2011.03.05 Q'uo on Vaccines

[Aaron]

There is an agenda behind them. We live in a mixed polarity system so every case must be examined by merit of the institutions and companies involved in development and distribution.

A virus (most vaccines are for viruses) cannot be dead. It can only be active or inactive. Furthermore, there are machines called rife machines that are able to generate frequencies which have a direct and immediate effect on the body, both energetic and physical. There are frequencies which kill bacteria and fungi, and deactivate viruses. These machines are used by private practitioners and "new age/alternative medicine" healers (read:positive wanderers who are in service as healers) all over the world. And yet what's even more, these rife machines are not in use within our modern medical facilities, and their use is actively suppressed by Big Pharma.

I can only imagine that there are other frequencies  which must help specific species to activate rather than deactivate, and these are being used in insidious ways against the general population.

[xise]

This is what I posted today in a facebook discussion about vaccines. I think it's an easy-to-understand argument about vaccine safety, without shifting people's paradigm about the corruption of scientific studies (which exists but is hard to prove, and harder yet to convince people):

Vaccines in the US are an inherently low-quality product because the vaccine industry isn't liable for damages they cause. All studies post-1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) on US vaccines are akin to a quality-control check where only a few very selected batches are vaccines are tested for safety, and then no real quality controls exist for the batches that are used on the public. Liability is traditionally how you ensure product quality, and without liability, vaccines manufacturers are incentivized to make as dirty vaccines as possible if it increases their bottom line. 


The fact that you have to sue to the government for vaccine injury and it's capped at $250,000, even for death (and this amount has not increased due to inflation since 1986) and in a special court without a jury trial is a joke. Would you ever trust a product that when defective or poorly made causes death or brain injury and the maker is not liable, even if they intentionally made a defective or poor quality batch? This is corruption at its finest, and the victims are literally babies. 


It's a sad state of affairs because I truly believe that clean vaccines are a good thing, but with no liability, the vaccine industry is incentivized to make dirty, higher profit vaccines, filled with cheap preservatives to avoid other more expensive means of preservation. If you're pro-organic, you're really anti-dirty vaccines, you just haven't realized it yet.


[The above was my first post. Some random joe didn't get that I wasn't talking about studies and replied and asked about the scientific studies showing vaccines were unsafe, so my reply below]


Without getting into the scientific issues, the problem is clear if you think in terms of three pillars safety analysis: (1) scientific safety/causation, (2) individual safety/causation and (3) manufacturer liability.


Car travel has been studied and proven to be safe, scientifically. Yet, car design defects do cause individual death - that is cars can individually cause death. You can have something that is scientifically safe, such as a car, that can individually cause death when it is poorly designed.


So let's look at the three pillars of the car industry: Car travel has been proven scientifically safe, yet cars individually cause death, sometimes by defective design, and car manufacturers are liable for their defects. Countless historical examples in many industries have shown that liability is an essential component of quality control: https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matt...ord-pinto/ (among many other examples you can google). The punitive damages award, by the jury, was also essential for deterrence to profit-maximizing around defects in the ford pinto case.


Now let's do a three pillars safety analysis of to the vaccine industry. Let's assume they have been proven safe (which I disagree with, but I digress). You have no manufacturer liability, no punitive damages when you sue the federal government, no jury, a special court. You have thousands of cases that the special vaccine court has found that vaccines individually caused death or brain damage (https://www.mctlawyers.com/vaccine-injury/cases/). People need to understand - especially doctors - that scientific causation does not preclude individual causation and that poorly made, liability-free products that injected into one's bloodstream can and do cause irreparable damage, and that the fact that the only industry in the US that has a liability shield is vaccines is a telltale sign of corruption at the expense of the lives and health of US children. The makers of the Ford Pinto did the math and decided not to correct the defect of an exploding gas tank when the car was bumped from behind because they believed it was cheaper to pay off the lawsuits. Liability, with punitive damages, is the reason the Ford Pinto case is taught in business school as a reason to make higher quality products. I can gaurentee you these exact same discussions are being held by vaccine manufacturers, except they pay $0 per death or damage they individually cause, so it is in their financial interest to make a poor quality product, at the expense of their customers. It's a really sad state of affairs. 

[unity100]

Vaccination is a public health matter,

Vaccines is a ~$20 billion industry.

.......

The problem is not vaccines themselves. Its the US pharmaceutical sector. Just like how they subvert and exploit everything, vaccines also have been made into a massive, forcibly expanding market through whatever means.

Since mid 1980s when vaccine manufacturers were made immune from any legal ramifications from what could result from their vaccines, vaccine market enlarged exponentially.

Magically, the CDC recommendation schedule for children also increasingly got loaded, today reaching up to ~30-40 vaccinations for toddlers under 2 year old.

This is something that does not exist anywhere else in the world. Its visibly a way to profit, than public health.

In other parts of the world the vaccine recommendation schedules are quite reasonable. I believe the most they go is up to ~10 vaccinations for the same bracket.

As a result, i wouldnt hesitate having my children getting vaccinated in, say, europe or, japan or china, but in US i would be very careful and not follow CDC schedule, which seems to magically bloat as time goes by, in parallel to profits in vaccine industry. Its not like there is any US govt. department which is not a revolving door in between the industry and government anyway...

Common diseases which mankind has suffered throughout centuries like polio, measles etc should be vaccinated for, definitely. But beyond that, it seems to become a venue for profit rather than public health...

[rva_jeremy]

The problem is not vaccines themselves. Its the US pharmaceutical sector.

Couldn't agree more, well said! I've been saying this for years, because it ties the concerns of anti-vaxxers with what should be the legitimate concerns of many who are pro-vax. It is fundamentally a lack of trust here, but both sides want to frame it as a disagreement over data -- as if there were any data that could matter if its authenticity is in doubt in the first place.

This happens a lot in our society, where a person thinks they're making an appeal to the evidence or rationality but don't understand the underlying values that delineate their argument, or they don't understand how much what they think is factual is actually dependent on trusting an authority.

[Spooner]

I'm vax-skeptic. Here are my reasons that have to do with the Meta rather than the data itself.
(1) Vaccines are not subjected to robust testing as are other drugs. The standards to which they are held are very minimal
(2) Vaccine companies are totally non-liable for any damages from the drugs. The government assumes all liability.
(3) The Vaccine additives are not robustly tested and many are entirely untested
(4) Vaccine additives contain many known carcinogens and toxins
(5) Some vaccines are proven to barely work (Flu) or to have vastly overstated efficacy (MMR whose inventor is actually suing the patent holder for falsifying data)
(6) The official rate of severe side effects for many vaccines is often greater than the official risk of the disease it prevents. This means you're more likely to die or be severely injured by the vaccine than by the disease it protects against by official statistics. This isn't true for every vaccine. Some are worse/better than others.
(7) There is a huge amount of money to be made in vaccine patents and lobbying government to force people to take them. Ergo you must be triply cautious against pro-vaccine disinformation. Many of the studies are badly conducted, botched, or simply dishonest.

However
(1) The basic concept of a vaccine is based on well proven science
(2) Many vaccines are effective in preventing disease if you ignore vaccine related side effects.

[xise]

Triplets (two boys, one girl) developed autism on the same day as they were vaccinated. The docs refused to file a vaccine injury report, and said it was genetics and dropped the family from their practice because they refused future vaccinations. They went to geneticists, who said a statistical impossibility for three non-identical children of different genders to develop autism on the same day via genetics alone, and that it was 100% caused by environmental factors - the vaccine.

[Stranger]

It is my opinion that a certain percentage of the population have a genetic vulnerability which is triggered by vaccines. When you do a large-scale study without identifying this subset, the effect is too small and it is not statistically detectable. It is incredibly disingenious for the medical profession to claim that vaccines are safe and do not cause autism based on that type of research. There are way too many reports of similar effects which used to be called "childhood disintegrative disorder" and is now just a part of "autism spectrum".

[Stranger]

CDC study authors shred documents and withhold data about vaccine harms:

[GentleWanderer]

______

[xise]

It is my opinion that a certain percentage of the population have a genetic vulnerability which is triggered by vaccines.  When you do a large-scale study without identifying this subset, the effect is too small and it is not statistically detectable.  It is incredibly disingenious for the medical profession to claim that vaccines are safe and do not cause autism based on that type of research.  There are way too many reports of similar effects which used to be called "childhood disintegrative disorder" and is now just a part of "autism spectrum".

I've heard such a story recently told by a mom, her two childs became autistic shortly after having received a shot. And with a collective of others are in the process of engaging lawsuit against pharmaceutical compagny.

They might want to sue, but you can't sue pharmaceutical companies for anything related to vaccines in the US. They have a complete liability shield and are immune, regardless of what they put into the vaccine. This is because of the passage of the corporate-sponsored law The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. This is the only industry in the US to have such immunity.

You can sue the government via the NCVIA in the special vaccine court, but are limited to $250,000 damages even in the case of death, and this amount has not increased since its inception.

-----

Abolishing this act which transfers huge power and secrecy to vaccine manufacturing, development, and quality assurance would shine a lot of light on vaccine practices. Hopefully one day, it'll become a reality.

[xise]

In case you haven't looked closely at the allegations of CDC corruption: 

Group of CDC Scientists Write Letter to CDC Chief of Staff Regarding Outside Influence and Rogue Interests

Carmen S. Villar, MSW
Chief of Staff
Office of the Director
MS D­14
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, Georgia 
30329­4027

August 29, 2016

Dear Ms. Villar:

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency.  It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.  These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health. We would like to see high ethical standards and thoughtful, responsible management restored at CDC. We are asking that you do your part to help clean up this house! 

 
(The letter goes on to detail events specific to summer of 2016, not relating to vaccines)

-----

Also, there's a CDC whistleblower (has laywered up under the whistleblower statutes) Dr. William Thompson, who you either think is crazy, doing it for a book deal, or is truly exposing corruption within the CDC. Of course, because vaccine injuries go through vaccine court with special rules, no one has been able to call him to testify in court yet:

Copy of Dr. Thompson's Public Statement After Lawyering Up

STATEMENTOF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING

THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article
published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who
received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions
were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the
final study protocol was not followed.

I wantto be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless
lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines
prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly
outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular
sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I
believe itis the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of
those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the
CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism
spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be
transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I
given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on
the Internet.

[xise]

Correlation or causation, between the explosion of the number of CDC recommended vaccines after the vaccine manufacturer immunity act? You decide.

[xise]

A high-quality recent article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr (who has won awards as an attorney for his environment law work)

https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/som...ne-safety/

• On February 29th, a Danish government study by a prestigious team of Scandinavian scientists found that the DTP vaccine, the world’s most widely-used immunization, while protecting African children from Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis, was wreaking havoc with their immune systems. Vaccinated children were dying at up to 10 times the rate of unvaccinated children.
  
  
• In August 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a CDC senior vaccine safety scientist, confessed that his bosses at CDC ordered him and three other scientists to destroy data showing that black boys who received the MMR vaccine prior to three years old, as the CDC recommends – were 3.36 times more likely to receive an autism diagnosis than those who waited. This effect was not observed in other race categories. Nevertheless, when the CDC published the study results in Pediatrics in 2004, the agency omitted the destroyed data, fraudulently declaring it found no risk of autism from the MMR vaccination.
  
  
• A recent Mayo Clinic study shows that Somalis’ antibody response to the rubella component of the MMR vaccine is twice as high as among Caucasians. That finding may support parental reports of regression of Somali children into autism after vaccination.
  
  
• A 2014 study published in Pediatrics, showed higher rates of autistic disorder among African Americans in Los Angeles County compared to Caucasians. The relative risk of severe autism was 152% higher among U.S. born blacks as compared to U.S. born whites, and an astonishing 263% higher among foreign-born blacks.
  
  
• Perhaps most tellingly, a 2010 study in Stockholm, Sweden, replicated an earlier study by the same team showing a 4 to 5 times increased risk of severe autism in Somali children compared to non-Somali children. The Minnesota Somali parents’ concerns about increased autism risk are not unfounded.
  

-----

Man, I need to meditate more and get to the root of this. Why does chemically impure food, water, and medicine upset me so much? We already exploit so much in this world, why do I care so much about this issue? Is it the seeming innocence of those harmed? Maybe a lack of acceptance of the lack of compassion in our society?

[GentleWanderer]

______

[GentleWanderer]

______

[xise]

study-finds-higher-mortality-in-infants-who-received-the-dtp-vaccine-compared-to-those-who-didnt

Mogensen and his colleagues hypothesize that the DTP vaccine might weaken a child’s immune system against non-target infections.  They conclude, “Though protective against the target disease, DTP may increase susceptibility to unrelated infections… DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated.  No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP.”

[xise]

So this issue is finally less of, or not a trigger for me anymore. It's just a lesson for all involved. I think key for my trigger was believing that there are those who must be defended because they are powerless (babies)/unacceptable to force things upon the innocent, and that it was unacceptable for others to force or override other's free will (mandatory vaccination talk/attempts). 

Once I accepted and balanced these things - all is acceptable, though I may take action against and disagree with it - ultimately its acceptable for it to exist in the world and while I would have an opinion on how any future child of mine would or wouldn't be vaccinated, I'm happy to let others do as they please; hopefully they have researched or read about some of the stuff for themselves. I'm also willing to admit there is always the possibility I am incorrect on this subject, but I doubt. But it's certainly possible. It seems that unbiased chemical safety research seems to lag in the US at least by about 4 decades after the chemical is introduced. PCBs, DDT, Roundup (just coming up on the 4th decade), and vaccination newer adjuvants since the 80s are coming into the 4th decade as well. But in any case, I digress.

My in-depth research into the subject continues to grow these days as its becoming more discussed (in a superfical way in the US mainstream). So I just wanted to post what I posted in the facebook LOO group (someone else asked a question about vaccinations) because I think a lot of people don't really understand the different types of causation that are present in our reality:

The vaccine debate in the US at least is artificially constructed due to the way the issue is portrayed in the media. It's really not about vaccinate or not vaccine (or even delayed vaccination). 

There are concrete, reasonable steps that people are asking for that I think most reasonable people would agree would both make vaccines safer and increase trust in the vaccine system.

The first and probably most important step is to undo the 1986 NCVIA Law which is a one-of-kind law that provides blanket design defect immunity to vaccine manufacturers, thus literally creating a perverse incentive to not improve the safety of vaccines.

Regarding safety, people, even science-oriented, seem to have trouble understanding the difference between scientific/statistical causation and individual causation. Some cases and example of scientific/statistical causation versus individual causation - air travel is statistically speaking the safest form of travel, yet, individually planes that are sometimes poorly designed or poorly tested can and do cause actual death and plane crashes. That's why individual causation and design defect liable is so important, because without that no one is incentivized to investigate why there are some many seeming cases 'caused' or 'triggered' hours or days after vaccination, because statistically speaking they are safe. It's like having a plane crash and then refusing to investigate because statistically speaking plane travel is safe.

To give a more on point case study: The Ford Pinto (which had a defectly designed fuel tank that would likely explode when rear ended). The Popular Mechanics Article on the Ford Pinto notes that "Reports range from 27 to 180 deaths as a result of rear-impact-related fuel tank fires in the Pinto, but given the volume of more than 2.2 million vehicles sold, the death rate was not substantially different from that of vehicles by Ford's competitors. The far more damaging result for Ford was the PR disaster. The company long endured a reputation for putting profits ahead of build quality, which, ironically, drove even more customers to foreign and competing brands."

The PM article also notes that Ford did a cost benefit analysis of fixing the defect or leaving it in and paying design defect liability, and decided to leave it in because it was statistically safe enough and because they could afford to pay off those they knowingly kill or injured by having the defect. This is the some of profit-seeking decisions that are made even with design defect liability. Imagine what sort of decisions are being made in vaccine manufacturers where they have no such liability and it's no surprise that people don't trust the US vaccine system.

[redchartreuse]

I noticed that this thread got bumped, and so will throw a few factoids in to mix:

1.  Correlation does not equal causality.  This point cannot be overstressed, and is the main reason why people with no scientific training get sucked down rabbitholes of health disinformation.

2.  More research has been done on vaccine safety in the last 15 years than all of the previous research combined.  This applies to both individual vaccines, as well as the vaccine schedule as a whole.  Taken as a whole, and across large populations, vaccination safety does indeed outweigh the risks.  That being said:

2a.  Live (attenuated) vaccines DO pose a greater risk than killed (inactivated) vaccines.  This is a known fact, and is not being hidden or suppressed by governmental bodies.  And contrary to misinformation stated earlier, inactivated vaccines are TRULY inactivated, because they use *pieces* of a virus or bacteria, and not the whole thing.  Obviously, pieces of a microbe cannot make you ill.  And as far as the antigen content of vaccines go, the percentage of overall antigen exposure that a six year old receiving the entire schedule of recommended vaccines is less than 1% of what they would naturally encounter in the world.

2b.  Adjuvants added to vaccines continue to be of concern, and continue to be researched for safety.  Again, this is a known fact, and is not being hidden or suppressed by governmental bodies.  However, these tend to only produce a higher risk in people who have problems with their immune systems.  Unfortunately, often times the first sign that a baby or child has a problem with their immune system is when they receive a vaccine.  Nonetheless, whether or not they receive a vaccine, that person will continue to have problems with their immune system, and is prone to all sorts of other problems as a result.   In other words, the vaccine does not cause a problem with a person's immune system.  Rather, a problem with a person's immune system causes a person to have problems receiving vaccines.

2c.  Although it has been clearly shown that vaccines do not cause autism (autism appears to be correlated with both genetic and environmental factors, many of which are things which happened to mom while pregnant), there actually is evidence for an indirect link between vaccines and autism.  Harvard researchers found a link among certain children (again with preexisting immune problems) who were treated with acetaminophen (Tylenol) for a vaccine-induced fever.   So, while the fever itself was harmless, concerned parents wanting to "do something" for their child's vaccine-induced fever may have unwittingly triggered autism in their children by giving them acetaminophen.  Fevers are almost never harmful, and current medical recommendations are to not give a child fever reducing medications under (almost) any circumstances.  In fact, if one is really concerned about harmful treatments, acetaminophen should be at the top of their list, and not vaccines.  

3.  Vaccine disinformation has been positively linked to Russian social media trolls whose goal are to foment discord among residents of democratic nations, and in particular Americans who appear to be particularly gullible to Russian social media trolls.  And I would go so far as to say that much of the so-called "channeled" material out there (where, let's be honest, a lot of this fear-mongering around vaccines gets its source) has also been infiltrated by Russian trolls, as well as other fringe phenomenon like NESARA / the "Reval" / Dinar schemes, and Q Anon.  So- please- use your own brains lest a Russian social media troll uses it for you.  And remember, there really is no such thing as "Facebook research."

Well, I take that last part back. There is TONS of research being done on Facebook. But it is almost entirely on the users, and not by the users. Plenty of great information available there for those who are wanting to learn how to manipulate others into being unwitting minions for a negative agenda of control and separation.

4.  Vaccines DO- occasionally- actually harm infants.  Nobody in the medical or public health fields is denying this.  But in reality, much more harm is done to infants by pillows and blankets in their cribs, bathtubs and swimming pools, and automobile accidents (particularly when there is an improperly restrained infant).  So take that as you will.

5.  Personally, I recoil at the idea of "forced" anything.  However, the only reason this is being discussed so much nowadays, is because so many people have apparently thrown their own brains out the window in favor of propaganda being spread by Russian social media trolls.   So a person (especially a spiritually minded one) might do well to consider the balance of free-will infringement upon those innocent babies who actually can't take vaccines for legitimate medical reasons and are being put at risk for basically no good reason other than because somebody refuses to confront their own irrational fears.  Surely- whether on the topic of vaccinations or any other topic- tackling one's fears and inner demons, and enjoying an increase in clear-mindedness around this or any other topic, would be beneficial to spiritual growth.

6.  Perhaps most important to this post, I, myself, was quite down the rabbithole of all this anti-vaccine propaganda until I had a child myself.  At which point, instead of spending even more time spinning around the Internet in a fearful frenzy whipping myself up into a panic, I actually took the time to calm the F down, turn inward, meditate, and ask for some real guidance from my own Higher Self.  This led me to where I am today, with a healthy, happy, vaccinated son.  So my recommendation would be neither to blindly trust in some document posted on a .GOV nor Russian trolls disguised as "concerned moms" on social media and/or "Archangel So-and-So" but to go inward and see what your own Higher Self has to say.

7.  Even, after all this, if fears and concerns do persist, I might suggest that any serious student of the material presented here on this site would know that your loving intention can easily neutralize any negative effects, or hyperdimensional malintent, which might be attached to vaccines.  So, choose your battles wisely, because one day soon you may wish you had more credibility with your friends and family when the s*** really hits the fan, and you are desperately wanting to be of service to them.

[xise]

I agree with much you have to say about using discernment and trusting that regardless of what happens all is well. At the end of the day, I personally don’t think the sky is falling; if indeed current vaccines are somewhat unsafe as I believe is likely, it’s not something that is killing or harming babies in droves.

Rather, it’s a small percentage of unnecessary harmfulness that we generally accept that is more reflective of the values of our society about how in all things we cut slight corners in the name of profit and expediency, and then realize decades later what has happened (ozone layer, climate change, roundup, heavy metals/arsenic contamination of groundwater and rice due to chemical usage, plastic pollution in the ocean, etc).

[redchartreuse]

I agree with much you have to say about using discernment and trusting that regardless of what happens all is well. At the end of the day, I personally don’t think the sky is falling; if indeed current vaccines are somewhat unsafe as I believe is likely, it’s not something that is killing or harming babies in droves.

Yes, well nothing is 100% safe.  Anything with the potential to help also has the potential to harm.  If we consider against the backdrop of adverse effects of medications and surgical procedures gone bad, vaccines are extremely safe by comparison.  And same goes for natural remedies like medicinal herbs, essential oils, and vitamin supplements.  They can cause significant harm, too, even when used properly, which is exceedingly rare.

Actually, the field of natural medicine has it somewhat worse due to the pervasive belief that anything "natural" cannot be harmful to the body.  I note that most of the propaganda promoting these disinformative attitudes can be found in exactly the same places as rabid anti-vax disinfo.  Something perhaps to ponder upon.

And then there is even considerable harm possible through metaphysical approaches like energy healing, crystals and pyramids, ayahuasca ceremonies, etc.  At least, a conventional medical professional has to go through a quite considerable training process before administering cures, whereas just about anybody can read a couple of books on energy healing, or have a couple Reiki attunenements, and decide that they are now qualified to heal others.  Or throw a condor feather in their hair and declare themselves a shaman.
 
Hell, I've even seen harm done by yoga.

Rather, it’s a small percentage of unnecessary harmfulness that we generally accept that is more reflective of the values of our society about how in all things we cut slight corners in the name of profit and expediency, and then realize decades later what has happened (ozone layer, climate change, roundup, heavy metals/arsenic contamination of groundwater and rice due to chemical usage, plastic pollution in the ocean, etc).

Oh for sure, those types of attitudes you point out are big factors to take into consideration.  But these types of mental laziness, shortsightedness, blind ideologies, etc. permeate- indeed saturate- every aspect of our cultures.  So from that standpoint, there is no particular benefit to be seen to placing all of one's "concern chips" on vaccinations.

To my perception, becoming an anti-vax zealot (or throwing all of one's irrational fears behind any other pet cause) only serves to further separate and fragment the populace, and tend to blind a person to, perhaps, more pressing agendas or things that are actually of larger concern to the whole.

An image comes to mind, for example, of a rabid vegan who is obsessed with the plight of the cows, meanwhile missing that the bees are in extreme danger due to our unenlightened methods of growing fruits and vegetables, and not the least of which is the process of making their precious almond milk.  

If the bees go, we all go.  So, to my estimation, their well-being should be of a top concern among animal activists.  And then we can figure out the cows later, once we have secured the survival of advanced life on the planet.

By the way, kudos for you for finding the fortitude to challenge your beliefs, and for being courageous enough to admit to others that you may have held an overly distorted view on something!   This is quite refreshing too see, and takes much more of an effort than most appear to be willing or able to muster during these times.  

[Louisabell]

Sorry, this is off topic!

An image comes to mind, for example, of a rabid vegan who is obsessed with the plight of the cows, meanwhile missing that the bees are in extreme danger due to our unenlightened methods of growing fruits and vegetables, and not the least of which is the process of making their precious almond milk.  

If the bees go, we all go.  So, to my estimation, their well-being should be of a top concern among animal activists.  And then we can figure out the cows later, once we have secured the survival of advanced life on the planet.

Hi redchartreuse, I don't think I've said hi to you before, so hello.

I just wanted to let you know that I think there are a few vegans on B4 who do care deeply about the plight of cows and in my estimation are not "rabid" in the slightest. Of course I could be seeing the world through my own rabid goggles.

I would only ask for you to consider that 1.many fruits we eat require cross-pollination and farmers help the bee population by setting up colonies on their orchards.

2.livestock animals also consume food, usually from plants from deforested grazing land or mono-culture grain or soy crops - all destructive for bees. Conservation of energy means more calories go into livestock than we get out. This would explain why 26% of the Planet's ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33% of croplands are used for livestock feed production. So when you consume animal products, you are also consuming the plant matter it took to sustain that life.

[flofrog]

I agree with much you have to say about using discernment and trusting that regardless of what happens all is well. At the end of the day, I personally don’t think the sky is falling; if indeed current vaccines are somewhat unsafe as I believe is likely, it’s not something that is killing or harming babies in droves.

Rather, it’s a small percentage of unnecessary harmfulness that we generally accept that is more reflective of the values of our society about how in all things we cut slight corners in the name of profit and expediency, and then realize decades later what has happened (ozone layer, climate change, roundup, heavy metals/arsenic contamination of groundwater and rice due to chemical usage, plastic pollution in the ocean, etc).

Xise, I am like you incredibly moved by the issue of vaccines. I already was prettty questioning it when I was a young mum. I completely agree that the concept of vaccine is a sound and needed one, after all Pasteur saved many

It is just that knowing that vaccine manufacturers have total immunity is a horrific thing, philosophically and pragmatically.

My daughter has a nine months old baby and she is adamant that he will get all vaccines he can ingest. Benevolent intentions are sure in order.

[Tae]

I noticed that this thread got bumped, and so will throw a few factoids in to mix:

1.  Correlation does not equal causality.  This point cannot be overstressed, and is the main reason why people with no scientific training get sucked down rabbitholes of health disinformation.

Yes.

The onset age for autism just happens to be in line with the age suggested for vaccinations.

The fellow who made the initial study tying autism to vaccines did it not to start anti-vaccination, but because he wanted people to buy his "non-autism causing" vaccine. Sounds like a classic big Pharma motivation to me. Plus it creates walls between friends and family, and makes stupid peasants likely to kill themselves off so anti-vaxxing totally fits the depopulation agenda, so why not put a few loud mouthed anti-vax shills in some vulnerable places to exploit people via Dunning-Kreuger.

Look, ya'll, you can correlate anything to make data look like it explains what your bias is. Here is proof that your taste in sushi corresponds to your okayness with homosexuality.

he will get all vaccines he can ingest.

Please don't feed babies needles.

[redchartreuse]

Hi redchartreuse, I don't think I've said hi to you before, so hello.

Hi!

I just wanted to let you know that I think there are a few vegans on B4 who do care deeply about the plight of cows and in my estimation are not "rabid" in the slightest. Of course I could be seeing the world through my own rabid goggles.

Sure, of course!  I hope you didn't think I meant to imply that all vegans are rabid.  My point is that it isn't the concern over vaccines (or cows) that is that problem, it is the rabid attitude that prevents one from seeing the larger picture, from which they might actually draw a connection to others.

For example, it doesn't appear that you would be of the rabid variety, since you took the time to say "hello" and then casually offered up some information.

In contrast, you could have chosen to copy-and-paste 10 pages of factory farm horror stories, along with a link to a autoplay video of a cow screaming in pain while being mishandled by a factory farm worker, and then claim that since I now have seen that information, I must needs immediately convert to veganism or else suffer total depolarization for failure to "take responsibility" for what I now know.

The first tactic creates bridges.  The second not only destroys them, but then scorches the earth for a miles around ensuring that nobody will ever pass that way again.

1.many fruits we eat require cross-pollination and farmers help the bee population by setting up colonies on their orchards.

100%

2.livestock animals also consume food, usually from plants from deforested grazing land or mono-culture grain or soy crops - all destructive for bees. Conservation of energy means more calories go into livestock than we get out. This would explain why 26% of the Planet's ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33% of croplands are used for livestock feed production. So when you consume animal products, you are also consuming the plant matter it took to sustain that life.

Yes, absolutely.  It's all bad for the bees.  That's what I was attempting to say!  By finding a focal point, or fulcrum, which is more fundamental to the problem, we can actually leverage that to cast our net wider in terms of recruiting others under the aegis of change.  We don't need to further divide people up under problems A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, when we could place all our collective focus onto solving problem "I" which then would ripple out and take care of all those other things as well.

So, in bringing the analogy back to the topic of the thread, sure, we could continue to fight an endless battle between the rabid vaxxers and the rabid anti-vaxxers, and squander even more of our resources in the process, or we could all collectively turn our focus to dealing with the more fundamental problem: rabidness.

It's the rabidness... overzealousness... fanaticism... hysteria... extremism... fervor... that is at the root of so many of our societal problems.  Transmute that, and there might be some hope for humanity yet.

It's more than a curious point to me how many spiritual seekers appear to be caught up in the notion that abandoning ourselves to our emotional and feeling natures is the key to progress, and conversely view our rational and sensible natures as somehow threatening or dangerous. Nobody started a war by being overly rational. And while you can make a very rational argument to an overly intellectual type as to why it is important for them to embrace their emotions, you cannot make any argument to an overly emotional type as to why it is important for them to embrace their intellect. They would just tend to get upset and storm out of the room.

All the while... or for at least as long as humanity has had the Tarot system introduced by Ra... we have been given very clear guidance that our objective here is to meld our thinking and feeling natures into a cohesive unit. In fact, using the Tarot itself is a very clever way of taking someone from their feeling nature (reacting to the colors, shapes, symbols, etc.) in the pictures, and into the realm of philosophical thought. But it does not function in the other direction. There is a reason for this. But one must be willing to reason in order to find out what that is.

[xise]

So, in bringing the analogy back to the topic of the thread, sure, we could continue to fight an endless battle between the rabid vaxxers and the rabid anti-vaxxers, and squander even more of our resources in the process, or we could all collectively turn our focus to dealing with the more fundamental problem: rabidness.

It's the rabidness... overzealousness... fanaticism... hysteria... extremism... fervor... that is at the root of so many of our societal problems.  Transmute that, and there might be some hope for humanity yet.

Interesting, I take a different approach. I believe you can't change people, change comes from within, and that even crazy people can end up having valid positions. There are a lot of crazy people out there, and I think it's very useful to be able to filter out the good arguments from the crazy ones, if you want to end up with the truth (or something close to it). 

I think people have come to terms with using the internet for self-empowerment when it comes to food and nutrition and doing their own research and trusting their own research; ie most people I talk to no longer believe what was mainstream about nutrition even 10 years ago (lots of people would eyeroll you when you talked about organic food a decade ago, now its a serious business and issue now that verdicts against Monsanto's roundup have been given and more are in the pipeline.) 

Remember, when online on both sides there is mass disinformation. I actually worked with a person who had a side job of creating random profiles and posting pro-democratic party information, sometimes by creating a rabid/fake republican profile and posting crazy stuff, back in 2009. So I think that much of the online rabidness is often energized by disinformation campaigns on both sides, and its tough as an everyday person to avoid that rabidity. At the end of the day, I think focusing the rabid person memes makes it way, way, way easier for any corporate or russian trolls to manipulate the discussion (remember the FCC comments on restoring internet freedom which gutted net neutrality - something like 95% where botting anti-net neutrality trolls presumable telecom corporate trolls) and its best to address the underlying situation that creates interest for the issue for people, crazy or not.

[redchartreuse]

even crazy people can end up having valid positions.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut!  Totally, and there are other issues we can see today where, just because somebody perceived as "crazy" says X, then people start presuming that "X" automatically must be a "crazy idea" with no merit worth consideration.

An example which comes to mind is bringing up non-human causes of climate change, and being immediately accused of being a "climate change denier."  Um, no, actually, but rather if we took a closer look at the non-human causes of climate change, perhaps we might find new avenues for reducing our own impact that we hadn't previously considered.

Or even flat earth theory.   Sounds totally absurd, but actually there is a legitimate hypothesis out there that our entire universe is actually a 2D disk, and what we perceive as 3D is a hologram.  So maybe... maybe there is something to that.  Maybe something worth our consideration.

It doesn't seem to me that are views are quite as as oblique as you suggest.  You offered the word "crazy" which I did not suggest.  Rather, I would suggest there are rabid crazy people, and those are the ones to look out for.  

Plenty of super nice and interesting crazy people around too.  But we just tend to call those people creative.

There are a lot of crazy people out there, and I think it's very useful to be able to filter out the good arguments from the crazy ones, if you want to end up with the truth (or something close to it). 

Well, yes.  And here's the thing.  Someone can literally buy a bathroom picture book of logical fallacies for like $10, and start learning about them while they take their morning crap.  (There are several nice websites dedicated to this sort of learning that are totally free.  I just happen to like the imagery of the bathroom book.) After a very short while, they will find themselves rather empowered... not only more empowered to communicate their views to others, but vastly more empowered in being able to discern when they are being manipulated, or being presented with false information.  

Because the false information is typically based on facts.   It is the false relationships that are drawn between the facts that creates the delusion, and each of these can be described in terms of logical fallacy.  But sadly, things have gotten so bad with this nowadays that a Russian social media troll doesn't even need to present the false arguments.  In fact, to do so would be a liability because it wouldn't be long before somebody with a well-trained mind would come along and point out the fallacy.

Here's all they need to do.  Put out a set of "facts"... say 20-30% true provable facts, 30-50% debatable facts, and 20-30% lies (or "alternative facts"), and then say:

"Here are the facts, you decide."  

And the person with the untrained mind, and resulting chaotic emotional nature, will come along and simply project whatever false logic relationships onto those facts that fits their personal narrative at the time, and move along.  Sooner or later, they will inevitably come to a "community" of like-minded folks (HINT:  The same trolls run the online communities.) where they claim there is an area of "open debate" on the topic.

So then all these people now emotionally invested in a particular false theory come in, and they start re-presenting the set of facts along with their own false connections.  In essence, doing the trolls work for them.  (Isn't that nice?)  But since almost none of the community members, by definition, are able to discern a false argument from a true one, it all comes together as some sort of hodge-podge mish-mash fantasy world which is nearly impenetrable by reason.

Next thing you know, a crazy man gets elected President.

All of this... could be prevented by taking 15 minutes a day for two weeks to learn about logical fallacies, and then applying that knowledge in one's own life.  Yet, most people simply will not do it.  It feels threatening to them... scary.. they seem to feel that their feelings themselves are at risk.  But the intellect doesn't take away from our emotions any more than our emotions take away from our intellect.   They are not opposites, but complements.  They are intended to work together.

the underlying situation that creates emotion for the issue for people, crazy or not.

Which in your view would be...?

[xise]

the underlying situation that creates emotion for the issue for people, crazy or not.

Which in your view would be...?

My perspective comes from my background, which is legal. Parents whose children are hurt by vaccination want to feel valued, properly compensated, and be heard about their loss. We're currently doing the opposite on all fronts.

I think the issue is that much of this revolves around parents who are 'ex-vaxxers' - they vaccinated and killed or maimed their child due to the vaccination, however unlikely - are not satisfied with the compensation process, and thus really genuinely seek to raise the issue online. Vaccines do cause harm to children, however minute, and since the creation of the closed vaccine court proceedings in 1986, $4B has paid out for vaccine injury even with a paltry 250k cap when a child dies, and its paid by the gov't; not by vaccine manufacturers. 

Truly, if you believe the vaccination system is safe enough, then these parents are heroes, having sacrificed their children for the betterment of all. Yet they are treated like dirt. They get paid almost nothing for a child who dies (compared to most deaths in other areas). They are ignored (none of them got to testify at the congressional hearing recently). They are pressured to shut up, or social media that carries their story is told to semi-censor all things anti-vax, including their voice. Are we really surprised they and their friends are outraged at such treatment and get rabid? (Btw, I am drawn to causes of people whose voice isn't heard, or there is a large systemic power imbalance, if you haven't noticed  )

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider their #1 request, which is to undo the special law governing vaccine liability. Every single other industry in the US, from normal medicines to cars to planes to chemicals in food, has normal liability and its worked. You don't often see this 1986 NVIC act repealment actually parsed out and discussed on media or by people, for whatever reason. This really isn't that outlandish of a request, especially given the Supreme Court case that upheld federal preemption of immunity shield portion for manufacturers which also had a dissent by Sotomeyer (with Ginsburg) stating we should not allow the federal law to preempt new state law which wants to make manufacturers liable:

In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011)

[Louisabell]

Sure, of course!  I hope you didn't think I meant to imply that all vegans are rabid.  My point is that it isn't the concern over vaccines (or cows) that is that problem, it is the rabid attitude that prevents one from seeing the larger picture, from which they might actually draw a connection to others.

Thanks, your response is well received and I'm glad you got the opportunity to further clarify your points.

To respond to the idea of rabidness, I think there is a fine line between passion and rabidness. Definately rabidness, by its' very definition, is not embued with wisdom. So I wonder if the path of martyrdom is also a form of rabidness?

I'm not sure about that, but what I do know is that on both sides of the vax argument I see a lot of love from parents, family and community members towards their children as they so badly want to make the right choice by them.

I see a lot of beauty in that, and it makes me think that maybe the world we live in is less about being as safe as possible, and more about having our love for eachother tested.

And while you can make a very rational argument to an overly intellectual type as to why it is important for them to embrace their emotions, you cannot make any argument to an overly emotional type as to why it is important for them to embrace their intellect.

Not saying you're an emotional type, but you earlier wrote on how you believe you moved from a more emotional place to a more intellectual space. So can you breakdown that process, not so much from learning new information, but shifts in consciousness, to see if any wisdom can be gained that can be shared with others?

[flofrog]

Sure, of course!  I hope you didn't think I meant to imply that all vegans are rabid.  My point is that it isn't the concern over vaccines (or cows) that is that problem, it is the rabid attitude that prevents one from seeing the larger picture, from which they might actually draw a connection to others.

Thanks, your response is well received and I'm glad you got the opportunity to further clarify your points.

To respond to the idea of rabidness, I think there is a fine line between passion and rabidness. Definately rabidness, by its' very definition, is not embued with wisdom. So I wonder if the path of martyrdom is also a form of rabidness?

I'm not sure about that, but what I do know is that on both sides of the vax argument I see a lot of love from parents, family and community members towards their children as they so badly want to make the right choice by them.

I see a lot of beauty in that, and it makes me think that maybe the world we live in is less about being as safe as possible, and more about having our love for eachother tested.

And while you can make a very rational argument to an overly intellectual type as to why it is important for them to embrace their emotions, you cannot make any argument to an overly emotional type as to why it is important for them to embrace their intellect.

Not saying you're an emotional type, but you earlier wrote on how you believe you moved from a more emotional place to a more intellectual space. So can you breakdown that process, not so much from learning new information, but shifts in consciousness, to see if any wisdom can be gained that can be shared with others?

I totally believe in the shift of consciousness, I think the care parents feel about their children goes much farther than simple emotional level.There is an intuitive wisdom about the possible ills that could garner around their child. The beauty of their search is indeed exemplary.

Thank you all for these wonderful posts.

[Relax]

It Took Two Months and Nearly a Million Dollars to Save an Unvaccinated 6-Year-Old From Tetanus

~ Ed Cara
Thursday 7/3/2019 5:54pm

A new case report from the Centers for Disease Control released Thursday starkly highlights the costs of not vaccinating children. It details an unvaccinated 6-year-old boy’s encounter with tetanus—and the hugely expensive, two-month-long effort it took to save his life.

Tetanus is caused by the namesake bacteria Clostridium tetani. More accurately, it’s what happens when the soil-loving C. tetani gets into your body—usually through an open cut—and spews out an extremely potent toxin. This toxin can quickly paralyze and send your muscles into constant spasms, beginning with the jaw (if you know anything about tetanus, it’s probably that it causes lockjaw). These spasms can then spread to the chest, back, and gut, leading to painful fractures, problems breathing, and even the complete loss of bowel control. It’s a brutal disease, one that can take months to fully recover from. Even with treatment, 10 percent of victims ultimately die.

Thankfully, we’ve had a working vaccine for tetanus since the 1920s, and vaccination has virtually eliminated the disease in countries with decent healthcare. Most every person in the U.S. is fully vaccinated for tetanus by the time they enter school, with the first of five shots happening at the age of 2 months (booster shots every 10 years afterward are recommended). Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case for the unnamed child in this report, since his family had chosen to not vaccinate him for any condition.

According to the authors, the 6-year-old boy from Oregon had gotten a forehead scrape while playing outside on a farm sometime in 2017. The wound was cleaned and sutured at home, but six days later the boy began experiencing lockjaw and muscle spasms. He then started arching his back and neck involuntarily and eventually could barely breathe, prompting his family to call for help.

The boy was airlifted to the hospital, unable to even drink water because he couldn’t open his mouth. There, he was given several tetanus shots. He then spent the next 47 days in intensive care, needing a ventilator to breathe and constant medications through an IV to control his pain, blood pressure, and muscle spasms. Three days later, he was able to walk 20 feet with help, but he still needed two more weeks of rehab to fully recover the use of his legs and body.

All told, he ended up spending 57 days in the hospital, with a bill of $811,929, and that’s excluding the air transport and rehab care. For context, that’s about 72 times the average cost of a hospital stay for a kid, according to research cited by the authors. And it’s monumentally more expensive than the childhood diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), which can cost around $30 per dose without insurance (the adult boosters are around $60).

The doctors say it’s the first case of childhood tetanus reported in Oregon in 30 years. Between 2009 to 2015, though, there were 197 tetanus cases and 16 deaths reported in the U.S. And some of these rare cases have been even more expensive, with hospital bills for one adult victim reaching over $1 million.

The report doesn’t go into why his family was against vaccination in the first place. And lead author Judith Guzman-Cottrill, a professor of pediatrics at Oregon Health and Science University, told Gizmodo that she couldn’t disclose any family-specific details about the case, including their reasons for abstaining. But she noted the case should provide an important reminder about getting your shots, especially for tetanus. That’s because tetanus is only spread by direct contact with contaminated surfaces, and not from person-to-person like the flu. So relying on others to be vaccinated—otherwise known as herd immunity—won’t protect you from the bacteria, which is practically everywhere in soil.

“Thus, routine vaccination for all, plus boosters, are very important to prevent disease,” Guzman-Cottrill told Gizmodo.

The story ends mostly happily for the boy. A month later, he was completely back to normal, running and using his bike again. But it seems no lessons were learned on his family’s part. Despite the brutal ordeal and pleading by the doctors, they again chose not to vaccinate him for tetanus or any other diseases.

https://gizmodo.com/it-took-two-months-a...37421?IR=T