Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implications

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri May 17, 2019 12:40 am

Viral replication is the formation of biological viruses during the infection process in the target host cells. Viruses must first get into the cell before viral replication can occur. Through the generation of abundant copies of its genome and packaging these copies, the virus continues infecting new hosts. Replication between viruses is greatly varied and depends on the type of genes involved in them. Most DNA viruses assemble in the nucleus while most RNA viruses develop solely in cytoplasm.[1]

Viral Production / Replication
Viruses multiply only in living cells. The host cell must provide the energy and synthetic machinery and the low molecular-weight precursors for the synthesis of viral proteins and nucleic acids.[2]

The virus replication occurs in seven stages, namely;
1. Adsorption,
2. Entry,
3. Uncoating,
4. Transcription / mRNA production,
5. Synthesis of virus components,
6. Virion assembly and
7. Release (Liberation Stage).

Baltimore Classification System
Viruses are classed into 7 types of genes, each of which has its own families of viruses, which in turn have differing replication strategies themselves. David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist, devised a system called the Baltimore Classification System to classify different viruses based on their unique replication strategy. There are seven different replication strategies based on this system (Baltimore Class I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII). The seven classes of viruses are listed here briefly and in generalities.[3]

That’s the standard textbook description of “viruses.” If you think it’s too complicated for you to wrap your head around, you’re right. It’s meant to be, by design. Fret not, dear reader; it’s all pseudoscientific nonsense. A sick fantasy that emanated from the mind of medical charlatan.

The Birth of Modern Virology

In the 1920s virology was not an established discipline. Although researchers could study the effects of viral diseases in humans, animals, and plants, they had no criteria to describe viruses chemically--in fact, the very definition of a virus was a subject for debate! The best scientists could do was to say that, if an infectious agent passed through a fine porcelain filter that held back bacteria, then it was probably a virus ("a filterable agent"). In 1926, Thomas M. Rivers (1888-1962), director of the Rockefeller Hospital, made a bold statement about the essential nature of viruses that set the course of virology for decades to come. He said: "Viruses appear to be obligate parasites in the sense that their reproduction is dependent on living cells."

In stating that viruses needed living cells in order to replicate
, Rivers was contradicting many workers in the field, including Simon Flexner, the director of the Rockefeller Institute, who claimed to have isolated and cultivated the polio virus in a cell-free medium. But Rivers had both laboratory and clinical experience on which to base his view. When, in 1926, the Society of American Bacteriologists invited him to organize a symposium on viruses, and deliver a lecture, he reviewed the body of knowledge on viruses. Several observations on the problem of growing viruses in the laboratory led him to his conclusion: the difficulty of cultivating viruses on artificial media could not be explained; although viruses were small, size should not prevent their cultivation; viruses were not particularly delicate or susceptible to destruction during laboratory procedures; nor had any viruses been found multiplying free in nature. His synthesis of the state of virology was published in a landmark book, Filterable Viruses, in 1928. Rivers' hypothesis led to many advances in the culturing and characterization of viruses that cause human disease.

Thomas M. Rivers received the BA from Emory College in 1909 and the MD from The Johns Hopkins University Medical School in 1915. After an internship and residency in pediatrics, he joined the Army in 1918, serving on commissions with the U.S. Army Medical Corps that investigated outbreaks of pneumonia and empyema. He returned to Johns Hopkins for a research appointment in 1919, and joined the Rockefeller Institute Hospital in 1922. In 1937 Rivers became director of the hospital, a position he held until 1953, when he became Vice President and Director of the Institute. He retired in 1955. Rivers was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He served as president of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, the American Association of Immunologists, the Society of American Bacteriologists, and the Third International Congress for Microbiology, and received honorary degrees from Emory University, the University of Rochester, the University of Chicago, and the Rockefeller Institute.

Selected Publications
Rivers TM. Filterable Viruses: A critical review. J Bacteriol, 1927, 14:217-258
Rivers TM. Some general aspects of pathological conditions caused by Filterable Viruses. Am J Pathol, 1928, 4:91
Rivers, TM, ed. Filterable Viruses. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1928

Further Reading
Horsfall FL Jr. Thomas Milton Rivers (1888-1962): A Biographical Memoir. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1965, 38:262-294
Benison S. Tom Rivers: Reflections on a Life in Medicine and Science. An Oral History Memoir. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1967 ... n_Virology

"In stating that viruses needed living cells in order to replicate, Rivers was contradicting many workers in the field, including Simon Flexner, the director of the Rockefeller Institute, who claimed to have isolated and cultivated the polio virus in a cell-free medium. But Rivers had both laboratory and clinical experience on which to base his view."

How marvelous. Rockefeller University Hospital finally admitting that 1) Rockefeller Institute’s founding director’s ridiculous claim was unfounded 2) Rivers’ view was based on his “laboratory and clinical experience”, not proof.

Virologists/immunologists have been trying to prove Rivers right ever since; failing miserably every step of the way.

"After an internship and residency in pediatrics, he joined the Army in 1918, serving on commissions with the U.S. Army Medical Corps that investigated outbreaks of pneumonia and empyema."

1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus)

The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. It was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin. Although there is not universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, it spread worldwide during 1918-1919. In the United States, it was first identified in military personnel in spring 1918. It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.

Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic. While the 1918 H1N1 virus has been synthesized and evaluated, the properties that made it so devastating are not well understood. With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limitations of public gatherings, which were applied unevenly. ... -h1n1.html

We know how reliable the CDC’s numbers can be. Although we don’t know where (or even how) the flu “virus” originated we’re positive that it was a “virus.” I’m sure the smallpox vaccine had nothing to do with it.

In 1938, Jonas Salk and Thomas Francis developed the first vaccine against flu viruses. This first flu vaccine protected the U.S. military forces against the flu during World War II. Dr. Salk used his experience with influenza vaccine to develop an effective polio vaccine in 1952. ... cle_em.htm

And the flu vaccine had nothing to do with polio.

And the polio vaccine had nothing to do with Guillain-Barre syndrome, Hand-foot-and-mouth disease, Chronic fatigue syndrome, etc.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri May 17, 2019 4:10 am

USA: Vaccine opponents tap social media to fight new California exemptions bill
14 May, 2019

As state legislators consider a bill to crack down on suspect vaccine exemptions for schoolchildren, a vocal minority on social media is fostering opposition, often by spreading misinformation and sharing referrals to doctors who support their cause.

Senate Bill 276 would prevent doctors from providing medically unnecessary vaccine exemptions to students. But Facebook pages like Californians for Vaccine Choice, followed by over 22,000 people, have been a significant force for amplifying the relatively small minority of parents who oppose vaccine requirements, encouraging activism and posting dubious claims about the bill.

Recent posts have falsely claimed that medical exemptions would only be allowed for kids who had already experienced “severe anaphylaxis” to a specific vaccine and that children in comas would not be exempt.

Scientific consensus is overwhelming on the issue of vaccines. So how do you foster doubt? One way is to use social media to create the appearance of controversy,” said David Magnus, a professor of pediatrics and director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics :rolleyes: . “If you get a few crackpots on your side, you can make it seem like there’s a debate.”

The latest legislative showdown comes amid one of the worst measles outbreaks in the United States since 1994. Californians for Vaccine Choice was one of several social media groups that promoted chartered buses to bring anti-vaccine parents from Southern California to Sacramento for a rally last month. Hundreds of opponents of the bill gathered at the Capitol during a hearing by the Senate Committee on Health. The committee voted 6-2 in favor, despite the crowd.

“We do not believe in forced vaccines. A lot of people agree with us, including all the people who showed up at that hearing,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine nonprofit. “The people are making their voices heard.”

The overall rate of vaccinations among kindergartners increased after the Legislature passed a highly contentious bill in 2015 outlawing personal belief exemptions, but medical exemptions among kindergartners have tripled. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends medical exemptions for a small percentage of children, including those with weakened immune systems or severe allergies to vaccine ingredients.

But experts [Ah yes, the ubiquitous nameless “experts”] have linked the rise in medical exemptions in California to doctors who write them for reasons that fall far outside the CDC guidelines — and often for a fee.

[Translation: the only doctors who have a right to get paid for their services are the ones who abide by CDC protocols.]

SB 276 — co-sponsored by State Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, and State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego — would require the state Department of Public Health to review and approve doctors’ exemption recommendations. Currently, doctors have wide latitude to write exemptions with no routine oversight.

Shortly after the 2015 bill, SB 277, which Pan also wrote, the names of doctors willing to provide medical exemptions spread widely on social media.

“That’s how people look for a doctor and comparison shop,” said Renée DiResta, co-founder of the vaccine advocacy group Vaccinate California who is also a fellow at Mozilla researching the spread of conspiracy theories and disinformation on social media.

One group, Stop Mandatory Vaccination, used Facebook to promote the services of San Francisco physician Kenneth Stoller, whose practice of providing medical exemptions came under scrutiny last week by the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

“He fought against SB 277. He is in the San Francisco Bay area and he can take initial Skype appointments,” the group posted in 2015.

In an interview last week with the Bay Area News Group, Stoller’s attorney Rick Jaffe said many of Stoller’s patients come to him after other doctors rejected their requests for exemptions. “He does screen people out,” Jaffe said. “You can’t get an exemption just because you have a personal belief.

Pan, who is a pediatrician, insists plenty of doctors cross the line. His office provided screenshots from closed Facebook groups in which parents discussed doctors willing to write medical exemptions: One doctor only required the child’s grandparent to have eczema; another granted temporary exemptions over the phone so kids could quickly enroll in school.

Loe Fisher, the vaccine [“]opponent[”], said lawmakers who supported SB 277 promised opponents “that doctors would be able to exercise professional judgment and consideration when giving a child a medical exemption.

“If there are doctors doing things untruthfully, they should be looked at one on one.” <_<

Vaccine opponents have also use closed Facebook groups to coordinate efforts to suppress and intimidate vaccine advocates. Physicians posting scientific information about the importance of vaccines, for instance, have had their Yelp and Healthgrades accounts bombarded with negative reviews.

“It’s not just one or two, it’s hundreds of people who go out and harass them,” Pan said. And doctors aren’t the only targets. “Families whose children have passed away from vaccine-preventable illnesses like the flu, they call them names, say the child never existed, just really horrible stuff.”

Ethan Lindenberger, an 18-year-old whose parents refused to vaccinate him, has faced the wrath of anti-vaccine groups for speaking out against their tactics. When he went to Washington to testify before Congress, he had to reschedule his travel plans after a Facebook page called VaXism, with more than 100,000 followers, posted a screenshot of his flight and hotel information.

“I got some death threats,” :ph34r: the Ohio teen said in an interview with the Bay Area News Group. He also was harassed after speaking to Twitter executives about his experience. “People were calling me a Nazi, people calling me fascist, saying it was part of a government scheme. ... ions-bill/

Notice a pattern, folks?

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Sat May 18, 2019 6:02 am

The "urban myth" of the association between neurological disorders and vaccinations

J Prev Med Hyg. 2015 Mar; 56(1): E1–E8.


In modern society, a potentially serious adverse event attributed to a vaccination is likely to be snapped up by the media, particularly newspapers and television, as it appeals to the emotions of the public [to get vaccinated]. The widespread news of the alleged adverse events of vaccination has helped to create the "urban myth" that vaccines cause serious neurological disorders and has boosted antivaccination associations. This speculation is linked to the fact that the true causes of many neurological diseases are largely unknown. The relationship between vaccinations and the onset of serious neuropsychiatric diseases is certainly one of coincidence rather than causality :rolleyes: . This claim results from controlled studies that have excluded the association between vaccines and severe neurological diseases, therefore it can be said, with little risk of error, that the association between modern vaccinations and serious neurological disorders is a true "urban myth".


With regard to encephalitis, it is necessary to distinguish between acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), encephalitis and encephalopathy. Some neurology texts state that ADEM may be caused by vaccines. Actually, this association is linked mainly to the fact that the old vaccines against rabies, which were derived from animal nerve tissue (NTV), namely Fermi and Semple vaccines, could lead to sensitization, not least because of the high number of doses required for post-exposure prophylaxis.

However, these vaccines have not been used in industrialized countries since the 1970s, and the World Health Organization (WHO) effectively banned them in 1992. The incidence of neurological Serious Adverse Events (SAE) after administration of rabies NTV varied widely: from 1 per 230 to 1 per 6,000 vaccinations [32]. In the case of smallpox vaccines, too, post-vaccination encephalopathies and encephalitis were well-known, albeit very rare, adverse events (about 1 case per 665,000 vaccinees in the US and 1 case per 345,000 in Italy) [33]. However, as smallpox has been eradicated, smallpox vaccines are no longer used. Subsequently, neurological SAE were attributed to several vaccines, namely: MMR, varicella, influenza, hepatitis A and B, papillomavirus, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and menC conjugate vaccines. Regarding the hypothesis that MMR vaccine causes a risk of encephalitis, Duclos et al. estimated an incidence of 1 case per million recipients [34], and studies conducted in Albania [35], Finland [36], the US [37], Great Britain and Ireland [38] suggested that there was no link between MMR vaccine and encephalitis. Indeed, in 2011 the Institute of Medicine concluded that "The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and encephalitis" [31].


On the relationship between vaccines and schizophrenia, some scholars have speculated that vaccines administered during pregnancy may pose a risk for the unborn child. Although no epidemiological studies have shown the existence of a causal link, some authors, such as Russell Blaylock, have described a theoretical risk. He claims that immune cytokines (IL-1, IL-2, Il-8, IL-6 and TNF-alpha) can cause injury to the baby's developing brain, and that excessive immune stimulation during pregnancy could give rise to autism and other pervasive neurological disorders, including schizophrenia [83-85]. Although experiments on animal models have documented problems of brain development in baby mice born to mothers infected with influenza viruses, this does not demonstrate an association with flu vaccination. Moreover, in a paper entitled "Pregnancy, Immunity, Schizophrenia and Autism", Patterson underlines the fact that cytokines are not the only possible bridge from a mother's infection to the developing fetal brain; indeed, during infections, changes occur in other soluble immunological substances, such as corticosteroids for instance. Furthermore, Patterson highlights the need to consider genetic components and how they act to modulate brain development [86]. In addition, Short et al. have demonstrated that babies born to rhesus monkeys infected with the flu virus during pregnancy have both significantly smaller brains than normal and other brain abnormalities seen in schizophrenia [87]. These results are consistent with the findings of Mednick et al. [88], who reported an increased risk of schizophrenia in persons who had been in the fetal stage in 1957 – the time of the [Salk Polio Vaccine] pandemic known as the "Asian" pandemic – and with the study by Byrne et al. [89]. Vaccination should therefore be considered a valuable tool, particularly during pregnancy, in that it may also help to prevent schizophrenia :o . Indeed, the CDC recommends influenza vaccination in any period of gestation :puke: [90].


Unfortunately, however, a severe neurological disease may arise simply by chance after the administration of a vaccine. This has prompted speculation that such diseases may actually be caused by the vaccination, not least because the true causes of many neurological diseases are largely unknown. It is understandable that neurological disorders arouse fear. Indeed, they can cause severe disability, seriously impairing the individual's quality of life (dependence on others, inability to carry out intimate personal care, sexual difficulty, memory loss and impaired judgment, prejudice and social stigma, etc.). Such considerations have fuelled anti-vaccination associations, as in the cases of MMR vaccination and autism and influenza vaccination and Alzheimer's disease. On these issues, the mass media have often adopted a somewhat "sensational" stance, which has impacted negatively on public health in general and on the health of children in particular. In reality, it should be borne in mind that the case reports published in the literature have almost always shown only a temporal association between vaccination and neurological events, while controlled studies have either excluded such associations, as in the case of the MMR vaccine and autism, or have been unable to establish a causal link between the vaccine and severe neurological reactions, such as in the case of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines and optic neuritis.

In conclusion, we can say, with little risk of error, that the association between modern vaccinations and serious neurological disorders is a true "urban myth".

Speaking of urban myths:

The Insanity Virus
By Douglas Fox|Monday, November 08, 2010

Schizophrenia has long been blamed on bad genes or even bad parents. Wrong, says a growing group of psychiatrists. The real culprit, they claim, is a virus that lives entwined in every person's DNA. ... nity-virus

Insanity, indeed!

What’s the over-under on when a vaccine will be concocted/marketed for the “anti-Semitic virus”?

The Anti-Semitism Virus
By Douglas Murray March 21, 2019 12:00 PM ... ism-virus/

The Viral Nature of Anti-Semitic Imagery
Melody Barron | 02.01.18 ... isemitism/

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Tue May 21, 2019 3:32 am

I highly recommend the following book to anyone interested in the nature of disease and the philosophy/art of healing.


Chapter III

A LONG and an interesting chapter might be written on this subject of drug medication, but the limited space at my disposal for that purpose effectively prevents my doing so in the manner I should like. Yet perhaps this is not so much to be regretted since the ground has been so well and completely covered already by a great number of eminent and able writers on the subject that it will be hardly necessary for me to give more than a very brief resume and outline of the theories already advanced and held by hygienists, or of their arguments against drug-medication. So ingrained is this popular and direful superstition, however so ingrained is this belief in the curative powers of “medicine" that it will be necessary for me at the risk of some tediousness to trace in brief outline the origin and growth of this extraordinarily grotesque idea, and to show that this whole notion of deriving benefit or of becoming “cured” through the taking of “medicine" in any form, or under any circumstances, is one of the most disastrous, as it is one of the most ludicrous fallacies, one of the most harmful beliefs extant, and one which the coming generations of freethinking medical men will have to most vigorously combat.

In the first place, then, I would point out that the whole theory of drug medication is based, primarily, upon the false conception of the nature of disease; and that when once our ideas in this direction have undergone a change, the whole magnificent edifice, reared by patient labor, comes tumbling about our ears. For, when once we realize the true nature of disease--that it is itself a curing process--and, as such, cannot possibly be cured!--to what has this theory of drugging, in order to "cure" the patient come? And this one single objection--the right understanding of the nature of disease is, in itself, is enough to condemn utterly and forever all drug-medication, without any additional or supplementary argument whatsoever.

For what are drugs supposed to do? Obviously, to "cure" the disease: with that object they are administered, and for that reason they are taken. But this whole theory is based upon the idea that a disease is a thing that can be attacked, or driven out, or suppressed or subdued, or in some way affected by the drug; but when once we realize that the disease is in reality not an entity at all; that it is not, in fact, what we must fight or combat, but that it is itself the process of purification of "getting well" when the grand truth is once thoroughly realized and appreciated, its true significance grasped then drug medication will take its rightful place in the history of science and be classed with the other vulgar superstitious, than which it is no less pathetically amusing.

Yet the whole science of "medicine" is based upon the notion that drugs possess this very power--which prompted their administration. From the very earliest times this idea has prevailed, and the drugging system of to-day is based upon exactly the same false notions as it has always been based upon. Drugs are "the shot and shell," as Doctor Densmore so well described it, "hurled at the invisible enemy in the hope of dislodging and expelling it."

Drug medication can be shown to be absolutely without logical foundation or support, for these reasons. First, drugs are admittedly poisons; either they are poisonous per se (snake virus, e.g), or they become poisons simply because of their presence within the organism. It must always be distinctly remembered, in this connection, that any substance, present within the organization, which is not a food, is strictly speaking, a poison; i.e., it is either appropriable material for tissue-building (a food), or it is not; and if not, then it is a foreign substance--a poison--and as such can only damage and cannot possibly ever benefit the organism.

Footnote. Unfortunately, the modern germ theory has caused the medical world to turn further and further from the truth, in this direction--the tendency being more and more to disregard entirely the vital element, and to consider the body solely from a chemical point of view. This viewpoint illustrates the tendency of modern medical thought on these questions, and how far removed they are from accepting any such thing as a vital principle.

Chapter VI

The real nature of disease should now be apparent. It is the encumbrance of the system with effete, mal-assimilated, foreign material and the degree of "susceptibility" of of any person exactly corresponds to the amount of this morbid matter within the organism it is, in fact, the degree of actual disease present. As Kuhne put it:

"The one common cause of all disease is the presence of foreign substances in the body."

This is the real and only cause of disease. The disease itself is merely the process of ridding the body of these impurities; and any real cure, must, therefore, be based upon this philosophy, and have for its successful accomplishment, the sole object of assisting nature to rid the system of these impurities. This is, in fact, the hygienic theory of disease and of its cure in a nutshell.

The great underlying truth, then, is that all disease is but a curative crisis--a method adopted by Nature to rid the system as rapidly and energetically as possible of the effete, encumbering material it contains. Our organism is more or less encumbered or saturated with this material perpetually owing to our artificial methods of living i.e., we are chronically more or less diseased and, as Doctor Page pointed out:

"....the various acute diseases, so-called, are in point of fact acute remedies for chronic disease."

It may be asked , perhaps: "why, then, does disease ever remain chronic?" My answer to this is that the prolonged sickness and attempt on the part of Nature to cure, have so depleted and so de-energized the system and wasted the vital powers that a radical and sudden method of cure is no longer possible. As Dr. Robert Walter expressed it:

" An acute disease is a vigorous effort of the vital organism to resist injuries, to repair damages, and to restore health; while a chronic disease is a prolonged and subdued ailment in which the power of cure has been so depleted that active manifestations are not possible." As Doctor Oswald has pointed out:

"A chronic disease, properly speaking, is nothing but Nature's protest against a chronic provocation."

It indicates a chronic cause. The one is continuous because the other is continuous, and when one is discontinued, the other ceases. It is simply a question of cause and effect, and the "cure" of such diseases thus becomes one of the simplest and most obvious processes. We know the cause of the diseases---it is the same as the cause of all acute diseases--effete material; and to effect a cure, the rule is merely: Cease adding to the cause; cease introducing into the system those materials which act as the cause of disease.

But this philosophy of disease would imply that the whole human race is more or less diseased--and that continually! This conclusion I do not shrink from; in fact, I must insist upon it as most certainly correct and true. We are all of us diseased--all the time. The various diseases from which humanity suffers are but the various means Nature adopts in order to cure humanity of its conditions. If any person is not in the best health---in the finest physical condition--then he is diseased, a little, perhaps, yet diseased. The majority of persons imagine that they are "perfectly well" if they are not actually in bed, or wracked with pain, or in the throes of some acutely diseased condition; but everyone is, in reality, diseased, who is not in the best of health, i.e., in actual training--the "pink of condition." All states below that necessarily indicate some degree of disease.

A perfectly healthy man does not, in all probability, exist, perfect health is an idea state---an imaginary condition. Says Dr. Joel Shew:

"Perfect health, at the present day, among civilized nations, is probably nowhere to be found. It exists only as an ideal thing.

Almost ideal health is the nearest we can ever hope to come to that ideal condition, and every stage below that is disease. Who can doubt the truth of this remark when we see the yellow, wizened, colorless, blotched, bloated or emaciated faces everywhere about us, in the streets--instead of the clean, healthful pink complexions that should encounter us on every hand? How many of the human family are in perfect health--possessing buoyancy of spirits, clear skins, and possessing the energy and activity characteristic of those in health? And, if such conditions are not present, then that individual is diseased. The whole human race is sick! Death and disease, misery and suffering are on every hand, where there should be nothing but health and strength and comeliness. Says Doctor Smidovich:

"I began to regard people surrounding me with a new and strange feeling, and I was more and more struct by the rarity in their midst of healthy individuals, nearly every one of them had some ailment. To me the world began to assume the aspect of one gigantic infirmary; normal man was sick man; the healthy person merely represented a happy freak, a sharp deviation from the normal; this fact was ever becoming more plain." As Dr. James C. Jackson stated, in speaking of his patients:

"...Through the whole range, from Allopathy clear down to Hydropathy, these patients of mine had been left under the impression that the curative power resided in the doctors, and not in the vital element which God had implanted in their organism.:

Now, when we come to consider the question: How can we best assist Nature? --we come to a dividing of the ways, where the regular medical doctor and the hygienist part company forever. It is owing to the prevalent false medical teaching that diseases are entities that they can "pass through" or 'attack" and that drugs may in some way antidote or drive out this mysterious thing---or, at most, assist Nature in expelling it--that prevents the regular physician from perceiving the true philosophy of disease and its cure. The disease is the cure! That must be realized once and finally. Disease is merely a condition--not a thing. As Doctor Trall so well pointed out:

"How much longer will medical men expend brain and labor, and waste pen, ink and paper, in looking for a thing that is no thing at all, and in trying to land a seat for a disease which has no localized existence? As well might a physicist point his spy glass to the moon to discover the whereabouts of the electrical force, as for our doctors to turn their mental microscopes to any given locality in the vital domain, to ascertain the local habitation of a fever."

Disease is an attempt to clean the system from the foul material with which it is overloaded--and from which it must be rid, if life is to be maintained. Were there no disease (curative crises) and were the effete matter which is the cause of disease--and which the disease, as we know it, merely expelled from the system--this process of expulsion being the so-called disease retained within it--death would invariably result due to tissue-poisoning. The disease is thus the curative measure Nature employs in order to prevent death--which would otherwise follow with extreme rapidity and certainty. Having once fully grasped this conception we are in a better position to answer the question just proposed. How can we best assist Nature, in her efforts to rid the system of the impurities it contains--the real cause of the disease? Certainly not by adding more impurities; that would be the height of folly! Yet this is what is almost universally done!

"Any person who can explain the act of sneezing has the key which may be applied to the solution of all the problems before us. Does the dust sneeze the nose, or does the nose sneeze the dust? Which is acted on or expelled, and what acts? Is sneezing a healthy or a morbid process? No one will pretend that it is normal. No one ever sneezes unless there is something abnormal in or about the nasal organ. Then sneezing is a remedial effort, a purifying process, a disease, as much as a diarrhea or a fever.

Dr. Trall says in The True Healing Art:

"We are told that Nature has provided a 'law of cure.' Here is another vexed question for us to settle, and I meet it by denying the fact. What is this law of cure? The Allopaths say it is contrariis curantur---contraries cure opposites. The Homeopathists proclaim similia stmilibus curantur---like cures like. The Eclectics declare that the law exist of or consists in 'Sanative' medication, and the Physio-Medicals believe that the law is fulfilled in the employment of 'Physiological' remedies.

"They are all wrong; there is no law of cure' in all the Universe. Nature has provided nothing of the sort; Nature has provided penalties, not remedies. Think you, would Nature provide penalties or punishment as the consequences of transgression, and then provide remedies to do away with the penalties? Would Nature ordain disease or suffering as the corrective discipline for disobedience to the laws of life, and then permit the doctor to drug and dose away the penalties? There is a condition of cure, and this is obedience to the laws of life." ... h_djvu.txt

With that in mind, dear reader, do you see how silly the following is?

A cure for cancer? Israeli scientists may have found one
“Our results are consistent and repeatable.”
By Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman
January 28, 2019 23:14

Aridor, chairman of the board of AEBi and CEO Dr. Ilan Morad, say their treatment, which they call MuTaTo (multi-target toxin) is essentially on the scale of a cancer antibiotic – a disruption technology of the highest order.

In contrast, MuTaTo is using a combination of several cancer-targeting peptides for each cancer cell at the same time, combined with a strong peptide toxin that would kill cancer cells specifically.…

Furthermore, many cancer cells activate detoxification mechanisms when in stress from drugs. The cells pump out the drugs or modify them to be non-functional. But Morad said detoxification takes time. When the toxin is strong, it has a high probability of killing the cancer cell before detoxification occurs, which is what he is banking on.

He equated the concept of MuTaTo to the triple drug cocktail that has helped change AIDS from being an automatic death sentence to a chronic – but often manageable – disease.

Morad said that so far, the company has concluded its first exploratory mice experiment… ... one-578939

"How can we best assist Nature, in her efforts to rid the system of the impurities it contains--the real cause of the disease? Certainly not by adding more impurities; that would be the height of folly! Yet this is what is almost universally done!"

A Loved One’s Chemotherapy Treatment Could Injure Their Caregiver
by Lorraine Kember May 13, 2014

Can Chemo Affect a Caregiver?

Sitting next to Brian on the day he commenced treatment, I observed the nurses administering his chemotherapy drugs wearing purple rubber gloves and heavy aprons. The sight of that made me realize how toxic these drugs must be.

While Brian was undergoing his treatment, my only concerns were his well-being and the effects of the drugs on his body. After an interesting conversation with a nurse later that day, I learned that Brian’s treatment also could have a detrimental effect on my own body.

The conversation started after I observed hospital staff directing chemotherapy patients to a separate bathroom than everyone else. The door to that bathroom had a large purple sign that matched the color of the nurses’ gloves. It read: “Toxic – for the use of chemotherapy patients only.”

It made me think: Would Brian need a separate toilet at home after his chemotherapy treatments? So I asked the nurse. I’m glad I did, too.

She said chemotherapy drugs remain in a patient’s bodily fluids for up to 72 hours after therapy ends. This means the drugs are present in vomit, urine and excrement during that time.

• Skin rashes

• Upset stomach

• Headaches

• Allergic reactions

In extreme cases, it can even lead to cancer. :o


The nurse warned me that caregivers of chemotherapy patients are at particular risk. She listed several precautions I should take to protect my health following each of Brian’s chemotherapy sessions:

• If there are two toilets in the home, the chemotherapy patient should use one, and the caregiver should use the other for at least 48 hours after treatment ceases. If there is only one toilet, male patients should sit when urinating to avoid splashing. When finished, they need to lower the lid and flush twice.

• If the patient vomits into the toilet, tell them to close the lid and flush twice. If the patient splashed vomit on or around the toilet, the caregiver should put on disposable rubber gloves, use paper towels to clean the spill, toss them in the toilet, close the lid and flush twice. Once the area is clean, remove the gloves, dispose of them and wash hands thoroughly with warm, soapy water.

• When it comes to sexual intimacy, avoid open-mouth kissing and use protection. Chemotherapy drugs are present in saliva, semen and vaginal secretions.

• Wash plates and cups solely used by the chemotherapy patient in a dishwasher, or use disposable plates and utensils. If there is no dishwasher, make sure the water is hot and soapy. Dry the dishes thoroughly.

• Do not wash any bedding or linens soiled with body fluids by hand. Place all soiled items in the washing machine, and wash them twice on the hot cycle. Be sure not to mix the linen with any other clothing. If they cannot be washed right away, keep them clear of other items by sealing them in a plastic bag.

Following these guidelines while your loved one undergoes treatment can help ensure that you stay safe while offering the best level of care possible. ... caregiver/

The above also applies to vaccines. If someone in the household gets vaccinated (poisoned), then that person is not only not “immunized” but automatically more susceptible to disease (detoxification). Moreover, everyone else in the household who comes into contact with the vaccinated (poisoned) person has a higher risk of getting sick. That’s why measles (or any other "disease" for that matter) outbreaks are more prevalent among the vaccinated. Think about that the next time you read an article from officialdom about “herd immunity.”

Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by patrix » Tue May 21, 2019 9:11 am

Thanks for this excellent post IC Freely. I think this is exactly the paradigm shift that needs to happen in medicine but probably never will on a broader scale. People want their pills and vaccines. The little magic tokens that will cure and protect us from "disease" that are in fact the acute and long term mechanisms our bodies employ to keep us healthy and alive.

And this system is being cynically exploited to worsen our health. A personal example: When I was about 10 years old, we had fluoride mouth rinsing at school. I remember a few children that didn't rinse because their parents were more clever and cautious than mine. A few months after the rinsing, the dentist (we have "free" dental care where I live) found cavities and plugged them with deep mercury fillings (amalgam) that was the practice in the 80s. What I believe was done here was to create a lifelong customer for the dental and medical industry. Flouride in fact destroys the tooth enamel, causing cavities. When you grow old dental care is no longer free. The Mercury in the fillings oxidize, causing them to expand and crush the tooth from the inside. Mercury is released into the body that can cause all kinds of subtle issues.

Since I changed my diet (and quit using fluoride toothpaste) about ten years ago I haven't been to the dentist. I've had problems but they've taken care of themselves after some time (and pain). Some of my mercury fillings have simply fallen out leaving holes that are annoying but don't cause more trouble than that.

A few months ago however I had a serious ache at the back side of my upper jar and I booked a visit to the dentist. He was of course horrified because of all my broken fillings but didn't find cavities except at one place and that was not at the place where I was experiencing pain. But it was deep and had to be fixed immediately he told me. But I paid for the checkup and went home instead and started a regular routine of mouth rinsing every night with colloidal silver. Now a couple of months later my jaw ache is gone and what's more amazing is that my tinnitus since 20 years back on the same side is starting to fade!

It's probably the case that doing deep fillings in the teeth creates a way for bacteria and fungus to infect our system. And with the lifestyle and foods we are subjected too, this infection will gradually increase, causing things like tinnitus, dementia, cancer and heart disease. All symptoms of a body trying to fend off infection. Weston Price proved the link between heart disease and root fillings by placing an extracted filled tooth under the skin of a rabbit. The rabbit attracted heart disease.

Please understand that I'm not advocating or recommending anything here I'm just sharing a personal experience that may or may not have anything to do with "Rockefeller" medicine and dentistry.

A lecture on Weston Prices research:

full link:

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Wed May 22, 2019 5:33 am

patrix wrote:Please understand that I'm not advocating or recommending anything here I'm just sharing a personal experience...

Dear Patrix,

Personal experiences like yours, shared in good faith, are substantially more valuable than the following garbage.

American Dental Association - Statement on Dental Amalgam

For dental patients: Please visit the ADA’s MouthHealthy website for information about amalgam and silver-colored fillings.

Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance. Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.

The FDI World Dental Federation and the World Health Organization concluded in a 1997 consensus statementi: “No controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse effects from amalgam restorations.” Another conclusion of the report stated that, aside from rare instances of local side effects of allergic reactions, “the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any … adverse health effects.”

In 1998, the ADA’s Council on Scientific Affairsii published its first major review of the scientific literature on dental amalgam which concluded that “based on available scientific information, amalgam continues to be a safe and effective restorative material.” The Council’s report also stated, “There currently appears to be no justification for discontinuing the use of dental amalgam.”

In an articleiii published in the February 1999 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, researchers report finding “no significant association of Alzheimer’s Disease with the number, surface area or history of having dental amalgam restorations” and “no statistically significant differences in brain mercury levels between subjects with Alzheimer’s Disease and control subjects.”

A 2003 paper published in the New England Journal of Medicineiv states, “Patients who have questions about the potential relation between mercury and degenerative diseases can be assured that the available evidence shows no connection.”

In 2004, an expert panel reviewed the peer-reviewed, scientific literature…


... ... al-amalgam

So mercury in amalgam fillings is as safe and effective as mercury (thimerosal) in vaccines. Moreover, you can rest assured that vaccines do not contribute to tooth decay in any way whatsoever. In fact, researches are working on future vaccines that will "immunize" kids from cavities.

A vaccine against dental caries: an overview.
BioDrugs. 2001;15(8):501-8.
Michalek SM1, Katz J, Childers NK.


Dental caries continues to be a costly and prevalent oral disease. Research efforts towards developing a well tolerated and effective vaccine against dental caries were initiated following the demonstration of a specific bacterial aetiology for this disease. The cariogenic mutans streptococci are the principal bacteria causing this disease. Specific immune defence against these bacteria is provided mainly by secretory immunoglobulin (Ig) A antibodies present in saliva, which are generated by the common mucosal immune system. Progress in the development of a vaccine against dental caries has increased due to both advancements in molecular biology and our understanding of the mucosal immune system and mucosal vaccines :rolleyes: . Advancements in molecular biology have facilitated the cloning and functional characterisation of virulence factors of the mutans streptococci, including the cell-surface fibrillar proteins, which mediate adherence to the tooth surface, and the glucosyltransferase enzymes, which synthesise adhesive glucans and allow microbial accumulation on the teeth. Current strategies for immunisation against dental caries are using these virulence factors as key antigens and incorporating them into novel mucosal vaccine systems and delivering them with or without adjuvants to mucosal IgA inductive sites. The most popular routes of mucosal immunisation are via the oral or nasal route. The mucosal immune system is functional in newborn infants, who develop salivary IgA antibodies as they become colonised by oral micro-organisms. Mucosal immunisation strategies result in the induction of salivary IgA antibody responses and pose fewer problems than parenteral injection of antigen. Therefore, mucosal immunisation of infants prior to the appearance of their first teeth :wacko: may be a well tolerated and effective way to induce immunity against the colonisation of teeth by mutans streptococci and protection against subsequent dental caries. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the recent progress on the development of a vaccine against infection by Streptococcus mutans for the prevention of dental caries, with emphasis on the mucosal immune system and vaccine design.

PMID: 11543691
DOI: 10.2165/00063030-200115080-00002

With regards to root canals, I think common sense dictates that dead teeth don't belong in a live body. That’s just my opinion of course. Anyhow, thanks for that post.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu May 23, 2019 3:43 am

I came across the following article via
Dr. Richard Moskowitz MD On "Anti-Vaxxers"
By Richard Moskowitz, MD

Before responding to the [New York Times] editorial, "How to Inoculate against Anti-Vaxxers" (January 20, 2019), I want to point out that the opposite term, "Pro-vaxxer," is rarely seen or heard, as if belief in the safety and efficacy of vaccines were so universal and such a no-brainer that there would be no need to coin a word to single it out, much less imply that the naysayers might also have a valid point of view. This subtext is evident throughout the editorial in question, which merely accepts as gospel the authority of the World Health Organization on the subject, as if there were nothing more to be said, other than how to combat those with the temerity to question it.

The obvious corollary is that the epithet "anti-vaxxer" is pejorative, but another less obvious is that it's inaccurate, since most of the thousands upon thousands of parents who must live with their conviction that their kids were killed or irreversibly damaged by vaccines are not against all vaccines on principle, but simply have questions and doubts about them, want them to be made safer, and above all seek some public recognition of and validation for the truth of their experience, including their right to choose not to continue vaccinating in the future.

As a family doctor with fifty years of experience caring for many such families, I cannot remain silent about the enormous weight of vaccine-related suffering and disability, sufficient to break any heart, that continues unabated, remains largely hidden and unacknowledged, and cries out at the very least for caution, restraint, and simple compassion for the viewpoint of those whose lived experience, whatever may have caused it, is so tragically different from that of everyone else privileged enough to be ignorant of or somehow unmoved by their loss.

When these tragedies do occur, they are almost always dismissed by their doctors, friends, and relatives alike as coincidental or the result of some genetic defect, unfortunate to be sure, but in no way related to the vaccine or vaccines that more or less recently preceded them. This amounts to saying that these parents are either lying, ignorant, or stupid, and that modern science knows what really happened to their kids better than what they have actually experienced and lived through, and that the science of vaccines is settled beyond any reasonable doubt.
Which brings me to my second reason for writing, namely, to remind your readers that questioning and doubting are at the heart of the

scientific endeavor, that science by definition must never be "settled." The late Richard Feynman of Caltech, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, said it best:

There is no learning without having to pose a question, and a question requires doubt. Before you begin an experiment, you must not know the answer. If you already know the answer, there is no need to gather any evidence; and to judge the evidence, you must take all of it, not just the parts you like. That's a responsibility that scientists feel toward each other, a kind of morality.1

[What, no Einstein quote?]

In addition to the tragic experience of so many families, here are a few more equally important reasons put forth by prominent physicians and scientists to cast doubt on the standard orthodoxy that vaccines are uniformly safe and effective:

1) even the CDC now admits that supposedly vaccine-preventable diseases are being spread primarily by vaccinated individuals;2

2) the small outbreaks now occurring are predominantly in vaccinated individuals;3

3) many vaccines have led to the emergence of new, resistant strains of the same organisms that we vaccinate against, as well as altogether new species in some cases;4

[When one uses terms like “organism” and “species” in relation to “viruses” one must a) presuppose that “viruses” are living beings and b) living beings can evolve from one species to another – two GIANT leaps for mankind. The simple truth is “virus resistance” is yet another euphemism for VACCINE POISONING! The same can be said for “antibiotic resistance.”]

4) children coming down with and recovering from acute febrile illnesses like flu, measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox are much less likely to develop chronic autoimmune diseases and cancers later in life;5


5) vaccine safety studies are conducted primarily by the drug industry itself, or by government agencies that are run mainly by past, present, or future executives of the industry, in lieu of the independent regulation and oversight they are supposed to provide;6

[What constitutes independent regulation?]

6) these studies rarely include unvaccinated subjects as "controls," and typically give other vaccines or toxic chemical adjuvants instead of genuine placebos for comparison;7

7) adverse reactions are accepted as vaccine-related only if they occur within a few hours or days of the vaccination, thus arbitrarily excluding the chronic dimension entirely from consideration;8

[ Thanks to the juryless “Vaccine Court” that came to fruition thanks in part to Barbara Loe Fisher.]

8) the lead investigator has absolute authority to decide whether unsolicited reports of other adverse reactions by the subjects themselves are or are not vaccine-related, based on criteria that are never specified and allowed to remain a trade secret, if indeed they exist at all;9 and accumulated over the patients' lifetime, which means that they are inherent in the vaccination process per se, as well as in this or that particular vaccine;10

10) many vaccines contain chemical adjuvants and other ingredients known to be neurotoxic, such as aluminum, mercury, and detergents like Polysorbate 80, which when injected are known to cross the blood-brain barrier, accumulate in brain tissue, and have been causally linked to various forms of brain damage;11

11) the CDC admits that over 25% of American children born today suffer from some form of brain damage, yet has never investigated, or even shown much interest in investigating, what percentage of these cases are vaccine-related;12

12) other vaccine ingredients include human and animal cells, DNA, RNA, and proteins, which almost certainly provoke immunological reactions but have not been studied, or at any rate such studies have never been made public.13

The Helsinki Declaration on the rights of experimental subjects and the Nuremberg Code of human rights, both devised in the wake of Nazi atrocities during World War II [Oh my!], repeatedly emphasize the right of every individual patient or experimental subject to fully-informed consent prior to any medical procedure, with very rare exceptions, such as an imminent public health emergency.14 But routine childhood and adult vaccinations are mandated purely as a matter of policy, to prevent a possible disease in the future that most people would never have acquired, in many cases would recover from if they did, and is actually being spread to a great extent by the vaccination process itself.

Most doctors nevertheless continue to believe what the CDC tells them, that vaccines are uniformly safe and effective, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that they are inherently unsafe, in order to shield them and the industry from legal liability for the injuries that they cause, to which every other industry is subject. This, I submit, is not science, but scientism, a blind dogmatism and quasi-religious faith that whatever passes for science at the moment is the absolute truth, beyond question or doubt, to which everyone must pledge allegiance, the main result of which is to stifle the critical thinking, questioning, and doubting of seemingly settled truths that real science requires.

For all of these reasons, most parents who must live with the conviction that their kids were killed or maimed by vaccines, like the physicians who care for them, the lawyers who advocate for them, the independent scientists who study the phenomenon, and the journalists who question the official line, all of whom are regularly lumped together and stigmatized as "anti-vaxxers," ask for nothing more radical than the following:

1) that the best scientists be recruited independently of the drug industry or the government agencies they control to investigate both the individual vaccines and the vaccination process in general

[Sharp left towards Barbara Loe Fisher territory. I’m out!] ... xxers.html
How to Immunize Yourself Against Vaccine Propaganda
by Jeremy R. Hammond | Feb 7, 2019
A New York Times editorial attacks “anti-vaxxers” as “the enemy”, but it’s the Times editors who are dangerously irrational and ignorant of the science.

On January 19, 2019, the New York Times published an editorial mischaracterizing anyone who dares to criticize or dissent from public vaccine policy as dangerously irrational and ignorant.[1] In doing so, the Times avoided having to seriously address any of the countless legitimate concerns that parents have today about vaccinating their children according to the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule. Consequently, the Times fulfills the mainstream media’s typical function of manufacturing consent for government policy by manipulating public opinion through deception.[2] In this case, the consent being manufactured in service of the state is for public vaccine policy, which constitutes a serious threat to both our health and our liberty.

What the Times editorial represents is not journalism, but public policy advocacy. And to persuade its readers to strictly comply with the CDC’s vaccine schedule, the Times blatantly lies to its readers both about the nature of the debate and what science tells us about vaccine safety and effectiveness.

The first clue that the Times editorial aims to avoid any serious discussion of the issue is the title: “How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers”. The term “anti-vaxxer”, of course, is the derogatory label that the media apply to anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy. It is reflective of the mainstream media’s routine use of ad hominem argumentation in lieu of reasoned discourse. Rather than substantively addressing their arguments, the media simply dismiss the views of and personally attack critics and dissenters—and this Times editorial is certainly no exception.

The second clue is in the editorial’s subtitle: “The no-vaccine crowd has persuaded a lot of people. But public health can prevail.” To equate public vaccine policy with “public health”, of course, is the fallacy of begging the question. It presumes the proposition to be proven, which is that vaccinating the US childhood population according to the CDC’s schedule is the best way to achieve a healthy population. Many parents, researchers, doctors, and scientists strongly and reasonably disagree.

The Times would have us believe that the science on vaccines is settled. The reality is that there is a great deal of debate and controversy in the scientific literature about the safety and effectiveness of CDC-recommended vaccines. The demonstrable truth of the matter, as the Times editorial so amply illustrates, is that what the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different and contradictory things.

Indeed, the underlying assumption that the CDC is somehow infallible in its vaccine recommendations is indicative of how vaccination has become a religion, with those who dare to question official dogma being treated as heretics.

How the New York Times Characterizes the Vaccine Issue

The New York Times begins by noting that the World Health Organization (WHO) recently listed “vaccine hesitancy” among ten “threats to global health”.[3] The term “vaccine hesitancy” refers to a person’s reluctance or refusal to strictly comply with public vaccine policy, which in the US is determined principally by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state legislatures making compliance with the CDC’s recommendations mandatory for school entry.

For context, children in the US today who are vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule will have received 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age six and 72 or more doses of 19 vaccines by age eighteen.[4] This has naturally led many parents to wonder what the potential unintended consequences might be of their children receiving so many vaccines, including sometimes many at once.

The Times laments that an estimated 100,000 American infants and toddlers remain totally unvaccinated, with millions more having received some but not all of the CDC’s recommended vaccines, all of which the Times describes as “crucial shots”.

The Times characterizes parents who choose not to strictly comply with public vaccine policy as irrational and ignorant of the science. According to its narrative, the internet abounds with “anti-vaccine propaganda” that “has outpaced pro-vaccine public health information.” The “anti-vaxxers” have “hundreds of websites”, media influencers, and political action committees engaged in an “onslaught” of this “propaganda”, which consists of “rumors and conspiracies”.

The response to this “onslaught” by public policy advocates, by contrast, “has been meager.” The CDC “has a website with accurate information, but no loud public voice”, and the rest of the government “has been mum”, leaving “just a handful of academics who get bombarded with vitriol, including outright threats, every time they try to counter pseudoscience with fact.”

The public policy critics and dissenters, according to the Times, are responsible for causing “outbreaks of measles, mumps, and pertussis”, as well as “an increase in influenza deaths” and “dismal rates of HPV vaccination”, the latter of which the Times editors believe otherwise “could effectively wipe out cervical cancer”.

The Times editors further argue that vaccines are “victims of their own success” because people don’t remember “how terrible those diseases once were”. To counter vaccine hesitancy, there are “some hard truths that deserve to be trumpeted. Vaccines are not toxic, and they do not cause autism. Full stop.”

“Trust in vaccines” is being “thoroughly eroded”, the editorial argues, threatening to cause “the next major disease outbreak”. To thwart this “danger”, the Times advocates that other states follow California’s example in eliminating nonmedical exemptions for mandatory vaccinations.
Describing critics and dissenters as “the enemy”, the Times asserts:

The arguments used by people driving the anti-vaccination movement have not changed in about a century. These arguments are effective because they are intuitively appealing — but they are also easily refutable. Instead of ignoring these arguments, an effective pro-vaccine campaign would confront them directly, over and over, for as long as it takes. Yes, there are chemicals in vaccines, but they are not toxic. No, vaccines can’t overwhelm your immune system, which already confronts countless pathogens every day.

Instructively, while the Times asserts that the arguments used by public policy critics are “easily refutable”, the editors avoided having to actually do so by simply lying that they ignore the past hundred years of science. While urging public policy advocates not to ignore the arguments against vaccinating, the Times editors do precisely that.

On the contrary, the critics most certainly cite modern science to support their arguments and to expose how the public is being blatantly lied to by the government and mainstream media, such as how the Times here lies that aluminum and mercury, both used as ingredients in vaccines, “are not toxic.”

Since the Times utterly fails to do so, let’s now take a serious and honest look at the subject and examine the real issues and legitimate concerns that the Times goes so far out of its way to avoid discussing.

Lying about Aluminum and Mercury Neurotoxicity

‘Crucial Shots’? How the Times Begs the Question

Ignoring Measles Vaccine Failure

Ignoring Mumps Vaccine Failure

Ignoring Varicella Vaccine Failure

Ignoring Pertussis Vaccine Failure

The Times’ Pseudoscience on Influenza Vaccination

The False Marketing of the HPV Vaccine

Lying about the Nature of the Vaccine Debate


What the New York Times editorial amply illustrates is that there is no serious discussion about vaccines in the mainstream discourse. While calling for public vaccine policy advocates to address the arguments of critics and dissenters, the Times itself puts forth an extraordinary effort not to do so and instead just treats its readers to more of the same lying pro-vaccine propaganda that the public is routinely bombarded with. Instead of properly educating their readers about this issue, they go out of their way to misinform, including by outright lying about the nature of the debate and what science tells us about the safety and efficacy of CDC-recommended vaccines.

The deception and hypocrisy of the Times editorial board is heightened all the more by the fact that they are spewing this propaganda in order to advocate the practice of violating the right to informed consent.

It is true that there is a lot of propaganda out there about vaccines. But the reality that the Times is attempting to obfuscate with this editorial, with all its science denial and pseudoscience, is that the preponderance of misinformation about vaccines is propagated by the government and mainstream media, who are the true enemies of truth and liberty. ... ropaganda/

None of the above mentioned vaccines failed, dear reader. They've all successfully maimed and killed people.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri May 24, 2019 1:59 am

Gary Kohls MD: “I am an Anti-OVERvaxxer”
Truth Jihad / Kevin Barrett • May 22, 2019

Dr. Gary Kohls, a retired family physician from Duluth, MN, has researched the effects of vaccines and believes that Americans are wildly over-vaccinated…and suffering an epidemic of autism and auto-immune diseases linked to overvaccination.

Is big pharma making big profits by harming children? Is a vaccine-security complex emerging to force toxic vaccines on the population? Is the media’s pro-vaccine propaganda comparable to its propaganda for war and neoliberal oligarchy? Is the mainstream’s line on vaccines as big a lie as its line on 9/11? Was 9/11 comparable to an auto-immune disease?

These are some of the questions considered in this interview.

Dr. Kohls writes in the Duluth Reader: “Aluminum adjuvants (in vaccines) can also easily OVER-stimulate the vaccine victim’s immune system – thus creating the supposedly ‘perplexing’ reality of America’s national epidemic of autoimmune disorders that is occurring now among fully-vaccinated children and young adults.”

Dr. Kohls notes that:

“The United States Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) receives about 30,000 reports of adverse vaccine reactions each year. That huge number is believed to actually represent perhaps only 1% of the actual annual vaccine-injuries. Therefore, there may actually be as many as 3 million adverse events from vaccines each year in the US.”

To get on Dr. Kohls email list write him at ggkohls(at)mydutytowarn[dot]org ... vervaxxer/
I am a vaccine DISSIDENT!

I would like to know what Dr. Kohls EXACTLY means when he waxes poetic about the overuse of vaccines. Which vaccines does he specifically endorse and why? What number/combination of which administered vaccines and at what intervals does he deem appropriate (safe and effective)?

IMHO, Doctors Richard Moskowitz, Gary Kohls et al. are cleverly positioning themselves as the “voices of moderation” à la Barbara Loe Fisher. You see, they’re not like those extremist science denying anti-vaxxers who are against ALL vaccines. No, these learned ladies and gentlemen are reasonable folks that want to raise awareness about "vaccine safety."

Look at all the progress we’ve made in the last 35 years of BLF's activism:
The efforts of Dissatisfied Parents Together helped secure the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 [VACCINE COURT!], and in the years that followed, Fisher became a spokesperson for "vaccine safety." In the 1990s, the vaccine schedule for children continued to expand—but so did dialogue about vaccines. A consumer representative was invited to sit on the federal advisory committee on vaccination. Journalists investigated the vaccine industry. Lawmakers asked scientists to closely evaluate vaccine ingredients and whole vaccines. And with each new vaccine that was approved for market and required for children, parents continued to ask doctors questions they had started asking in the 1970s: is it necessary, is it safe, and can expert advice about it be trusted?


Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Sat May 25, 2019 11:46 pm

• Liza says:

Even people who avoid vaccinating because of fears of serious reactions (caused by adjuvants) don’t get it. As long as you believe (almost like a religion) that “germs” cause disease, the mfrs of vaccines and their toadies in govt will be one step ahead of you. Here’s reality: your weakness (disease) causes the “germs” to show up.

Look what we have come to: an entire society gibbering in fear that their precious little darling might somehow make contact with these invisible little things floating about. This is no more intelligent than thinking everything is magically caused by angry spirits.

But they have an answer for everything: if your child is not vaccinated because he has had a heart transplant or some other indicator of extreme fragility right from Day One and gets the illness, it’s not only because he was not vaccinated, it’s because someone else’s unvaccinated child spewed some evil humor on him (what we call germs today, I guess).

So, what’s the solution: enforced, 100% rate of vaccination.

Clever dogs!
• Tusk says:

Yes for instance there is no “aids virus”, but instead your weakness (homosexuality) causes the “germs” to appear wtihin you and afflict you with the condition.

• Replies: @Liza, @Ben Rush ... vervaxxer/

Tsk-tsk, Tusk.

The blood–testis barrier is a physical barrier between the blood vessels and the seminiferous tubules of the animal testes. The name "blood-testis barrier" is misleading in that it is not a blood-organ barrier in a strict sense, but is formed between Sertoli cells of the seminiferous tubule and as such isolates the further developed stages of germ cells from the blood. A more correct term is the "Sertoli cell barrier" (SCB). ... is_barrier

Hate to break it to you but semen in the colon (male or female) causes illness(es).

The Gay Bowel Syndrome: Clinico-Pathologic Correlation in 260 Cases

ANNALS OF CLINICAL AND LABORATORY SCIENCE, Vol. 6, No. 2 Copyright © 1976, Institute for Clinical Science


The Dr. Francis W. Baldwin Laboratories, Departments of Pathology, Surgery and Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Center of New York, New York, NY 10011


The clinical and pathological findings in a group of260 homosexual men comprising 10 percent of a private proctologic practice are reviewed. A clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency in these homosexual patients is termed the gay bowel syndrome. The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include condyloma acuminata, hemorrhoids, nonspecific proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, amebiasis, benign polyps, viral hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, shigellosis, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum.

Sixty anorectal and sigmoid biopsies from 51 patients failed to disclose evidence of specific infection other than condyloma acuminata. Of 21 patients with biopsy diagnosis of nonspecific proctitis, eight had a specific infection which was detected by other means, — five cases of shigellosis and one case each of gonorrheal proctitis, amebiasis and lymphogranuloma venereum.

In evaluating proctologic problems in the gay male, all of the known sexually transmitted diseases should be considered. Shigellosis, amebiasis and viral hepatitis should be included. Microbiological evaluation is essential. Concurrent infections with two or more pathogens should be anticipated. Chlamydia trachomatis, an important cause of nonspecific urethritis in the general population, is high on the list of possible causes of the nonspecific proctitis present in 31 of the 260 patients.

Recalling Magic Johnson’s “Dramatic” HIV Announcement, 25 Years on
amfAR Trustee Dr. Mervyn Silverman casts his mind back to a pivotal moment in the history of HIV/AIDS in America

How effective was Magic’s admission in quelling the assumption that only gay men and IV drug users were at risk of contracting the disease?

It was a wake-up call that anyone could get it. However, I’m not sure it really quelled the assumption that it was a gay disease because the overwhelming majority of people who contracted HIV were men who have sex with men.

To what extent did Magic Johnson change the perception of what living with HIV looks like?

In 1991, HIV was considered a death sentence. We didn’t know when Magic was exposed and couldn’t predict how long it would be before he developed AIDS. We figured without new or improved drugs, it would be a death sentence for him. The fact that he has looked and stayed as healthy as he has for 25 years is wonderful for him. From a public health standpoint, that has had a negative effect on our HIV prevention message. Young kids today will say, ‘What is the big deal? If I get HIV, I take some pills and I’m fine.’ Magic Johnson demonstrates the present state of HIV in America. With early diagnosis and treatment, most people can lead relatively normal lives. It also shows how much progress we have made in HIV research. Over a span of 35 years, we have gone from discovering a new disease to determining the cause, the means of spread, and how to treat it, and we’re on our way to a cure. :rolleyes:

And after 35 years of research:

Gay men: Finally, sex without fear
August 1, 2018

Have you heard of the anti-AIDS drug PrEP? Most straight people are unaware of it. In 2015, the World Health Organization said “the efficacy of oral PrEP has been shown in four randomized control trials and is high when the drug is used as directed.”

PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis) is a drug that allows you to have as much sex as you want, without a condom, and remain HIV-negative. If you use it, you probably won’t catch HIV. POZ magazine says that it has “100 per cent efficacy for those who stick to the treatment.:rolleyes:
... ... ear-100638

Isn't it marvelous?
Truvada commercial (Not HD)

full link:

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Sun May 26, 2019 3:27 am

The so called Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) that supposedly causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), formerly known as Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID), was so farfetched that it required the creation of a new subset of of virology - retrovirology.

A type of virus that uses RNA as its genetic material. After infecting a cell, a retrovirus uses an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to convert its RNA into DNA. The retrovirus then integrates its viral DNA into the DNA of the host cell, which allows the retrovirus to replicate. HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is a retrovirus. ... retrovirus
A historical reflection on the discovery of human retroviruses


The discovery of HIV-1 as the cause of AIDS was one of the major scientific achievements during the last century. Here the events leading to this discovery are reviewed with particular attention to priority and actual contributions by those involved. Since I would argue that discovering HIV was dependent on the previous discovery of the first human retrovirus HTLV-I, the history of this discovery is also re-examined. The first human retroviruses (HTLV-I) was first reported by Robert C. Gallo and coworkers in 1980 and reconfirmed by Yorio Hinuma and coworkers in 1981. These discoveries were in turn dependent on the previous ["]discovery["] by Gallo and coworkers in 1976 of interleukin 2 or T-cell growth factor as it was called then. HTLV-II was described by Gallo's group in 1982. A human retrovirus distinct from HTLV-I and HTLV-II in that it was shown to have the morphology of a lentivirus was in my mind described for the first time by Luc Montagnier in an oral presentation at Cold Spring Harbor in September of 1983. This virus was isolated from a patient with lymphadenopathy using the protocol previously described for HTLV by Gallo. The first peer reviewed paper by Montagnier's group of such a retrovirus, isolated from two siblings of whom one with AIDS, appeared in Lancet in April of 1984. However, the proof that a new human retrovirus (HIV-1) was the cause of AIDS was first established in four publications by Gallo's group in the May 4th issue of Science in 1984. ... -4690-6-40
Inventing Viruses – A Staggering Hoax
by Jon Rappoport
August 6, 2015
from JonRappoport Website


Here's another reference, which sheds much more light on what "isolation of a virus" means: Journalist Christine Johnson's interview, "Does HIV exist?" with Dr. Eleni Papadopulos,

"a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more, she [Papadopulos] and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis."

Here is a brief edited excerpt - the entire interview is published at

CJ [Christine Johnson]: Does HIV cause AIDS?

EPE [Papadopulos]: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EPE: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

…CJ: Didn't Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EPE: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients…

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EPE: Our interpretation of the data differs… To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things.

• First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus.

• Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up.

• Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself.

In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can't you just look down a microscope and say there's a virus in the cultures?

EPE: No, you can't. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

CJ: So where did AIDS research go wrong?

EPE: It's not so much a question of where the research went wrong. It's more a question of what was left out. For some unknown reason the decades-old method of retroviral isolation… developed to study animal retroviruses was not followed. Retroviruses are incredibly tiny, almost spherical particles with diameters of about one hundred nanometers (one ten-thousandth of a millimeter). Millions would fit comfortably on the head of a pin.

…CJ: What do we see in [electron microscope pictures of HIV]… published in 1997?

EPE: These photographs vindicate the position we have held ever since the beginning. Two groups, one Franco/German… and one from the US National Cancer Institute… published pictures… The first thing to say is that the authors of these studies concede that their pictures reveal that the vast majority of the material… is cellular. The authors describe all this material as "non-viral", or as "mock" virus or "microvesicles," which are encapsulated cell fragments.

CJ: Are there any viral particles in these pictures?

EPE: There are a few particles which the researchers claim are retroviral particles. In fact, they claim these are the HIV particles, but give no evidence why.

CJ: Are there lots of these HIV particles?

EPE: No…when you take an electron micrograph they [HIV particles] should fill the entire picture. Instead, these candidate retroviruses are minority constituents of the published electron micrographs. Thus, molecules extracted from these samples can not be assumed to come from those retroviral-like particles.

- end of interview excerpt -

... ... irus52.htm

We can fool ourselves and each other all we want with unproven and unprovable theories, folks. Mother Nature is immune to our follies and will never bend to our will.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri May 31, 2019 4:17 am

What is HIV testing?

HIV testing shows whether a person has HIV. HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). AIDS is the most advanced stage of HIV infection.

HIV testing can detect HIV infection, but it can’t tell how long a person has been infected with HIV or if the person has AIDS.
Why is HIV testing important?

Knowing your HIV status can help keep you—and others—safe.

If you are HIV negative:

Testing shows that you don’t have HIV. Continue taking steps to avoid getting HIV, such as using condoms during sex and, if you are at high risk of becoming infected, taking medicines to prevent HIV (called pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP). For more information, read the AIDSinfo fact sheet on HIV prevention.

If you are HIV positive:

Testing shows that you have HIV, but you can still take steps to protect your health. Begin by talking to your health care provider about antiretroviral therapy (ART). People on ART take a combination of HIV medicines every day to treat HIV infection. ART helps people with HIV live longer, healthier lives and reduces the risk of transmission of HIV. People with HIV should start ART as soon as possible. Your health care provider will help you decide which HIV medicines to take. ... iv-testing

So, if you’re at high risk of becoming infected with HIV, even if you test negative your healthcare provider may recommend PrEP as a preventative measure.

But does testing actually show that you have HIV?

How Does HIV Testing Work?

In the early stages of HIV infection, the virus itself is difficult to detect. Rather than looking for the virus, HIV testing usually involves looking at the body's reaction to the presence of the virus. The measure of the amount of virus in an individual's blood stream is called the viral load.

Antibodies are produced by the body in reaction to the presence of a virus. An HIV antibody test measures the presence of antibodies in response to the presence of HIV. The most common HIV antibody tests are ELISA (EIA) and Western Blot. These tests can now be performed on samples of oral (mouth) fluid.

What do HIV Test Results Mean?

If an HIV antibody test is negative, no antibodies were detected. A negative test can indicate that a person is not infected with HIV (s/he is HIV negative), or that s/he has been exposed but their immune system has not had time to produce antibodies. Antibodies to HIV may take up to six months to develop after the initial exposure.

A positive HIV antibody test means that the body has been exposed to HIV (and the body has produced antibodies in response to this exposure). A person with a positive HIV test will need to have further testing done to confirm this diagnosis. When a person has a positive HIV test, it does not mean that the person has AIDS or that the person will have AIDS in a certain amount of time--it only means that the person is infected with HIV.

No. The presence of HIV antibodies is the smoking gun that, a) “proves” you’ve been infected with HIV and b) necessitates you start taking ART as soon as possible to stave off AIDS.

This begs the question, What are antibodies?

Vaccine Basics - How Vaccines Work

What is Immunity?

When disease germs enter your body, they start to reproduce. Your immune system recognizes these germs as foreign invaders and responds by making proteins called antibodies. These antibodies’ first job is to help destroy the germs that are making you sick. They can’t act fast enough to prevent you from becoming sick, but by eliminating the attacking germs, antibodies help you to get well.

The antibodies’ second job is to protect you from future infections. They remain in your bloodstream, and if the same germs ever try to infect you again — even after many years — they will come to your defense. Only now that they are experienced at fighting these particular germs, they can destroy them before they have a chance to make you sick. This is immunity [?]. It is why most people get diseases like measles or chickenpox only once, even though they might be exposed many times during their lifetime.

Vaccines to the Rescue

Vaccines offer a solution to this problem. They help you develop immunity without getting sick first.

Vaccines are made from the same germs (or parts of them) that cause disease; for example, polio vaccine is made from polio virus. But the germs in vaccines are either killed or weakened so they won’t make you sick.

Vaccines containing these weakened or killed germs are introduced into your body, usually by injection. Your immune system reacts to the vaccine in a similar way that it would if it were being invaded by the disease — by making antibodies. The antibodies destroy the vaccine germs just as they would the disease germs — like a training exercise. Then they stay in your body, giving you immunity. If you are ever exposed to the real disease, the antibodies are there to protect you.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, How Vaccines Prevent Disease

I’ll leave it to you to follow the logic (or lack thereof) and draw your own conclusions.

Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by Peter » Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:15 pm

Vaccines would be the ideal tool for the next die-off. (I very much doubt this has been brought up yet but I haven't read this thread yet. Please inform if I'm rudely repeating somebody).

It seems our secret tyranny above us is largely benign, although parasitic. But suppose it felt the need for a large population reduction eg after an economic collapse. We have had two suspicious world wars and smaller genocides such as Katyn forest and Armenia.

We (meaning the masses) already accept our water being poisoned with flouride. But nobody drinks tap water any more. We accept toxins sprayed in the air for "geo engineering". We accept a small percentage of our children being brain damaged every year from vaccines.

If there was a hoax virus outbreak, eg Ebola, and hysteria whipped up, everybody would rush to be vaccinated. The masses' hysteria would enforce vaccination - "He and his children haven't been vaccinated - they are a threat to us all!". The massive death rate could come from vaccines designed as lethal poisons. But TPTB would ensure that Ebola would be blamed. It is always the "disease" that is blamed.

The Spanish flu victims of 100 years ago were given massive doses of aspirin, which was new at the time. They had massive internal bleeding and their lungs filled up with blood. The flu was blamed for the deaths. The mad cow disease was in the UK more recently. The government forced all cows, a 99% healthy stock, through a toxic chemical dip which killed many. The disease was blamed. Not necessarily conspiracies, could be mistakes. Nobody wants to admit mistakes or admit to themselves that the whole public protection policy was actually the killer. So it would be easy to hide a genocide with the virus theory.

Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by Kham » Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:37 am


Noting you haven’t read the thread and yet posting anyway seems a bit inconsiderate. Why not just browse the thread and refrain from pre-apologizing?

Anyhoo, my main question is what insight are you adding to this thread by your last post?

I don’t mean to be harsh but there is an expectation of advancing topics and adding nuggets of enlightenment with ones post, you know, keeping up standards and all.

Yours truly,


Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by Peter » Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:22 pm

Kham you are right. I do hope to read it soon and contribute, it's an interesting topic. I also knew my post would be "out there" and maybe I should have started a new thread but I believe there is relevance between it and the standard vaccine discussion.

My motivation for those thoughts were "what is the easiest and most effective way for the illuminati to achieve mass population reduction for a present crisis or for future planning?" They may not want to, it maybe a paranoid idea, but we don't know so why not analyze it anyway. A created WW3 with civilian call-up is unlikely imo. (One little interesting point is that people would say why not use nukes. The nuke hoax protects us).

I think by far the easiest way would be a population desperate to have the government inject them. And trust, with no understanding, the concoction entering their veins. A scenario we should at least be aware of, for our family's protection. And even those singing the praises of vaccines who come on this thread now or later should at least have a seed of doubt planted, which I hope I've done.

Edit: it should be noted that every few years there is a little virus hoax somewhere in the world which is covered by all media.

Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread post by Peter » Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:50 pm

Pleased to see overwhelming anti-vax here. The simplest argument (for us here and now at least) is to show that viruses don’t even exist. I just add some more arguments or points to existing arguments to those that don't believe in virus theory.

Viruses need scepticism as they are the only living entities where it is accepted (for some reason) that they exist by denying all of known science and evolution theory. They can’t reproduce but can somehow spread rapidly and they can apparently go into a dormant state for thousands of years and then re-emerge with all of their deadliness. This isn’t a hibernation state but a state where everything magically shuts down completely and then later re-activates. The much bigger (and real but not an enemy) bacteria have a cell membrane and nucleus and all that is needed for reproduction. They follow all known scientific laws and can be seen clearly in a microscope. Viruses can’t be seen, including in the “electron microscope”. All diagrams of viruses are merely artistic impression, often based on much bigger parasites.

All living things have the ability to break down and recycle useless, diseased or dead cells, but there is evolutionary reason for these agents to be from within the organism and not from a virus in the ether, a fictional separate entity with its own goals and survival.

Drug companies have always been inventing “cures” every year and in the past when a particular disease decline was underway they just attributed it to the particular vaccine that had been produced at the particular time the decline started, and got everybody to start using it. Thus the convincing graphs of vaccination introduction and disease decline. Nothing official should be taken on face value, delusion as comfort is the norm.

The “cure” is often the cause (vaccines are a cocktail of toxins and heavy metals after all). Even Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine said that the vaccinated got more polio than the un-vaccinated. His comment was disregarded as polio was declining and everybody was happy. The following two examples I touched on briefly in a recent post:

Some English cows were behaving strangely (cause unknown but probably toxins in feed or water) so panic set in about a virus and all farmers were instructed to pass cows through a dip of toxic organophosphates. The areas of the country which had resisted the “cure” (eg some herds in Scotland) remained healthy and the “cured” got “mad cow disease” (now called bovine spongiform encephalopathy). Mad cow disease was worse where there had been an outbreak of weevil fly that used to burrow into the cow’s skin and thus made them more susceptible to the toxic “cure”. AFAIK nobody wanted mad cows in the first place but there was certainly a cover up when the cause became known. Cows affected were sacrificed, then burned, and farmers compensated with loads of taxpayer money.

There was a big flu outbreak (“Spanish flu” iirc) in WW1. Returning US soldiers were put in hospital where they were injected with huge amounts of the latest wonder drug – aspirin. (Possibly the most harmless and helpful of all drugs but they hadn’t worked out the dosage back then). This caused internal bleeding which caused fluid build up in lungs which killed. Official cause of death – lung failure caused by flu.

It’s hard for most to believe that so many qualified people – virologists and the like are wrong but as I delved into this many years ago I realised that professional scientists don’t usually go back to basics. From flawed foundations grow huge edifices and nobody ever re-checks the foundations. Nobody wants their livelihood undermined and nobody wants to be the heretic.

No government conspiracies necessary here as big pharma has enough of their own. Pharmaceutical companies cover up and falsify. But maybe even more importantly history is full of delusion in the field of medical research. Far more so than any other science. It’s impossible to be objective about the self, and mass delusion and fear are even more powerful forces than company profit.

Sharpestuff and others have posted some great links. Below are some more, there is bound to be overlap with all the many links already posted.

Look up germ theory v terrain theory. When germ theory became popular the best scientists, and even the majority, were dead against it. It won because of money, millions in pharmaceutical drugs, and this bought scientists and politicians. Pasteur admitted on his death bed that “Bechamp is right, the terrain is the thing” . Pasteur’s family, generations after his death, finally released his diaries. They were published by Georgetown University and showed that he had doctored all his results. He told his family to always keep his fraud secret. (We happily drank milk for thousands of years and then suddenly thought it was filled with viruses and had to pasteurised, ie heated to high temperatures thus killing enzymes and denaturing it.)

A couple of other individuals to look up if interested:

Harold Hillman was an expert in the electron microscope and showed that the processing that samples had to undergo for viewing in 2D dramatically corrupted them and that it was just guesswork as to what you were looking at.

Stephan Lanka is a virologist who showed that HIV had never been isolated and then went on to prove that no other virus had ever been isolated either. He offered $100,000 if anybody could prove measles exists. A consortium of pharmaceutical companies sponsored a young researcher to make a claim for the prize and it went to court. Finally The German Federal Court of Justice ruled that there was no evidence that the measles virus exists. Of course a lot of apologists have tried different ways to belittle that ruling but it is in fact more profound than at first glance, not less, because the same process can show that there is no evidence for any virus. You can only get such logic and scientific method from a German court. US or UK courts would be too swayed by public opinion or government or emotion in big cases like this.

Just an aside about “flu”. I imagine many things can cause such symptoms but drug based medicine only aims to stop the symptoms. Unfortunately the symptoms in disease are part of the cure, the body’s cure. In the case of flu the coughing and sneezing are the body expelling matter and this shouldn’t be prevented. Many people that get “flu” are those who have the flu vaccine. The vaccine is advised to be given every year because people keep getting the flu despite being vaccinated. Not because the vaccine is worse than useless and can cause the symptoms but because, we are told, the virus is so crafty and keeps adapting.

Joe public assumes scientific method is behind vaccine production but I remember the anti-vaccine people couldn’t get the companies to show exactly how vaccines actually work: the mechanism; or the need for so many toxins and heavy metals. Exactly like the African witch doctor’s concoction against an evil spirit, the virus is also believed to be an evil outside entity and needs something powerful to defeat it.

Rise in vaccines correlates with rise in brain damage. Autism 1965 = 0, 2017 = 1 in 36 among boys (US). Official reason – better reporting and diagnosing. I suppose that means 50 years ago people just didn’t notice that they had brain damaged children, and the fact that in those 50 years increase in autism correlates with increase in vaccination is a co-incidence. The body has some defence from toxins ingested by mouth but much less defence from toxins injected directly into the bloodstream.

Also it has been shown that vaccines destroy large areas of the microbiome, the bacteria in our body that we symbiotically need for digestion. Official excuse – the microbiome quickly recovers. I’m not sure about that recovery as there are so many new problems. When I was a kid nobody had allergies or intolerances to things like gluten, lactose, nuts etc. Now millions do.

Some good arguments about germ theory that I came across:
https://schoolofholistichealing.wordpre ... in-theory/ ... rm-theory/

If you’re not in the mood to read here are a couple of well made documentaries on the AIDS farce. One of them won an award at the Los Angeles International Film Festival:

Woody Allen in Sleeper (1973) after being told about the evil government:
“What kind of government you guys got here? This is worse than California!”

He meant it ironically - that California was a bumbling, benign state government. However California now mandates over 90 vax for kids iirc. More by far than elsewhere.

Also in Sleeper two scientists in the year 2173 are discussing the dietary advice of the late 20th century:
"You mean there was no deep fat, no steak or cream pies or hot fudge?" asks one, incredulous. "Those were thought to be unhealthy," replies the other. "Precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true."

Well if they’re talking about animal fats they’re right. These are now known to be healthy. Not surprising really as we’ve always eaten them and the yellow veg oils put through extreme temps, pressure and chemical baths are very new.

The second quote isn’t about vax oc but it shares relevance with the first. The illuminati do make plans in advance and tell us them in fiction. Reality always resides somewhere in fiction, and pantomime resides in the news.

Post Reply