Posted by on October 11, 2010  Add comments
Oct 112010

The information in this site should not be regarded as medical advice. I am not a doctor; I am not trained, and do not have the expertise needed to provide medical advice. I am a parent who is trying to find out as much good, science-based information as I possibly can about vaccines and vaccine preventable diseases. This is a journey of discovery, and as such, it is possible that bad information might find its way in this site. Please, speak to your doctor about any questions you might have, and especially prior to making medical decisions.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • Fark
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine
  • PDF
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

  42 Responses to “DISCLAIMER”

  1. You would think people would know this sort of thing. Of course, that would probably mean that they should know the benefits of vaccines as well. Nevermind.

    • Gotta spell it out to make sure people know what it is that they’re getting here. You can never be too careful, I guess.

  2. If you’re interested in a feature on vaccines for adults, you’re welcome to reproduce the “Prepared Patient” issue, “Roll Up Your Sleeves: Adult Vaccinations.”


    Credit to the Health Behavior News Service, part of the Center for Advancing Health.

  3. I think all your readers, all 3000 of them, should go to: http://vactruth.com/ or how about: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/ to read the truth about this junk you want people to shoot into their veins.

    Especially read some of the horror stories from parents who have lost children to this so called science: http://thinktwice.com/stories.htm

    Time to wake up people, but I guess if you actually subscribe to this sites messages, then you’re a lost cause, just like vaccines.

  4. Maybe you can help me understand a fundamental confusion I cannot resolve. I understand that the benefits of vaccines are 1) to prevnet the spread of disease (which is different from keeping people from becoming infected) and 2) to create antibodies in the blood (which is, according to the CDC, not an actual indication of or guarantee of immunity to the disease). By The specific definitions used, vaccines are ‘effective’ (which is different from the definition of actually keeping people healthy). The semantics notwithstanding…
    what I don’t understand is how is it not a red-flag issue that no vaccines are ever tested for (I quote this directly from manufacturer’s package inserts) “carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility”; none are ever tested in combinations and cocktails the way they’re actually given to children in the course of the medically recommended drug regemin; and there are many who have been compensated by a special government fund for vaccine injuries because vaccines damaged their children. But the word I keep hearing from the government & the manufacturer’s is “safe” (without sufficient proof to inspire my confidence).

    Do you have any insights specifically relating to these concerns that may clear up this cognitive dissonnance for me? Vaccines are drugs, the vaccination regimen is heavy drug therapy that effectively alters an immature immune system in many ways, and I am concerned that there are some significantly important yet unanswered questions. Your input is appreciated.

    • 1-You prevent the spread of disease by keeping people from becoming infected, they are one and the same.

      2-Vaccines are not 100% effective, effectiveness of immunity is calculated by actual decrease on disease infections; vaccines have been proven very effective in stopping infections that way; some studies only look at antibodies created but the best, strongest ones look at the effects on infection rates directly. That is how we know vaccines are effective in stopping infections.

      3-Having immunity is only a part of being healthy. Vaccines increase a person’s health “rating” by making them immune to some diseases, but not all. Keeping people healthy requires vaccines plus much more. Without vaccines, chances of having a less healthy life are much increased by orders of magnitude.

      4-All vaccines are tested for safety; they may not have been tested for carcinogenic potential per se, because you cannot test every vaccine, and every combination of vaccines for every possible negative effect you can think off. Why stop at carcinogenic effects? how about studying effects on strokes, heart attacks, osteoporosis, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, acne, blindness, deafness, sore throats, appendicitis, gall stones,kidney stones….you get the point.

      Prior to public use, each vaccine is tested in thousands of subjects. The vaccinated groups are compared with the unnvaccinated groups for ANY side effects. Only if such tests show no statistically significant increase of occurrence of any side effect are vaccines approved for public use. After approval more studies are done, and as millions and millions of people use the vaccine without increased occurrences of side effects, that is how we know they are safe without testing for everything on its own, something which you will agree is not practical.

      5-Vaccines, as every other drug any human being has ever been given, have rare serious side effects. The vaccine injury fund is there to protect the supply, so that the few that are actually hurt by vaccines can be compensated without allowing greedy lawyers to start a million lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers that could shut the whole thing down, and cost hundreeds of thousands of lives in the process

      6-A child’s immune system is inundated and attacked by millions and millions of germs from the moment it starts moving out of its mother’s womb. It is hardly “immature” in that sense since in most cases it can handle such invasions fairly well; however it is not complete. Vaccines give it extra tools to handle specific diseases without being exposed to the disease thus all the risks that disease carries, such as death.

      Claiming vaccines inundate an immature immune system is like claiming a nice breastfeeding after birth overwhelms an immature digestive system.

  5. Here’s a hint, Amara. From the time of birth a child is assaulted by millions of bacteria, viriuses and other small lifeforms whether or not she/he gets vaccinated. The vaccination series is but a tiny tiny fraction of what is going on immunologically for a child during those years. Our immune system is designed to resist all that and to build up the required anti-bodies.

    The problem is that SOME of those diseases are able to get through. Measles, mumps, whooping cough, scarlet fever, flu – the list goes on and on. Once you get these diseases you are usually immune to them IF you survive. The problem is that many of those getting these diseases die, go blind, deaf, sterile or have other serious consequences. Thus the vaccinations.

    Now, why aren’t they tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential? Hmmm. We’ve been vaccinating for how many years now? 100? 70? I think they have been thoroughly tested pretty much for everything.

    The Vaccine court exists because out of the millions of children and adults who are vaccinated each year, some tiny percent will have a bad reaction to the vaccine just due to unknown underlying conditions or genetic variety. (But those numbers in no way compare to the millions who would get sick – many of whom would die or have severe consequences – if they had not been vaccinated.) The government, because it is it’s responsibility to see that vaccine stocks are safe and large enough, created the Vaccine Courts to determine IF, indeed, a particular shot was responsible for a particular child’s reaction and, if so, to provide awards for damages.

    There is also one small group of people who cannot be vaccinated because their immune systems are already compromised for a variety of known reasons. These people depend for their lives on herd immunity.

    BTW, I am not a doctor or a scientist. You should discuss these issues with a real doctor.

  6. Thank you for your replies. You sound as though you aspire to inform, yet you didn’t include even one single reference I could check so…???
    I really think this will be helpful for you, I noticed some factual errors in the replies:

    I think your site is pretty to look at, but factually very under informed and could be improved significantly by balancing the information you already have with an equal amount of an evidence-based selection of articles & references…unless you have pharmaceutical sponsorship; if that’s the case, it all makes sense.

    • You are correct, I do aspire to inform, so let me inform you that the “Dr” your link leads to is a chiropractor who apparently dropped out of medical school because he wasn’t happy that real medicine didn’t embrace “vitalism”!!!


      He even knows that he’s not a real doctor (http://tinyurl.com/65s23xk). He says “doctors are doctors, chiropractors are chiropractors”. Yeah, and the latter is not the former.

      If you think my site is factually underinformed I suggest you read it a bit more carefully. I always link to sources of information. And no I don’t have Big Pharma sponsorship although I wouldn’t bat an eyelash at getting some so I can properly fund my current and future planned projects and acitivities.

      • Dr. Marini received his education at Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia where he received a M.S. in Microbiology and Immunology in 1976. He received his Ph.D. in Microbiology/Immunology from the Wistar Institute of the University of Pennsylvania and the Pacific Western University in 1989.

        But I guess that doesn’t count. ‘Splains a lot.

        • Yep – this site is VERY biased towards vaccines – AREN’T THEY GREAT? They’ve saved so many lives! It’s probably fine to inject newborn infants with organic mercury, isn’t it?

          That wasn’t a mistake, was it? ‘There is no scientific proof of …’
          It’s sickening.

          • Please tell us which vaccine on the American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal. Do not include the DTaP, because only one of the three contains a trace amount. Also do not include influenza vaccines because four of eight approved for children do not contain thimerosal.

  7. I am of peaceful intent. My intention is to share facts, and I took your disclaimer above at face value. My dictionary defines “vital” as: “indespensible to the continuance of life”. Sounds like a very good idea to me, and leaving that out of a dr.’s – or any health professional’s -education might not be such a wise thing, in my opinion. I can see his point! A healthy nervous system is a pretty important part of physical functioning, so chiropractors are specifically and highly informed – and they are “Doctors of Chiropractic”, it’s what the DC denotes – in matters of health. It is an education beyond pharmaceutical drugs & surgery, which defines the basis of an MD.’s training & practice that focuses primarily on disease. There is wisdom & value in both philosophies, to be sure.

    The reference I provided teaches a more sophisticated understanding of the immune system’s functioning in relation to vaccines than the old partially correct, partially incorrect orthodox theory of allopathic vaccination philosophy. Some allopaths are embracing this higher undersatanding, many are resistant to the evolution of knowledge; ’twas ever thus. Knowledge increases with time, study, and willingness to ask beyond current understanding, as it allways has; questioning & embracing higher awareness – more correct knowledge – is a good thing.
    Here’s a mainstream news report about vaccine safety and what’s being done about it by the allopathic medical industry. Vaccine injury falls into the category of “iatrogenesis” – and is obviously hard for the profession & the industry at large to admit to, & there’s an unwillingness to acknowledge and be accountable for it in its full measure. If vaccines are so safe & effective & necessary – as the body of informaion assures your readers here – then you, & all others heavily invested, should have no qualms whatsoever about – in fact should be *eager* for – investigating, studying, examining, & revealing with total curiousity & transparency the entire spectrum of truth about them.

    Is it your position that vaccine injured people & their lives are rare & inconsequential, to the degree that no more investigations or increased understanding into vaccine facts are warranted as well?
    Remember…you may or may not, in fact, be addressing one right here in your interactions with me. I’m asking: can you set aside your emotional discomfort – it is highly uncomfortable for everyone – with this subject & consider it a valid aspect of the topic and include it in proportional measure in your chosen projects & activities, including this site? What could possibly be untoward about that? I think your readers would find you brave, actually.

    The tragic death of little Elias Tembenis is yet another vaccine injury case you probably won’t hear much about. Yet some medical experts believe it could teach us something about how to make vaccination safer.
    It could also add to the limited body of knowledge as to why the vast majority of kids are vaccinated safely, but a minority become seriously ill, brain-damaged or even die. Still, government officials have said they have no plans to study cases like Elias’: cases that victims are winning against the government in the little-known federal vaccine court.

    According to court and medical records, Elias was born on Aug. 23, 2000 and appeared healthy until Dec. 26 when he received his second dose of DTaP vaccine. His parents noticed some swelling around the injection site. According to court records:

    “Early in the morning on December 27, 2000, Elias’s parents found himseizing in his crib and took him to the emergency room (“ER”)…Within one day, he developed a fever, which led to a complex febrile seizure. Subsequently, Elias developed epilepsy. This fact pattern is commonly seen in the Vaccine Program.”

    According to court records, after the DTaP reaction, the once-healthy baby ended up with debilitating medical problems, including features of autism, ear infections and developmental delay. His parents first filed their case as one of the “omnibus” group of autism cases to be heard in federal vaccine court.

    According to those familiar with the case, the couple felt their chances of winning with the autism cases was slim because the idea of a link between vaccines and autism is so controversial. So they separated their case from the autism group and filed on the basis of their son’s epilepsy and seizures.

    They recently prevailed in court. It’s one more example where vaccine-injured children who end up with autism are quietly winning their cases, but only when they focus on the more general argument of seizures or brain damage rather than autism.

    Some victory. On Nov. 17, 2007 Elias’ illnesses became to much for him. The little seven year old boy died. If the right people bothered to study the medical details of the case, they might learn something about why Elias got so sick from his vaccines, and how to identify ahead of time what babies might have the same problem.

    The former head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernardine Healy, has said such study would actually protect the integrity of the vaccine program, rather than threaten it (as she says many government officials fear). So far, though, no takers. Elias’ case becomes quietly filed away in vaccine court archives with nearly 1,300 other vaccine brain injuries-none of them apparently being pooled for study. An undetermined number of them, like Elias’, involving autism diagnoses.

    What made these children get sick? Why couldn’t they tolerate their vaccines when most kids can? Unanswered questions.

    Read both sides of Elias’ case, including the government’s argument against it.

    • Vitalism is a pre-scientific philosophy which gave us blood letting, just to be clear. The dictionary definition of the word “vital” is not applicable to the non-scientific idea of “vitalis”.

      A chiropractor is a Dr. the same way a driver is a mechanic. Putting the prefix DR. doesn’t make you one. Let’s not forget that most mathematicians and physicist are also doctors (they hold PhD in which the D stands for doctorate) but they are not medical doctors, and neither are chiropractors.

      • Vaccination is also a pre-scientific method. People were innoculated with cowpox in the ancient Hindu world (History of inoculation and vaccination, p. 6).

        Does that make vaccines false, vitalism true, or your argument invalid?

        • Actually you have the history wrong. Asia introduced “variolation“, where actual smallpox (variola) was used, not cowpox (vaccinia).

          Most modern vaccines do not even use the actual pathogen, but create certain proteins from baker’s yeast.

          Not knowing the history, or what has happened in modern vaccine technology indicates that you have no argument.

  8. Here’s a quote from a long-time pediatrician in the mainstream medical field; it says something about vaccines and dr.s education both:

    • Dr. Palevsky: Board-certified pediatrician trained at the New York School of Medicine, and one of the leading physicians in the country.
    “On a personal note, I recently received the Visionary Award at the NVIC conference in Washington DC. In my acceptance speech, I basically broke down in tears when I told the audience how I felt when I came to realize that by routinely vaccinating thousands of innocent children at my clinic, I’d probably caused damage to many of them. It was a very difficult thing for me to accept intellectually and emotionally”.

    “When I went through medical school, I was taught that vaccines were completely safe and completely effective, and I had no reason to believe otherwise. All the information that I was taught was pretty standard in all the medical schools and the teachings and scientific literature throughout the country. I had no reason to disbelieve it.

    Over the years, I kept practicing medicine and using vaccines and thinking that my approach to vaccines was completely onboard with everything else I was taught.

    But more and more, I kept seeing that my experience of the world, my experience in using and reading about vaccines, and hearing what parents were saying about vaccines were very different from what I was taught in medical school and my residency training.

    … and it became clearer to me as I read the research, listened to more and more parents, and found other practitioners who also shared the same concern that vaccines had not been completely proven safe or even completely effective, based on the literature that we have today.

    … It didn’t appear that the scientific studies that we were given were actually appropriately designed to prove and test the safety and efficacy.

    It also came to my attention that there were ingredients in there that were not properly tested, that the comparison groups were not appropriately set up, and that conclusions made about vaccine safety and efficacy just did not fit the scientific standards that I was trained to uphold in my medical school training.”

    • Really? If I find one pediatrician that will say the complete opposite of what Palevsky says, will you call it a wash? If I find two, do I win? If I find 1,000 then what?

      This is not a popularity contest; if you want to debate the science of vaccines provide links to science not personnal anectodes. Nothing is solved via anectodes. You can find a few individuals, even medical doctors, that stray so far from conventional wisdom that they are either geniuses, frauds or idiots. But at the end it is their science that decides which category they fall under, and the vast majority is not geniuses.

      So, which category does Palevsky fall under you think?

  9. “If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” — Anatole France
    Since so many of Palevsky’s – and others who apply biomedical treatments to vaccine injured children – patients have documented recovery out of their ASD (+etc.) diagnosises, fraud & idiot don’t remotely describe him; genius may not either (except in that every person alive has innate genius, though it may go unexpressed). He’s simply a conventionally trained Dr. who was willing to consider valid evidence that something he was taught in med school may have been entirely false, investigated it (‘it’ being the conventional science, see his statement) more deeply & more critically, and successfully achieved a new & more accurate understanding that he now acts on…to the great benefit of his vaccine injured patients. All by using his science-oriented training *and* his willingness to release outdated old beliefs – which were taught to him in medical school by eminent professors using standard textbooks – in favor of more evolved factual knowledge. A minority of Dr.s are engaged in this kind of leading edge thought & practice, and they are part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I can see that, accept that, and respect that… and it’s clear to me that you don’t. Our definition of what’s “real” is simply different.
    Conventional wisdom vs leading edge discovery…”vs” being a key point apparently; perhaps they will always be at odds. You’re staying loyal to conventional, and I’m moving on. Debate is not why I offered educational information here – I misunderstood your disclaimer – and mean-spirited debate is out of the question; you win by default on that count. Thank you for your time.

    • Is that so? Palevsky is using science to disprove science? Nicely done; where is his evidence that trumps all of known science anyway? Let me guess: stories about alleged vaccine caused injuries.

      It is true that a minority of medical doctors are engaged in the same thing as Palevsky apparently has, although you provided no link so I can only assume you’re telling the truth when quoting him. McCarthy’s son pediatrician is one of them. They have abbandoned science, they have abandoned the scientific method, kind of like Wakefield did.

      You keep referring to “beliefs” as if science is a collection of unchanging beliefs. Vitalism was considered state-of-the-art at a certain point in time, yet it was science itself that got rid of this practice. Science isn’t about “conventional wisdom” it is about reality-based-knowledge. Discovery is in the DNA of science, that’s what motivates people to go into science, that is what fascinates them. Every PhD student must come up with something new to get a doctorate. I think you are confusing quackery with discovery and using the terms interchangeably.

      If you are not interested in debate than maybe you’ve chosen the wrong forum to express your thoughts; in fact debate is vital to discovery, and you say that you embrace discovery, while at the same time expressing no desire to be involved in a debate. If you are holding on to a “truth” you’ve reached without your views being challenged, I suggest you re-examine your “truth” for it might be ……..old fairy tales cloaked in new language.

  10. For the record, I did say that for me, debate and specifically, mean-spirited debate is out of the question; respectful and considerate discussion is another matter. I’m not afraid of challenge that’s oriented in open-minded & authentic curiousity, and I could engage in discussion here if you’re agreeable. I acknowledge and appreciate the part of your disclaimer statement that reveals you’re a parent looking for information, because I agree parents *need* information – that’s trustworthy – to make fully informed decisions for their children’s short & long-term health. I don’t require someone to have any particular kind of pedigree to be able to know they’re smart or wise; to learn from them; to be able to see and acknowledg their wisdom; or to respect the validity of their knowledge. Things are not always as they may appear on the surface. All avenues of education are valuable, and great thinkers have come from all circumstances and backgrounds and surroundings. Armies of highly pedigreed people, past & present, were/are not terribly scrupulous, or humanitarian, or wise in fact. Or discreet, or discriminating. Or congruent, or of coherent integrity, or ethical; ethics doesn’t come rolled up along with a degree in anyone’s diploma. Absence of *any of those things* in a medical professional of any degree or description is what I consider “quackery” in the truest sense. I absolutely don’t believe everything I hear, even if it comes from someone with a pedigree; I trust the inner authority of discernment and act on it, and I’ve never been disappointed. Because I take information from all directions in order to consider many possibilities and then discern what is the highest truth available to me in every situation. When I find a higher truth, I supercede the old & integrate the new with gratitude for having gained a broader perspective and understanding, beyond that which I previously held. That’s sort of how our human consciousness evolves collectively, through the individuals eagerly allowing ourselves to evolve, and I find it exciting to learn more & more about things I’m interested in and feel passionate about. So I agree completely…everyone should re-examine their “truth” consistently. Learning to recognize disinformation and misinformation is key, especially in health matters where so much is at stake.

    I offer this book review in hopes you will enjoy the glance back to the relevant history of this very wise Dr. as much as I. I’m pasting 3 quotes & linking the rest. The more things change, the more they stay the same. If we don’t learn wisdom from history we do repeat the follies again; never more true than in our here & now. Old fairy tales uncloaked; now that’s a topic worth discussing.

    “Do you know,” said Arneth slowly, “it’s true of your discovery as it has been of every discovery in the whole history of medicine. When we take our medical oath we undertake to lengthen life and ease suffering. We are all united in seeking new means. And every time a man has come forward with a demonstrable truth, a remedy for good, the profession seems to have done its best to crush the discoverer and hide the discovery. No quackery — no criminality — nothing seems to make us so furious as a discovery.” ~J.F. von Arneth, student of Semmelweis

    “‘Keep yourself to what is old, for that is good. If our ancestors have proven it to be good, why should we not do as they did? Mistrust new ideas. I have no need of learned men. I need faithful subjects. He who would serve me must do what I command. He who cannot do this or who comes full of new ideas may go his way. If he does not, I shall send him.’ Do you understand, Dr. Semmelweis?” ~Professor Klein to his bright young student

    There will always be doctors like Klein. I don’t think the Kleins of the world are in the majority. But while other doctors are healing people, the Kleins are making a secure position for themselves. They don’t use medicine to do this. They use the protection of medicine and the politics of medicine. And because of the way medical liberals split up among themselves, it’s the Kleins who really run the universities and the hospitals. ~Semmelweis

    Me again; New science is *always* what trumps old science; and yes, scientific beliefs *are* beliefs. Science is a belief system based on observation & testing & evaluation repetitively, in its purest form. An enormous amount of wisdom & truth has been marginalized in favor of the political agenda of the currently dominant paradigm; but that doesn’t make the wisdom invalid. And, an enormous amount of what passes for scientific knowledge today is actually hubristic scientific theory rushed into widespread practice & straight into belief & pronounced ‘the truth’. Institutionalized hubristic dogma, without thorough testing or evaluation, is not the same as enduring truth whatsoever. As you acknowledged & referenced much earlier, the fact that vaccines simply are not tested thoroughly, but applied so extensively, is just one example. And, respectfully, I most adamently & certainly do not agree that because it may seem impractical to the manufacturers, thorough testing should be neglected & eschewed to the universal degree that is so. Why? Because those illnesses you mentioned, and the ones I mentioned, and the rest of the host of ‘coincidental’ illnesses and conditions that vaccine damaged people experience, are rampant – endemic – here in the most heavily vaccinated population on the planet. That correlation should be examined and investigated to within an inch of its life. Nobody will see the connection whilst concluding & denying there is one without investigating. My loved ones are not expendible for the benefit of an industry’s convenience in achieving their bottom line. “What’s the industry afraid of; what has the industry got to lose?” is what I’d like to ask all the currelt Professor Kleins in their lofty research, regulatory, & CEO chairs.

  11. Every parent should know as much information about vaccines as is available – and what the scientists know, and how much information they make available to the public, and what gets out through the media, well apparently they don’t agree with a parent;s need to know status.

    DNA Virus Vaccine Safety Issues; Contamination and Viral Latency

    Here are some vaccine studies for your consideration, and a conventionally trained (pedigreed) medical Dr.’s reasoned and thoughts on the subject of the science of vaccines today:

    “There has to be a test specially designed to detect specific DNA or specific viruses. If that test doesn’t exist, or it isn’t run, or it is run incorrectly(they are technically challenging to perform) viruses and dangerous DNA that can lead latent viruses to mutate and effect human cells and DNA will have their day. The FDA relaxes the allowable contaminating DNA counts to suite the needs of the pharma manufacturers if they cannot perfrom up to standards. This has been done. Just how much stray viral and animal DNA do you suppose is safe? 100 picograms was the original recommendation on some MMR vaccines but the companies could not do that, so they decided that 10 Nanongrams would be OK. In some cases even more was determined to be OK. But hey relax! Paul Offit and FDA are saying not to worry about that tiny amount of dna because they are taking care to make sure you won’t get sick from it. Pig virus (ie. raw pork sushi) for you little infant in your Paul Offit special Rotatek? Not problem don’t worry your kid will eat pork so it is the same thing is what they say…but umm don’t you COOK your pork? Stray viruses and DNA are probably the norm rather than the exception in vaccines. If people had any idea how these disgusting concoctions were made they would head for the hills and never look back. Monkey cells ( our primate genetic cousins similar in disease and genetic code) are still used to make vaccines. Nobody really wants to understand. I have concluded that maybe they actually want these stray disease particles in our vaccines.
    Aluminum hydroxide has not been taken out. It is another neurotoxin, bone marrow toxin. It is actually little microscopic needles that the body has to process. It gets stored in immune cells called macrophages. Those macropahges should be scavenging other foreign substances and dead cell matter but if they are caught up in processing aluminum hydroxide they cannot function properly. Nobody should be congratulated for removing mercury (except in trace amounts) because there is still so much wrong with vaccines. IMO, mercury was the best thing about a vaccine. At least I know how to detect and remove mercury. How about cancer viruses that might not even have a PCR test developed to look for them in vaccines? How about foreign animal DNA and animal cells? So sick. ~Suzanne Humphries, MD, Hematologist

    So the “science” you’re so captivated with (that tells you vaccines are equal to Holy Water) is on par with the science that ‘proved’ tobacco was not connected to cancer. The objective science of vaccines…truly doesn’t inspire any conficence in vaccines whatsoever.

  12. Some more information from the FDA on their criteria for vaccine purity in the manufacturing process; plus a comment for perspective from a scientist retired from a long career of manufacturing of vaccines.


    Q: Okay, but let’s ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

    A: All right. I’ll give you some of what I came across, and I’ll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here’s a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called “brain-eating” amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I’ve found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

    Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don’t belong in the vaccines.

A: That’s right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don’t really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It’s a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don’t know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time — which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn’t be there, but you don’t know exactly what you’ve got. I have found what I believed was a very small “fragment” of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called “foreign protein,” which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

    Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

    Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don’t worry, this can’t be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals’ tissue, and that’s where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I’m not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines…
~ Dr. Mark Randall (alias), ex-vaccine scientist

  13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16079072?dopt=Abstract

    “Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal”
– Environmental Health Perspectives, Thomas M. Burbacher, PhD (April 2005)

    The (pHARMa front group) Autism Science foundation put one of the most damning studies ever done on the toxicity of thimerosal in a list of studies that are supposed to refute the link between autism and vaccines.

    Only one of two things can be true: ASF believes people are too lazy to read these studies, or ASF is too stupid to realize what they did.

    This study demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that ethyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in vaccines, not only ends up in the brain, but leaves double the amount of inorganic mercury as methyl mercury, the kind of mercury found in fish. This work is groundbreaking because little is known about ethyl mercury, and many health authorities have asserted that the mercury found in vaccines is the “safe kind.” This study also delivers a strong rebuke of the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation in 2004 to no longer pursue the mercury-autism connection. Excerpt:

    “A recently published IOM review (IOM 2004) appears to have abandoned the earlier recommendation [of studying mercury and autism] as well as back away from the American Academy of Pediatrics goal [of removing mercury from vaccines]. This approach is difficult to understand, given our current limited knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental neurotoxicity of thimerosal, a compound that has been (and will continue to be) injected in millions of newborns and infants.”

    Thank you, Paul Offit and Alison Singer, for making my week. I think you should discuss this important study with Anderson Cooper.

    • You might try reading that study again, it really only shows that there is a difference, and the half-life of the thimerosal was half of the methylmercury (that means it cleared the body quicker.

      Now ask yourself why this SafeMinds sponsored study did not use use vaccines with thimerosal in them, but they actually had to add them. If thimerosal was so prevalent, why did they have to beg to get thimerosal vaccines, and then just add them to the vaccines they used? Evidence here:

  14. It would be helpful to also point out that the people who vote to inject our kids are not “independent” as normal people would define it.

    Drop this search into google and read it
    Congressional Record, V. 146, Pt. 10, July 10, 2000 to July 17, 2000

    I would love to see a truly independent panel review and approve the vaccines. Something about multimillionaire Dr. Paul Offit telling me vaccines are safe (while he profits from pushing them) that doesn’t do much to make me feel better.

    At a minimum, shouldn’t vaccines with carcinogenic ingredients (formaldehyde) be tested for carcinogenic potential?

    • Please tell us when Dr. Offit last voted for the use of a vaccine when he was on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It should be easy to find, their minutes are online. Though you might want to start with seeing if he is still a voting member, looking at the list. Um, the answer is “no.”

      By the way, one who “pushes” vaccines does not necessarily to it to “profit” from them. Some of us have children who have been injured by real diseases, and even have memories of other kids who have suffered due to the real diseases. Some of us just don’t like to see kids get sick, especially if the illnesses can cause serious and permanent harm.

      How would you feel about vaccines if you had personally seen kids suffer and die? Think about any doctors who were at this hospital over twenty years ago:

      Between 1990 and 1991 the city of Philadelphia was in the grip of a measles epidemic. At the center of the epidemic was a religious group that refused immunizations for themselves and their children. Children with measles developed high fever; a red, raised rash that started on the face and spread to the rest of the body; and “pink eye.” For some, the disease got much worse. Seven children in the church developed a severe form of pneumonia as the measles virus infected their lungs. The lungs filled with pus — breathing became fast, labored, and difficult. By the time these children were taken to the hospital, it was too late. They had died from measles

      Sure, to you it is all about “profits.” For most of us it is about the health and well being of real children. Can you truthfully tell us that the it is more profitable to vaccinate children than to let them actually get sick?

      • Sorry, two separate issues. Paul Offit and the voting thing were intended to be two different topics.

        First, I should point out that I’m not anti-vaccine, but it’s annoying when trying to do any research on vaccines, and you get the “all vaccine will you” sites, and then sites like this that claim to “find out as much information as I possibly can about vaccines”, but are just the standard “vaccines are great and cured everything” site.

        It would be really easy to test the profit theory. Mandate that all vaccines be provided at cost, with no markup of any kind. See how many drug manufacturers pull out when there is no profit margin, and yes, profit is huge motivating factor.

        Couple that with being shielded from lawsuits, and having that shield upheld by the Supreme Court, and there is no motivation to ever change/improve any of the vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies are petitioning Congress for shield on any of their other medications. Lawsuits are accepted as a cost of doing business, why should vaccines be any different?

        Finally, do a controlled study on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations. There are enough people who don’t buy the government and pharmaceutical company propaganda that would volunteer for such a study.

        • Well I guess I needed to clarify that by “information” I meant scientifically valid information. I guess I must also apologize if the information I’ve found so far favors vaccines. Given what I have seen so far, yes vaccines are great, one of the greatest medical inventions ever in my opinion. However, I don’t think they’ve “cured everything” because they’re meant to prevent not cure. As I’ve said before I do not believe in “balance”. I do not believe in presenting both sides, when one side is not willing to play by the rules of logic and science. If that is a problem for some, that’s their problem not mine. Fake balance is not what I am after here.

        • Couple that with being shielded from lawsuits, and having that shield upheld by the Supreme Court, and there is no motivation to ever change/improve any of the vaccines.

          At one point in the mid-1980s many pharmaceutical companies decided to not make vaccines, which created a shortage of vaccines, especially for pertussis. Shortages of vaccines are often followed by increases of children being harmed by the real diseases. Like the children who actually died from haemophilus influenzae type b when there was a shortage of Hib vaccine a couple of years ago.

          Finally, do a controlled study on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations. There are enough people who don’t buy the government and pharmaceutical company propaganda that would volunteer for such a study.

          Then find a way to pay for them that does not involve public funds. I am tired of seeing my taxes being used for this silly goose chase. If you want the study, then get the folks of Generation Rescue, Age of Autism, NVIC, SafeMinds (which have paid for other studies), NAA and the others screaming for that study to pay for it. I would rather see my tax dollars going towards support for my disabled adult son.

          Of course, they may not like the results. Even when the CDC bent over backwards to satisfy Sallie Bernard of SafeMinds, she had a hissy fit:

          Ms. Bernard was a consultant on this study and helped contribute to its design! She apparently didn’t like the results that it was producing and decided to drop out and start criticizing it–even jumping the gun on the 5 PM embargo yesterday to do so! Indeed, she is listed on the study in a way that I’ve never seen before: as a “dissenting member.”

        • First, I should point out that I’m not anti-vaccine,

          … followed by…

          Finally, do a controlled study on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations.

          Um, yeah. That is really convincing.

          Oh, this…

          Mandate that all vaccines be provided at cost, with no markup of any kind.

          What if we mandate that you work forty hours a week and only get some food and a place to sleep each night? Who cares that you are a janitor, or some microbiologist who spent eight years in college getting a PhD? They produce the same work, right?

          [sarcasm] Nah, you don’t have to give anything back to the folks who financed the research and development! [/sarcasm]

          So, Josh… what and when was the last science class you ever attended? Did your university even have an Economics 101 class? Do you really think people actually give their labors away for no net gain? Or not provide a net gain to the investors who provided the funds to pay for their equipment and salaries of support personnel?

          Have you even heard of this concept called the “Stock Market”? If you had an Econ 101 class you would know about an “investing” or “venture capital” concept.

          You should really apply the “no markup of any kind” to every financial transaction you make. I would really like to see you try it the next time you try to put fuel in your vehicle, or buy food, get a mortgage for your home or for repairs on that home.

    • Who ever claimed pharmaceutical companies are not in it for the money? Of course they are. Take the profit away, they’ll stop making vaccines pure and simple. But what does that prove really? Your local organic farmer also does his farming for a profit, but does that imply something sinister about it? Is there anything you consume that someone else doesn’t make money from? What is the point of the profit argument?

    • PS: If you want to do research about vaccines, my suggestion is not to rely on Times of India and NYDailyNews as your source of information.

    • Here is another source you should look at:

      Go to page 30 and tell us what ranking vaccines have on that list.

    • From your first link:
      April 19, 2007, 10:08 a.m. EDT
      Wyeth profit rises 12%, helped by vaccine sales

      …. Seriously, an article that is over three years old? At least the others are one to two years old, from not so reputable news sources.

      I believe the term we are looking for to describe your choice of “data” is “cherry picking.”

  15. How is my data “cherry picking” and your data completely accurate? You asked for examples, and I gave them to you. You failed to cite the specific examples you were looking for.

    As I’ve found on most “pro-vaccine” boards and blogs, any conversation that government could possibly be wrong, or that drug companies simply do it for the profit are met with the usual bashing.

    My apologies if the “journey of discovery” as quoted in the disclaimer didn’t apply to to discovering why someone might not want to follow the government/drug company line.

    I will post this link, although I’m not sure how to access the actual study. I’m sure you’ll knock this for being too recent, or just an opinion, or something. But at least there will be one post to something that my a contrary opinion and meets with rigid standards.


    • An opinion article in a newspaper is not a scientific paper. Do you really want me to list the papers? Do you know what PubMed is?

      I said you were cherry picking the news articles on vaccine sales. You are now changing the subject and dodging my question. Please answer my question about the what is on page 30 of this:

      What ranking do vaccines have on that list? It is a simple question, all you have to do is look at the list and tell me the number to the left of the word “vaccines.”

      What real evidence do you have that vaccines cause autism? Please stick to papers written by real scientists, and stay away from papers written by economics, lawyers and doctors who have their licenses to practice medicine revoked or suspended. Some examples:

      Pediatrics. 2010 Sep 13.
      Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism.
      Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Croen LA, Hinrichsen VL, Marcy M, Robertson A, Eriksen E, Lewis E, Bernal P, Shay D, Davis RL, Destefano F.

      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.

      Neuropsychological Performance 10 years after Immunization in Infancy with Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
      Authors: Tozzi AE, Bisiacchi P, Tarantino V, De Mei B, D’Elia L, Chiarotti F, Salmaso S.
      Source: Pediatrics, February 2009, Vol. 123(2):475-82

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

      There are more listed here (though there are some news articles thrown in, it is really not that hard to tell the difference):

  16. Here’s the abstract:

    Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A
    Volume 74, Issue 14, 2011
    A Positive Association found between Autism Prevalence and Childhood Vaccination uptake across the U.S. Population
    Buy now


    Gayle DeLonga*

    pages 903-916
    Available online: 26 May 2011
    Alert me

    The reason for the rapid rise of autism in the United States that began in the 1990s is a mystery. Although individuals probably have a genetic predisposition to develop autism, researchers suspect that one or more environmental triggers are also needed. One of those triggers might be the battery of vaccinations that young children receive. Using regression analysis and controlling for family income and ethnicity, the relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted.

    • The biggest flaw of that paper is that she lumps the category of “Speech Language Impairment” with autism. I am sorry but not every kid with a stutter or language deficit due to hearing loss is autistic.

      Dr. DeLong (not DeLonga) is a professor of economics, and has not expertise in epidemiology. Plus she is on the board of SafeMinds. These are two big red flags that should alert you to the worthlessness of the paper.

      Plus the fact that she lumped kids who received speech and language services with autism. By her criteria I am also autistic because I received speech therapy at a public school in California due to temporarily losing my hearing from a long infection (that required hospitalization). Basically she is stuffing the ballot box.

      Citing this paper as “proof” while ignoring the dozens of epidemiological studies done in several countries on three continents covering hundreds of thousands of children is class cherry picking.

      More here:

  17. For those that keep pushing the “it’s about profit” gambit might want to take a look at their own “doctors”. Remember, more money is made in pushing conspiracy than proving conspiracy. CAM spends more money on their marketing against “conventional” medicine than the research proving their claims. Books, endorsements, documentaries, supplements, websites, etc make millions for these individual. Pardon the language, but Mercola and Oz are unethical pieces of shit pleaing to an audience. Any audience will suffice, but the distraught, grieving, medically laymen parents are the key crowd to hone in on.

  18. Unquestionably believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification appeared to
    be on the net the simplest thing to be aware of.
    I say to you, I certainly get irked while people consider worries that
    they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail
    upon the top and defined out the whole thing without having side-effects
    , people could take a signal. Will probably be back
    to get more. Thanks

 Leave a Reply



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>