re/ ‘perils of vaccines’

2012-01-10

Richard Moore

Bcc: FYI
rkm websitehttp://cyberjournal.org
___________________________________

Greetings,


Our last posting, re/ ‘perils of vaccination’ was intended for newslog. I hit the wrong button and it went out to cyberjournal instead. I post lots of things to newslog, often not agreeing with them. newslog is my  record of ‘notable things people are saying’, so that I can refer back to them if the topic comes up again. cyberjournal, on the other hand, is mainly devoted to things I’ve given considerable thought to.

Now that the ‘damage is done’, however, let’s give some attention to this vaccine thing. I personally have two reasons for being against vaccines. The first, and this perhaps isn’t scientific, is that I happen to believe in nature. I believe our immune systems evolved over many millions of years, and should not be drastically interfered with. Injecting dozens of chemicals into children, for example, I find frightening, whatever those chemicals might be. This is a broad topic we might pursue, if any of you would like to send in informative material, on one side or the other.

The second reason I consider to be a lot more solid. It is not a theory that the Rockefellers (et al) want to reduce world population drastically; it is a well-documented fact. It was the Rockefellers, for example, who gave Hitler his ideas about eugenics, helped engineer his rise to power, and funded both sides of both World Wars. And it is not a theory that the Rockefellers control essential aspects of medical education and propaganda. That is also well documented. 

Once a regime is established where everyone is forced to take vaccinations, the path is opened to use that channel for genocide. Studies of existing vaccines are irrelevant to this; there could be a sudden change in contents that the public wouldn’t be aware of. And in fact Baxter was caught red-handed distributing live deadly toxins in a batch of its vaccines. We could all end up ‘taking our kool-aid’, Reverend Jim Jones style, without even knowing it until it’s too late. No thank you, I say. If you think ‘they wouldn’t do such a thing’, then you haven’t been paying attention. 

Several people responded with considerable anger to the vaccine-peril posting. They dismissed it as ‘irresponsible nonsense’, and one person even accused me of being complicit in murder, due to alleged deaths from not being vaccinated. Strong stuff, and not particularly rational. In fact, the tone of these responses reflected what I would call a ‘fundamentalist mentality’ – science as religion; science as a cult phenomenon. Questioning ‘official science’, for these people, is like proclaiming that God doesn’t exist: Evil blasphemy! Call out the Grand Inquisitor! I find official science quite flawed, by academic politics, corporate funding, mental inertia, and many other factors. 

The ‘hot question’ these days, re/ vaccines, seems to be the question of whether increased vaccinations are responsible for the rise in autism. Some of the angry responders tried to claim there hasn’t been an increase in autism. One of the other angry ones, however, after some exchanges of messages, sent this in:

 Richard,
   There is undoubtedly an increase in autism, for which no satisfactory explanation yet exists – and I have no doubt that there are major environmantal agents at play – but the statistical data do not implicate vaccination – and I’m no aplogist for Big Pharma – quite the opposite. 
   See for example:
http://altcancerweb.com/autism/association-mmr-autism.pdf


I find this attitude disturbing. We have an alarming increase in autism; the acknowledged side effects of vaccines includes ‘neurological damage’, and no alternative explanation is being offered for the autism increase. Common sense and due caution indicate we should back off on vaccines until we understand the autism problem. To dismiss due caution because some pharma-funded study claims there’s no correlation is in my view madness; madness that can only be explained by an irrational fundamentalist attitude toward what passes for science. Who was it that said, “There’s lies, damn lies, and statistics”?

One angry fellow claimed that there has only been one study that linked vaccines to autism, and that study (the one in Lancet) has been thoroughly discredited. Another angry one, however, after some exchanges of messages, sent this link in:

which leads to this other study:

►June 26, 2007 – The Age of Autism: Study sees vaccine risk – United Press International – “A new, privately funded survey finds vaccinated U.S. children have a significantly higher risk of neurological disorders — including autism — than unvaccinated children. In one striking finding, vaccinated boys 11-17 were more than twice as likely to have autism as their never-vaccinated counterparts….’No one has ever compared prevalence rates of these neurological disorders between vaccinated and unvaccinated children,’ said J.B. Handley, father of a child with autism and co-founder of Generation Rescue, which commissioned the $200,000 survey conducted by SurveyUSA, a respected marketing firm.”

I’m not saying this other study is definitive, not at all, but overall I find it irrational for people to dismiss out of hand any possibility of a link between autism and increased vaccinations. I remain opposed to vaccinations and I think this woman makes a lot of sense:
Nancy Banks on Vaccines
 
rkm
_____

Share:

child porn betting child porn betting child porn betting child porn betting child porn betting fuck google fuck google fuck google fuck google