The Inflammatory Topic of Vaccines During a Health Information War
| Written by Sarah Cain Tuesday, 09 June 2009 15:36 |
  |
 |
|
|
Catherine Bennett
As a reporter for The Guardian, she is courageously defending society from "vaccine dodgers" and alternative medicine. |
|
In the British mainstream media, there has recently been enormous grandstanding about making the MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccine mandatory. Vaccinations have never been mandatory in Britain, because the public never believed that forced drugging was moral for a society. It is the same reason why water has never been fluoridated in the United Kingdom.
The health information war is fully underway.
A friend recently sent this article our way, titled " It's time we created special schools for MMR dodgers". Dodgers? This is apparently an attempt to associate those who forgo vaccines with cowards, instead of the better educated people that they are. Throughout the article, insults are piled upon those who would dare to question the wisdom of vaccines, and it is insinuated that society would surely suffer a nightmarish future without more vaccines.
The article also provided the revolutionary idea of separating unvaccinated children into schools just for them. I agree that we should separate the toxic, dumbed-down, pacified, and obedient kids from the unpoisoned, healthy, vibrant, and creative ones. In fact, I would be much happier sending my future kids to these special schools knowing that they would be surrounded by healthy kids, whose parents are not blindly obedient to the medical system, and amongst kids who almost certainly have not been placed on experimental SSRI medications, which might make them randomly violent or homicidal. I would be happier knowing that the other children do not get drugged as part of a routine; especially when many of the new drugs are specifically known to "numb the conscience" -- creating the chemically induced sociopaths that are so infamous in the schools today. I would particularly feel safer sending my kids to school if they were not going to be around kids who emit radiation due to cancer treatments. Wouldn't you?
With this sort of school segregation, we could more easily test which kids score higher in tests, who gets sick the most often, and eventually; which ones are the most successful in the long term. We would be able to accurately predict which category of kids would grow up with the best capability to become the leaders and mentors of society, and which ones simply became the drones, who would be condemned to forever follow. I can already foretell the results of such research, and if you are being honest with yourself, then you can too.
Instead of focusing on the MMR vaccine, the previously referenced article branched out to ensure that all areas of alternative medicine were dismissed as unscientific. Attempting to provide evidence of the dangers of unvaccinated people, the paper referenced one seventeen-year-old boy, who died of measles last year. That's correct, even with the full resources of her newspaper at her disposal, she found only one death. (By the way, she neglected to mention how many people were killed by lightening or meteors in that article.) Of course, she also never mentioned how many vaccinated people died of measles last year. Did I forget to mention that measles deaths had declined 99.5% before vaccinations? Do you still believe the vaccine saved us?
Such numbers would make one wonder if they were trying to recreate the measles epidemic by injecting the virus into people at a time when they did not need it anymore, and from what I know of these people; I wouldn't be surprised. They are that evil. The article also referenced cases of measles which have been seen in Wales, but no deaths were reported. If there had been deaths, then you can be certain that she would have gloated about them.
The article then boldly accused the study by Wakefield (the one that confirmed the vaccine-autism link) of being flawed by a conflict of interest, as if it were the only vaccine study to ever be accused of this. In fact, there are many party-line studies in the U.S.A., and Canada, in which collusion with the vaccine makers has long been uncovered. This happened long before the paradigm-shifting study by Andrew Wakefield made the news. It is obvious that everyone has a case to make (an agenda), so we must ask who is most likely to deceive us because they have something to hide. I hardly think it is Wakefield.
The reporter's arguments ignored the fact that the six studies which are routinely cited to promote vaccinations have well-documented conflicts of interest. Furthermore, all of them were clearly shown to have a high risk of bias by Cochrane's scoring system.
These were individual remarks:
"The study demonstrates the difficulties of drawing inferences in the absence of a non-exposed population or a clearly defined causal hypothesis." (Re: Taylor 1999)
"The number and possible impact of biases in this study was so high that interpretation of the results is impossible." (Re: Fombonne 2001)
"The Retrospective Person-Time Cohort Study, by Makela, assessed the association between exposure to MMR and encephalitis (EN), aseptic meningitis (AM) and autism (AU) in a cohort of 535,544 Finnish children (95% of the surveillance cohort); the children were aged one to seven years at the time of vaccinations. The authors compared the incidence of disease in the first three months after vaccination with the incidence in the following months and years. They concluded that there was no evidence that vaccines had provided successful inoculation. The study was weakened by the loss of 14% of the original birth cohort, and the effects of the rather long time frame of follow up. What the impact of either of these factors was in terms of confounders is open to debate, however the long follow-up for autism was due to the lack of a properly constructed causal hypothesis..." (Re: Makela 2002)
"The interpretation of the study by Madsen was made difficult by the unequal length of follow-ups for younger cohort members, as well as the use of the date of diagnosis rather than onset of symptoms of autism." (Re: Madsen 2002)
"The conclusion, however, implied bias in the enrollment of cases which may not be representative of the rest of the autistic population of the city of Atlanta, USA where the study was set." (Re: DeStefano 2004)
"In the GPRD-based studies, (Black 2003; Smeeth 2004) the precise nature of controlled unexposed to MMR and their ability to generalize was impossible to determine... The study (Smeeth 2004) appeared carefully conducted and well reported, however, the GPRD-based MMR studies had no unexposed (to MMR) representative controls. In this study the approximately 4% to 13% seemed to be unexposed controls regarded by the authors as representative. Such a small number may indicate some bias in the selection of controls." (Re: Smeeth 2004)
So, you want to know how safe the vaccine is? Think Twice, The Global Vaccine Institute, provides plenty of information. Additionally, the drug company that makes the MMR vaccine publishes an extensive list of warnings, contraindications, and adverse reactions associated with this triple shot. It may be found in the vaccine package insert given to doctors administering MMR, and in the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR)(8,9). The MMR vaccine manufacturer's insert is quoted immediately below.
|
Notice that the vaccine manufacturer admits to causing autism, but only in private communications with doctors. The remarks made to the public, the media, and regulators are the complete opposite. You may want to ask your doctor why he has been lying to you.
On top of all this, parents in the British medical system are ignored when they report problems with vaccines, because the doctors act as the gatekeepers. Parents cannot directly report a bad reaction to regulators. They must instead go through their doctor, who may refuse to protect himself. Keep in mind that doctors in Britain get extra money for administering vaccines. Now, do you see the conflict of interest? Are you still unconvinced that the war against disease, which is supposedly waged by the medical establishment, is as fraudulent as the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror"?
Examine the following graphs showing the incidence of U.S. disease deaths relative to when their vaccinations appeared.
 |
| Source: "The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century" by John B. McKinlay; Sonja M. McKinlay, 1977. |
Notice the somewhat inverse relationship in the graphs above? Did you notice that when the treatments were implemented that the drop in disease deaths actually slowed dramatically, or stalled? Could this be accidental in an industry so well known for protecting itself from competition (as the Guardian article is a clear example of)? Yes, it is that evil, and you can see it in the graphs yourself, or in statistics freely available to the public.
This article will hopefully end any illusions that the allopathic medical establishment has had great scientific breakthroughs which brought about an end to diseases. Most certainly, vaccines should be classed among the most toxic and dangerous medicine ever known. We explained how the Polio epidemic was essentially caused (not cured) by the medical establishment, in episode 4 of The Health Wyze Report (Audio Edition), and we explained it in even greater detail in issue #3 of Naturally Good Magazine. Both are freely available.
Perhaps we will address the fraudulent belief that modern medicine ended the Polio epidemic soon in a standard site article, but I am sure that readers can guess at exactly which phase of the epidemic that the vaccine for Polio appeared to save the day.
