Quote: As information like that here has become available health officials are changing from scaremongering parents into vaccinating with claims their child could die. Now they claim vaccinating reduces the numbers of cases of disease [ie. instead of deaths] and produce graphs of dramatic falls in reported cases (instead of deaths) when measles vaccine was introduced.
    This is again misleading. A dramatic fall in the numbers of reported measles cases would be expected. Doctors substantially overdiagnose measles cases especially when they believe it is a possible diagnosis.Doctors were told the vaccine prevented children getting measles when introduced in the late 1960’s so after that time a substantial reduction in diagnoses would be expected.
    Examples of recent overdiagnoses of measles when there are measles “scares” are proportionately up to 74 times (or 7400% overdiagnosed). Figures and sources follow the next paragraph.
    What health officials are also doing is relying on very old and unreliable data which ignores that measles has become progressively milder so the risks of long term injury have diminished – (and death is the most extreme form of long term injury – shown here by official data to have diminished rapidly and substantially over the past 100 years without the risks posed to children’s health by vaccines).
    Measles Over Diagnosed – Up to 7400%

    https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

    Reply
    • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:33 pm

      Bah, ha, ha, ha… it is the blog of the undynammic duo of Clifford Miller (Wakefield’s incompetent UK lawyer) and John Stone (who is just bonkers):
      http://jabsloonies.blogspot.com/2009/03/lies-misrepresentation-and-abuse.html

      Obviously, RR, you cannot be reasoned with. You just keep posting the same nonsense even after being told multiple times that those sources are pure garbage, and you keep repeating ridiculous lies like measles and mumps last only for a few days. One of the most painful two weeks in my life was when I had mumps.

      You seem to be getting your information about measles from this children’s book by a notorious anti-science menace in Australia.

      So you deserve to be mocked.

      Reply
      • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:17 am

        Chris, if you had mumps as an adult I am sure it was long and more painful. This is why getting the disease as a child is better.

        And if you were a child then you were clearly less robust. I had Mumps one Christmas when I was ten – I remember it vividly. Two days in bed and one utterly miserable. That was the norm.

        Please keep up the mocking. It reflects on you, not me and indicates to anyone else of modicum intelligence who might read that you can make no substantiated case and so resort to ad hominem.

        Reply
        • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:55 am

          I had mumps when I was ten years old. Mumps was the most common cause of post-lingual deafness in the early 1960s.

          You really don’t have a clue. What modicum of intelligence have you shown?

          Reply
          • rosross August 18, 2015 / 3:25 am

            You must be very unhealthy in the US.

            Reply
            • Chris August 18, 2015 / 11:38 am

              Is Dunning-Kruger Syndrome common in your family?

              Reply
            • Chris August 18, 2015 / 11:53 am

              Here is something the USA did not have; thousands of babies disabled with thalidomide.

              There is one woman to thank for that: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_182.html

              By the way, 1968 was an epidemic year for mumps. almost every one caught it. You must be to young to experience the pain and suffering caused by those diseases. Which we can see when you actually think 1960s sitcoms are evidence.

              Reply
              • rosross August 20, 2015 / 9:50 am

                I had mumps as a kid at Christmas. A miserable few days and then fine. As kids we all had these diseases…. a couple of days and that was it. Lifelong immunity.

                Reply
                • Scott Nelson August 20, 2015 / 10:17 am

                  The plural of anecdote is not data. Many children are scarred by childhood diseases, some are killed. Many were killed by smallpox, some children are rendered sterile by measles. Just because you weren’t injured doesn’t mean others won’t be.

                  Reply
                  • shay August 20, 2015 / 10:52 am

                    ” Just because you weren’t injured doesn’t mean others won’t be.”

                    I wonder what her response would be if I pointed out that I spent twenty-one years in the Marines and was never wounded. Does that mean that everyone else in the Marines had the same experience?

                    Reply
                  • rosross August 21, 2015 / 5:07 am

                    Smallpox was in decline more than a century ago. Many children were killed and scarred by smallpox inoculations in the 19th century.

                    And all I can say, coming from a First World country is that beyond one childhood friend left with a limp after Polio – and yes she had had tonsils removed – out of the dozens of cousins, quite a few siblings, dozens of friends and even more extended family, not one was scarred or killed by childhood disease.

                    Perhaps where you grew up was not First World. Or perhaps you are a centenarian which would make it possible.

                    Quote: There is medical consensus that there are over 40 types of adverse reactions to vaccination which can range from mild swelling, to neurological and auto immune dysfunction, and worst case even death.
                    There is no debate about this. The only disagreement is about how prevalent this is.

                    A World Health Organisation document discusses this in relation to the need for compensation schemes for those injured, and cites ethicist Michelle Mello.
                    It “…..argues that solidarity means members of a community do not bear the risks of vaccination alone.
                    Vaccine injuries can be severe and complex, and are often suffered by children who require a lifetime of care and may not qualify for other benefits under accident insurance schemes.
                    In a vaccination program, the injured and uninjured pay unequal shares……… Mello argues that, in line with principles of fairness and solidarity, mechanisms are needed to prevent the uninjured (unintentionally) “free-riding” on the injured.(1)

                    Australia stands apart from virtually every other Western nation in that it has no compensation scheme for those injured or killed by vaccines.

                    http://i2p.com.au/time-for-common-sense-and-good-science…/

                    Reply
                    • Scott Nelson August 21, 2015 / 12:11 pm

                      Roross- couple of things-saying “Quote” without citations means nothing. If you quote someone or thing, please give an identifiable source.

                      Also thank you for verifying the efficacy of vaccinations. Edward Jenner introduced the cowpox vaccine (from which we get the name vaccination-vacca is Latin for cow) in 1796, which if math serves me correctly, was over 2 centuries ago. Here is a reference for that :
                      Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2005 Jan; 18(1): 21–25.
                      PMCID: PMC1200696
                      Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination
                      Stefan Riedel, MD, PhD

                      If math serves me correctly 2 is greater than 1, or in other words, the cowpox vaccine was working it way through societies for a hundred years, with the incidence of small pox going down. Interesting correlation, is it not? Given the difficulty of the process (one had to lance boils of people infected with cowpox and collect the exudate, keep it moist, scarify the skin of people to be vaccinated, rub some of exudate from the boil into the skin), and the lack of modern transportation, its not surprising that it took a while to get through societies-although given the difficulties, one would have to ask why the process persisted if it didn’t give a great deal of advantage. Also given the lack of germ theory ( Louis Pasteur in the 1860’s, Koch’s postulates in subsequent years), people didn’t know why it worked, which lead to resistance in some quarters.

                      Also, you will note that the WHO strongly endorses vaccination. Nobody has ever said that vaccinations are risk free, only that the risks are MUCH less than the disease. Nobody disagrees with compensating people who are legitimately injured by vaccines-because its far cheaper than treating all the infected people. Australia also has a public health system, so that people injured by vaccines have their needs met by the public health system.

                      Let’s do a test of your faith in homeopathy. I’ll arrange for a rabid animal to bite you, and you can take whatever homeopathic medicine you wish-but no vaccines against the rabies virus. You weren’t willing to test your ability to to defy gravity-the offer still stands. Are you willing to defy biology? Put your life where your mouth is.
                    • rosross August 22, 2015 / 3:40 am

                      When I preface with Quote, it indicates all of the material is being quoted. Since I then include a link at the bottom to the source of the Quote, I cannot see what your issue is.

                      Perhaps you are not reading far enough, not processing properly….
                    • rosross August 22, 2015 / 3:46 am

                      As to your question on rabies. Well, in Australia we have no rabies, but, if we did and I was bitten there and I had access to a qualified Homeopath then that is the treatment I would choose.

                      If I was anywhere else, or in Africa where I live for the moment, where there is no Homeopathic doctor nearby, I would make use of Allopathy.

                      I hope that answers your question.
                    • drscottnelson2014 August 24, 2015 / 1:44 pm

                      You do know that rabies is endemic in India, (why is that? oh yea, they don’t VACCINATE their dogs, can’t afford to) Therefore, if homeopathy can treat this disease (its not a pretty way to die), you are denying the world of a treatment for dread disease by your unwillingness to test the treatment. It would be unethical of me to suggest that the Indian government treat people with homeopathy without proof of efficacy, I have proposed a test of its efface, but you seem unwilling to participate in it. This seems most unethical.
                    • rosross August 22, 2015 / 6:15 am

                      Quote: A claim often heard from the “pro-vaccination” community when it comes to linking vaccines to autism is that there is no evidence to substantiate those claims. This view is absolutely absurd and dangerous given the fact that a tremendous amount of scientific evidence exists and is available in the public domain that suggests some vaccines could possibly play a role in the development of autism. To say that there is no probability of some vaccinations contributing to the development of autism contradicts the science.

                      When it comes to Monsanto’s glyphosate and other commonly used pesticides (as well as other environmental toxins), the science linking them to possible causes of autism (among many other diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer) seems to be irrefutable and abundant. You can read more about that here:

                      Scientists Link Autism To These Toxic Chemicals During Fetal Development

                      Another Groundbreaking Study Emerges Linking Agricultural Pesticides To Autism

                      Furthermore, we’ve had statements made from scientists who’ve had long careers with vaccine manufactures, pharmaceutical companies and health organizations like the CDC. We also have documents that indicate scientific fraud and manipulation of data when it comes to the adverse affects of vaccinations.(1) Many examples of “funny business” within the food industry are also making their way into the public domain when it comes to the role of GMO’s and pesticides regarding their link with various diseases. One example (out of many) is the fact that after a study was published showing that two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and Roundup herbicide were linked to cancer, kidney and liver damage, the journal that published the study appointed a former Monsanto scientist to decide which papers on GM foods and crops should be published. The study was then retracted, but has been republished in another journal since. (2) You can read more about (and view) this study HERE.

                      One thing we now know for sure is that the development of autism goes far beyond genetics.

                      http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/12/03/mit-scientist-shows-what-can-happen-to-children-who-receive-aluminum-containing-vaccines/
                    • Chris August 22, 2015 / 3:31 pm

                      Please post the less than fifty year old PubMed indexed animal study that confirms Andre Saine’s contention that homeopathy works better for rabies than the modern vaccine.

                      By the way, you links are not scientific citations by unverifiable opinion pieces.
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 4:39 am

                      Why? You have no interest in the Homeopathic medical treatment for rabies.
                    • drscottnelson2014 August 23, 2015 / 4:52 am

                      Maybe she doesn’t, but other readers might be interested. We’re still waiting for you to demonstrate you faith in homeopathy on yourself. You’re not willing to demonstrate your ability to defy gravity, to treat rabies, or any other test put forward so far. Tell us, in the form of a deniable hypothesis what it can do.
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 6:42 am

                      Why do I need to demonstrate anything?I am not sure what you mean by demonstrate faith.

                      Homeopathy works. The only thing which can be said at this point in time is Science cannot understand how it might work.

                      The gravity and rabies analogies were silly, childish games.

                      If you have any interest in Homeopathy go and do your own research. I have posted places to start.

                      I have a firm belief that no-one is ever convinced of anything if it runs counter to their firmly-held belief system and I also do not care if you or anyone else has a whit of interest in Homeopathy.

                      I also do not care if people like yourself, from a place of prejudice and ignorance seek to discredit Homeopathy. Those who practice and use it know it is effective and while most would be curious to understand how it works, all they truly care about is that it works.

                      As a defender of Science you should be well aware of the sensitivity of academia, science, medicine, Governments to looking stupid or being sued, so you would be able to reason, if prejudice were not your modus operandi on this count that Homeopathy must be effective and not fraudulent or MD’s and hospitals would not use it; universities and medical schools would not teach it and Governments would not embrace it.
                    • drscottnelson2014 August 24, 2015 / 8:02 am

                      Belief based on no evidence is faith. All we have heard is “it works” we don’t know how. That is the essence of faith. Demonstrate your belief in this faith by actually testing it with the above tests, or do you not have the courage of your convictions?

                      I routinely test my belief in science. I drive a vehicle that works off chemical reactions, work in a building held up by electrostatic interactions, digest food by an number of hydrolytic reactions.

                      I’m still waiting for your point by point refutation of “How the Immune System Works”. My qualifications are not in debate here, the information presented is in ANY immunology textbook. Feel free to grab one and provide the refutation from there. Please also include the homeopathic view on how the immune system works-with deniable tests.
                    • rosross August 24, 2015 / 8:42 am

                      We already know, both of us, that at this point in time there is no clear theory as to how it works and most of the theories discussed are automatically dismissed by materialist reductionist science, of which you are clearly a part.

                      No belief is required for Homeopathy and therefore no faith. It works on cell tissue, plants, unconscious animals and humans, babies, children, animals, very effectively.

                      It works if people believe it will work, don’t believe it will work, are not sure it will work or are utterly convinced it cannot work and are only giving it a try because they are desperate in the face of Allopathic failure.

                      The last tend to become the committed converts which is not surprising. Although neither is it necessary.

                      I don’t need to prove anything to myself or anyone else. And I am not sure to which tests you refer.

                      There is no need for me to play immune-testing or guessing games with you.

                      I have a good understanding of scientific immunology and a broad understanding of health and body function beyond materialist science, but we don’t need to go there.

                      How you see the body and how I see the body are world’s apart although there is some common ground in that I make use of current science/medical knowledge as well as other knowledge and you only accept the former.

                      Why would I seek to refute the current belief in basic immunology? I am sure it has much of value even where interpretations are incorrect.

                      You dismiss Homeopathy based on subjectivity, prejudice and ignorance but you know, it really does not matter. That works for you. I don’t care and Homepathy does not care.

                      Homeopathy is the second most used medical modality after Allopathy and the fastest growing. The proof is in the results, i.e. the cure.
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 6:55 am

                      And a question for you since you have so many. What are your thoughts on comments from doctors and scientists who question vaccination theory and methodology?

                      Quotes from Doctors Regarding Vaccination

                      “The greatest lie ever told is that vaccines are safe and effective.” – Leonard G. Horowitz

                      “The chief, if not the sole cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination.” – Dr. Robert Bell, once Vice President, International Society for Cancer Research at the British Cancer Hospital

                      “Vaccines are highly dangerous, have never been adequately studied or proven to be effective, and have a poor risk/reward ratio.” – Dr. Allen Greenberg, MD

                      “In my medical career I’ve treated vaccinated and unvaccinated children and the unvaccinated children are far healthier than the vaccinated ones.” – Dr. Philip Incao, MD

                      “I found the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instances of these diseases you will realize that this is not so.” – Dr. Archivides Kalokerinos, MD

                      “The vaccinations are not working and they are dangerous. We should be working with nature.” – Dr. Lendon Smith, MD

                      “There is no scientific evidence that vaccinations are of any benefit, but it is clear that they cause a great deal of harm.” – Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, MD

                      “All vaccines are and have been causing ischemic (impaired blood flow) damages – to all – creating a plethora of chronic illnesses, disease, and in some instances, death. The injury from vaccination is additive; each vaccination further injures.” – Dr. Andrew Moulden MD, PhD

                      “When you impair the brain blood flow by vaccination you can impair the respiration control center which can result in death. We call it SIDS.” – Dr. Andrew Moulden MD, PhD

                      “Vaccination is the most dangerous medical practice in the history of classical medicine.” – Dr. Sladjana Velkov (Macedonia)

                      [With vaccination] “what in reality is prevented is not the disease but the ability of our cellular immune system to manifest, to respond to and to overcome the disease! There is no system of the human being, from mind to muscles to immune system, which gets stronger through avoiding challenges, but only through overcoming challenges.” – Dr. Philip Incao, MD

                      “I have lectured all over the world… I have always had a special interest in newspapers. All of them have one thing in common, there is always some reference made to some epidemic in some part of the world. For instance, two years ago, one paper referred to a polio epidemic in Holland. For the past three years, our newspapers have commented on the diphtheria epidemic in Russia. By these means, the population is constantly threatened with epidemics, they have been made to fear them, and the reports always conclude: “Go and get vaccinated.” – Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, MD

                      “To create fear among parents to strengthen their motivation to vaccinate is an important part of the publicity used to promote vaccinations. A whole branch of research is examining the question: What level of fear needs to be created to appear as convincing as possible?” – Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, MD

                      “In 1866, an English physician described a very strange illness. Children looked like Mongols. His name was Down. That’s why we call it Down’s Syndrome today… I should add that this syndrome is a result of the vaccinations carried throughout England by Jenner in 1796… It (Down’s Syndrome) is probably the first congenital disease caused by vaccinations. In Germany, the first child with evidence of Down’s Syndrome was reported in 1922. Today, one in every 700 newborns has it.” – Dr. Gerhard Buchwald, MD

                      “There is insufficient evidence to support routine vaccination of healthy persons of any age.” – Dr. Paul Frame, MD, Journal of Family Practice

                      “Only after realizing that routine immunizations were dangerous did I achieve a substantial drop in infant death rates.” – Dr. Archivides Kalokerinos, MD

                      “I’ll talk about vaccines. Number one, vaccines make people sick. They don’t work. They don’t protect. The use of vaccines is totally wrong! It’s perfect nonsense based on fear. They are dangerous. One child out of five has overwhelming disabilities from vaccines – neurological problems, seizures. I’ve got a whole list. There are plenty of books on this subject. Doctors don’t even read about this.” – Dr. Guylaine Lanctot, MD

                      “During those 30 years I have run against so many histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have. They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since.” – Dr. William Howard Hay, MD

                      “Nobody needs to be confused but everybody better be darn well frightened about taking any vaccine, under any circumstance, for any reason, at any time in their life.” – Dr. Daniel H. Duffy Sr., DC (retired air force officer – 21 yrs., family doctor – 28 yrs., vaccination researcher – 49 yrs.)

                      “I vaccinated both my children with the MMR jab, but this was before I started my research into the problems associated with it. Knowing what I know now, I would not vaccinate my children and run the risk of them getting diabetes, asthma, eczema, becoming more susceptible to meningitis and ending up chronically disabled.” – Dr. Jayne Donegan, GP, Homeopath

                      “Had my mother and father known that the poliovirus vaccines of the 1950s were heavily contaminated with more than 26 monkey viruses, including the cancer virus SV40, I can say with certainty that they would not have allowed their children and themselves to take those vaccines. Both of my parents might not have developed cancers suspected of being vaccine-related, and might even be alive today.” – Dr. Howard B. Urnovitz, PhD, CEO, CSO and co-founder of Chronix Biomedical

                      “Childhood vaccines are giving us a world of chronic illness: autism, developmental disorders, Asperger’s Syndrome, brain tumors, leukemia, cancers, information processing disorders, impulsive violence, allergies, asthma, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, intestinal disorders, are just some of the vaccine associated disorders.” – Dr. Tedd Koren, DC

                      “I am no longer trying to dig up evidence to prove vaccines cause autism. There is already abundant evidence. This debate is not scientific but is political.” Dr. David Ayoub, MD

                      “There are at least seven laboratory studies, clinical studies, of blood, cerebral, spinal fluid, biopsies of autistic children which show huge differences between autistic children and normal children in terms of the presence of things like measles vaccine virus in their intestinal tract, for example, or their neurons. So, there’s one line of evidence. Another, of course, is that we have data from thousands of parents who testify, often with videotapes and photographs and eyewitness reports, that their kid was perfectly normal. And they can demonstrate it, as I say, very conclusively with tapes, until after the vaccine. The kid retreated into autism. There’s just converging evidence from many, many directions.” – Dr. Bernard Rimland, PhD, Founder and Former Director of the Autism Research Institute

                      “When the link between the use of unsafe, mercury-laden vaccine and autism, ADHD, asthma, allergies and diabetes becomes undeniable, mainstream medicine will be sporting a huge, self-inflicted and well-deserved black eye. Then will come the billion-dollar awards, by enraged juries, to the children and their families.” – Dr. Bernard Rimland, PhD, founder and former director of the Autism Research Institute

                      “The greatest threat to our health today is the medical community, and one of their most dangerous tools is vaccination – particularly the horrific procedure of injecting foreign protein into newborn infants!” – Dr. Daniel H. Duffy, DC

                      The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization… There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.” – Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD

                      “We are taught by the authorities that vaccines protect us against eventual aggressive viruses and microbes, and, therefore, prevent contagious illnesses and epidemics. This lie has been perpetuated for 150 years despite the ineffectiveness of vaccines in protecting against illnesses.” – Dr. Guylaine Lanctot, MD

                      “My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.” – Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD

                      “Many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin Polio Vaccines, being made from monkey kidney tissue, have been directly responsible for the major increase in leukaemia in this country.” – Dr. F. Klenner, MD

                      “As a clinician, my current belief which guides my practice with these children is that any child given the Hep B vaccination at birth and subsequent boosters along with DPT has received unacceptable levels of neurotoxin in the form of the ethyl mercury in the thimerosal preservative used in the vaccine. In any child with a genetic immune susceptibility (probably about one in six) this sets off a series of events that injure the brain-gut-immune system. By the time they are ready to receive the MMR vaccination, their immune system is so impaired in a great number of these children that the triple vaccine cannot be handled by the now dysfunctional immune system and they begin their obvious descent into the autistic spectrum disorder.” – Dr. Jaquelyn McCandless, MD

                      “In 1976 I was working in the Gulf Country around Cape York, in an aboriginal community of about 300 people. The Health Department sent around a team and vaccinated about 100 of them against flu. Six were dead within 24 hours or so and they weren’t all old people, one man being in his early twenties. They threw the bodies in trucks to take to the coast where autopsies were done. It appeared they had died from heart attacks.” – Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, MD

                      “As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, your best chance of living to a ripe old age is to avoid doctors and hospitals and learn nutrition, herbal medicine and other forms of natural medicine unless you are fortunate enough to have a naturopathic physician available. Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone.” – Dr. Alan Greenberg, MD

                      “According to the records of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, from 1911 to 1935 the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S.A. were diptheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95% before the implementation of mass vaccine programs.” – Dr. Harold Buttram, MD

                      “I would consider the risks associated with measles vaccination unacceptable even if there were convincing evidence that the vaccine works. There isn’t. …. In 1900 there were 13.3 measles deaths per 100,000 population. By 1955, before the first measles shot, the death rate had declined 97.7 percent to only 0.03 deaths per 100,000.” – Dr. Mendelsohn, MD

                      “Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860 and1965, because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diptheria, and measles, occurred before the introduction of immunizations and antibiotics.” – Dr Archie Kalokerinos, MD

                      “What the vaccinators don’t tell you is that communicable diseases have been declining at a steady rate for 150 years and that there is no relationship between the various diseases and the onset of immunization. Without exception, the vaccine program for each of the childhood diseases was inaugurated after that paticular diseases had begun to disappear. Contrary to what you have been told, this includes polio. What the vaccines have done is cause the various childhood diseases to become adulthood diseases – with far more serious implications, mumps in men and rubella in women for example.” – Dr. William Douglass, MD

                      “For thirty years kids died from smallpox vaccinations even though no longer threatened by the disease.” – Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD

                      “I am and have been for years a confirmed anti-vaccinationist. Anti-vaccination has no backing from the orthodox medical opinion. A medical man who expresses himself against vaccination loses caste. Tremendous pecuniary interests too have grown around vaccination.” – Mahatma Gandhi

                      “I have no faith in vaccination; I look upon it with the greatest possible disgust, and firmly believe that it is often the medium of conveying many filthy and loathsome diseases from one child to another, and no protection whatever against smallpox. Indeed, I consider we are now living in the Jennerian epoch for the slaughter of innocents, and the unthinking portion of the adult population.” – Dr. W.J. Collins, MD, BS, BSc, MRCS

                      “What people don’t know about vaccines –what most doctors don’t know– but well demonstrated in medical literature, is that vaccines shift your immune system to an immune suppression type of state called the “TH2 shift.” That’s what most vaccines do. They shift your immune system to a weaker, antibody type immune system… If you’re injecting people with so many vaccines that your keeping them in this constant state –that now your switching everyone to this TH2 immune suppression– then everyone becomes more susceptible [to infectious diseases]… and no one is talking about that. Now, a lot of scientists know that, but they are afraid to speak out because their careers would be ruined.” – Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD

                      “Using kids as guinea pigs in potentially harmful vaccine experiments is every parents’ worst nightmare. This actually happened in 1989-1991 when Kaiser Permanente of Southern California and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) jointly conducted a measles vaccine experiment. Without proper parental disclosure, the Yugoslavian-made “high titre” Edmonston-Zagreb measles vaccine was tested on 1,500 poor, primarily black and Latino, inner city children in Los Angeles. Highly recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), the high-potency experimental vaccine was previously injected into infants in Mexico, Haiti, and Africa. It was discontinued in these countries when it was discovered that the children were dying in large numbers.” – Dr. Alan Cantwell MD

                      “There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.” – Dr. J. Anthony Morris, Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer, US FDA

                      “My own personal view is that vaccines are unsafe and worthless. I will not allow myself to be vaccinated again. Vaccines may be profitable but in my view, they are neither safe nor effective.” – Dr. Vernon Coleman, MB, ChB, DSc (Hon)

                      “I once believed in Jenner; I once believed in Pasteur. I believed in vaccination. I believed in vivisection. But I changed my views as the result of hard thinking.” – Dr. Walter Hadwen, MD, LSA, MRCS, LRCP, MB

                      “Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person.” – Dr. W. B. Clarke

                      “No long-term safety testing for the influenza vaccine has ever been done. They are experimenting on our lives and our children. Influenza vaccine is an experimental vaccine. ” – Dr. Mark Geier, MD, PhD

                      “There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good.” – Dr. J. Anthony Morris, Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer, US FDA

                      “The only safe vaccine is one that is never used.” – Dr. James A. Shannon, MD, Former Director, National Institutes of Health (1955-1968)

                      “Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity.” – Dr Herbert Shelton, MD

                      “I don’t think measles poses any risk to a healthy child.” – Dr Jay Gordon, MD

                      “I sincerely believe that vaccines cause more harm to the health of the individual than the “protection” and “benefit” they are proclaimed to provide. Staying healthy without vaccines is not only possible, but being vaccine-free is the only way to maintain a lifetime of real health.” – Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO

                      “Nothing but the natural ignorance of the public, countenanced by the inoculated erroneousness of the ordinary general medical practitioners, makes such a barbarism as vaccination possible. Recent developments have shown that an inoculation made in the usual general practitioner’s light-hearted way, without previous highly skilled examination of the state of the patient’s blood, is just as likely to be a simple manslaughter as a cure or preventive. But vaccination is nothing short of attempted murder. A skilled bacteriologist would just as soon think of cutting his child’s arm and rubbing the contents of the dustpan into the wound, as vaccinating.” – George Bernard Shaw

                      “The more it (vaccination) is supported by public authorities, the more will its dangers and disadvantages be concealed or denied.” – M. Beddow Bayly

                      “One vaccine decreases cell-mediated immunity by 50%, two vaccines by 70%… all triple vaccines (MMR, DTaP) markedly impair cell-mediated immunity, which predisposes to recurrent viral infections, especially otitis media, as well as yeast and fungi infections.” – Dr H.H. Fudenberg, Immunologist

                      “There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety… No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge.” “I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation.” – Dr Bernadine Healy, MD (Former Director, National Institute of Health and Former President, American Red Cross)

                      Dr Tony Morris, MD”There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good.” “The manufacturers of these vaccines know they are worthless but they go on selling them anyway.” – Dr J Anthony Morris, PhD (Former Chief Vaccine Control Officer and Research Virologist, US FDA)

                      “Crib death was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s with the spread of mass vaccination.” – Dr Harris L Coulter, PhD

                      “Vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths.”- Dr Viera Scheibner, PhD

                      “The only safe vaccine is one that is never used.” – Dr James A Shannon, MD (Former Director, National Institutes of Health)

                      “We are setting up the younger generation for a potential calamity. Vaccines build up only one line of your immune system (the antibody system) but put the main immune system (cellular immunity) to sleep. You need both for fully developed immunity.” – Dr Robert Rowen, MD
                    • drscottnelson2014 August 23, 2015 / 9:13 am

                      Citations please for all the above quotes. Citations include the date, journal/magazine, pages, month and year of publication. Abstracting all of those quotes from one article, without context, is fraudulent at best. By the way, we all concede that in doing science, we get things wrong on order to get the right answer. “Science is really really hard, and that’s something to celebrate” Adam Frank http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/02/14/146857164/science-its-really-really-hard-and-thats-something-to-celebrate

                      By the way, you still haven’t been willing to put your life where your mouth is. I’m willing to tell you what I can predict, you claim I’m wrong. Are you willing to bet your life on it? Its a simple question with a yes or no answer.
                    • rosross August 23, 2015 / 9:34 am

                      Okay, just clarify what this is about?

                      By the way, you still haven’t been willing to put your life where your mouth is. I’m willing to tell you what I can predict, you claim I’m wrong. Are you willing to bet your life on it? Its a simple question with a yes or no answer.
                    • rosross August 24, 2015 / 3:30 am

                      I am still waiting to find out where I was meant to put my life along with my mouth??????
                    • drscottnelson2014 August 24, 2015 / 7:45 am

                      You were challenged to prove that gravity does not apply to you by walking off a cliff. You obviously haven’t done that yet. You were asked to prove your faith in homeopathy by being infected with rabies and being treated by your choice of homeopathic medicine. You haven’t done that yet, though given your ravings, you might be exhibiting the onset rabies encephalitis, so perhaps the treatment isn’t too efficacious.
                    • rosross August 24, 2015 / 8:44 am

                      Oh really? I must have missed it because it is a ridiculous challenge.

                      As I recall I said in this material world we are subject to material laws – generally.

                      I don’t have faith in Homeopathy in the way you use it – I know it works.

                      I answered the Rabies question. I said, if I had access to a qualified Homeopathic doctor I would use Homeopathic medicine. If I did not I would use something else. I would make a decision based on my options.
                    • drscottnelson2014 August 24, 2015 / 9:34 am

                      Why is the challenge ridiculous? You have stated that gravity doesn’t apply all the time everywhere, that living organisms are not bound by the laws of chemistry and physics. I’m merely asking you to prove your thesis. I’ve stated my predictions, you have stated yours-that chemistry and physics don’t apply all the time. Lets test the thesis and find out who is right.
                  • rosross August 21, 2015 / 7:49 am

                    Reply
                    • Scott Nelson August 21, 2015 / 12:14 pm

                      Please pull the dates of these reports, confounding factors, and oh yeh, the rates of death prior to these vaccines from each disease individually and overall childhood mortality rates.
                    • shay August 21, 2015 / 7:21 pm

                      Ros — you do know that anyone can file a report on VAERS, no verification is required, and that’s why it’s not considered proof but merely the starting point for an investigation?

                      Don’t take my word for it, why don’t you go to the VAERS website and read the disclaimer there?
                    • rosross August 22, 2015 / 3:18 am

                      No, I did not know that. Thanks.
                • shay August 20, 2015 / 10:51 am

                  “s kids we all had these diseases…. a couple of days and that was it.” Except for the children who were rendered deaf or the 25% of post-pubertal men who develop orchitis, or the 15% who develop complications like encephalitis.

                  (These statistics are for children in the US and the UK, by the way, with access to healthcare, clean water, indoor plumbing and adequate nutrition).

                  Reply
                • Chris August 20, 2015 / 10:51 am

                  If it was a just couple of days it was not mumps.

                  Also, there is no real lifelong immunity to mumps. While it is rare, a person can get it more than once. I got it twice. This surprised my mother, but then she quoted a common myth that I must have only gotten on one side.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 21, 2015 / 4:57 am

                    Oh, trust me it was mumps. The doctor came and said it was mumps. My throat was swollen in the same way it had been when my parents had Mumps and their parents had Mumps.

                    And in those days GP’s were still capable of diagnosis. These days they are not capable of diagnosing anything without resorting to tests.

                    Yes, you can get Mumps more than once but it is rare. And yes, I had heard the myth which may not be a myth, just something of which medicine was ignorant.

                    What are called myths are observations made through thousands of years by healers and mothers caring for children and the community.

                    Reply
                    • shay August 21, 2015 / 10:19 am

                      “What are called myths are observations made through thousands of years by healers and mothers caring for children and the community.”

                      For thousands of years healers and mothers testified that evil spirits caused disease; or “humours,” or witches. Observations only become evidence when they are tested in controlled conditions.
                    • rosross August 22, 2015 / 4:13 am

                      Some did, certainly, but not all and more so after male domination of healing and medicine and particularly after the purge of witch-burning – most so-called witches being healers.

                      And no, observation do not only become evidence when tested in controlled conditions. Sensible doctors have long recognised a mother’s instinct is likely to be right in the end and as fathers become more involved, his instinct as well.

                      You cannot have a controlled condition for hundreds of babies. You do realise most research is done on animals and that in fact ‘results’ come from animals specially bred, not even normal animals, subjected to procedures impossible in nature, i.e. injected with ‘soups’ of cellular and pathogen material, so neither situation, procedure or result is natural or normal.

                      There is an interesting overview of how science works in books by, Esther Sternberg.

                      Quote: Esther Sternberg MD
                      Director of Research

                      Dr. Sternberg is internationally recognized for her discoveries in brain-immune interactions and the effects of the brain’s stress response on health: the science of the mind-body interaction. A dynamic speaker, recognized by her peers as a spokesperson for the field, she translates complex scientific subjects in a highly accessible manner, with a combination of academic credibility, passion for science and compassion as a physician. Currently Professor of Medicine and Research Director, Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Dr. Sternberg is Founding Director, of the UA Institute on Place and Wellbeing, a unique interdisciplinary Institute linking biomedical, health professionals and design professionals to research and create places supporting health and wellbeing. She received her M.D. degree and trained in rheumatology at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. She previously served on the faculty at Washington University, St. Louis, MO (1980-86); was Senior Scientist and Section Chief at the National Institutes of Health (1986-2012); and was Research Professor at American University (Washington, DC). In addition to numerous publications in leading scientific journals, she is reviewer and editorial board member for many scientific journals, has edited several textbooks, has authored two popular books: The Balance Within: The Science Connecting Health and Emotions (W.H. Freeman & Co., 2000, paperback H. Holt 2001; Dutch 2001, Chinese 2002; Japanese 2005) and best-selling Healing Spaces: The Science of Place and Well-being (Harvard University Press, 2009; paperback 2010; German 2011; Korean 2013); and created and hosted a PBS television special, The Science of Healing, based on her books.

                      http://integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/about/directors/sternberg
                    • shay August 23, 2015 / 12:05 pm

                      “. Sensible doctors have long recognised a mother’s instinct is likely to be right in the end .”

                      Giving birth does not endow anyone with special mental powers. If this were so, there would be no need for child protective services.

                      Untrained observers who are going through a stressful event (such as a child’s illness) are a good source of circumstantial evidence upon which to base further research.

                      They are not and should not be considered replacements for scientific studies.
                    • rosross August 24, 2015 / 3:29 am

                      I never said it did. I said that mothers, and I believe increasingly fathers as they play a more involved part in child-raising, have instincts and experience which are likely to make them correct and doctors and scientists wrong, if choices need to be made.

                      The comment abut child protection is trite and a meaningless distraction.

                      I never said they were a replacement for scientific studies – you do misquote.

                      But they are an invaluable adjunct to any studies and if push comes to shove, trust the parent’s view every time. They know their child better than anyone.
        • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:26 am

          I had mumps as a child. It was horribly painful. The average duration of mumps in children is ten days, so two days in bed is not the norm

          Reply
        • shay August 20, 2015 / 10:54 am

          “This is why getting the disease as a child is better.” Better yet is not getting it at all because of high vaccination rates.

          Reply
          • rosross August 21, 2015 / 4:55 am

            Not true. A child’s immune system is not fully developed until the age of fourteen and minor childhood diseases, along with other things like the common cold etc., are workouts for the immune system which enable it to develop more effectively. It is a natural part of the evolutionary process.

            Prior to the max-vax madness age, doctors recognised the importance of such immune ‘rites of passage’ and the benefits they brought and knew that where there was good nutrition, sanitation and hygiene, risks were minimal.

            We now have rates of chronic and serious disease in children never seen before. Their immune systems are crap.

            To be fair, that is also because of the delusional and destructive process of elective C-section and the overuse of antibiotics.

            Reply
            • shay August 21, 2015 / 10:20 am

              Citations needed for all of the above.

              Reply
              • rosross August 22, 2015 / 4:01 am

                Anyone with any understanding of biology knows that a baby has limited immune function until at least the age of six months.

                Any doctor will tell you this. Any medical site involving babies will tell you this. If you have opinions regarding vaccines you should know this. Ditto for the system not being fully functioning until fourteen although some doctors say 12-14.

                Immunology, like many things, and medicine in particular is still largely guesswork and experimental. Science in fact deals in theories, not absolutes.

                Maternal antibodies are said to protect the infant for the first six months, or so it is believed.

                That is improved through breastfeeding. However, since the delusional and destructive medical practice of C-section and overuse of antibiotics, we now have babies who are more compromised to begin with and even more so if not breastfed.

                C-section deprives the baby of an important part of its immune kick-start and gut function is compromised which means immune function is compromised and brain function compromised.

                And because baby and mother are pumped full of antibiotics with C-section, the child is even more compromised.

                At which point delusional doctors inject a cocktail of disease and toxins as vaccination.

                http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/natural-births-better-for-babies-20100529-wmfv.html

                Quote: C-section infants don’t get enough good microbes
                August 16, 2013 – 06:13
                Children born by Caesarean section start life with insufficient intestinal bacteria flora. These bacteria are known to play a part in protecting children from developing allergies and children who lack them may be at higher risk of other health problems.
                http://sciencenordic.com/c-section-infants-don%E2%80%99t-get-enough-good-microbes

                Are you aware of research into microbiomes?

                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154093/

                Reply
                • Chris August 22, 2015 / 3:35 pm

                  Please post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on either the American or Australian pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases. Please no news articles, and on secondary issues like “microbiomes.”

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 23, 2015 / 4:38 am

                    Your faith in science/medicine is quaint and misplaced.

                    When the editors of the world’s top medical journals state that most medical research is flawed or fraud, I apply that to everything, including vaccines.

                    http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4212
                    about the author: ” RS was an editor for the BMJ for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.”
                    “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way” [2]. Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry” [4]. Something is clearly up.
                    The Problem: Less to Do with Advertising, More to Do with Sponsored Trials
                    The most conspicuous example of medical journals’ dependence on the pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The advertisements may often be misleading [5,6] and the profits worth millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to discounting the claims of advertisers.
                    The much bigger problem lies with the original studies, particularly the clinical trials, published by journals. Far from discounting these, readers see randomised controlled trials as one of the highest forms of evidence. A large trial published in a major journal has the journal’s stamp of approval (unlike the advertising), will be distributed around the world, and may well receive global media coverage, particularly if promoted simultaneously by press releases from both the journal and the expensive public-relations firm hired by the pharmaceutical company that sponsored the trial. For a drug company, a favourable trial is worth thousands of pages of advertising, which is why a company will sometimes spend upwards of a million dollars on reprints of the trial for worldwide distribution. The doctors receiving the reprints may not read them, but they will be impressed by the name of the journal from which they come. The quality of the journal will bless the quality of the drug.
                    Fortunately from the point of view of the companies funding these trials—but unfortunately for the credibility of the journals who publish them—these trials rarely produce results that are unfavourable to the companies’ products [7,8]. Paula Rochon and others examined in 1994 all the trials funded by manufacturers of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for arthritis that they could find [7]. They found 56 trials, and not one of the published trials presented results that were unfavourable to the company that sponsored the trial. Every trial showed the company’s drug to be as good as or better than the comparison treatment.
                    By 2003 it was possible to do a systematic review of 30 studies comparing the outcomes of studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry with those of studies funded from other sources [8]. Some 16 of the studies looked at clinical trials or meta-analyses, and 13 had outcomes favourable to the sponsoring companies. Overall, studies funded by a company were four times more likely to have results favourable to the company than studies funded from other sources. In the case of the five studies that looked at economic evaluations, the results were favourable to the sponsoring company in every case.
                    The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry [9]. For the BMJ, it’s only one-third—partly, perhaps, because the journal has less influence than the others in North America, which is responsible for half of all the revenue of drug companies, and partly because the journal publishes more cluster-randomised trials (which are usually not drug trials) [9].
                    Why Do Pharmaceutical Companies Get the Results They Want?
                    Why are pharmaceutical companies getting the results they want? Why are the peer-review systems of journals not noticing what seem to be biased results? The systematic review of 2003 looked at the technical quality of the studies funded by the industry and found that it was as good—and often better—than that of studies funded by others [8]. This is not surprising as the companies have huge resources and are very familiar with conducting trials to the highest standards.
                    The companies seem to get the results they want not by fiddling the results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer review, but rather by asking the “right” questions—and there are many ways to do this [10]. Some of the methods for achieving favourable results are listed in the Sidebar, but there are many ways to hugely increase the chance of producing favourable results, and there are many hired guns who will think up new ways and stay one jump ahead of peer reviewers.
                    Then, various publishing strategies are available to ensure maximum exposure of positive results. Companies have resorted to trying to suppress negative studies [11,12], but this is a crude strategy—and one that should rarely be necessary if the company is asking the “right” questions. A much better strategy is to publish positive results more than once, often in supplements to journals, which are highly profitable to the publishers and shown to be of dubious quality [13,14]. Companies will usually conduct multicentre trials, and there is huge scope for publishing different results from different centres at different times in different journals. It’s also possible to combine the results from different centres in multiple combinations.
                    These strategies have been exposed in the cases of risperidone [15] and odansetron [16], but it’s a huge amount of work to discover how many trials are truly independent and how many are simply the same results being published more than once. And usually it’s impossible to tell from the published studies: it’s necessary to go back to the authors and get data on individual patients.
                    Peer Review Doesn’t Solve the Problem
                    Journal editors are becoming increasingly aware of how they are being manipulated and are fighting back [17,18], but I must confess that it took me almost a quarter of a century editing for the BMJ to wake up to what was happening. Editors work by considering the studies submitted to them. They ask the authors to send them any related studies, but editors have no other mechanism to know what other unpublished studies exist. It’s hard even to know about related studies that are published, and it may be impossible to tell that studies are describing results from some of the same patients. Editors may thus be peer reviewing one piece of a gigantic and clever marketing jigsaw—and the piece they have is likely to be of high technical quality. It will probably pass peer review, a process that research has anyway shown to be an ineffective lottery prone to bias and abuse [19].
                    Furthermore, the editors are likely to favour randomised trials. Many journals publish few such trials and would like to publish more: they are, as I’ve said, a superior form of evidence. The trials are also likely to be clinically interesting. Other reasons for publishing are less worthy. Publishers know that pharmaceutical companies will often purchase thousands of dollars’ worth of reprints, and the profit margin on reprints is likely to be 70%. Editors, too, know that publishing such studies is highly profitable, and editors are increasingly responsible for the budgets of their journals and for producing a profit for the owners. Many owners—including academic societies—depend on profits from their journals. An editor may thus face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest: publish a trial that will bring US$100 000 of profit or meet the end-of-year budget by firing an editor.
                    Journals Should Critique Trials, Not Publish Them
                    How might we prevent journals from being an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies in publishing trials that favour their products? Editors can review protocols, insist on trials being registered, demand that the role of sponsors be made transparent, and decline to publish trials unless researchers control the decision to publish [17,18]. I doubt, however, that these steps will make much difference. Something more fundamental is needed.
                    Firstly, we need more public funding of trials, particularly of large head-to-head trials of all the treatments available for treating a condition. Secondly, journals should perhaps stop publishing trials. Instead, the protocols and results should be made available on regulated Web sites. Only such a radical step, I think, will stop journals from being beholden to companies. Instead of publishing trials, journals could concentrate on critically describing them.
                    Examples of Methods for Pharmaceutical Companies to Get the Results They Want from Clinical Trials
                    Conduct a trial of your drug against a treatment known to be inferior.
                    Trial your drugs against too low a dose of a competitor drug.
                    Conduct a trial of your drug against too high a dose of a competitor drug (making your drug seem less toxic).
                    Conduct trials that are too small to show differences from competitor drugs.
                    Use multiple endpoints in the trial and select for publication those that give favourable results.
                    Do multicentre trials and select for publication results from centres that are favourable.
                    Conduct subgroup analyses and select for publication those that are favourable.
                    Present results that are most likely to impress—for example, reduction in relative rather than absolute risk”

                    Reply
            • shay August 21, 2015 / 10:22 am

              “…where there was good nutrition, sanitation and hygiene, risks were minimal.” Your ignorance of history is baffling. If you don’t trust government records, even in Australia there are graveyards, not to mention grandparents.

              Reply
              • rosross August 22, 2015 / 3:43 am

                Graveyards prove little, particularly since graves no longer exist for many and many did not have tombstones.

                As to grandparents, family ancestry is another interest of mine and comprehensive research back three hundred years from Australia in the early 19th century, to England, Scotland, Germany – other areas like Greece, Denmark etc., harder to source, have provided a wealth of information including number of children and deaths.

                Perhaps we were a robust lot but there were not many child deaths, with families regularly having 10-15 children, and most of them growing o adulthood even in the 19th century.

                In the20th century, it was more like five or six children and again, no-one died. I could find one great-aunt who lost two of her eight children to diphtheria but she was the only one. However, she lived out in the country, a long way from hospitals and no doubt that played a part.

                So yes, risks appear to have been minimal.

                Reply
                • Chris August 22, 2015 / 3:49 pm

                  Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on either the Australian or American present pediatric schedule causes more harm than the diseases. Please do not give anymore anecdotes, nor links to opinion pieces.

                  Reply
                • shay August 23, 2015 / 12:06 pm

                  You seem to be incapable of understanding that death is not the only negative outcome of VPDs.

                  Reply
            • Scott Nelson August 21, 2015 / 12:17 pm

              Could you please provide a point by point refutation of this-https://violentmetaphors.com/2014/04/20/how-the-immune-system-works/, using pubmed sources

              Reply
              • rosross August 22, 2015 / 3:38 am

                No, because accessing the link says Page Not Found.

                Reply
                • Chris August 22, 2015 / 3:51 pm

                  Try this: How the immune system works: Contrasting perspectives from science and alternative medicine

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 23, 2015 / 4:32 am

                    Jennifer, the blogger, needs the services of a good sub-editor. Such a sloppy article.

                    We have a lengthy piece from quoted although not sourced doctor to put the Allopathic position and then we have a paragraph from an anonymous Homeopath to supposedly put the Homeopathic position. I mean, really?

                    If I was subbing her copy I would have said: ‘Jennifer, that is a good basic rundown of how science/medicine currently believes the immune system works and the sort of thing anyone who did Biology and Physiology in High School would know.

                    But why is Dr Scott Nelson not appropriately referenced? You say he teaches in a university. Which one? You need to provide some credentials for him to establish him as a reliable source because it does make a difference if he is a senior University lecturer, or just a retired high school science teacher, doing a few university lectures from time to time.

                    But since you claim to be comparing Allopathic with Homeopathic, why have you not sourced your Homeopathic quote? You give your Allopathic ‘expert’ a name but not your Homeopath. Why not?

                    And because I have a solid grounding in Homeopathy, I would say to Jennifer, please do some rigorous research into Homeopathic methodology because what you have written as the statement of your anonymous Homeopath is inaccurate.

                    What you have written, dear Jennifer, is a mish-mash of misunderstandings and misquotes and imaginings of your own fertile mind in regard to non-allopathic medicine.

                    But I did find the source of her quote, which she opted not to reference:

                    http://www.medguru.ie/healthy-living/a-balanced-lifestyle/homeopathic-medicine—what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work/

                    My question is, why did our erstwhile researcher and rigorous scientists not go to a credible Homeopathic site for her information? Why choose a site which gives no information as to who or what is behind it and which makes a statement regarding Homeopathy which any Homeopath or anyone with an understanding of Homeopathy would know was ridiculous.

                    Logic suggests that Jennifer found this quote and it fitted her theory and beliefs and so she co-opted it to her cause. She had no interest in providing an accurate comparison of Homeopathic methodology and practice and preferred to ‘never let facts get in the way of propaganda.’ I would have rapped her knuckles metaphorically and cut this part of her copy and sent her off to do it properly.

                    Then again it is a personal blog and she can say anything she wants to say. What a pity she does such sloppy research while claiming to be a professional scientist.

                    Reply
                    • shay August 23, 2015 / 12:08 pm

                      Homeopathy does not work in any universe where the laws of physics apply. Jennifer can’t go to a credible homeopathic site because homeopathy is not credible.

                      It would be like going to a credible creationist site.
                    • rosross August 24, 2015 / 3:26 am

                      You have just demonstrated egregious prejudice and subjectivity. Now where did that scientific rigour go?

                      Perhaps you could write to the many MD’s and hospital around the world which practise it; the universities and medical schools which teach it and the Governments which have included it in their official medical systems.

                      It might take you l0nger to contact the millions around the world cured by Homeopathy to inform them that it did not work, they are not cured etc. etc. etc.

                      You are however right that the laws of Classical Physics cannot be applied to Homeopathy but since this world is made of far more than Classical Physics is capable of understanding and far more than Quantum Physics is capable of imagining, your view is really irrelevant.

                      Homeopathy continues to heal and cure, for little cost and doing no harm as it has done for more than two centuries.

                      And yes, when it is finally understood how it works, careers, egos, bank balances, professions, industries etc., will collapse, only to be replaced by better ones and enormous gratitude for the utter brilliance of Homeopathic Medicine.
      • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:19 am

        Oh dear, and you posted a link to Wikipedia. You do know that Wiki is not accepted as a source to quote by any respectable university in the world?

        Wiki is propaganda information, particularly on controversial issues.

        What happened to your rigorous scientific approach?

        Reply
        • Chris August 18, 2015 / 3:03 am

          Try reading it. It is about a “children’s book”, not a scientific subject.

          “What happened to your rigorous scientific approach?”

          That is hilarious coming from you who has not once posted any actual scientific citations. You just cited a 1960s Sitcom!

          [sarcasm] Oooh, measles is not dangerous because the fictional Brady family did okay dokay.. OOOh, Roald Dahl did everything wrong with his favorite child, Olivia, because he wanted to plant a memorial garden after she died of measles. [/sarcasm]

          So exactly why did measles incidence drop 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970?

          Reply
          • rosross August 18, 2015 / 4:42 am

            I agree, the book is worth reading but the Wiki site ridicules it, hence my comment.

            Quote:There is a new children’s book available that teaches children that they don’t have to fear childhood illnesses. It is entitled “Melanie’s Marvelous Measles” and can be purchased HERE Mass hysteria has broken out among the provaccine with ideations of banning the book due to its perceived danger. See article HERE So what are the arguments in favor of shedding the mass fear that has been ingrained since the 1960s when the vaccines became available, prior to which measles was an acceptable childhood illness? In the developed world, mortality was reduced over 98% before the vaccine came along and before antibiotics were available. In England and in the United States, the chance of dying from measles had dropped to 1-2% by the 1930s.[1] Immunology textbooks[2] point out that children who can’t make antibodies, usually get through measles as well as children who can, because it’s the innate or cellular immune system that is the key for measles (or any first time disease for that matter) not the humoral or the antibody system. One of the most disconcerting discoveries in clinical medicine was the finding that children with congenital agammaglobulinaemia, who could make no antibody and had only insignificant traces of immunoglobulin in circulation, contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune. No measles anti-body was detectable in their serum (the water part of blood minus clotting factors and cells).[3] The cellular immune system is dependent on good nutrition for optimal functioning. Bad nutrition comes in two forms: Plenty of food but all empty calories or not enough food of any calories at all. In the United States, studies have found that vitamin A deficiency is not just a thing of the past, but that even children with normal diets were vitamin-deficient upon measles infection. This 1992 study in California children showed that 50% of hospitalized measles cases had vitamin A deficiency. But there was also vitamin A deficiency in 30% of the sick controls who did not have measles. None of the uninfected controls showed significant deficiency. We studied 20 children with measles in Long Beach, Calif., and found that 50% were vitamin A deficient. This frequency among presumably well nourished American children supports evaluation of vitamin A status as a part of acute management of measles in the United States.[4] So we could say that any child that lands up in a hospital in USA, or any developed country is suffering because their parents need educating about proper nutrition, or because their doctor is totally clueless about the nearly 80 years of proven benefit of vitamin A supplementation in acute measles. Take note that measles vaccines also deplete vitamin A. Previous studies have shown excess mortality and immune abnormalities among girls immunized with high titer measles vaccine 2 to 4 years after immunization. . . our results showed that serum vitamin A concentrations were de-pressed after measles vaccination, irrespective of whether it was the monvalent or combined measles vaccine. [5] – See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/01/13/melanies-marvelous-measles-is-the-provaccine-backlash-rational-or-hysterical-suzanne-humphries-md/#sthash.dTP8wP0z.dpuf

            Reply
            • shay August 18, 2015 / 11:33 am

              “We studied 20 children with measles in Long Beach, Calif., and found that 50% were vitamin A deficient. This frequency among presumably well nourished American children supports evaluation of vitamin A status as a part of acute management of measles in the United States.[4] So we could say that any child that lands up in a hospital in USA, or any developed country is suffering because their parents need educating about proper nutrition,’

              No, it means that measles strips the body of vitamin A. This is why vitamin A supplements are standard measles treatment protocol in 3rd world countries where children are likely to have a vitamin A deficiency anyway.

              This i

              Reply
39. rosross August 17, 2015 / 3:39 am

    Quote: In the U.S., mortality from infectious disease was down in the single digits per 100,000 in the general population well before the vaccines were introduced (14). Given good nutrition and healthy living condition, the vast majority of people who develop infectious diseases come out unscathed, recovered to normal health (15). Meanwhile, 1 in 6 kids has a learning disorder, and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, asthma, potentially life-threatening allergies, are all skyrocketing when compared with the incidence only a few decades ago. The recent official announcement of the autism rate was 1 in 68, but the database used to calculate that number was from several years ago, already outdated. There’s been no sign of a plateau, and if the current rate of annual increase continues unabated, in only three years 1 in 10 boys will be diagnosed on the autism spectrum(16). Five years later it’ll be 1 in 5 boys, and about 1 in 25 girls. The CDC is well aware of the apparently uncontrollable tide, yet each time the number is updated feigns surprise, or apparent lack of concern, or we see yet another spate of research, such as a recent study linking autism to environmental factors in the womb – but always with careful, deliberate avoidance of any mention of vaccines as even a possible causal factor.

    When you consider the possible outcome only two generations down the line, the effect in every way imaginable of the inexorable degradation of the nation’s physical health and mental acuity is beyond description. Tsunami doesn’t even do it justice. If a nation’s very ability to achieve degrades, it ultimately cannot survive. There are undoubtedly many factors, from the psychotropics dripping from us into our water supply, to genetically modified foods that have then had the nutrients processed out of them. But there’s only one direct injury to the natural function of the immune system, and that’s vaccination – intramuscular injection – with its accompanying mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, cell cultures from human fetuses, polysorbate 80, neomycin, MSG, ethanol, food proteins and unknown contaminants. There’s an ingredient in three of the available flu vaccines (4), Triton X-100, the information for which on the manufacturer’s website (17) includes the following hazard statement (18):

    H302: Harmful if swallowed / Acute toxicity, oral

    This is madness, to routinely inject a substance acutely toxic when ingested, bypassing the very reactions designed to protect the bloodstream from such a threat. Were the toxin ingested, the most immediate immune reaction would likely be elimination, from the stomach or the bowels, possibly through rash, and the like. Other metabolic processes would continue, including at least partial detoxification by the liver, before the substance entered the circulatory system. Vaccination deposits vaccine ingredients directly into the capillary beds of the muscles, from which they’re quickly absorbed into the bloodstream.

    See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2014/05/25/the-great-divide-spanning-the-chasm-between-truth-and-egregious-lies-by-shawn-siegel/#sthash.jHj1CRTE.dpuf

    Reply
    • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:48 pm

      “Quote: In the U.S., mortality from infectious disease was down in the single digits per 100,000 in the general population well before the vaccines were introduced (14).”

      For the third, or is fifth time: mortality only measures the effectiveness of medical intervention!

      It has absolutely nothing to do with vaccine effectiveness nor safety of the vaccine versus the disease.

      Oh, no, not another “Vaccination Council” article. What part of “PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers” do you not understand? Though this one is a real hoot, it is by Shawn Siegel. He is probably the most unqualified incompetent “researchers.” He is the one that created this very silly graph predicting that all girls will become autistic after all of the general population:
      https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/battling-antivaccinationists-at-freedomfest/autism-incidence/

      I’m sorry, but that is just laugh out loud idiotically goofy.

      Reply
      • Chris August 17, 2015 / 12:50 pm

        Better link to Siegel’s goofy graph:
        

        Reply
      • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:15 am

        You keep attacking the individual – ad hominem is a clear sign you can make no case against. Well, not a coherent one.

        Reply
        • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:20 am

          So you really do not understand what is wrong with the graph?

          Clearly, you do not understand what “ad hominem” means. I was not attacking Mr. Seigal for “what” he is (which I believe is a tire salesman in Texas), but actually at how ridiculous his graph is. It is something he actually created, it has nothing to do with his job.

          Do you sincerely believe that all girls will become autistic only after after the entire general population? Really, think about it, or at least have someone with a middle school education explain the vocabulary to you.

          Reply
    • shay August 17, 2015 / 2:24 pm

      “H302: Harmful if swallowed / Acute toxicity, oral”

      The dose makes the poison. Caffeine is toxic, in a great enough dose; so is water (look up dilutional hyponatremia). So is the chlorine in the pool where your children swim.

      There is more mercury in a tunafish sandwich than in a vaccine (and a more harmful mercury compound, to boot). There is more formaldehyde in an apple or a pear than in any vaccine. There is more aluminum in breast milk than in any vaccine, et cetera and ad nauseum.

      You keep claiming that you’re informed. Perhaps you’d do better if you picked sources that were actually…you know…accurate.

      Reply
      • rosross August 18, 2015 / 2:04 am

        Yes, the dose impacts toxicity but so does how it is received by the body.

        If you injected caffeine, chlorine, mercury, tuna, apple, pear etc., into the body of a baby or child you would certainly injure them and possibly kill them. My point exactly.

        If you injected water into a baby or child you would injure them.

        The Aluminium in breast milk is natural, not synthetic and it is drunk by the child, not injected into their body for quick uptake by the blood system.

        I am sure if you injected breast milk into a baby you would do harm.

        You overlook the method of introducing the material to the body and the fact that something naturally produced by the body is very different to a synthetic version injected into the body.

        Never let facts get in the way of propaganda! What was that you were saying about accuracy?

        Reply
        • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:29 am

          “The Aluminium in breast milk is natural, not synthetic and it is drunk by the child, not injected into their body for quick uptake by the blood system.”

          Aluminum is an element. It can only be natural, as it can only be created in the nuclear reactions in a collapsing star. This is basic stuff taught in middle and high school.

          I feel very badly that you had to leave school before even entering middle school. It must have been very bad for your family that you were only able to get an elementary level education. Fortunately there is a way to correct this in most developed countries from Australia to Canada and to Europe. There are places like junior and community colleges where you can take Adult Basic Education and catch up with the education you missed out on. My mother-in-law did this at a community college because she did not graduate from her Canadian high school due to World War II.

          Reply
          • rosross August 22, 2015 / 5:17 am

            Well I don’t know where you went to school but I hope your parents did not have to pay much for it.

            Aluminium only natural you say? So why is this research study into anti-ulcer drugs looking at natural Aluminium and synthetic Aluminium?

            http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?D03236+D03237

            Or this paper referring to synthetic aluminium?

            Click to access Synthetic_Aluminum_Silicate.pdf

            Quote: Dr. Chris Shaw, a Neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia explaining the dangers of putting aluminum into vaccines as an adjuvant. Keep that word in mind: adjuvant.

            As pointed out in the video, a common argument from the “pro-vaccine” side when it comes to vaccines that contain aluminum is that aluminum is present everywhere, that we ingest it more from our food (and other things) than we do from vaccines. This argument is completely invalid, because when it is in the form of an adjuvant within a vaccine, as Dr. Shaw explains, the aluminum stays in your body. That’s exactly what it’s designed to do, that’s the purpose of an adjuvant.

            On the other hand, when you accumulate aluminum in your body from food, industrial practices, or any other source, our bodies usually do a good job flushing it out. Again, when it’s in a vaccine the body does not do this, it stays in the body and this is why vaccines that contain aluminum (and other harmful toxins) should be a cause for concern.

            http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/29/neuroscientist-makes-it-clear-why-aluminum-adjuvants-should-not-be-in-vaccines/

            Reply
            • Chris August 22, 2015 / 4:01 pm

              Neither of the first two links are about aluminum itself, but on molecular compounds that have aluminum as some of their atoms. Aluminum is an element and is only created with a star goes nova. It is a major component in the molecules of soil minerals like feldspar. It being an atom in a molecule does not make the molecule dangerous. It is like saying sea salt is dangerous because chlorine is a dangerous gas and sodium explodes when exposed to water. This is basic middle school science.

              Dr. Shaw is neither qualified nor reputable. This is why his “studies” have been relegated to low end vanity publications. One reason is that he is trying to find “data” for a anti-vax backers:
              http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2013/08/a-snapshot-of-deep-pockets-of-anti.html

              Reply
            • Colin August 22, 2015 / 4:06 pm

              Aluminium only natural you say? So why is this research study into anti-ulcer drugs looking at natural Aluminium and synthetic Aluminium?

              It’s not.

              Or this paper referring to synthetic aluminium?

              If you think that paper establishes any difference between natural and synthetic evolution, please point it out to us.

              Reply
              • rosross August 23, 2015 / 4:12 am

                The use of the term synthetic indicates, to anyone of reason, that there is a distinction between natural and synthetic.

                Reply
                • shay August 23, 2015 / 12:09 pm

                  Chemically there is not. You are not a scientist and you are interpreting scientific language — which is very specific — in a manner consistent with your lack of understanding.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 24, 2015 / 3:22 am

                    Thanks, Shay. Attack the individual when you cannot make a coherent case.

                    Reply
                    • Anonymous August 24, 2015 / 3:31 pm

                      You have routinely used ad hominem attacks, attacks on intelligence and character, and you have done it to just about everyone who has spoken to you. You are a hypocrite, willfully ignorant, and engage in implausible deniability continuously.

                      If this were 1491 you would be there arguing the world was flat, and Christopher Columbus merely failed to go ALL the way around, or took the long way home, or simply moved in a circle and never went anywhere really. You would be arguing for your beliefs, as you are now.

                      I think you have forgotten why there are few studies on unvaccinated vs vaccinated children, and there are a few. The under and non-vaccinated children’s parents refuse to submit to any form of testing. They can’t find enough willing participants to include. Many parents are afraid it’s a ruse to unknowingly vaccinate without permission. So unless you can convince a large majority? You’re own side is partly to blame for the lack of study.

                      You have been asked repeatedly to prove your own beliefs by submitting to your own tests, which you keep refusing on the basis that it is “silly”? I believe that’s what you said?

                      So let me ask you this? If it is so important that vaccination is so unnecessary? Tell me which diseases are perfectly acceptable to you to expose your children to? Tell me which ones you can’t wait for children in general to get because it’s of little to no consequence?
                    • drscottnelson2014 August 24, 2015 / 4:47 pm

                      Oh, she’s made that perfectly clear. All diseases are minor. Smallpox, polio, diphtheria, vaccinia are all minor diseases, and were on their way out long before vaccines. we’ve yet to see any reproducible evidence of that, or for that matter, why people were willing to undergo variolation and cowpox infection to prevent severe smallpox, if it was such an incidental disease.

                      She amply proven that she doesn’t have the courage of her convictions, or she might show us how to defy gravity. SpaceX, NASA, ESA and the Russian space Agency would surely like to have an easier way to get to space than throwing massive thrust against a payload-but she doesn’t want to share the secret.
                    • shay August 24, 2015 / 11:18 pm

                      “Thanks, Shay. Attack the individual when you cannot make a coherent case.” You have demonstrated repeatedly that you aren’t a scientist (in fact you reject science) and you keep putting your own interpretation on scientific language; which as I have pointed out, is very specific. How is that attacking the individual?

                      As for making a coherent case, as proof of your statement about an element, you quote a study of herbal medicines. Not even in the ball park.

                      However, if you would like to demonstrate your ability to use scientific language, go ahead and explain what the difference is between a “synthetic” and a “natural” element.
                • Colin August 23, 2015 / 9:23 pm

                  Or perhaps it says that you do not understand what you’re reading. Why don’t you show us all the deep scientific knowledge that leads you to equate googling with medical research, and to believe that pure water works on an “energy (frequency/vibration/wave)” to cure diseases (without leaving any evidence detectable to people doing actual research). What is the difference between natural and synthetic aluminum? Please feel free to quote from the material you cited.

                  Is synthetic aluminum heavier? Harder? Shinier? Transparent?

                  Reply
                  • Hannah August 23, 2015 / 9:29 pm

                    Synthetic is not the same as bio-identical.

                    http://womeninbalance.org/resources-research/bioidentical-progesterone-vs-synthetic-progestins/

                    Your ego is out of control.

                    Reply
                    • Chris August 23, 2015 / 10:23 pm

                      So what vaccines have progesterone? What does that have to do with elemental aluminum?

                      “Your ego is out of control.”

                      We are not the ones equating hormone treatment with infectious disease prevention.
                    • shay August 23, 2015 / 10:23 pm

                      Hannah — progesterone is not an element.
                    • foreverh August 23, 2015 / 10:57 pm

                      Progesterone and Aluminum have nothing in common or anything to do with each other.

                      Your assertion that an article dealing with
                      natural or synthetic hormones could have any corrilation aluminim or to the topic discussed here shows how closed minded you are and how you’ve made up your mind that if it’s not natural? Or perceived natural? Then it is automatically an enemy. It is YOUR ego that’s out of control.
                  • rosross August 24, 2015 / 2:12 am

                    You do seem to have a problem following a line of thought – the reference was in regard to the difference between synthetic and natural in terms of vaccine ingredients and medication. There is a difference.

                    Reply
                    • foreverh August 24, 2015 / 8:33 am

                      I was responding to Hannah. Not you. Your presumption has you insulting my ability to think, did you not accuse others of making that argument because they “ran out of ideas for a coherent argument”? Don’t accuse others if you engage in the same behaviors.
                    • rosross August 24, 2015 / 8:34 am

                      It appeared on my noticeboard and usually replies to others do not. Apologies.
        • Chris August 18, 2015 / 2:32 am

          “not injected into their body for quick uptake by the blood system.”

          Aluminum is also a the most common metal element on this planet’s crust. It is a major component of soil mineral. Any child who falls and gets a soil laden scrape on the knee gets infected with the evil aluminum.

          Something you would know if you had not dropped out of school after sixth grade.

          Reply
          • rosross August 18, 2015 / 3:30 am

            That is natural aluminium, taken into the body naturally.

            It is no synthetic aluminium injected into the body in ways impossible in nature.

            And you don’t get much aluminium from soil anyway. You get bauxite from which aluminium is processed.

            Reply
            • shay August 18, 2015 / 10:24 am

              Perhaps you should chat with a chemist. Elements are elements — there is no “natural” or “artificial.”

              Reply
              • rosross August 22, 2015 / 5:27 am

                A Chemist is trapped in a materialist reductionist mindset which can only assess at a material level. Elements are not just elements and there most definitely are differences between a naturally occurring material and the same thing created in a laboratory.

                If you and the Chemists were correct then synthetic and natural would have the same effect.They do not. As indicated with synthetic cannabis in comparison to natural.

                http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/08/28/6-reasons-synthetic-marijuana-spice-k2-is-so-toxic-to-the-brain/

                Just as butter cannot be made in a laboratory and what is produced is a different thing, so too with other things.

                Quote: The way these compounds are made is not remotely similar to the metabolic processes that plants and animals use to create them. The finished product is also usually a compound not exactly the same form as any found in nature. These synthetic vitamins, according to a multitude of studies, are not as bioavailable, absorbable, or usable. These “virtually identical” vitamins are not what we find in natural foods, not recognizable to the body, hard on the kidneys, and can often be treated as toxins.

                Vitamin A – Vitamin A shows up in food as beta-carotene. The body must convert it into vitamin A to be useful. This sounds less effective, but vitamin A can be toxic in large doses. Beta-carotene allows the body to convert what it needs and discard what it does not as a natural safeguard against damage.

                Synthetic Vitamin A – Synthetic vitamin A is retinyl palmitate or retinyl acetate. This synthetic is made from combining fish or palm oil with beta-ionone. Palm oil is leading to deforestation of rainforest and endangerment of orangutans. Beta-ionone is created using citrus, acetone, and calcium oxide.

                This Chemist disagrees with you.

                Quote: Herbs are medicinal plants (also called phytomedicinals) that can be administered as the whole plant or plant parts or by extracting one or more ingredients with solvents to yield tinctures, tea or other extracts. Synthetic drugs (what the drug industry calls “pharmaceuticals”) are synthesized chemically in the laboratory to produce drugs not found in nature. One quarter of these drugs used in the U.S. are derived from plants (i.e., opiates, digitalis, Taxol) by extracting the active ingredient from a plant, replicating its structure in the lab and mass-producing it.

                Herbal drugs are considered less potent than prescribed medicines. The latter usually contain one highly concentrated active ingredient, while herbs may have several active ingredients that are chemically similar. Herbal ingredients work synergistically to contribute to, or detract from, the therapeutic effect of each individual ingredient.

                See more at: http://www.doitgreen.org/green-living/herbal-and-synthetic-drugs-comparison#sthash.dleWoI1u.dpuf

                Herbal and Synthetic Drugs: A Comparison

                JOEL ALBERS
                Pharmacist, Pharm.D., Ph.D.
                – See more at: http://www.doitgreen.org/green-living/herbal-and-synthetic-drugs-comparison#sthash.dleWoI1u.dpuf

                Reply
                • Chris August 22, 2015 / 4:04 pm

                  Chemistry fail.

                  Try this, though I suspect it may be too advanced for you:
                  http://www.chem4kids.com/files/atom_compounds.html

                  Reply
                • shay August 23, 2015 / 12:11 pm

                  “Just as butter cannot be made in a laboratory and what is produced is a different thing, so too with other things.”

                  Really crappy analogy. Butter is made by agitating milk. Please point out why butter cannot be made in a laboratory or anywhere else, for that matter.

                  Reply
                  • rosross August 24, 2015 / 2:16 am

                    Your reply did make me smile. Yes, that was my point exactly – butter is made by agitating milk. It is a process developed and used by human beings for centuries involving agitation of a natural product, milk, compared to margarine, constructed in a laboratory, involving chemicals and colourants and artificial processes, i.e. oil does not naturally form a solid in the way that agitated milk does…..

                    you got the point sort of and yet missed the point.

                    The analogy was perfect. Sure you can whip milk anywhere, even in a lab to make butter… my point exactly.

                    Reply
                    • Thomas Holm August 24, 2015 / 2:41 am

                      And you are moving the goal posts again …
                      No-one here has mentioned margarine. I any post. Until you suddenly pull it out of the hat.

                      Oh and the ever-so dangerous ingredients in margarine, you can actually make it at home yourself. All you need is beef fat and water, in a 80:20 mix. Whisk that to a nice homogeneous emulsion and you have the original margarine.

                      The same with your very personnel and irrelevant distinction between a natural and a synthethic aluminium compound. The “paper” you quote isn’t a scientific thesis, article, research description. It is the monograph about a synthetic aluminium silicate from the Japanese Pharmacopeia. Such monographs exist for all substances used in pharmacy (even for those used in homeopathy) and only describe the chemical and physical reactions necessary to identify the substance and how to test it for impurities. Nothing else can be inferred from the existance of a monograph.

                      And now for my morning coffee or tea. Both by the way declared harmful for healthy people by Hahnemann in his Lesser Writings.
                    •