Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implications

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Posts: 2247
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Unread post by fbenario » Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:11 am

Peter » July 1st, 2019, 11:50 am wrote:Pleased to see overwhelming anti-vax here.
That might be the case for the comments in this thread, but those commenters comprise only the tiniest percentage of all readers, so please don't conclude this is an anti-vax forum. It isn't.

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

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

Unread post by ICfreely » Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:51 am

Immunization Action Coalition

Vaccine Timeline
Historic Dates and Events Related to Vaccines and Immunization

It was not too many years ago when we celebrated the 200th anniversary of Edward Jenner's first smallpox vaccination in 1796. The development of vaccines continued at a fairly slow rate until the last several decades when new scientific discoveries and technologies led to rapid advances in virology, molecular biology, and vaccinology. The chart which follows displays many of the vaccine- and immunization-related events that have occurred since Jenner's critical discovery. This list is by no means exhaustive. If you know of an event that you would like us to add, contact us at


1901 - The first Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine was awarded to Emil von Behring for his work on the development of a diphtheria antitoxin (later known as antiserum).

1901 - In St. Louis, 13 children died of tetanus-contaminated diphtheria antitoxin. In the autumn of 1901, nine children in Camden, New Jersey, died from tainted smallpox vaccine. Efforts to ensure the purity of biological treatments by government oversight followed with the Biologics Control Act of 1902.

April 5, 1902 - The Biologics Control Act was formed. It included the regulation of vaccine and antitoxin producers and required both licensing and inspections of manufacturers. The standards imposed by the 1902 Act resulted in bankruptcy for one-third of the companies manufacturing antitoxins and vaccines while benefiting the manufacturers already in compliance. Ten firms held licenses with the Laboratory of Hygiene following the 1902 Act.


Apr 12, 1955 - The first polio vaccine was licensed -- an inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) pioneered by Dr. Jonas Salk.

1955 - The Cutter polio vaccine incident began on April 25, 1955, when polio was reported in a vaccine recipient. One day later, five more cases were reported. All cases had received vaccine produced by Cutter Laboratories. Polio was reported in 94 vaccinees and in 166 close contacts of vaccinees. On April 27, the Laboratory of Biologics Control requested that Cutter Laboratories recall all vaccine and the company did so immediately. On May 7, the Surgeon General recommended that all polio vaccinations be suspended pending inspection of each manufacturing facility and thorough review of the procedures for testing vaccine safety. The investigation found that live polio virus had survived in two batches of vaccine produced by Cutter Laboratories. In 1955, as a result of the Cutter Incident, the Laboratory of Biologics Control was raised to division status within NIH, to strengthen and expand its biologics control function. Large-scale polio vaccinations resumed in the fall of 1955.

1955 - The Polio Vaccination Assistance Act was enacted by Congress, the first federal involvement in immunization activities. It allowed Congress to appropriate funds to the Communicable Disease Center (later the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to help states and local communities acquire and administer vaccine.

Potency Varies Astronomically

Dr. Cox was asked if he knew any variations in the potency of the Salk vaccine that is on the market. He replied that it varies considerably. Dr. Ratner added to this in detail: "New York State Health Department investigations reported in September, 1956, that there was a six hundredfold variation in the potency of commercial Salk vaccine on the market....Today many inoculations of Salk vaccine are needed to accomplish the same results that were claimed in 1955 with one inoculation. In the history of drug therapy there are few drugs, if any, which become progressively inferior with increasing years."

A little later, Dr. Ratner made one of the most amazing declarations of a very a very panel discussion: " To close the discussion on potency, back in May, 1957, the largest producer of Salk vaccine in the United States had several million dollars worth of vaccine on hand which did not pass the minimun potency requirements of the United States Public Health Service. Subsequently, the Division of Biological Standards reinterpreted the minimum requirements to make possible the commercial utilization of this vaccine."

The lies about polio and the Salk vaccine

1 Viruses were not the cause of polio.
2. No antibodies were a part of the polio cure.
3. Infantile paralysis and so-called polio of the 1950s were not the same disease.
4.The definition of the word virus was changed by Thomas Rivers,M.D. in the 1920s.
5.The diagnosis was changed to report less cases of polio.
6. The Cutter incident was a frame up in order to save the Salk vaccine.
7. No one has seen a "live" virus, because they don't exist except in the mind of the believers.
8. The real condition called Polio was not a common disease. It was very rare.
9. As proved by Sister Kenny, polio was just muscle spasms.
10. Dr. Cox, Basil O'Connor, Thomas Rivers, Thomas Francis Jr, Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin, and government doctors all knew of and about Sister Kenny. There was no conspiracy to deceive the ordinary doctors or the people. Yea, When Pigs Fly. ... cine..html

1986 - The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was enacted by Congress. The Department of Health and Human Services established the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), co-administered by FDA and CDC, to accept all reports of suspected adverse events, in all age groups, after the administration of any U.S.-licensed vaccine. The Act required healthcare providers and vaccine manufacturers to report to the Department of Health and Human Services specific adverse events following the administration of measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccine and any combinations thereof.

1986 - Congress created the National Vaccine Program (NVP) to coordinate the vaccine research and development programs of AID, NIH, CDC, the Department of Defense, and FDA.

The true detailed story about the founding of the National Vaccine Information Center, corroborated by Dr. Horowitz and Dr. Robert Mendelsohn prior to his death, is available on the Internet, courtesy of a Mothering Magazine contributor, pen-named “Momtezuma Tuatara.”Quoting her liberally here:

“Had the National Vaccine Information Center, (then primarily known as “Dissatisfied Parents Together”) not got into bed with the paediatric associations in order to put together the 1985 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, there would not now be totally ineffective, unfair legislation for parents to wade through, and…

Had the NVIC joined together with all the other groups at the time, in actively opposing it, and retaining for parents the right to have the tort system as first option, there would have been no incentive for vaccine manufacturers to have broadened into other vaccines. See two items at the bottom.

By tearing apart another organisation, called Determined Parents Together, and then siding with the paediatric associations, NVIC split apart the strength of the real advocates for children ~~ and by splitting them apart, gave the medical profession the grist they needed to call JS and BLF the sane moderates, and dismiss the rest as lunatic fringe hippies.

The legislation you have now, is the direct result of that collaboration.

If you read Marge Grant’s book “A Stolen Life”, that will show you how the National Vaccine Information Center started, how they disembowelled Determined Parents Together, and will give you an understanding of why/how that happened.

Dissatisfied Parents [Barbara Loe Fisher and Jeffrey Swartz] hijacked Determined Parents, on a TV programme called Vaccine Roulette” early in the 80’s, by substituting their address, for that of Determined Parents together, ~~(by telling the producer, while the head of Determined parents was live on air in the TV studio that they worked together)~~ which resulted in all Determined Parents Together’s mail being diverted to Dissatisfied Parents Together, which formed the case basis for the book called “DPT – A shot in the Dark” and the member foundation for what is now NVIC.

Dr Mendelsohn who was also live on that programme was furious about it and wrote to NVIC demanding that they return Determined Parents Together mail to them, to no avail.

This resulted in the collapse of Determined Parents together, the building of Dissatisfied parents together, who then used Jeff Swartz to liase with the paediatric organisations and work in collaboration to implement the compensation act, which they [allegedly] believed was the right move [to deprive and damage Grant, outrage Mendelsohn, and deliver the opportunity for no-liability for vaccine injuries to Big Pharma].

The NVIC support of the act was then followed by a double betrayal from the Paediatrician organisations, who, having used NVIC to suit themselves, waited until the legislation was a couple of years old, and changed the table to effectively block the majority of claims possible.

So, in summary, both the National Vaccine Information Center, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act is WHY you:

1) have so many vaccines in your schedule now, and
2) why its near impossible to get compensation for vaccine injury.

Some might say that it was naivity that lead to Jeff Schwartz and Barbara Loe Fisher going down that road, but I don’t believe it was, because I and many other parent groups, the testimony of whom can be seen in the senate proceedings, warned them what would happen, both personally and in writing.

However, NVIC had the backing of a paediatrician called Kevin Geraghty and a whole lot of medical moderates, which was all part of the attraction to the legislators.

NVIC did not have the backing of Dr Robert Mendelsohn, who copied me into his correspondence with NVIC, neither did they have the backing of any of the other parents organisations, or the other organisation then working for parents of vaccine damaged children run by Dr Anthony J. Morris, then called The Bell of Atri which was formally disbanded several years ago, but ran from the campus of Maryland University.

If you want to check some of this out, you have the right, being taxpaying citizens of the United States, to obtain a copy of senate records at no cost to yourself.

Go/ring the Library of Congress. Ask for a copy of the NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1985 : “Hearing before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources United States Senate, Ninety-Ninth congress, first session on S.827, July 18 1985.

You could also ask for another one the year before that, but I didn’t keep the whole one of that like I kept the whole 1985 one. The 1984 one had bits of more interest to the early story. I don’t know its number. I have extracts of it somewhere, but have just spent an hour trying to find them and can’t. Which is what happens when you systematically tidy, and refile key information. If I find it, I will put the number and title up.
Read that (or those), and see for yourself.

NVIC is the organisation that legislators etc will half way listen to, since they got what they wanted by using them.

Has NVIC ever been an effective advocate for parents in any real context? Only you can answer that for yourself. But NVIC is now left in a position where all they can do is splutter about a situation they don’t like, put out newsleters criticising various decisions and vaccine implementations, and ask you for money to fight the very empire they helped bring about in the first place.


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

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

Unread post by Peter » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:34 am

fbenario » July 2nd, 2019, 12:11 am wrote:That might be the case for the comments in this thread, but those commenters comprise only the tiniest percentage of all readers, so please don't conclude this is an anti-vax forum. It isn't.
Surprising. You'd think people here would be a lot more cynical of authority and higher IQ than the average.

Posts: 7018
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:45 pm

fbenario » July 2nd, 2019, 12:11 am wrote:
Peter » July 1st, 2019, 11:50 am wrote:Pleased to see overwhelming anti-vax here.
That might be the case for the comments in this thread, but those commenters comprise only the tiniest percentage of all readers, so please don't conclude this is an anti-vax forum. It isn't.
Dear Fbenario,

I have to take issue with this comment of yours.

See, by declaring that "only the tiniest percentage of all readers [are anti-vaxxers]", you are stating something that isn't even possible to quantify.

Casual readers of this forum might think that your opinion represents the majority of our readers - which I personally believe is not the case. Yet, I have no way to verify this hunch of mine - but neither have you.

So please be more careful next time. I would rather see you posting something more substantial on this delicate issue. Thanks.

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

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

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:34 am

Dear all,

Please don’t conclude this is an “anti-vax” thread. It isn’t. I don’t identify with that meaningless pejorative in any way whatsoever!

1) I didn’t become a vaccine dissident overnight.

2) I have no desire to “convert” anyone.

What I’ve attempted to do is to provide my line of reasoning; how I came to the conclusion that the only good vaccine is the one you avoid. My goal is not to arrive at a "concesus truth" but to provide perspective to the individual reader.

If my logic is flawed (which it very well may be), then I gladly invite any and everyone to point it out. I won’t take it personally. This topic is bigger than me.

That being said, I’ll leave you all with a quote from one of CF’s most prolific contributors.

Re: Why are smart people fooled
by lux on Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:57 am

Actually, I think it takes more than intelligence to see through the propaganda. It also takes courage and integrity.

An intelligent person may actually see through the propaganda but may live in denial of it as he/she lacks the courage and integrity to live with that truth.

I think this is often what is happening when a person gets angry at someone who points out the evidence of "the man behind the curtain" to them. The anger coming from a defense of their own denial. They are desperately holding onto a paradigm that they think they need to survive and anyone who demonstrates that that paradigm is invalid is viewed as a threat.



Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

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

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer » Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:13 am

Thank you ICfreely for that comment—along with an excellent quote (of a post) from our esteemed Member Lux.

I too reject the term “anti-vaxer,” though my position on the matter should be clear enough to our readers. I’ve made no secret that I find such toxins to be an institutionally enforced plague on humanity.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread (amongst others of course).

Hope all my friends here at CF are doing well. I’m still around—just very busy.

I do keep an eye on the place though. :)

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

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

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:00 pm

“By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, … and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions”
-Paul Kivel (You Call this a Democracy? Who Benefits, who Pays and who Really Decides?)

Case in point: Sleazy anti-vax philanthropists

This New York Couple Has Donated Millions to Museums — And the Anti-Vax Movement
Bernard and Lisa Selz have contributed more than $3 million in recent years to the anti-vax movement. They’ve also given millions to institutions like the Frick Collection, the Brooklyn Museum, the Dallas Art Museum, and the World Monuments Fund.

Zachary Small
June 19, 2019

What connects the Brooklyn Museum and other art institutions to the ongoing measles outbreak, which has surged to its highest point in nearly three decades with more than 1,000 documented cases this year? A name.

An investigation by the Washington Post claims that Lisa and Bernard Selz have contributed more than $3 million in recent years to organizations that ["]empower["] the anti-vaccine movement through online and live events. The couple is also a fixture of the art philanthropy circuit. Bernard Selz is currently a trustee for the Frick Collection; previously, he served on the Walters Art Museum’s board from 2011–2017. At the Brooklyn Museum, an endowed senior curatorial position in Asian art is named after the couple and is currently held by the art historian Joan Cummins. Columbia University has a professorship for Medieval art under the couple’s name, which is currently held emeritus by Stephen Murray. This is the second position at the university endowed by the Selzes. In 2002, Esther Pasztory became the Lisa and Bernard Selz Professor in Pre-Columbian Art.

According to the publication Inside Philanthropy, the Selzes have given substantial donations through their foundation to cultural institutions including the Dallas Museum of Art, the National Museum of the American Indian, the Penn Museum of Archeology and Anthropology, the American Classical Orchestra, the Jacob Burns Film Center, and Montana’s Livingston Center for Art and Culture.

Public records also indicate that the family gave over $4.75 million to the World Monuments Fund since 2003, an organization dedicated to the preservation of historic architecture and cultural heritage sites. Bernard Selz currently sits on that organization’s board of trustees; he is also on the director’s council of New York University’s Institute for the Study of the Ancient World.

Alongside their financial support for the arts community, the Selzes have used their wealth to bolster a handful of determined individuals who have played an outsized role in disseminating misinformation about vaccines and the diseases they prevent.

The epicenter of the measles outbreak is only miles away from the Brooklyn Museum in the Hasidic-Jewish neighborhood of Williamsburg. There, the chief executive of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) has headlined forums advocating against vaccinations. The Selz Foundation has provided the organization with roughly three-fourths of its funding, and Lisa Selz serves as the group’s president. The public face of ICAN, however, is Del Bigtree, a former daytime television show producer.

“They should be allowed to have the measles if they want the measles,” Bigtree told reporters outside of a Brooklyn meeting earlier this month. “It’s crazy that there’s this level of intensity around a trivial childhood illness.”

According to tax filings obtained by the Washington Post, the Selz Foundation contributed over $1 million to ICAN. The organization also works closely with other anti-vaccination groups like the Children’s Health Defense (run by John F. Kennedy Jr. [Robert, not John], a nephew of the late president) and the National Vaccine Information Center (a Virginia-based nonprofit led by a woman named Barbara Loe Fisher). The three organizations often work together, appearing at the same panels and hosting livestream broadcasts together.

Posts: 7018
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:59 am

I didn't realize until recently that the (now seemingly exploding) public vaccine debate in the USA has been raging for so many years. This highly knowledgeable lady, for instance, has been at it since the year 2000. I strongly recommend everyone to listen at what she has to say. 15 minutes well spent, I can assure you :

Dr. Sherri J Tenpenny warns about the perils of vaccination

full link:

If you have more time on your hands, here's a longer presentation by an equally knowledgeable (and honest-sounding) doctor - which delves deeper into the multi-billion$ vaccine industry, its questionable ethics and its apparent, very worrisome agenda:

Mercury, Autism & the Global Vaccine Agenda - Dr. David Ayoub Lecture

full link:

This comment posted 3 months ago under another YT video (of a 2008 TV debate) hopefully reflects the sentiment of most thoughtful and well-informed people on this planet :

"It's truly game over. They cannot recover. We have reached critical mass and there is barely a single parent I know who does not question the vaccine program. Their desperation is showing and now will try to vaccinate by force against our will. That is when the game will be over. Not a single parent would back down from thugs trying to inject your baby no matter what law they enact. This is when the corrupt and evil controllers will be unmasked and public trust will be a thing of the past. This is a very critical time for the schmucks that control everything."

But of course, some people may prefer to trust the words of Bill Gates...

full link:

At 0:53 we can hear Bill saying: "There are 6million kids a year still dying". One wonders where Bill got that "6million" figure from... it sounds kinda familiar. Who writes this stuff?

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

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

Unread post by ICfreely » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:33 am

Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere

Defining Life: The Virus Viewpoint
Patrick Forterre

Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2010 Apr; 40(2): 151–160.
Published online 2010 Mar 3. doi: 10.1007/s11084-010-9194-1

The Nature of Viruses

The question, “are viruses alive?” is typically a philosophical question, meaning that it is our choice to decide if viruses are living entities or not. For a growing number of evolutionists and virologists, viruses should definitely be considered as living entities since they exhibit all features typical of terrestrial life: they are made of the same macromolecules as cells from archaea, bacteria or eukarya, and they have co-evolved with members of these three domains according to the scheme of Darwinian evolution. Amazingly, the recent discovery that the virion factory of the mimivirus can be infected by another virus (sputnick) has also been taken as an argument in favor of the living nature of viruses (only living organisms can become ill) (La Scola et al. 2008; Pearson 2008). Finally, considering viruses themselves as cellular organisms reconciles the idea that viruses are living with the classical definition of living organisms as cellular organisms (Lwoff 1967). To take into account the idea that viruses represent a bona fide form of life, Didier Raoult and myself have recently proposed to divide the living world into two major groups of organisms, :puke: ribosome encoding-organisms (the descendants of LUCA, archaea, bacteria and eukarya) and capsid-encoding organisms (the viruses) (Raoult and Forterre 2008).

What is Life?

Although the definitions of life have evolved continuously depending on the progress of our knowledge in biology, this is clearly not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. Definitions of life have always been based at a given time on the philosophical background of scientists as well as the scientific background of philosophers. As a consequence, the answer to the question, “what is life?” will always be given in a particular philosophical framework. Personally, although dialectic materialism is now out of fashion for historical and political reasons, I like the definition of life proposed in the 19th century by Frederich Engels in his posthumous book Dialectics of Nature. For Engels, “life is the mode of existence of albuminoïd bodies” (Engels 1883). At the time of Engels, it was a prescient insight to focus the definition of life on proteins (albuminoïds), considering that the real nature, diversity and role of proteins were then practically unknown. At first sights, a modern version of this definition could be: “life is the mode of existence of informational macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids)”…

So if the question, “are viruses alive?” is indeed a philosophical question, then:

1) Why can’t we have a right to our own opinions?

2) What was the whole "live-virus" (Sabin) versus "killed-virus" (Salk) polio vaccine controversy about in the 1950’s?

3) Should we chalk it up to more “prescient insight” when “Louis Pasteur and Edward Jenner developed the first vaccines to protect against viral infections, they did not know that viruses existed”?

BTW, the so called discovery of “sputnick” was considered to be amazing because it opened up a new path to manufacturing vaccines. You see, if we can mimic “sputnick” (by means of nanotechnology) then we can kill the “viruses” that are trying to kill us. Problem solved!

So by all means, dearest reader, rush to your local Wal-Mart. ... ts/1228302

After all, it’s all about getting “immunity,” right?

The Tribe Has Spoken Survivor Supercut

full link:

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

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

Unread post by ICfreely » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:02 am

simonshack wrote:At 0:53 we can hear Bill saying: "There are 6million kids a year still dying". One wonders where Bill got that "6million" figure from... it sounds kinda familiar. Who writes this stuff?

Let's look to the stars, Simon, and see what we can divinate, shall we?

Bill Gates Clarifies The Issue Of Overpopulation

During a Q&A at TED, philanthropist Bill Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was asked if his charity, by saving millions from dying of malaria and other diseases, is contributing to the problem of overpopulation in the world.

He was grateful to get the question, since it allowed him to clarify the very issue he started out with himself.

“This is a very important question to get right because it was absolutely key for me. When our Foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health. That was the main thing we did because I thought population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face. You’ve got to help mothers who want to limit family size have the tools and education to do that. That’s the only thing that really counts. Well then I came across articles that showed that the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health. And that sounds paradoxical. You think, ‘OK, better health means more kids not less kids.’

“Well in fact, what parents are doing is they’re trying to have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them. And so, the more disease burden that there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability. So there’s a perfect correlation that as you improve health, within a half generation the population growth rate goes down. In fact Hans Rosling, here at this conference, in two of my favorite speeches, actually showed that unbelievable correlation that population growth has gone down. Today, where is there high population growth? It’s in the places with the worst health conditions – northern Nigeria, northern India. And so the two problems go exactly hand in hand. If we improve health rapidly we will get the peak population to be as much as a billion below the current expected peak. That is about 8.3 billion versus 9.3.”

See the complete Q&A here.
Copyright © 2010 Look to the Stars ... population

He based a multi-billion dollar campaign on some articles that he just happened to come across? Does that make any sense?

Did Bill Gates Admit Vaccinations Are Designed So Governments Can Depopulate the World?
The computer magnate believes that vaccines can be used to reduce childhood mortality and ultimately reduce population growth through associated social changes, not as an agent of death.
Alex Kasprak
Published 10 March 2017


Bill Gates has openly admitted that vaccinations are designed so that governments can depopulate the world.




On 21 January 2016, dubious news and conspiracy theory site published a story with the headline “Bill Gates Admits ‘Vaccines Are Best Way To Depopulate’”. The article opens with a damning claim:
Bill Gates has openly admitted that vaccinations are designed so that governments can depopulate the world.
To support this claim, the site presented a February 2011 clip of Bill Gates being interviewed by CNN’s Sanjay Gupta about his foundation’s vaccination efforts:
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Ten billion dollars over the next 10 years to make it “the year of the vaccines.” What does that mean exactly?
Bill Gates: Over this decade, we believe unbelievable progress can be made, in both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get out to all the children who need them. […] we only need about six or seven more — and then you would have all the tools to reduce childhood death, reduce population growth, and everything — the stability, the environment — benefits from that.
To make sure the point was not lost on the reader, YNW repeated the “reduce population growth”, emphasized above, numerous times at a variety of different playback speeds, as if to suggest this was a slip of the tongue revealing some nefarious secret. This narrative is reinforced with another video that opens with this text:
Next are two short excerpts from a recently filmed TED presentation (Feb 2010) by none other than Bill “Microsoft” Gates. […] As Gates casually addresses the issue [of reducing carbon emissions], he goes on to state that one way to accomplish this goal is to reduce the global human population.
In the first clip you will hear him state in plain language that he considers VACCINES to be desirable to that end. You will also casually hear him promoting HEALTH CARE and REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, to accomplish that same goal.
In the second excerpt you will hear Gates again confirming his profound affection for vaccines.
The damming moment, according to, was the following statement from Gates:
First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent […].
The suggestion, hinted at by both of these clips and argued later in the article, is that Gates knows vaccines are dangerous — and he is using this information to kill children in the developing world to stem population growth. In reality, however, Gates’ statements regarding vaccines and population growth were neither an accidental slip nor a nefarious admission of plans for a new world order.
As discussed in a 21 November 2011 Forbes cover story profiling the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, reducing population growth has always been integral to their stated mission of “improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty”:
In 1997, when he and Melinda first ventured into public health […] they focused on birth control, funding a Johns Hopkins effort to use computers to help women in the developing world learn about contraception. The logic was crisp and Bill Gates-friendly. Health = resources ÷ people. And since resources, as Gates noted, are relatively fixed, the answer lay in population control.
As further discussed in this piece, Gates later came to the conclusion that birth control was not the best approach to achieve the goal of slower population growth, instead realizing that — counterintuitively — a reduction in childhood mortality was the best way to limit population growth:
In society after society, he saw, when the mortality rate falls—specifically, below 10 deaths per 1,000 people—the birth rate follows, and population growth stabilizes. “It goes against common sense,” Gates says. Most parents don’t choose to have eight children because they want to have big families, it turns out, but because they know many of their children will die.
“If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size,” says Melinda.
This is a point Gates has made repeatedly, and his views were clearly articulated in the 2009 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Annual Letter:
A surprising but critical fact we learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. […] Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many kids can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children.
In other words, Gates is not interested in using vaccines to reduce the population by using them as an agent of death or a tool to sterilize unsuspecting masses. Rather, Gates is interested in keeping more children alive in order to reduce the need for parents to have more children, thus limiting the overall population growth rate.
As evidenced in a 2014 paper in Science that attempted to calculate future population growth, not everyone is convinced childhood mortality is the smoking gun to quell population growth:
Among the most robust empirical findings in the literature on fertility transitions are that higher contraceptive use and higher female education are associated with faster fertility decline. These suggest that the projected rapid population growth could be moderated by greater investments in family planning programs to satisfy the unmet need for contraception and in girls’ education.
But Gates’ view on childhood mortality contribution to population growth is increasingly discussed in the scientific literature and is still subject to debate. What is not up to debate are the intentions of the Bill and Melinda Gate’s Foundation with regard to vaccines and population growth, as articulated by Bill and Melinda Gates in their Foundation’s 2017 Annual Letter:
Melinda: Saving children’s lives is the goal that launched our global work. It’s an end in itself. But then we learned it has all these other benefits as well. If parents believe their children will survive—and if they have the power to time and space their pregnancies—they choose to have fewer children.
Bill: When a mother can choose how many children to have, her children are healthier, they’re better nourished, their mental capacities are higher—and parents have more time and money to spend on each child’s health and schooling. That’s how families and countries get out of poverty. This link between saving lives, a lower birthrate, and ending poverty was the most important early lesson Melinda and I learned about global health.
This is obviously a far cry from, as puts it, having Bill Gates tell us “how we must all consent to a ‘kill the humans’ strategy, to ‘save the planet’ from the carbon dioxide we make.” ... opulation/

In the first clip you will hear him state in plain language that he considers VACCINES to be desirable to that end. You will also casually hear him promoting HEALTH CARE and REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, to accomplish that same goal.


In society after society, he saw, when the mortality rate falls—specifically, below 10 deaths per 1,000 people—the birth rate follows, and population growth stabilizes. “It goes against common sense,” Gates says.

It sure does!

SIDS or Vaccine Induced Death? What Does the Evidence Say?
Posted on September 26, 2017 by Truth Snitch

In 2011, Neil Miller and Gary Goldman published a study, (using the 2009 infant mortality data) in which they researched this phenomenon. One health policy in particular that differs among developed countries is the child immunization schedule. The US vaccination schedule requires more vaccines before age 1 than any other country. This correlation certainly calls for research which is exactly what Miller and Goldman set out to do. The Miller/Goldman study compared the data and concluded, “…nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.”

How exactly are babies in the US dying?

We know that babies in the US are dying, but what are they dying of? According to the CDC the third leading cause of infant death is SIDS. This 2005 study in Pediatrics states, “Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) makes up the largest component of sudden unexpected infant death in the United States.” This shouldn’t come as a surprise to most of us. Odds are, you know someone or have heard of someone who had a beautiful, perfectly healthy baby that tragically and suddenly died for a completely unexplainable reason. Those types of stories didn’t use to be very common, but these days we are hearing this heartbreaking tale far too often.

The National Institutes of Health defines SIDS as, “the sudden, unexplained death of a baby younger than 1 year of age that doesn’t have a known cause even after a complete investigation. This investigation includes performing a complete autopsy, examining the death scene, and reviewing the clinical history.” The NIH SIDS fast fact page includes, “Most SIDS deaths occur in babies between 1 month and 4 months of age.”

What you might NOT know, is that prior to 1969, the term “SIDS” didn’t even exist. As a matter of fact, the term wasn’t coined until 1969 in response to rising unexplainable infant death. According to the Miller/Goldman study, prior to the advent of the national immunization campaign in the 60’s, what was then referred to as “crib death” was so infrequent that it wasn’t even listed in the infant mortality statistics. Referring to the national immunization campaign in the 60’s Miller/Goldman write, “For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines…In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD (international classification of diseases.)”

How did the government/pediatric medical community respond to exploding SIDS rates?

Miller/Goldman explain that, “In 1992, to address the unacceptable SIDS rate, the American Academy of Pediatrics initiated a ‘Back to Sleep’ campaign, convincing parents to place their infants supine, rather than prone, during sleep.”

All women who have become mothers since the 90’s know all about this. We are told relentlessly not to co-sleep, to ALWAYS place babies on their backs to sleep, remove all blankets and toys from cribs, no more crib bumpers, etc. But, have all of these precautions decreased infant mortality from SIDS? The CDC tells us that it has decreased the SIDS rate dramatically. Here is the CDC graph touting the success of the “Back to Sleep” campaign. It certainly appears effective.

Did SIDS rates really fall or are these statistics smoke and mirrors?

Unfortunately, a closer examination reveals that these CDC statistics are a blatant attempt to mislead the public through reclassification of deaths. Infant deaths that would have been categorized as SIDS prior to the Back to Sleep campaign began being classified in new categories, leading to the false public perception that unexplained infant mortality was actually decreasing.

This 2005 study in Pediatrics revealed, “ …for the period from 1999 to 2001 there was no significant change in the overall postneonatal mortality rate, whereas the postnatal SIDS rate declined by 17.4%. Concurrent increases in postneonatal mortality rates for unknown and unspecified causes and suffocation account for 90% of the decrease in the SIDS rate between 1999 and 2001.”

The CDC is clearly engaging in very manipulative and misleading behavior. The Miller/Goldman study includes this graph depicting the data. Notice that the overall infant mortality rate from 99-01 is relatively constant. Only the reported SIDS deaths decline, because they are being re-categorized. [HMMMM... WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THIS BEFORE?}

What does the CDC say about SIDS and vaccination?

The official CDC statement reads, “Babies receive many vaccines when they are between 2 to 4 months old. This age range is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), or infant death that cannot be explained. The timing of the 2 month and 4 month shots and SIDS has led some people to question whether they might be related. However, studies have found that vaccines do not cause and are not linked to SIDS.”

The CDC provides reviews of these studies, but upon examination a disturbing trend emerges. Many of the reviewers seem to have a conflict of interest. For example, in this report, reviewer Gina T. Mootrey works for the CDC Vaccine and Development Branch; in this study, two reviewers- Thea K. Fischer and Katrin S. Kohl, work for the CDC; this Immunization Safety Review conducted by the Institutes of Medicine states in its introduction, “Support for this project was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…” Conflict of interest = unreliable conclusions.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

Despite CDC efforts to trivialize the obvious correlation between the heavy handed US infant immunization schedule (primarily at the 2 and 4 month mark) and the corresponding spike of “totally unexplainable” infant deaths ruled as “SIDS” in the exact same months, the evidence is clear. In my opinion and (more importantly) in the opinions of numerous doctors and scientists, the CDC’s attempt to sell the concept of “correlation does not indicate causation” has fallen flat. Renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock sums up the CDC/vaccine/SIDS relationship perfectly in his preface to Neil Miller’s book “Vaccine Safety Manual,” “In order to avoid admitting that the sudden stoppage of breathing by a baby within hours to weeks of these vaccines was due to the vaccines, the vaccine defender merely created a new disease a gave it the incredible name of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which is like naming it the ‘Baby Mysteriously Die of Anything but a Vaccine Injury Syndrome’ (BMDAVIS).” ... pjWKE.dpbs

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

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

Unread post by ICfreely » Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:52 am

[Scott] Kelly accepted the apology but also stressed how dangerous it is to feed conspiracy theories :ph34r: , even low-level or silly ones. Doing so can undermine confidence in science as a whole, with potentially disastrous consequences :ph34r: , he said.

"What happens is, then, when people believe those things [e.g., the moon-hoax conspiracy], they believe the other things that are more important, like climate change not being real, and vaccines [causing autism], and 9/11 being a government conspiracy theory," Kelly said.

Precision Immunization: NASA Studies Immune Response to Flu Vaccine in Space and on Earth
Dec. 22, 2015

Every year, as influenza season – and flu shot season—rolls around, medical experts weigh in on just how effective it will be against that year’s particular strain. What if that equation could take into account a person’s own immune response? Emmanuel Mignot, M.D., Ph.D., known for discovering that narcolepsy is related to the immune system, is taking advantage of a unique opportunity to investigate how the immune systems of twin astronauts Scott and Mark Kelly respond to the seasonal flu vaccine.

Mignot is conducting his research as an investigator for NASA’s Twins Study. NASA’s Human Research Program is studying many aspects of Scott Kelly’s health during his one-year space flight mission, with the unique advantage of also studying his identical twin brother, Mark, on Earth. It will help determine how the immune system changes during space flight, and how to possibly counterbalance the changes for a journey to Mars, perhaps through the use of vaccinations.

On the International Space Station, Scott is exposed to fewer and different pathogens than Mark over the course of the year. Exposure to bugs, bacteria and viruses on Earth causes the body to produce more T-cells, which protect us from infection. These immune cells patrol blood and tissues in the body looking for invaders :ph34r: , and due to previous exposures, are prepared to attack. This process strengthens the immune system.

Mignot plans to study as many T-cells as possible and envisions a day when a flu vaccine will be tailored to a person’s genetic and “bug” makeup :rolleyes: by removing the components of the vaccine which cause ["]side["] effects and reactions of those who may be genetically predisposed.

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 Jul 17, 2019 12:12 pm

Jonas Salk Stopped Polio With The First Safe Vaccine
SCOTT S. SMITH 7/16/2015

Jonas Salk stopped polio cold with the first effective vaccine. In 1954, cases numbered 38,968 and the public feared the paralyzing disease more than anything except nuclear war.


More Avenues

By 1962, the cheaper cost and easier use of the oral version had made it more popular in the U.S., too.

"Salk brought the polio caseload down to 1,000, and it took Sabin to carry the baton the rest of the way," wrote Kluger. "Or so it seemed. The Salk vaccine had only been in use for seven years before Sabin's was introduced and was on a glide path. ... (But) the biggest misgiving about the live formulation (that it risked causing polio) appeared to be well-founded."

Salk decided to think bigger. In 1962 he opened the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., rallying top researchers to see what would result from the collaboration. Among them were five who received or would land the Nobel Prize, including the co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, and leading nuclear physicist Leo Szilard.

Salk started projects to find cures for cancer, multiple sclerosis and influenza, but wasn't able to raise sufficient funds to finish them.

He also found that he wasn't a solid manager of day-to-day operations, preferring to cede control while he did research. Financial problems led to his ouster in 1984.

His attention was soon captured by the epidemic of AIDS, which by the end of 1985 had been contracted by 23,000 Americans, 11,000 of whom had died.

One of the world's top AIDS researchers, American Robert Gallo, visited Salk to seek his advice. Salk found himself mediating a dispute between Gallo and Frenchman Luc Montagnier over who had discovered the AIDS virus.

In April 1987, after two years of negotiation, President Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac announced that Gallo and Montagnier would be recognized as co-discoverers, with joint ownership of the blood-test patent.

Eight years later, Salk died at 80.

In 2014, Robert Redford, who had a mild case of polio as a child, released a documentary on the Salk Institute, still a premier medical and scientific research center. ... io-threat/
New cancer ‘vaccine’ helps immune system find, kill disease

"We inject one tumor and we see all of the other tumors just melt away."
Stephen Johnson
11 April, 2019
In 2018, James Allison and Tasuku Honjo won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their innovative work in developing immunotherapy treatments and for bringing them closer to mainstream acceptance and study.

"Allison's and Honjo's discoveries have added a new pillar in cancer therapy. It represents a completely new principle, because unlike previous strategies, it is not based on targeting the cancer cells, but rather the brakes — the checkpoints — of the host immune system," Klas Kärre, a member of the Nobel Committee and an immunologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, said in a statement. "The seminal discoveries by the two laureates constitutes a paradigmatic shift and a landmark in the fight against cancer."

There are multiple types of immunotherapy. The one Kärre describes here is called checkpoint blockade, the approach that put former President Jimmy Carter's melanoma in remission in 2015…
This new app helps you talk to the vaccine skeptic in your life
One in five Americans disagree with a family member or friend about vaccines, according to a survey by the health website Verywell. Its new choose-your-own-adventure tool could help facilitate those tricky conversations.
By Katharine Schwab

Could a conversation really convince someone whose mind is already made up? Maybe not. During the development process, Verywell’s content director, Brett Spiegel, spoke with a few people who are against vaccines, and he reports that the discussion instantly became heated. “You can’t speak to extreme people who’ve already made up their minds—they’re so aggressively against vaccination that there’s really not talking to them,” he says. “That opened up [the question of] where we could actually make change. We knew there were parents struggling with this decision, because they were misinformed or they were scared their child would have an adverse reaction. They needed more education.”

The site’s team determined that their biggest opportunity to change a skeptic’s mind was around what they call the “point of concern”—when someone initially starts pondering whether they should seek medical care or not. “This point of concern dictates whether they get to the point of care,” says Parisi. “If you’re not having successful conversations with someone about vaccines, you’re not going to get to the point of care.”

Spiegel wrote the app’s conversation script with the advice of multiple medical professionals, including board-certified psychiatrist Steven Gans, who is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Richard Fogoros, Verywell’s senior medical adviser. The decision to format it like a texting conversation was meant to broaden its accessibility to Verywell’s heavily mobile audience. The design, combined with the clever way the tool guides users through a mock conversation, has led to about one-third of users completing the interaction.

Verywell is working on more editions of its Healthy Conversations tool, focused on other difficult conversations people might encounter regarding their health and the health of their loved ones. Right now, the team is developing guides for how to discuss a cancer diagnosis, how to talk to your aging parents about assisted living, and why health insurance is important. ... p-can-help

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

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

Unread post by ICfreely » Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:33 pm

“You can’t speak to extreme people [VACCINE DISSIDENTS] who’ve already [done their research and] made up their minds—they’re so aggressively against vaccination that there’s really not talking to them,”
-Brett Spiegel

I stand guilty as charged! :)

The zombie apocalypse is nigh
By Laura Faye Tenenbaum
April 2, 2014, 10:31 PDT

Gavin Schmidt, a colleague of mine at NASA, was interviewed about the severity of climate change on an episode of HBO’s "Vice" that also covered the topic of Greenland’s melting ice sheet.

“If we don’t cut carbon emissions by 80 percent,” Schmidt said, “we’re talking about a scenario where sea level rise is accelerating.” He went on to point out that, “our emissions are going up, not down.”

HBO’s "Vice" is [anything but] honest and raw, which is the exception, not the norm. Hard-hitting, accurate information about the actual severity of the climate problem is practically non-existent in the media.

The program scared me :ph34r: , and part of me wishes that the rest of society would finally get alarmed about climate change, too, if only it would help move us towards action. Yet I wonder how many people even managed to view this show.

Like many climate scientists and climate science communicators must feel, I’m sick with frustration. I want to shout, “Hey, people of Earth, pay attention! We have collectively changed the planet; it’s a done deal!"

But I also wonder if having another fear over which to get freaked out is what our society needs. We’re so copiously plastered with gun violence and war that the term “prepper” was recently coined to refer to people preparing for Doomsday. (No wonder zombie apocalypse is the new black. :huh: ) So climate change gets thrown on the heap with pandemics and nuclear annihilations, and we all scoff, “whatever.”

On top of all that, people I know are freaking out over bankruptcy, foreclosure and barely making their rent. How dare I tell them that their personal economic crisis is less dire, less real than the global crisis of climate change?

Last week I presented and organized ClimatePalooza :wacko: 2014, a collaboration between NASA’s JPL and USC’s Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism that hopes to foster conversation about climate change. We purposely tried to make the event sound less frightening and more inviting. We had music and comedy sketches lined up alongside science talks, booths and discussions about taking action. Yet I question this more light-hearted approach as much as I question a fear-based one.

Climate change is upon us, and it's happening now. The time for debates and fun times has passed. <_<

When creating a message, it’s exhausting trying to find a balance and getting viewers to pay attention without scaring them away. It’s exhausting trying to make a difference. I already have a fuel-efficient vehicle and solar panels, I already write for a climate change website. I walk more, buy local, compost. What more can a person do by themselves? I know we all individually and collectively could be doing more. What do you think?

As always, I look forward to reading your comments.


I think stupid is the new smart. Keep organizing and "raising awareness", Laura.

'Zombie' viruses and long dead diseases being revived due to climate change
Humans would not be able to fight the giant viruses which have been frozen for tens of thousands of years, scientists warn
By Matt Roper
10:00, 30 MAR 2019 ... s-14194384

Good Lord. :rolleyes:

MIT Technology Review

Lessons from a genocide can prepare humanity for climate apocalypse
The bad news is that our slow-motion ecological catastrophe demands new ways of thinking. The good news? We’ve faced the end of the world before.
by Roy Scranton
Apr 24, 2019

The :ph34r: fantasy version of apocalypse always begins with the longawaited event—a missile launch, escaped virus, zombie outbreak—and moves swiftly through collapse into a new, steady state. Something happens, and the morning after you’re pushing a squeaking shopping cart down a highway littered with abandoned Teslas, sawed-off shotgun at the ready. The event is key: it’s a baptism, a fiery sword separating past and present, the origin story of Future You.

When cultures collapse
Poets, thinkers, and scholars have pondered cultural catastrophe again and again. The ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh tells the story of humans surviving civilizational collapse caused by ecological transformation: Gilgamesh “brought back wisdom from before the flood.” Virgil’s Aeneid tells of not only the fall of Troy but also the survival of the Trojans. Several books of the Torah tell how the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Jewish people, destroyed their temple, and exiled them. That story provided later generations with a powerful model of cultural endurance.

We must go on

Nevertheless, the fact that our situation offers no good prospects does not absolve us of the obligation to find a way forward. Our apocalypse is happening day by day, and our greatest challenge is learning to live with this truth while remaining committed to some as-yet-unimaginable form of future human flourishing—to live with radical hope. Despite decades of failure, a disheartening track record, ongoing paralysis, a social order geared toward consumption and distraction, and the strong possibility that our great-grandchildren may be the last generation of humans ever to live on planet Earth :ph34r: , we must go on. We have no choice. ... pocalypse/

A culture vulture by any other name...

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

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

Unread post by ICfreely » Sat Jul 20, 2019 5:44 pm

Avian flu virus H5N1: No proof for existence, pathogenicity, or pandemic potential; non-‘‘H5N1’’ causation omitted

Medical Hypotheses 66(4):855-7 • February 2006 with 77 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2005.11.007 • Source: PubMed

WHO, CDC, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) claim that H5N1 (avian flu virus) is ‘‘highly contagious’’. Further, Reinhard Kurth, president of RKI, says that H5N1 ‘‘threatens potentially all six billion people on earth’’. [Oh my G-d. That’s like a thousand times… With a capital H!] We identified four fundamental questions underlying these claims and requested supporting studies from FLI (which according to the German Government ‘‘possesses virus isolates of H5N1’’):

1. Does H5N1 exist?

2. Is it pathogenic to animals?

3. Is it transmissible and pathogenic to humans, and does it have pandemic potential?

4. Have other causes for observed disease been studied?

FLI responded with four papers: PNAS [1], Science [2], J Virol [3] directed towards questions 1 and 2; EID [4] towards question 3; PNAS [1] towards question 4.

Question 1 (existence). FLI responded with, ‘‘H5N1/asia virus can be produced completely in vitro by using reverse genetics. The virus generated this way, also called infectious clone, cannot contain contaminants from sick animals’’ [translated from German]. However, PCR cannot be used to identify viruses which have not been previously sequenced [5].

The PNAS paper (as the others) does not show or reference the composition of the stock virus – nor does Subbarao et al. (referenced by the EID paper), which claims first characterization of H5N1 disease in a human in 1997 [6]. Though the EID study failed to detect ‘‘H5N1’’ in several of the diseased organs, this anomaly was labelled an ‘‘enigma’’, rather than a ‘‘contradiction’’.

Robert Webster, corresponding author of the PNAS paper and Director of WHO’s Collaborating Center for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza in Animals and Birds, informed us that stock viruses ‘‘are classified as select agents’’ and ‘‘we are not at liberty to release this information’’. Without verification, and without purification described in any of these papers, we cannot accept that stock virus is pure and fully characterized. [Not surprisingly] Inquiries for clarification to Webster, CDC Select Agents Program, and FLI received no response.

Question 2 (animal pathogenicity). Papers describe the use of natural routes, but disease was only achieved with extraordinary concentrations, up to 10 million EID per animal. None of the experiments used controls or blinding. The Science paper is highly abstract molecular science, employing elevated concentrations of chimeric variants.

Question 3 (human pathogenicity and pandemic potential). The EID paper is an anecdotal report of a 6-year-old boy from Thailand with severe multi-organ disease. No evidence was given for transmissibility to humans. The scientists found evidence of aspergillosis, and the boy was treated with toxic agents (broad-spectrum antimicrobial and antivirals) before he died.

Subbarao et al. (referenced by the EID paper), describes a previously healthy 3-year-old Hong Kong boy who developed flu-like symptoms in May 9, 1997, and was treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics and salicylic acid, though this is commonly contraindicated. He developed Reye’s Syndrome and died eleven days later [7]. A search commenced for causation within a limited range of flu viruses. H5N1 was claimed causative, even though coronaviruses, flaviviruses, enteroviruses, other pathogens and chemicals can also cause flu symptoms. There was no confirmation of prior avian contact. Regardless, warnings of an ‘‘explosive pandemic’’ appeared in this early document, though FLI conceded: ‘‘There is no scientific forecasting method that can evaluate the possibility that an influenza virus induces a new pandemic.’’

Question 4 (non-‘‘H5N1’’ causation). Neither the Subbarao et al study nor the FLI references consider reasonable, competing theories for disease causation, e.g., environmental and pharmaceutical factors.

Our analysis shows the papers do not satisfy our four basic questions. Claims of H5N1 pathogenicity and pandemic potential need to be challenged further.


David Crowe
Torsten Engelbrecht
Freelancer, Hein-Hoyer-Strasse 60,
20359 Hamburg, Germany
Tel.: +49 40 42103378 (T. Engelbrecht)
E-mail address:
(T. Engelbrecht) ... Hypotheses ... on_omitted

Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

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

Unread post by pov603 » Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:13 am

Could a conversation really convince someone whose mind is already made up? Maybe not. During the development process, Verywell’s content director, Brett Spiegel, spoke with a few people who are against conspiracy theories, and he reports that the discussion instantly became heated. “You can’t speak to extreme people who’ve already made up their minds—they’re so aggressively against conspiracy theories that there’s really not talking to them,” he says. “That opened up [the question of] where we could actually make change. We knew there were parents struggling with this decision, because they were misinformed or they were scared their child would have an adverse reaction. They needed more education.”
Just taking the quote from ICfreely’s earlier post, it never ceases to amuse/amaze me how, if the rhetoric was reversed (as in the bold/italic/underline above), TPTB would be gleefully all over it saying how entrenched and dogmatic “we” were about an “unprovable” issue.

Edit: typo

Post Reply