Do NOT Let Your Child Get Flu Vaccine -- 9 Reasons Why

[Farzin]

Diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation. Statements like this (variations include assertions that vaccines had absolutely no effect on disease rates) are very common in anti-vaccine literature, the intent apparently being to suggest that vaccines are not needed. Improved socioeconomic conditions have undoubtedly had an indirect impact on disease. Better nutrition, not to mention the development of antibiotics and other treatments, have increased survival rates among the sick; less crowded living conditions have reduced disease transmission; and lower birth rates have decreased the number of susceptible household contacts. But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times. Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused the incidence of each disease to drop, coincidentally, just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced? Here are some examples to illustrate this:

1. Invasive disease due to "haemophilus influenzae" type b (Hib), such as meningitis, was prevalent until just a few years ago when conjugate vaccines that can be used in infants (in whom most of the disease was occurring) were finally developed. Since sanitation is no better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Hib disease in children in recent years to anything but the introduction of routine immunization. Data from reportable disease surveillance systems revealed that from an estimated 2,000 cases a year prior to the availability of vaccine, there are now less than 52 cases per year being reported (with the majority in infants and children who have not been immunized).
2. Varicella (chicken pox) can also be used to illustrate the point, since modern sanitation has obviously not prevented cases from occurring each year - with almost all children getting the disease sometime in their childhood, just as they did 20 years ago, or 80 years ago. If diseases were disappearing, we should expect varicella to be disappearing along with the rest of them.
3. We can also look at the experiences of several developed countries that let their immunization levels drop. Three countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back on the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.

It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.
Of more immediate interest is the major epidemic of diphtheria now taking place in the former Soviet Union, where low primary immunization rates in children and lack of booster immunizations in adults have resulted in an increase from 839 cases in 1989 to nearly 50,000 cases and 1,700 deaths in 1994, with the number of cases increasing by 2- to 10-fold each year. There have already been at least 20 imported cases in Europe and two cases in U.S. citizens working in the former Soviet Union.

 

[Farzin]

The majority of people getting disease have been fully immunized.

This is another argument frequently found in anti-vaccine literature - the implication being that this proves vaccines are not effective. In fact it is true that in outbreaks occurring in highly vaccinated populations, the cases who were immunized often outnumber those who were not - even with vaccines such as measles, which we know to be about 90% to 95% effective in one dose.

This apparent paradox is explained by two factors. First, no vaccine is 100% effective. To make vaccines safer than the disease, the bacteria or virus is killed or weakened (attenuated). For reasons related to the individual, not all persons vaccinated will develop immunity. Most routine childhood vaccines have efficacy in the 85-90% range. Therefore, over the years there is a buildup of susceptible individuals (each year contributing 10% -15% of its cohort). Second, in a country like Canada with high immunization coverage, people who have been vaccinated vastly outnumber those who have not.

How these two factors work together to result in outbreaks where the majority of cases have been vaccinated can be more easily understood by looking at a hypothetical example:
In a high school of 1,000 students, none has ever had measles. All but 30 of the students have had their dose of measles vaccine, and so are considered vaccinated. However, among these 970, there would be about 97 who are not protected by the vaccine. When the student body is exposed to measles, every susceptible student becomes infected because measles is highly contagious. The 30 unvaccinated students will be infected, of course. But of the 970 who have been vaccinated, we would expect the 97 who are not protected to fall ill. Therefore 97/127, or about 76% of the cases are fully vaccinated.

As you can see, this doesn't prove the vaccine didn't work - only that most of the children in the class had been vaccinated, so the vaccine failures outnumbered the unvaccinated susceptibles. Looking at it another way, 100% of the children who were not vaccinated got measles, compared with only 10% of those who were. Measles vaccine protected most of the class; if nobody in the class had been vaccinated, there would have been 1,000 cases of measles. In this example, the vaccine was in fact 90% effective in preventing measles.

 

[Farzin]

3. There are many case reports of harmful side effects from vaccines, including deaths. This proves that vaccines are not safe.

The implication here is that the number of side effects reported is related to the safety of the product, and that the more adverse event reports received, the more dangerous the vaccine. In addition, since not all adverse events are reported, this implies that vaccines are even more dangerous than the number of cases reported leads us to believe.



This is misleading because reports of adverse events are only suspicions that are temporally associated with receipt of vaccine; reports should not be interpreted to imply that the vaccine caused the event. Statistically, a certain number of serious illnesses, even deaths, can be expected to occur by chance alone among children recently vaccinated. While vaccines are known to cause minor, temporary side effects like soreness or fever, there is little, if any, evidence linking vaccination with permanent health problems or death. The point is that just because an adverse event has been reported, it does not mean it was caused by a vaccine. This fact is often, if not always overlooked by the media when adverse events are mentioned.



In the United States, some anti-immunization groups also focus on so-called "hot lots" of vaccine. They counsel parents to avoid certain lots of vaccine because more adverse events had been reported involving those lots than others. This is misleading because vaccine lots may vary in size from several thousand doses to several hundred thousand, and some are in distribution longer than others. Naturally a larger lot or one that is in distribution longer will be associated with more adverse events, simply by chance. Also, more coincidental deaths are associated with vaccines given in infancy than later in childhood since the background death rates in children are highest during the first year of life. So knowing that lot A has been associated with x number of adverse events while lot B has been associated with y number would not necessarily tell you anything about the relative safety of the two lots, even if the vaccine did cause the events.



If the number and type of reports for a particular vaccine lot suggested that it was associated with more serious adverse events or deaths than are expected by chance, the federal government has not only the responsibility and will, but the legal authority to immediately recall that lot.



Every vaccine manufacturing facility and vaccine product is licensed. In addition, every vaccine lot is safety-tested by the manufacturer and by the federal Bureau of Biologics of the Drugs Directorate. A vaccine lot would be recalled at the first sign of problems. There is no benefit to anyone in allowing unsafe vaccine to remain on the market - since vaccines are given to otherwise healthy children, the public would not tolerate them if they did not have to conform to the most rigorous safety standards.



Further, there will always be articles in the press or medical journals that report possible bad outcomes as a result of vaccination. Reports in medical journals are sometimes just preliminary findings to stimulate further work and provide an opportunity for exchange of information. It is necessary to assess many sources before drawing final conclusions. As well, articles in some newspapers and magazines are written from a very biased standpoint. Their manner of presenting the data can be misleading, and must be interpreted with caution.
Assertions about the link between vaccines and bad outcomes are rarely corroborated.

 

[Farzin]

4. Vaccines cause many harmful side effects, illnesses, and even death - not to mention possible long-term effects we don't even know about.

Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in much anti-vaccine literature. The vast majority of vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, like a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking acetaminophen before or after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousand to one per million doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. This is the case for severe neurological illness (including encephalopathy). Most often, the illness attributed to a vaccine occurs much more frequently in individuals with no recent vaccination. As to vaccines causing death, again there are so few deaths that could plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. Each death reported to the Canadian vaccine-associated adverse events surveillance system is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem.



As to long term effects, many vaccines have been in use for decades with no evidence of any long-term adverse effects. The requirements for licensing vaccines in Canada are stringent and ensure that excellent research into potential adverse effects has been done prior to widespread use. No long term effects have been associated with any vaccine currently in use. Any such claims have not been substantiated.
But looking at risk alone is not enough - you must always look at both risks and benefits. Even one serious adverse effect in a million doses of vaccine cannot be justified if there is no benefit from the vaccination. If there were no vaccines, there would be many more cases of disease, and along with them, more serious side effects, including death. The examples from those countries who have stopped or decreased their immunization programs has illustrated this time and again. In fact, to have a medical intervention as effective in preventing disease as vaccination and not use it would be unconscionable.

 

[Farzin]

5. Vaccine-preventable diseases have been virtually eliminated from Canada, so there is no need for my child to be vaccinated.

It's true that vaccination has enabled us to reduce most vaccine-preventable diseases to very low levels. However, some of them are still quite prevalent - even epidemic - in other parts of the world. Travelers can unknowingly bring these diseases into the country, and if we were not protected by vaccinations these diseases could quickly spread throughout the population, causing epidemics here. At the same time, the relatively few cases we currently have could very quickly become tens of thousands of cases without the protection we get from vaccines.



We should still be vaccinated, then, for two reasons. The first is to protect ourselves. Even if we think our chances of getting any of these diseases is small, the diseases still exist and can still infect anyone who is not protected.
The second reason to get vaccinated is to protect those around us. There is a small number of people who cannot be vaccinated (because of severe allergies to vaccine components, for example), and a small percentage of vaccine failures. These people are susceptible to disease, and their only hope of protection is that people around them are immune and cannot pass disease along to them. A successful vaccination program, like a successful society, depends on the cooperation of every individual to ensure the good of all. We would think it irresponsible of a driver to ignore all traffic regulations on the presumption that other drivers will watch out for him. In the same way we shouldn't rely on people around us to stop the spread of disease without doing what we can as well. One important example is vaccination against rubella. A woman who contracts rubella during pregnancy is at high risk of having a baby with congenital rubella syndrome, a devastating illness. Children who are not immunized against rubella can infect those around them.

 

[Farzin]

6. Giving a child multiple vaccinations for different diseases at the same time increases the risk of harmful side effects and can overload the immune system.

Children are exposed to many foreign antigens every day. Routine consumption of food introduces new bacteria into the body, and numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. An upper respiratory viral infection exposes a child to between 4 and 10 antigens, and a case of "strep throat" to between 25 and 50. According to a 1994 report by the Institute of Medicine in the United States entitled Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines, "In the face of these normal events, it seems unlikely that the number of separate antigens contained in childhood vaccines...would represent an appreciable added burden on the immune system that would be immunosuppressive." And, indeed, available scientific data show no adverse effects of simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines on the normal childhood immune system.
A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously.


In fact, simultaneous administration of any vaccine would not be recommended by Health Canada or its national expert advisory committee until such studies showed the combinations to be both safe and effective. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations cause no greater risk for adverse side effects. Research is currently under way to find ways to combine more antigens in a single vaccine injection. This will assure all the advantages of the individual vaccines, but require fewer shots.
There are two practical factors in favour of giving a child several vaccinations during the same visit. First, we want to immunize children as early as possible to give them protection during the vulnerable early months of their lives.



This generally means giving inactivated vaccines beginning at 2 months and live vaccines at 12 months. Therefore, doses of the various vaccines tend to fall due at the same time. Second, if we can give several vaccinations at the same time it will mean fewer office visits for vaccinations, which saves parents both time and money and may be less traumatic for the child.

 

[Farzin]

Of course a vaccine COULD give you the disease. Of course a vaccine COULD kill you. So can any other medication. Even fucking aspirin. That doesn't mean you should stop taking it. Yes, there is lots of science behind vaccination that was probably the stupidest thing I read in this thread. Coming from jokerman that was sort of surprising.

Vaccination is a good thing and can prevent epidemics. However, there are always risks associated with it and since the numbers of people that get such vaccinations are high it seems as if the side effects and the negative effects are hgih as well.

Tell me what's 10000 out of 1 million? 1%.

If a vaccine is 99% effective then that's a good statistic. 10000 people dying or having side effects may seem like a lot but an epidemic of a larger scale with much worse outcome can be prevented this way.

Don't be fooled by conspiracy theories. Nobody is saying vaccines are perfect and they certainly need work but they are much better than the alternative which would be an epidemic.

Alright I wasted enough time schooling you children today.

Sigh is gay.

Goodbye.

 

[Farzin]

That was just weak ass.



I think it's bit more than just about kids bro......thing is are saying it's the kids, pregnant mothers and elderly that should prioritised, but the arguement goes for everyone, vaccines are suspect in the least, especially the Tamiflu that that started stockpiling in 06 apparently.



Well, one could argue where you get your information from ? Have you heard of the placebo effect?

And wtf are you talking about placebo effect? There is only so much a palcebo effect can do. It will not protect you from smallpox etc. And what about cases where people who stopped taking vaccines for certain diseases as i mentioned up there somewhere in my posts? Did they pull the disease out of their asses all of a sudden because they knew they aren't vaccinated against it? Seriously?

 

[Duke]

*await Jokermans reply with trepidation, grabs popcorn*

 

[masta247]

Can I have your source Farzin?
It's unbelievably biased.
Most things like this either come from WHO/IAC or articles funded/written by farmaceutical companies.
It's incredibly one-sided and you can almost feel that it's written like a cheap propaganda.

Even in point 6 it doesn't even mention that by injecting multiple vaccines at the same time you inject enormous amounts of mercury (multiple times more than an adult can take) - an extremely dangerous neurotoxin. Ask your doctor.

 

[tupac4li4e]

And wtf are you talking about placebo effect? There is only so much a palcebo effect can do. It will not protect you from smallpox etc. And what about cases where people who stopped taking vaccines for certain diseases as i mentioned up there somewhere in my posts? Did they pull the disease out of their asses all of a sudden because they knew they aren't vaccinated against it? Seriously?

Sorry, got you and ill mixed up from an earlier post of his, so whatever the you said about placebo's in reply doesn't apply.

Hey you are pretty good and copying and pasting, let me see what I can find......

There is a vast difference between natural immunity acquired as nature intended it and the invasive immunization practice derived from vaccination. Immediately after birth, newborn infants who are breast fed, receive antibodies through their mother’s milk. When a child or adult gets a disease naturally, the virus or bacteria travels through the nose or mouth into the lungs and into the circulatory and lymphatic systems, providing antibody and cellular protection. In contrast, when concentrated pathogenic microorganisms are injected directly into the body, they bypass the natural defense system and disease sets in. This challenges the immune system, and immunity is often short-lived.

When one understands what exactly is in these vaccines and how they are made, one would wonder how vaccines could possibly be of any benefit to health. Vaccines are produced from either dead or live attenuated (weakened) disease microorganisms. In the dead vaccines, viruses or bacteria have been have been inactivated by heat, radiation or poisonous chemicals. However, there is no guarantee that all of the microorganisms have been killed. If just one microbe survives it can multiply very rapidly and actually create the disease. This has been known to happen. In fact, every case of polio during the 1980’s was caused by the polio vaccine.

Vaccines created from live attenuated viruses and bacteria are made from the pus of animals that have been infected with disease and then butchered. In these vaccines, the live virus must be weakened by passing the virus through animal tissue several times to reduce its potency for human use. The measles virus is passed through chick embryos, the polio virus through monkey kidneys, and the rubella virus through the dissected organs of an aborted human (yes human!) fetus. The weakened germ is then stabilized by adding drugs, antibiotics, and toxic disinfectants such as neomycin, streptomycin, aluminum hydroxide, formaldehyde, and thimerosal (a mercury derivative). Studies have shown that even microscopic dosages of some of these substances can lead to cancer, neurological damage, and death.

Because of the way vaccines are prepared, additional contaminants may pose more serious concerns. During the serial passage of viruses through the animal cells, foreign genetic material (animal RNA and DNA) is transferred from one host to another. This biological matter is then injected directly into the human body. According to some researchers, this could change our genetic makeup.

The vaccine development process also allows undetected animal viruses to jump the species barrier. This actually happened during the 1950’s and 1960’s when millions of people were infected with polio vaccines that were contaminated with Simian Virus #40 contracted from the monkey organs used to prepare the vaccines. This virus is a powerful immunosuppressor and trigger for the HIV virus. It is said to cause a condition similar to AIDS, and has been found in brain tumors, leukemia and other forms of human cancer.

Are vaccines effective in preventing disease? The evidence proves that they are not. According to the international mortality statistics, there was at least a 95% decline in the incidence and severity of these diseases before the introduction of their vaccines. Measles has apparently returned, with a death rate twenty times higher than before the measles vaccine became available. Before England passed a mandatory vaccination law in 1853, the highest death rate from smallpox in any two-year period was 2,000 cases. However between 1870 and 1872 alone, 45,000 people died from smallpox. Not surprisingly, deaths from smallpox fell dramatically after people began refusing the shots.

The DPT (Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus) vaccine is perhaps the most controversial childhood vaccine. According to pediatrician Dr. Lendon Smith, nearly all doctors have seen whooping cough (pertussis) in children who have been fully vaccinated with this shot. Side effects for the DPT shot range from high fever, continuous high-pitched screaming, severe rashes, diarrhea, choking, apnea, seizures, mental and physical retardation, and in many cases, death. A study done by Dr. Michel Odent found that children receiving the pertussis vaccine were more than six times more likely to develop asthma than children not receiving the vaccine. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) was virtually unheard of until this vaccine was routinely given. The Japanese noticed this relationship and began delaying DPT vaccination until two years of age at which time SIDS disappeared. In the U.S., SIDS deaths average 8,000 per year. American babies still receive their first DPT shot at two months of age.

Other known vaccine-related side effects are attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity, arthritis, hydroencephalopy (fluid buildup on the brain), multiple sclerosis, meningitis, ulcerative colitis, crohn’s disease and chronic fatigue syndrome. Some of these diseases may not surface for up to forty years. The Gulf War Syndrome has also been linked to vaccinations and drug experimentation done on soldiers. It is interesting to note that, while military personnel from several countries participated in this war, only the U.S. military suffers from this syndrome.

Authorities will often warn of dangerous epidemics pending in a fear-based campaign to get parents to vaccinate their children. In 1991, newspapers in Placitas, New Mexico warned of a dangerous whooping cough epidemic, but only three cases of whooping cough were discovered, all in children who were vaccinated.

Because of the extensive cases of vaccine-induced injury and death, and related lawsuits against the companies who produced the vaccines, The National Childhood Injury Act was created in 1986 to compensate families whose children had been injured or died from vaccines. From July, 1990 to March, 1994 more than 34,000 cases of injury were reported, including hundreds of cases of brain damage and over 700 deaths. These numbers represent only 10% of actual cases, since according to the FDA, 90% of doctors do not report vaccine reactions. Compensation comes from a federal fund, not from the vaccine manufacturers. It is funded by a percentage of the cost of each vaccine, paid for by the patient at the time the vaccine is given. This practice effectively exempts both the government and vaccine manufacturers from taking responsibility for vaccine damage.

In spite of all the evidence against the efficacy and safety of vaccines plans are in the works for a "super vaccine" or "magic bullet" vaccine containing raw DNA from forty different kinds of bacteria and viruses. This vaccine would be given to all newborn infants and time-released in the body throughout life.

By now, it should be clear that vaccination is not an effective form of immunization. Only nature is capable of immunizing the body. Injecting vibrant healthy bodies with virulent microorganisms is an assault to the immune system. In countries such as Sweden and Australia where vaccination is not mandatory, parents are free to make the choice to vaccinate their children without hassle. In the U.S., where most people are not told that they have a choice, it is possible to refuse immunization based on religious exemptions or personal convictions.


How about you put that in your pipe and smoke it ?

 

[Farzin]

[YOUTUBE]eFVE8csrcRw[/YOUTUBE]

MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism - Times Online



Listen guys it is apparent and obvious that due to vaccination many diseases have been eradicated and epidemics prevented.

What you guys don't understand is that Vaccination is not an evil or just some hoax to make more money. Obviously there are complications with it and it hasn't been perfected and there is room for improvement but that doesn't mean it should be stopped.


I know you trust the New Scientist Masta and I know you are a little more, maybe much more, sane than this other fella who wouldn't listen to reason if it accidentally slipped its cock in his ass in the shower.


So here are some articles for you.

I am done discussing this because it's like talking to religious people. Facts don't matter.

Malaria vaccine halves infections in trials - health - 08 December 2008 - New Scientist

Dirty secrets - Vaccines won't work unless some pretty crude ingredients are thrown into the brew. But what are they doing there? Phyllida Brown finds out - 02 November 1996 - New Scientist

Behind the magic - 27 May 2000 - New Scientist



Fomr these you can even tell that thewy touch upon your fears. Sure, they might not know exactly how vaccines work but that doesn't change the fact that they do. They are not useless and without them the world would be a lot worse off.

 

[Farzin]

A Critical Look at Lendon Smith, M.D.


I gotta head out.

Peace bitches.

 

[ill-matic]

LOL & LOL



How bout you get the fuck out.

Let us all know how you go after your swine vaccine, fool.

pretty obvious what i said was a joke..

 

[masta247]

I know you trust the New Scientist Masta and I know you are a little more, maybe much more, sane than this other fella who wouldn't listen to reason if it accidentally slipped its cock in his ass in the shower.

lmao at that.

I'll definately check these articles out.
I do trust most articles on New Scientist if they're written by reasonable people. I remember that there was some bullcrap there too though.

I hope there'll be legit tests whether there are working vaccines and that someone could explain how they in fact work. Our immunological system is not that well known to interfere with it and thus they can't prove how vaccines would be supposed to work but untill that I'm not going to inject them into my body.
You can check yourself what is in these vaccines.

Also, Roger Highfield who's an editor for New Scientist was the one who claimed that AIDS wasn't first caused by a vaccine and he also claimed that some not-working vaccines work (like first cancer vaccines) till they were proven otherwise.

 

[Farzin]

[YOUTUBE]tB5DLf1Qt78[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jokerman]

*await Jokermans reply with trepidation, grabs popcorn*

I won’t bother to counter any of these claims any more than I would if someone came on here quoting someone saying smoking wasn’t bad for you or that Obama is not really an American citizen. There's no point in debating someone with a point of view who searches the net for something that backs up that view and posts it, without being able to critically assess what they are posting or its sources. They're not qualified to critically assess the response.

I will, however, point out that the source of that highly biased information and interpretation is the Centers for Disease Control, which, as I’ve mentioned, is a major part of the vaccination-industrial complex. It’s like the Bush Administration telling you about WMD in Iraq and you accepting it and their “evidence.” Most of their info comes from this medical reference work, which I own and have studied extensively:

Amazon.com: Vaccines: Expert Consult (Expert Consult Title: Online + Print) (9781416036111): Stanley A. Plotkin MD, Walter A. Orenstein MD, Paul A. Offit MD: Books

It’s written by physicians who work for, get this: vaccine companies.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc2/Jokermanhere/article-1163991-03FCB911000005DC-73.jpg

(Boy am I getting a lot of mileage from that pic)

Our first author, Stanley Plotkin, MD, works for Aventis Pasteur, one of the world’s largest vaccine companies. He developed the rubella vaccine, and has worked extensively on other vaccines, including polio, rabies, varicella and cytomegalovirus. Now that’s objective. The man who developed these things is telling us about their safety and efficacy. Sure he’s an expert. He’s an expert on vaccines the way the head of R. J. Reynolds is an expert on cigarettes. If I want to know about the health dangers of smoking, am I going to him? In 2002, Plotkin won the Sabin Gold Medal, where it was said that he “is an extraordinary figure in the field of vaccinology and truly epitomizes the dedication that reflects Albert Sabin’s goal to conquer disease with vaccines and immunization.” So apparently his goal is to conquer disease with vaccines and immunizations. Does that mean there’s no room in his world view to conquer disease by improving the health of individuals by natural, non-invasive means? I think so.

The second author of this worthy tome is Walter A. Orenstein, MD. Let’s see. He has served in leadership roles within the CDC’s immunization program since 1982, and from 1993 through 2004, had been Director of the National Immunization Program. During the same period that he served on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, he also served as CDC liaison to the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases, the major immunization policy making body for private pediatricians. Uh-huh. Looks like we’ve found the Dick Cheney of immunizations.

The third author is Paul Offit, MD. He’s the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He’s the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, recently recommended for universal use in infants by the (you guessed it) CDC; for this achievement Dr. Offit received the Gold Medal from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Jonas Salk Medal from the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. So he’s been nicely rewarded for his work for the vaccination-industrial complex. From what I can tell he seems like a decent, well meaning guy who just got caught up in a mind-think and system he can’t see past. He’s like the Colin Powell of vaccination with his equivalent “evidence” of nuclear shit in Iraq.

And this is just plain sad:

A Critical Look at Lendon Smith, M.D.

First, Lendon Smith was not a big name in the natural health field and the man died in 2002. So he’s not even in the current vaccine debate. Second, the author of that article and founder of Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, is the biggest Quacker of them all. He’s a psychiatrist with no expertise in anything to do with health. He’s been sued and lost numerous times with his libelous claims. I’ve been watching his antics for years. Take a gander if you dare:

The Never-board-certified Stephen Barrett, MD


Like I said, Farzin is not qualified to assess the statements or the sources of the vaccine-industrial complex.

 

[Duke]

Like I said, Farzin is not qualified to assess the statements or the sources of the vaccine-industrial complex.

That's exactly the problem with internet discussion. The layman (= me) can't know if this is correct or not.

 

[ill-matic]

So in the end, what it comes down to is that these people shouldn't be trusted because it is assumed they have ulterior motives.

It's a compelling point, but just pointing out the possibility of an incentive for these people to bullshit everyone doesn't necessarily mean that vaccinations have no merit at all.

 

[Duke]

So in the end, what it comes down to is that these people shouldn't be trusted because it is assumed they have ulterior motives.

It's a compelling point, but just pointing out the possibility of an incentive for these people to bullshit everyone doesn't necessarily mean that vaccinations have no merit at all.

My main problem is the immediate black- and whiteness of it all. Sure, vaccines aren't the ideal solution and sure the vaccine companies bullshit us a lot in order to make a buck. But there are diseases that have been wiped our or curtailed by vaccines, diseases gone which can't be explained by better nutrition or hygiene factors.

Just plain out calling them utterly useless strikes me as a bit...overboard.