Gov. Caught Lying About Vaccine Dangers


jts

Recommended Posts

Right now on the Alex Jones show, they are on vaccination like ugly on an ape. This video is a sample. You might want to set the focus on the start/pause button and then frequently pause the video to read the charts.

There is a conflict between studies that show that poisons are poisonous and studies that show that poisons are not poisonous. I suspect that at least some of the studies are fudged to prove what the researchers are paid to prove.

Perhaps the information in this video should be banned. It might confuse people with the facts. People should not be encouraged to get the facts for themselves and to think for themselves and to question official statements. You should always trust your government instead of making decisions for yourself.

It's too late for me. I'm so far gone that I would rather get the virus than the vaccine. And I have this loony idea that the treatment for the virus is worse than the virus.

View and listen to the video at your own risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now on the Alex Jones show, they are on vaccination like ugly on an ape. This video is a sample. You might want to set the focus on the start/pause button and then frequently pause the video to read the charts.

Why, Jerry? Why should anyone here bother themselves with Alex Jones and Co as you do?

There is a conflict between studies that show that poisons are poisonous and studies that show that poisons are not poisonous. I suspect that at least some of the studies are fudged to prove what the researchers are paid to prove.

This is a bit murky. What poison or poisons are you talking about? What studies have you cracked to make such conclusions?

Perhaps the information in this video should be banned. It might confuse people with the facts. People should not be encouraged to get the facts for themselves and to think for themselves and to question official statements. You should always trust your government instead of making decisions for yourself.

The information in this video should not be banned, but it certainly can be countered with criticism. I don't understand your martyr irony here. Think for yourself, yes. And assemble the evidence you can trust -- or that you have independently analyzed, yes. Be skeptical of authority, yes -- within reason.

It's too late for me. I'm so far gone that I would rather get the virus than the vaccine. And I have this loony idea that the treatment for the virus is worse than the virus.

What viral disease would you choose over the vaccination? I assume you were vaccinated as a child against smallpox. I assume you were vaccinated for polio. It beggars belief to think that you would rather have smallpox or polio than be vaccinated ...

You have an idea that 'the treatment for the virus' is worse that the virus. This is also unclear. Does it mean the treatment is vaccination? Because if that is what you mean, you probably don't understand that a vaccination is not a 'treatment' for a disease, but a preventative measure that confers immunity.

Think about it: you did not get smallpox, and you did not get polio, and you can't "give back" your vaccination. If you think that what you endured because of your smallpox and polio vaccination -- whatever the reaction was, I bet you cannot remember it -- then you are contrasting dangerous viral disease with the vaccine effects (or side effects).

So, are you really arguing that getting polio or smallpox is better than being protected against polio or smallpox? If so, I think it is a poor argument.

View and listen to the video at your own risk.

OK. I hope I don't catch what you have.

wrhck8gcpcuhc26ixg6f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no more extant smallpox thanks to worldwide vaccination programs. Polio was almost wiped out until ignorant crazies interfered in Pakistan and part of Africa. I got the Salk shot right after it became available in the 1950s and the army dosed me with Sabin oral when I enlisted ten years later. Those plus tetanus had to be the big three when I was a kid.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am taking Jerry's advice to watch the Infowars video. The first major distortion comes at 3:20. The presenter, Rob Dew, puts up on screen a study published in Vaccine -- "Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies."

Dew says, "Basically, what this has done is three doctors looked at fifteen-twenty different studies that all said vaccines are safe. so then they came up with the same conclusion that vaccines were safe."

This is, as perusing the study itself shows, bullshit. The conclusion was that vaccines were not associated with autism, not that vaccines are safe (vaccines are not 100% without adverse effects).

Dew's spin is that one of the authors of the study "admits that two of his children had adverse reactions to vaccines, one of them very serious, yet he still vaccinated his third child. This is because of the intense programming that doctors go under by this Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundation funded medicine paradigm which is 'only vaccines, only prescription drugs, that is the only thing that can save you, herbal remedies don't work, vitamins don't work, nothing else works unless it came from a Rockefeller Foundation company or a Carnegie Foundation company, okay, and those are the big pharma companies that exist now -- these chemical giants that don't want anything out there natural, they have to synthesize everything because they are afraid of natural competition."

-- later in the video Dew directs us to a blog posting at ActivistPost that lists "22 Medical Studies That Show Vaccines Can Cause Autism. The only problem is that the studies cited do not exist in a vacuum. They are not without critics. They are not the be-all and end-all by any means.

All in all, the reporting/editorial is sloppy, tendentious, biased and reliant on a one-eyed reading of research.

I sort of understand now how Jerry gets off the rational track. A video can seem compelling and even bristling with 'truthiness,' while close inspection reveals flaws.

Jerry, let us celebrate that smallpox was a serious disease, a scourge. Was.

404311-99856100-a8a6-11e3-b49b-c914c5170

PS -- I did read the entire 1862 speech of anti-vaccinationist (and anti-medicine) R T Trall, as suggested by you, Jerry. In return, I hope you give the entire study first noted by Dew a thorough read.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural remedies only compete with big pharma if they are shown effective, if not safe too, through double-blind studies over several years. This doesn't mean supplements aren't valuable, depending, or that a doctor can't use an approved drug for something it wasn't approved for. I think that's called "off label." Some medicine, like aspirin, has been grandfathered in. A real big pharma sin is marketing of approved drugs to doctors buttressed further up by phonied evaluative studies which were neither double-blinded nor published in peer-reviewed journals. Then there are statins. There's a reason the TV ads now say they will lower your cholesterol not your risk of heart attack, for the former is true and the later isn't. The would be customer and his doctor have been brainwashed over the decades into thinking lowering cholesterol lowers cardio-vascular risk via hardening of the arteries, so the ads work. Any improvement in that risk has been demonstrated to be statistically insignificant. There's another reason arteries harden. It might be cross-linking caused by chronic inflamation.

--Brant

references not available, but I likely got some of this from The Blaylock Wellness Report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural remedies only compete with big pharma if they are shown effective, if not safe too, through double-blind studies over several years. This doesn't mean supplements aren't valuable, depending, or that a doctor can't use an approved drug for something it wasn't approved for. I think that's called "off label."

A real big pharma sin is marketing of approved drugs to doctors buttressed further up by phonied evaluative studies which were neither double-blinded nor published in peer-reviewed journals.

[...]

--Brant

references not available, but I likely got some of this from The Blaylock Wellness Report

I'm pretty agnostic on the values of so-called natural remedies. Most are if not health-enhancing, at least neutral in effect, and are in some instances just a step away from eating the plant in the decoction, thus straddling nutrition/medicine. If oranges are good for vitamin C, why not a German multinational pharmaceutical company's 'natural' product line of Rose Hip? It mostly don't hurt. I choose not to supplement and simply eat a balanced diet that gives me what I think I need for optimum health. My biggest skeptical roadblock goes up when natural remedies are peddled as cures or preventatives in place of rational, evidence-based medicine.

I strongly agree that big pharma sins in its marketing to doctors. There is real sleaze there and also but to a lesser degree in TV and print consumer-targeted ads. In a smaller way various sleazebags and quacks and vegan progressives oversell their generally-considered-safe pills and nostrums (supplements). Even Dr Oz is not free from the sleaze of over-promotion of "health products" on shaky evidentiary grounds.

I'm pretty sure you read Blaylock with a chaw of skepticism in your cheek. He has his own lengthy entry at Skeptic Dictionary's "Abracadabra to Zombies" ... makes me think of that book How We Know What Isn't So.

Russell Blaylock is a trained neurosurgeon who considers himself an expert on nutrition and toxins in food, cookware, teeth, and vaccines. Contrary to the vast bulk of the scientific evidence, Blaylock maintains that vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine are dangerous or ineffective; that dental amalgams and fluoridated water are harmful to our health; and that aluminum cookware, aspartame, and MSG are toxic substances causing brain damage.1, 2, 3

Ironically, Blaylock perpetuates the myth that science-based medicine is not interested in prevention, despite the fact that immunization, which he opposes, prevents more disease and saves more lives than just about any other medical activity.

Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brains ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5

Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, Blaylock maintains that vaccines cause Lou Gehrig's disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, a disease of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement), Parkinson's, and autism.4 He puts forth these notions in books and for the politically conservative website Newsmax in a section called The Blaylock Wellness Report.* Despite the fact that the scientific evidence does not support his belief, Blaylock claims that giving children about two dozen vaccinations before they start school is dangerous. The experts at the Center for Disease Control disagree with Blaylock. According to the CDC:

The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system....

No evidence suggests that the recommended childhood vaccines can "overload" the immune system. In contrast, from the moment babies are born, they are exposed to numerous bacteria and viruses on a daily basis. Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body; numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose; and an infant places his or her hands or other objects in his or her mouth hundreds of times every hour, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. An upper respiratory viral infection exposes a child to 4 to 10 antigens, and a case of "strep throat" to 25 to 50.

[...]

Brant, here's an interesting bit of recent scientific reporting on newborn immune systems, from Science Daily:

Contrary to what was previously thought, newborn immune T cells may have the ability to trigger an inflammatory response to bacteria, according to a new study led by King's College London. Although their immune system works very differently to that of adults, babies may still be able to mount a strong immune defense, finds the study published in the journal Nature Medicine

Our immune system is made up of several different types of immune cells, including neutrophils which play an important role in the frontline defense against infection, and lymphocytes: B cells which produce antibodies, and T cells that target cells infected with viruses and microbes.

Up to now, it was generally believed that babies have an immature immune system that doesn't trigger the same inflammatory response normally seen in adults. Although babies need to protect themselves from the harmful pathogens they are exposed to from birth, it was thought that their T cells were suppressed to some extent to prevent inflammatory damage to the developing child. Sceptical of this notion, the King's-led study set out to characterize the properties of T cells, examining very small samples of blood in twenty-eight highly premature babies, as they developed over the first few weeks of life.

The team discovered that whilst T cells in newborn babies are largely different to those in adults, it is not because they are immunosuppressed; rather, they manufacture a potent anti-bacterial molecule known as IL8 that has not previously been considered a major product of T cells, and that activates neutrophils to attack the body's foreign invaders.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, I have a lot of medical training and experience. I used to be a Special Forces Aidman. I'm much better able to evaluate medical claims and nostrums than most people. The problem with that is I read these things mostly for myself and since my general health is excellent and I have long-lived ancestors on both sides, I tend to focus on items that would appertain to me and my health, preventatively speaking. Most medicine is re-active. When Blaylock--I haven't read his books and he doesn't sell his stuff or even refer to it in his letter--answers questions from readers who are under treatment his advice generally only tweaks what the other doctor(s) is doing and seems conservative. Supplements are generally used to prevent not cure things. The problem with them is if you take something for 5, 10, 20 or more years, as in megadosing, you really don't know if you might ironically be damaging your body. I only found out after giving my father 30,000IU beta carotene several years as a preventive for lung cancer in an adult lifelong smoker that that might have been the catalyst that resulted in the lung cancer that suddenly manifested itself and killed him two months after he went symptomatic. So I learned a couple of years later. At least he just went to sleep after they gave him 10mg of Valium in the hospital and never woke up. He was 83. His two brothers died at 92, almost 93, and 95, almost 96.

Now, if my family tree was full of heart attack victims I'd get extremely aggressive in using supplements. But none of them would match up to my stopping smoking in 1969 on my 25th birthday. I was mostly worried about emphysema, and with good reason. I had no data or studies that demonstrated I'd live one day longer in good health if I stopped smoking. I can by the same measure using common sense take or leave Dr. Blaylock's suggestions. It's easy for I don't need many to say the least.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About supplements.

Contrary to what William probably assumes about me, I am not a major fan of supplements. Granted supplements (nutrients) are not as bad as drugs (poisons). Supplements might even do some good in some cases. But the rule is: get your nutrients from foods if possible, from supplements if necessary.

Supplements can have a number of problems.

Beta carotene. It seems silly to take a beta carotene supplement because it is so easy to get from foods. But setting that aside. The carotenes are supposed to work together, beta carotene, alpha carotene, gamma carotene, zeta carotene, and all the other stuff. Antioxidants should never be taken in isolation. In isolation they work as a poison. By this principle, beta carotene by itself in isolation out of context with other things can be a poison. Eat your veggies or your carrots or drink your carrot juice and you will get beta carotene in proper context.

Calcium supplements. These are usually made from rocks. Doesn't work.

Cyanocobalamin. In the best case, the body does not use this efficiently enough for it to be of any great value. In the worst case, this can cause a deficiency of B12. Better is methylcobalamin.

One difference between nutrients (and phytochemicals) and drugs (and other poisons) is interactions between nutrients are good, and interactions between drugs are bad. Web pages about drugs always warn you about interactions.

Nutrients don't work in isolation. They work together with other nutrients. ('Nutrients' is shorthand to include flavonoids and all those things.) Perhaps this is why sugar is so bad. Carrot juice is high in sugar, yet it does not produce the bad effects associated with sugar. For example people with cancer must avoid sugar because sugar feeds cancer. But carrot juice, which has lots of sugar, does not feed cancer. Hmm. Why is that? Perhaps because in carrot juice the sugar is in proper context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now