Posted April 15, 2020 25 minutes ago, Consept said: This discussion was never about a science or anything evidence based, as in i believe A heres the evidence and you believe B heres your evidence, lets see what parts of your evidence are correct and what parts of mine are correct and then we can come to belief C which is either a mixture of both or one or the other wholesale. If it was that it wouldve been over very quickly. So i wouldnt advise you to do that with conspiracy theorists. Nice observation. I was much more oriented toward a meta view of structure, rather than getting into the weeds of content. This is one of the most challenging things for me in communication. My mind generally likes to take meta-views, look holistically, make inter-connections and various partially-true perspectives. Yet I’ve noticed that most minds I interact with prefer to get immersed in content in which there are two opposing views. It’s not that one is necessarily better, yet it makes communication very difficult. For example, I often find myself saying “I don’t disagree with you” because my mind naturally sees partial truths in various perspectives and isn’t firmly attached to any single perspective. . . As well, I’ve got this desire to reveal different views to people. For me, this is exploration, discovery and expansion - the greatest pleasures I now. I often feel like I’m on top of a mountain with someone locked into one view. I really really want to show them that there are also other beautiful views that all inter-connected. Yet in doing this, I often come across as devil’s advocate and taking the opposite view. Yet there are not two opposing views on the mountain top. And to me, it’s not fulfilling to show them a view they can already see. The desire is to show them a view they cannot see. Yet most of the time, this doesn’t go over very well. Several years ago, I watched a lot of those street epistemology videos. They are awesome at a certain stage of development. They were my first peeks at meta views and structure. Yet there is also a meta view to the meta view of the street epistemology guy. For example, he still sees beliefs as either true or false. He says he is only interested in why people believe what they do, yet it’s obvious he thinks certain.beliefs are irrational and he is curious why people believe in irrational beliefs. He also seems to want to help people transcend those irrational beliefs. His videos of several years ago seemed like a high orange level trying to help blue evolve. Yet I saw a video of him about a year ago and it looked like he was entering Yellow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 15, 2020 2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said: Nice observation. I was much more oriented toward a meta view of structure, rather than getting into the weeds of content. This is one of the most challenging things for me in communication. My mind generally likes to take meta-views, look holistically, make inter-connections and various partially-true perspectives. Yet I’ve noticed that most minds I interact with prefer to get immersed in content in which there are two opposing views. It’s not that one is necessarily better, yet it makes communication very difficult. For example, I often find myself saying “I don’t disagree with you” because my mind naturally sees partial truths in various perspectives and isn’t firmly attached to any single perspective. . . As well, I’ve got this desire to reveal different views to people. For me, this is exploration, discovery and expansion - the greatest pleasures I now. I often feel like I’m on top of a mountain with someone locked into one view. I really really want to show them that there are also other beautiful views that all inter-connected. Yet in doing this, I often come across as devil’s advocate and taking the opposite view. Yet there are not two opposing views on the mountain top. And to me, it’s not fulfilling to show them a view they can already see. The desire is to show them a view they cannot see. Yet most of the time, this doesn’t go over very well. I actually feel exactly the same, like it would be great if we could just talk about a topic without someone being stuck to a point of view because in that case you can really pick out the intricacies of the topic. Its very rare to find people that would do that, most of the time its setup as a debate rather than a mutual exploration. Content is really just a tool to help you come to conclusions so putting this arbitrary lump of content versus this opposing arbitrary content and seeing who.. i dont know, has the best content, is completely pointless. From a spiritual perspective you could even see truth as the absence of content but i guess thats for another thread If you liked whatever i said in this post, check out my youtube channel for actual me talking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said: Lol, the “research library” is for members only. I’m not going to become a member of an anti-Vaxxer organization. If there are so many links, just send me a couple. It only takes a second to cut and paste. I literally registered and got access to the library within less than a minute. Its funny you think you are contributing to something sinister just by registering for access. But okay, I'm only going to send you links to studies referencing the autism issue: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1708223 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/2/e20171419 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0946672X16304400 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-017-1002-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.41 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00003/full https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26218563 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr087.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637446/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2015/573701/ http://web.archive.org/web/20160703183407/http://issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/2132/4596 http://www.soundchoice.org/scpiJournalPubHealthEpidem092014.pdf http://www.oapublishinglondon.com/article/1368 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70299-0/fulltext?elsca1=ETOC-NEUROLOGY&elsca2=email&elsca3=J34S35F http://www.najms.org/article.asp?issn=1947-2714;year=2014;volume=6;issue=1;spage=41;epage=47;aulast=Kern https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013413001773 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/132/4/631.full https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2013/801517/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-14-02227.pdf There are many, many more where that came from. "Started from the bottom and I just realized I'm still there since the money and the fame is an illusion" -Drake doing self-inquiry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 (edited) @Serotoninluv The whole premise behind that article is assuming viewers hold (will accept) the understanding that disease does not actually exist outside what Dr Morse and many others like to call "the world of illusion" or western medicine. I apologize for my incongruence in communication. This is why i would consider them mutually exclusive, because it offers a form of science (tool) built upon the terrain theory, giving actual answers/causations as well as solutions/protocols to self heal. Now i guess it's pretty obvious the potential for a collapse of the systems in place if people were simply educated on how to heal themselves (detox) rather than paying huge sums of money to fight a cancer that usually had built up over time, and is treated in the fashion of fighting fire with fire. Anyways does this make more sense? My bad if this was literally wasting your time So in a sense this plays into vaccines as the primary focus is on "building immunity" when if perceived by an understanding of the terrain theory, detoxification and regeneration, this makes no logical sense whatsoever, it's like questioning our own body's natural intelligence. Through detoxification even genetic weaknesses in our immune system can be improved. Anyways this is more or less a general understanding without any "scientific" evidence for the pros/cons of specific vaccines. Edited April 16, 2020 by DrewNows Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said: Its funny you think you are contributing to something sinister just by registering for access. I didn’t think I would be contributing to something sinister by registering for access. You are imagining that. Regarding the article links. . . I assume you haven’t previously read those articles (as implied) since you just registered to gain access. Do you realize that most of the studies you linked are not vaccine studies? Did you actually read the abstracts or did you just cut and paste? I’ve been putting in quite a bit of time and effort into this discussion and it’s a bit disheartening that someone posts a bunch of non-vaccine studies I have to filter through. Som, most of those publications are not studies of vaccinations. They are heavy metal studies that do not involve vaccinations and make no claims about vaccinations. As well, notice the physiological relevance. In most of those studies, the level of heavy metal dosages are not physiologically relevant to the trace dosages in vaccines. As well, many of the studies you linked were studies of how genetics, epigenetics and immune function relate to autism. They did not involve vaccinations. Inferences would be multiple corollary steps removed and would not count as evidence by even the lowest standards of evidence. As well, several of the studies linked did not support a significant causative relationship to vaccines and autism, while others showed a link for “high risk” individuals, yet no significant link to the general population. Overall, by looking down the abstracts: most of the articles linked are not vaccine studies and no inferences to vaccines can be responsibly made. Such inferences would be speculation several steps removed. And other articles showed a significant causal relationship of vaccines - autism in “high risk” individuals. A couple articles showed a significant causation between a specific vaccine and autism, yet this cannot be extrapolated as a general characteristic of vaccines. . . All of these articles are consistent with the scientific community consensus: that there are risks for a minority “high risk” individuals, yet no consistent significantly significant risks for the general population regarding the majority of vaccines. Yet direct causation is a high bar. It is possible that certain vaccines are one of many contributing factors to autism and there are not statistically-significant results because it is one of many factors. Autism is a multi-factorial condition, similar situation to schizophrenia. There is no one thing that causes schizophrenia and it is difficult to identify contributing factors. This also highlights the importance of meta-studies. Meta-studies evaluate many studies collectively to develop a holistic consensus. This would have filter out all the non-related links you posted and showed commonalities between studies. Below is a meta-study that examines studies that showing both adverse vaccine effects and non-adverse vaccine effects. This meta-study was conducted by a committee of scientific experts. I would say that this study is a bit outside the mainstream scientific consensus in that it illustrates considerable risks for multiple vaccines. https://www.nap.edu/resource/13164/Adverseeffectsofvaccinesreportbrief.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said: I didn’t think I would be contributing to something sinister by registering for access. You are imagining that. Regarding the article links. . . I assume you haven’t previously read those articles (as implied) since you just registered to gain access. Do you realize that most of the studies you linked are not vaccine studies? Did you actually read the abstracts or did you just cut and paste? I’ve been putting in quite a bit of time and effort into this discussion and it’s a bit disheartening that someone posts a bunch of non-vaccine studies I have to filter through. Som, most of those publications are not studies of vaccinations. They are heavy metal studies that do not involve vaccinations and make no claims about vaccinations. As well, notice the physiological relevance. In most of those studies, the level of heavy metal dosages are not physiologically relevant to the trace dosages in vaccines. As well, many of the studies you linked were studies of how genetics, epigenetics and immune function relate to autism. They did not involve vaccinations. Inferences would be multiple corollary steps removed and would not count as evidence by even the lowest standards of evidence. As well, several of the studies linked did not support a significant causative relationship to vaccines and autism, while others showed a link for “high risk” individuals, yet no significant link to the general population. Overall, by looking down the abstracts: most of the articles linked are not vaccine studies and no inferences to vaccines can be responsibly made. Such inferences would be speculation several steps removed. And other articles showed a significant causal relationship of vaccines - autism in “high risk” individuals. A couple articles showed a significant causation between a specific vaccine and autism, yet this cannot be extrapolated as a general characteristic of vaccines. . . All of these articles are consistent with the scientific community consensus: that there are risks for a minority “high risk” individuals, yet no consistent significantly significant risks for the general population regarding the majority of vaccines. Yet direct causation is a high bar. It is possible that certain vaccines are one of many contributing factors to autism and there are not statistically-significant results because it is one of many factors. Autism is a multi-factorial condition, similar situation to schizophrenia. There is no one thing that causes schizophrenia and it is difficult to identify contributing factors. This also highlights the importance of meta-studies. Meta-studies evaluate many studies collectively to develop a holistic consensus. This would have filter out all the non-related links you posted and showed commonalities between studies. Below is a meta-study that examines studies that showing both adverse vaccine effects and non-adverse vaccine effects. This meta-study was conducted by a committee of scientific experts. I would say that this study is a bit outside the mainstream scientific consensus in that it illustrates considerable risks for multiple vaccines. https://www.nap.edu/resource/13164/Adverseeffectsofvaccinesreportbrief.pdf Thats simply false. Most of the studies do indeed talk about vaccinations. Quote September 14, 2017 – Vaccination Rates among Younger Siblings of Children with Autism “Our results also suggest that changes in vaccination behavior may relate to adverse reactions to vaccine. In particular, parents who had an older child with autism spectrum disorder retrospectively reported a higher rate of adverse reactions to vaccination among the older child than did those who did not have an older child with autism (22.6% vs. 3.8%; Pearson chi-square value with one degree of freedom, 16.87; P<0.001). Likewise, parents who had an older child with autism retrospectively reported a higher rate of these reactions among the infant sibling than did those who did not have an older child with autism (6.9% vs. 0.8%; Pearson chi-square value with one degree of freedom, 5.87; P=0.02). Reported reactions included fever, diarrhea, unusual crying or screaming, and general malaise. These differences in reported reactions may reflect either a true increase or a recall bias, and they warrant larger prospective studies of adverse reactions to vaccine with the use of more objective measures, such as medical records and examination after vaccination, in children in whom autism spectrum disorder ultimately develops.” August 2017 – Eugenics and the Origins of Autism “The debate over whether to consider autism a disability or identity is surely complicated by its expansion into a spectrum that encompasses a wide range of individuals and functioning.” Comment: Children started receiving pertussis in 1914, diphtheria 1926, and tetanus in 1938. The three vaccines were combined in 1948 and given as the DTP vaccine. July 2017 – Increased risk for an atypical autism diagnosis following Thimerosal-containing vaccine exposure in the United States: A prospective longitudinal case-control study in the Vaccine Safety Datalink “Routine childhood vaccination is an important public health tool to reduce infectious diseases. The present study provides important epidemiological evidence significantly associating increasing Hg exposure from Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and the subsequent risk of atypical autism diagnosis, and suggests that Thimerosal should be eliminated from vaccines.” May 8, 2017 – Blood Mercury, Arsenic, Cadmium, and Lead in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder “Data showed that the children with ASD had significantly (p < 0.001) higher levels of mercury and arsenic and a lower level of cadmium. The levels of lead did not differ significantly between the groups. The results of this study are consistent with numerous previous studies, supporting an important role for heavy metal exposure, particularly mercury, in the etiology of ASD. It is desirable to continue future research into the relationship between ASD and heavy metal exposure.” May 6, 2016 – The landscape of DNA methylation amid a perfect storm of autism aetiologies “Increasing evidence points to a complex interplay between genes and the environment in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including rare de novo mutations in chromatin genes such as methyl-CpG binding protein 2 (MECP2) in Rett syndrome”…”The dynamic developmental landscape of DNA methylation is vulnerable to numerous genetic and environmental insults: therefore, understanding pathways that are central to this ‘perfect storm’ will be crucial to improving the diagnosis and treatment of ASD.” Comment: Vaccines are an environmental insult. January 19, 2017 – Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case–Control Study (full text) “Children with OCD were more likely to have received the influenza vaccine in each of the preceding periods, or the hepatitis A vaccine in the previous 6 or 12 months.”…”However, these findings, even if replicated in future studies, do not prove a causal role of vaccination in the pathoetiology of any of these conditions. Indeed, antecedent infections may also increase the risk of developing one or more of these disorders in vulnerable individuals.” December 1, 2015 – Autism spectrum disorder prevalence and proximity to industrial facilities releasing arsenic, lead or mercury. “Data for 2489 census tracts showed that after adjustment for demographic and socio-economic area-based characteristics, ASD prevalence was higher in census tracts located in the closest 10th percentile compared of distance to those in the furthest 50th percentile (adjusted RR=1.27, 95% CI: (1.00, 1.61), P=0.049). The findings observed in this study are suggestive of the association between urban residential proximity to industrial facilities emitting air pollutants and higher ASD prevalence.” Comment: Women are receiving mercury containing vaccines during pregnancy. November 13, 2015 – Estimated Prevalence of Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities Following Questionnaire Changes in the 2014 National Health Interview Survey (pdf) “Results Prevalence of children ever diagnosed with developmental disabilities The estimated ASD prevalence was 2.24% (1 in 45) in 2014, while averaging 1.25% (1 in 80) from 2011 through 2013—a significant increase (p < 0.001) (Figure 2). The estimated prevalence of other DD was 3.57% in 2014, while averaging 4.84% from 2011 through 2013—a significant decrease (p < 0.001). The estimated ID prevalence did not change significantly between 2011–2013 (1.27%) and 2014 (1.10%). Despite changes to the prevalence of ASD and other DD, the overall prevalence of children with either ASD or other DD did not change between 2011–2013 (5.26%) and 2014 (5.30%). Similarly, the prevalence of children” October 25, 2015 – Autism-Like Behavior and Epigenetic Changes Associated with Autism as Consequences of In Utero Exposure to Environmental Pollutants in a Mouse Model (full text) “Industrial chemicals are being produced and released into the environment at a staggering rate. The average consumer is exposed to up to 10,000 different chemicals every day out of a world market that includes over 30,000 industrial chemicals sold at quantities greater than 400 million tons per year. These chemicals range in toxicity from being benign to being extremely hazardous and the environmental and public health implications of this overwhelming and pervasive exposure have not been well characterized for the vast majority of chemicals. Among the hazardous toxicants, heavy metals, known neurotoxicants continue to be of a great concern due to their increasing anthropogenic presence in the environment. Several epidemiological studies reported a relationship between autism and heavy metal biomarkers. Volume 2015 – Increased Susceptibility to Ethylmercury-Induced Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Subset of Autism Lymphoblastoid Cell Lines (full text) “We show that LCLs derived from children with autism exhibit significant abnormalities in mitochondrial respiration at baseline with these abnormalities worsening following exposure to ethylmercury.”…”Our data suggest that the abnormal mitochondrial function and increased susceptibility to ethylmercury in the AD-A LCLs may be related to impaired glutathione-mediated antioxidant capacity and chronic oxidative stress, since NAC pretreatment, which could improve glutathione status, appears to partially correct the atypical mitochondrial function in the AD-A LCLs and protect the cells against the toxic effects of ethylmercury.” Vol 11, No 4 2014 – Commentary – Controversies surrounding mercury in vaccines: autism denial as impediment to universal immunisation (full text) “It is biologically plausible that mercury toxicity in genetically susceptible persons may contribute to the numbers with autism and ASD. However there is no clear proof linking the mercury in Thimerosal to the spurt in cases seen in recent years. The apparent linkage of autism to the MMR vaccine (which is Thimerosal free) seems to suggest that mercury exposure through Thimerosal-containing vaccines is not the only factor that may be responsible for the subsequent “autism” and “ASD” diagnoses in developing children.” September 2014 – Impact of environmental factors on the prevalence of autistic disorder after 1979 (pdf) “The live births, grouped by father’s age, were from the US and Australia. The children vaccinated with MMRII, Varicella and Hepatitis A vaccines varied from 19 to 35 months of age at the time of vaccination. Autistic disorder birth year change points were identified as 1980.9, 1988.4 and 1996 for the US, 1987 for UK, 1990.4 for Western Australia, and 1987.5 for Denmark. Change points in these countries corresponded to introduction of or increased doses of human fetal cell line-manufactured vaccines, while no relationship was found between paternal age or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) revisions and autistic disorder diagnosis. Further, linear regression revealed that Varicella and Hepatitis A immunization coverage was significantly correlated to autistic disorder cases.” June 2014 – Etiology of autism spectrum disorders: Genes, environment, or both? (full text) “That second insult could conceivably be that from Al from various sources including paediatric vaccines, although clearly other toxicants may also be involved. Al salts are the most widely used adjuvants in current use. The fact that they can trigger pathological immunological responses and a cascade of adverse health effects is now well documented, albeit still not widely recognized in the medical community. As detailed in this article, the risks associated vaccine-derived Al are four-fold. First, Al can persist in the body; second, Al can trigger pathological immunological responses; third, Al can make its way into the CNS where it can activate deleterious immuno-inflammatory and excitotoxic processes; fourth, Al can alter expression of numerous genes involved in the immuno-inflammatory responses and cell-to-cell signalling March 2014 – Encephalitis with refractory seizures, status epilepticus, and antibodies to the GABAA receptor: a case series, characterisation of the antigen, and analysis of the effects of antibodies “Overall, 12 of 15 patients for whom treatment and outcome were assessable had full (three patients) or partial (nine patients) response to immunotherapy or symptomatic treatment, and three died. Patients’ antibodies caused a selective reduction of GABAA receptor clusters at synapses, but not along dendrites, without altering NMDA receptors and gephyrin (a protein that anchors the GABAA receptor). Interpretation: High titres of serum and CSF GABAA receptor antibodies are associated with a severe form of encephalitis with seizures, refractory status epilepticus, or both. The antibodies cause a selective reduction of synaptic GABAA receptors. The disorder often occurs with GABAergic and other coexisting autoimmune disorders and is potentially treatable.” Comment: View these studies to see the link to vaccination. (Blatt G.J. et al. J Autism Dev. Disord. 6, 537-543 (2001) PubMed) Ohno Y, Sofue N, Ishihara S, Mashimo T, Sasa M, Serikawa T. (2010) Scn1a missense mutation impairs GABAA receptor-mediated synaptic transmission in the rat hippocampus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 400:117–122. Berkovic SF, Harkin L, McMahon JM, Pelekanos JT, Zuberi SM, Wirrell EC, et al. De-novo mutations of the sodium channel gene SCN1A in alleged vaccine encephalopathy: a retrospective study. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5: 488–92. January 27, 2014 – Evaluation of regression in autism spectrum disorder based on parental reports (full text) “Turning to the question of what event preceded or was associated with the regression, the questionnaire data consisted of responses in four categories: Unknown (n = 26; 31.7%); vaccination (n = 47; 57.3%); infection (n = 6; 7.3%); or other (n = 3; 3.7%). In the group that reported regression after vaccination, the questionnaire responses fell into one of four categories: Multiple vaccines (n = 23; 48.9%); measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) (n = 19; 40.4%); influenza (n = 3; 6.4%); and diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) (n = 2; 4.3%). Of those who listed vaccination as a factor, five (10.6%) stated that an infection was a cofactor. Of those who listed the DPT vaccine, one was prior to 1996 and one was after 1996. The questionnaires for those children in the ‘other’ category reported pesticide exposure (n = 1) and GI illness (n = 2) as the regression-associated factor. Being R or DR was not significantly related to any factors associated with the onset of regression. For a summary of this information, see [Table 3]. November 2013 – Administration of aluminium to neonatal mice in vaccine-relevant amounts is associated with adverse long term neurological outcomes. “Injections of a “high” and “low” Al adjuvant levels were designed to correlate to either the U.S. or Scandinavian paediatric vaccine schedules vs. control saline-injected mice. Both male and female mice in the “high Al” group showed significant weight gains following treatment up to sacrifice at 6 months of age. Male mice in the “high Al” group showed significant changes in light–dark box tests and in various measures of behaviour in an open field. Female mice showed significant changes in the light–dark box at both doses, but no significant changes in open field behaviours. These current data implicate Al injected in early postnatal life in some CNS alterations that may be relevant for a better understanding of the aetiology of ASD.” September 2, 2013 – Pediatric Mortality in Males Versus Females in the United States, 1999–2008 (full text) “When stratifying infant deaths by estimated gestational age, after 24 weeks, females exhibit a constant advantage (overall RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.11–1.12). Finally, focusing on cancer-related deaths, although females may have reduced incidence or mortality risks within age groups or cancer types, the overall pattern still inclines toward greater male incidence and mortality.”…”Further research is warranted to better understand the mechanisms that account for this pervasive female advantage across age and cause of death and in children.” Volume 2013 – B-Lymphocytes from a Population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal (full text) “In our recently published work, we have shown that the mitochondria of normal human astrocytes accumulate the ethylmercury lipophilic cation and that after this primary insult cell death occurs. Here we show that a subpopulation of four individuals with autism, along with some of their siblings, have B-cells exhibiting hypersensitivity toward thimerosal that can be attributed to their mitochondrial phenotype. Thus, certain individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to mitochondrial specific toxins like the vaccine preservative thimerosal.” January 22, 2013 – Elevated maternal C-reactive protein and autism in a national birth cohort “For maternal CRP levels in the highest quintile, compared with the lowest quintile, there was a significant, 43% elevated risk. This finding suggests that maternal inflammation may have a significant role in autism, with possible implications for identifying preventive strategies and pathogenic mechanisms in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.” Comment: See Pregnancy and Vaccinations “Inflammatory responses to trivalent influenza virus vaccine among pregnant women” Volume 7 No.1 2012 – Toxic Metals and Essential Elements in Hair and Severity of Symptoms among Children with Autism(pdf) “All of the children admitted received routine childhood vaccinations…”As shown in Table 2, the mean hair metal concentration was high for aluminum (15.21±9.0), arsenic (2.94±4.05), cadmium (0.62±0.19), mercury (3.35±4.80), antimony (0.58±0.09), nickel (2.37±1.28), and lead (4.56±1.40). Of the 44 children, 13.5 showed vanadium values above the reference range. None of the children showed conspicuous values for uranium and the potentially toxic trace elements chromium.” December 13, 2012 – Another ‘win’ in vaccine court against MMR vaccine RYAN B. MOJABI (pdf) November 7, 2012 – Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure (pdf) “It has recently been proposed that aluminum, commonly used in vaccines as an adjuvant, may be the most significant factor in adverse reactions, and, furthermore, that the nervous system is especially vulnerable to aluminum toxicity.” "Started from the bottom and I just realized I'm still there since the money and the fame is an illusion" -Drake doing self-inquiry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 11 minutes ago, DrewNows said: @Serotoninluv The whole premise behind that article is assuming viewers hold (will accept) the understanding that disease does not actually exist outside what Dr Morse and many others like to call "the world of illusion" or western medicine. I apologize for my incongruence in communication. This is why i would consider them mutually exclusive, because it offers a form of science (tool) built upon the terrain theory, giving actual answers/causations as well as solutions/protocols to self heal. Now i guess it's pretty obvious the potential for a collapse of the systems in place if people were simply educated on how to heal themselves (detox) rather than paying huge sums of money to fight a cancer that usually had built up over time, and is treated in the fashion of fighting fire with fire. Anyways does this make more sense? My bad if this was literally wasting your time I think the “world of illusion” idea has merit. I think microbes as causative agents can be overplayed and underlying unhealthy conditions (terrain) can be underplayed by many mainstream scientists. . . Scientists want to control the narrative and much of the general population has a “me vs them” mindset, in which “them” are pathogenic microbes. There is much more emphasis on treatment of symptoms, rather than prevention. As well, I think there is a lot to how imagination can lead to a variety of illnesses, in particular neurosis. There are a ton of psycho-somatic related illnesses that people might blame on exogenous agents. And I’d like to see more studies regarding visualization and self healing. For example, visualizing a strong immune system attacking cancer cells. Although, I would speculate that this would be an accessory activity and not itself curative (unless we are talking very high conscious levels). However, even if we give the authors a pass on technical misstatements of cellular biology, there is still a problem I see. If we enter into the nonphysical realm that microbes are illusory, then it’s all illusory. You don’t get to point and say that physical thing over there is illusory, yet this physical thing over here is real. There is as much evidence for the physical nature of pathogenic microbes and there is evidence for the physical nature of your body. If you say that physical microbes are actually nonphysical illusions, then you need to say the human body is also a nonphysical illusion. And that is not what the authors are saying. They are saying that pathogenic microbes are nonphysical illusions, yet the bodily is physical reality. There is a very simple test to reveal this discrepancy. Give me a volunteer that believes pathogenic microbes are a nonphysical illusion and the body is physically real. Someone who has never had a vaccination. You could pick the #1 guy in this area. He has done all the cleansing and detoxes. He is at the highest level of understanding that pathogenic microbes are illusory. . . We then pump him full of Myobacterium Tuberculosis and throw in some Anthrax. I guarantee you he will learn a lot about the the physical properties of pathogenic microbes and his idea of “illusory” microbes will be updated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 @Serotoninluv Awesome! Let me share you this before continuing as to not have any confusion, make sure we are on the same page. This is just one view/story of history “Part 1: Germ theory debunked Here’s what I’m talking about with the germ theory. Check it out, take a breath read it. Remember everything we know comes from the new world since 2 world wars (the victors of war always write the history books)and when it comes to medicine the Rockerfell-a institution has done a great job at implementing their teachings. You Cannot Catch Bugs, Germs, Bacteria or Candida/Fungi © Copyright Bee Wilder April 3, 2015 The following text disproves "The Germ Theory of Disease," as promoted by the medical industry today, which was initiated by Louis Pasteur in the early 1800s and it confirms that you cannot catch bugs, germs, bacteria or candida/fungi. Louis Pasteur (1822 – 1895), Plagiarist, Impostor! A plagiarist is someone who uses another person’s words or ideas as if they were his own. An imposter is someone who attempts to deceive. Louis Pasteur was a French microbiologist and chemist, born on December 27, 1822 in Dole, in the region of Jura, France. His discovery that most infectious diseases are caused by germs, known as "the germ theory of disease," became the foundation for the science of microbiology, and a cornerstone of modern medicine. "Pasteur also developed ‘pasteurization’, which was named after him. Pasteurization is a process by which harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without destroying the food." However, this is not true. Pasteurization does NOT kill ALL “supposedly” harmful microbes (harmful according to the medical industry) and it definitely DOES damage the food by destroying natural enzymes and nutrients. However, Louis Pasteur was not an honest creditable individual. If you look back into the history of the medical profession and the various ideas regarding the cause of disease that were held by leading physicians before Pasteur first promulgated his notorious "germ theory", you will find convincing evidence that Pasteur discovered nothing, and that he deliberately appropriated, falsified and perverted another man’s work. His true character and methods were brought to light by Miss Ethel Douglas Hume in her book "Pasteur or Béchamp" written in 1923, the title of which has since been changed to "Pasteur Exposed." Another book by R.B. Pearson "Pasteur, Plagiarist, Impostor" was originally published in the 1940s, with a new edition entitled "The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur." Interestingly enough Pasteur instructed his family never to release his lab notes. After his grandson died in 1975, they were finally released. Gerald Geison, a science historian, was among the first people to thoroughly review those notes. In 1995, which was “ironically” proclaimed "The Year of Pasteur," Geison’s article was published in the New York Times proclaiming that Pasteur had lied about his research on vaccines and germs and that most of his ideas had been plagiarized from his contemporaries. His article, "Pasteur’s Deception" claimed that Pasteur was, in the end, a fraud. It was Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908), a contemporary of Pasteur, who discovered the true nature of germs, bacteria, viruses, etc., and that they were pleomorphic (capable of changing from one type of organism to another). Later on another colleague of Pasteur’s colleague’s, Claude Bernard, described the "milieu" or environment that affected/caused those changes. On his deathbed, Pasteur recanted, saying that Bernard [Claude Bernard] was right; "the Terrain is everything, the Germ is nothing!" However, since the "Germ Theory of Disease" is so profitable, the medical world has written off his final statements as the madness of a dying man. We should all be so mad! Another problem with the germ theory of disease is discovered when we look at "Koch’s Postulates" [Dr. Robert Koch]: Postulates means accepted statements of fact. The germ which causes a disease must be found in every case of the disease under the conditions which could explain the disease. The germ must not be found in other diseases or healthy people. The germ could be isolated and used to induce an experimental disease in animals which resembles (is like) the original disease in humans. Pasteur never quite fulfilled all of thise rules. He was not able to find the germ in all cases of a disease and this is where his research became fraudulent. Additionally, many so-called pathogenic germs are often found in healthy people. And finally, when Pasteur passed a germ from one animal to another to cause the disease, he did not pass the germ alone, but took some blood with it. Injecting toxic blood from one animal to another will guarantee the receiving animal becomes sick. Antoine Béchamp’s Discoveries Professor Antoine Béchamp, a French biologist (1816 – 1908), who was Pasteur’s contemporary (lived at the same time and they knew each other), developed and demonstrated a pleomorphic (many forms – see a more complete description below) theory – essentially that bacteria change form and are not the cause of, but the result of, disease, arising from tissues rather than from a germ of constant form. This has also been called the “cellular disease theory.” Béchamp discovered that these micro-organisms (germs) feed upon the poisonous material which they find in the sick organism and prepare it for excretion. These tiny organisms are derived from still tinier organisms called microzyma. These microzyma are present in the tissues and blood of all living organisms where they remain normally quiescent (quiet and not acting) and harmless. When the welfare of the human body is threatened by the presence of potentially harmful material, a transmutation (change) takes place [also called pleomorphism]. The microzyma changes into a bacterium or virus which immediately goes to work to rid the body of this harmful material. When the bacteria or viruses have completed their task of consuming the harmful material they automatically revert to the microzyma stage." –Béchamp. Sourced: Vaccination The "Hidden" Facts by Ian Sinclair, p62 Béchamp himself wrote: "I draw the conclusion that normal air never contains morbid microzymas, or what used to be called germs of diseases and are now called microbes; maintaining, in accord with the old medical aphorism (general truth) that diseases are born of us and in us, that no one has ever been able to communicate a characteristic disease of the nosological class [scientific classification of disease], such as anthrax, smallpox, typhoid fever, cholera, plague, tuberculosis, hydrophobia, syphilis, etc., by taking the germ in the air, but they are isolated from a patient, at some particular moment." Béchamp’s academic record includes: Master of Pharmacy Doctor of Science Doctor of Medicine Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy at Montpellier Fellow and Professor of Physics and Toxicology – Strasbourg Higher School of Pharmacy Professor of Chemistry at Strasbourg Professor of Biological Chemistry and Dean of Faculty of Medicine of Lille; etc., etc. Pleomorphism versus Monomorphism Pleo-morphism means many forms; many or more (pleo-), forms or bodies (morph-), capable of changing from one type of organism to another. This is in contradistinction (distinction by contrast) to Mono-morphism which means one (mono-) body or form. Modern medicine, bacteriology, is founded on the idea of Mono-morphism where once a germ is a particular germ it always stays that way. According to this way of thinking, a streptococcal germ is always a streptococcus. It only has one (mono-) form; it doesn’t change into anything else. However, that is not true. Streptococcal germs and many other kinds of germs, bacteria and viruses can, and do, change into other forms, proven to occur by many eminent researchers since the early 1800s, including Gaston Naessens, Gunther Enderlein, Royal Rife, Antoine Béchamp, and others. Even modern medicine recognizes that bacteria, viruses change into stronger ones, becoming resistant to antibiotic drugs. Pleomorphism is a concept discovered in the early 1800’s. It shows that germs, bacteria and viruses come from inside the body; from the "tiny dots" you can see in the blood with any microscope. These "tiny dots" of course are the colloids of life or protits. Pleomorphism is a concept that today sounds very strange. What pleomorphism is however, cannot be denied as the vast amount of data that has been obtained over the last 180 years confirms what modern microbiologists are discovering, re-discovering today. As noted, many people have been involved in this debate for a long time. Tiny microbes are "tiny dots" in our blood that change form into microorganisms that clean up the garbage, dead cells, toxins and the like. This is what bacteria, germs, and viruses are for. They change first into viruses, then into bacteria and finally into fungal forms. Each of these stages is progressively more hostile to surrounding tissue cells. Germs, all micro-organisms, (viruses, bacteria, fungi and everything in-between) are the result, not the cause of disease! Louis Pasteur was wrong! His idea of the bacterial cause of disease was wrong! If "germs" are there as a result, not a cause, then to treat the resultant germs with antibiotics is in theory and in fact, wrong! This basic misconception about disease affects all aspects of medicine. This is why this is a "new"… biology, even though it has been proved by many doctors and scientists starting in the early 1800s. Béchamp stated, in an address before the Academy of Medicine on the 3rd of May, 1870, "that nothing is more obscure than the cause which presides over the development of diseases and their communicability. But what we can affirm is that when we are sick, it is we who suffer, and that the suffering is a cruel reality. This is because the cause of our diseased condition is always within ourselves." External causes contribute to the development of the affliction and hence of the disease only because they have brought about some material modification of the medium (our body, animals, and even soil) in which live the ultimate particles of the organized matter which constitutes us, namely, the microzymas. These external causes, by a succession of changes brought about, and depending on a crowd of variables, bring about correlatively a further change, which then bears precisely upon the physiological and chemical status of the microzymas. The living being, filled with microzymas, carries in itself the elements essential for life, disease, death and destruction. Note: Béchamp called these tiny microbes microzymas, while Gaston Naessens called them somatids, and Gunther Enderlein called them protits. More in next post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 it’s very long so I can delete afterward if necessary “Part 2 Cont..: (You need to read the last post for this to make sense) Antibiotics, Immunization or Improved Nutrition? In 1973 Dr. D. Powles observed: "The major contributing factor toward improved health over the past 200 years has been improved nutrition. Nearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate in children between 1860 and 1965 due to whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria and measles occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization against diphtheria" (Powles, 1973). Epidemiologist Dr. G.T. Stewart made a similar statement which was reported in Lancet of May 18,1968; and prior to this Sir Robert McCarrison, the great English physician, wrote: "Obsessed with the invisible microbe, virus, protozoa as all important excitants of disease, subservient to laboratory methods of diagnosis, hidebound by our system of nomenclature, we often forget the most fundamental of all rules for the physician, that the right kind of food (nutrition) is the most important single factor in the promotion of health and the wrong kind of food the most important single factor in the promotion of disease” (McCarrison, 1936). In a personal communication (1974), Dr. Klenner made the following important observations: "Many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin vaccine, being made of monkey kidney tissue, has been directly responsible for the major increase of leukemia in this country. Your own Dr. Nossal from the Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia made the statement which was published in our Medical Tribune that, ‘Most killed vaccine in use today was not fit for a mouse.’ " Elsewhere in the same communication Dr. Klenner astutely sums up some pertinent reasons for our inability to make successful viral vaccines as follows: "I am of the opinion that virus units have the potential of going from one type to another by just altering their protein coat. We see chicken pox at Thanksgiving, mumps by Christmas, red measles in the spring and polio and what we now know was Coxsackie in the summer. When the red measles vaccine was given to the children in our community we immediately had an epidemic of sore throats and many of the older people demonstrated Koplik’s spots" (Klenner, 1974). These viewpoints appear to constitute food for thought. Moreover, it is disappointing to observe the futility and ineffectiveness of many "flu" vaccines that have been accepted by an unwary public. If we consider Béchamp’s thesis that viruses and bacteria can be extensions of enzymes ("microzymas"), that there are specific disease conditions rather than specific diseases, that the virus and the bacterium are the concomitants, not the antecedents of disease, is it not conceivable that these entities may become, by evolution and nutritional breakdown, the viruses and bacteria we are studying so intently? Is Klenner right? Was Béchamp right? Is this why we cannot make a successful vaccine? Disease and Béchamp’s Hypothesis: A Final Consideration A further search of the relevant literature produced the following: "S. Typhi has been isolated from surgical wounds and gall bladders of patients not known to be typhoid carriers" (Arch. Surg., 1972). Showing the influence of orthodoxy the article then concludes that these patients are infection hazards. We wonder aloud how many "infection hazards" we would detect if we did a bacteriological survey upon all the passengers of a jumbo jet? Surveys that we have participated in show that a large percentage of the sample may indeed "carry" so-called pathogens without any clinical symptoms of disease. Perhaps it is time we revised the word pathogen? W. A. Altemeier describes the increase of mixed infections which he alleges are due to indiscreet use of antibiotics, which produces viral, fungal and L-forms which are much more difficult to control. Altemeier then describes how the bacterial flora is ever changing and cites a case of septicemia: this commenced as a staphylococcal infection and then successively became pseudomonas, bacteroides. E. Coli. Enterobacter, aerogenes, anaerobic streptococci, serratia and finally proteus (Altemeier, 1975). How many realize that the results of a culture and sensitivity collected from a patient the day before may have changed by the time the result is readable in the laboratory? In other words, yesterday’s tests may be today’s mistakes! This behavior of the micro-organism might appear much less strange if we adopt more the viewpoint of Béchamp who described the microzymian endogenous (developing inside the body) evolution of micro-organisms some 100 years ago. If a child develops measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, mumps, rubella or any of the other common childhood infections, it is not because of germs, but because of the accumulated toxic waste within the body, a condition known as Toxaemia. Royal Raymond Rife’s Discoveries: One day, the name of Royal Raymond Rife may ascend to its rightful place as the giant of modern medical science. Until that time, his fabulous technology remains available only to the people who have the interest to seek it out. While perfectly legal for veterinarians to use anything to save the lives of animals, Rife’s brilliant frequency therapy remains taboo to orthodox mainstream medicine because of the continuing threat it poses to the international pharmaceutical medical monopoly that controls the lives – and deaths – of the vast majority of the people on this planet. Rife’s inventions include a heterodyning ultraviolet microscope, a microdissector, and a micromanipulator. When you thoroughly understand Rife’s achievements, you may well decide that he has the most gifted, versatile, scientific mind in human history. The result of using a resonant wavelength is that micro-organisms which are invisible in white light suddenly become visible in a brilliant flash of light when they are exposed to the color frequency that resonates with their own distinct spectroscopic signature. Rife was thus able to see these otherwise invisible organisms and watch them actively invading tissues cultures. Rife’s discovery enabled him to view organisms that no one else could see with ordinary microscopes. By 1920, Rife had finished building the world’s first virus microscope. By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size. With this incredible microscope, Rife became the first human being to actually see a live virus, and until quite recently, the Universal Microscope was the only one which was able view live viruses. Modern electron microscopes instantly kill everything beneath them, viewing only the mummified remains and debris. What the Rife microscope can see is the bustling activity of living viruses as they change form to accommodate changes in environment, replicate rapidly in response to carcinogens, and transform normal cells into tumor cells. But how was Rife able to accomplish this, in an age when electronics and medicine were still just evolving? Here are a few technical details to placate the skeptics… Rife painstakingly identified the individual spectroscopic signature of each microbe, using a slit spectroscope attachment. Then, he slowly rotated block quartz prisms to focus light of a single wavelength upon the microorganism he was examining. This wavelength was selected because it resonated with the spectroscopic signature frequency of the microbe based on the now-established fact that every molecule oscillates at its own distinct frequency. The atoms that come together to form a molecule are held together in that molecular configuration with a covalent energy bond which both emits and absorbs its own specific electromagnetic frequency. No two species of molecule have the same electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature. Resonance amplifies light in the same way two ocean waves intensify each other when they merge together. More than 75% of the organisms Rife could see with his Universal Microscope are only visible with ultra-violet light. But ultraviolet light is outside the range of human vision; it is ‘invisible’ to us. Rife’s brilliance allowed him to overcome this limitation by heterodyning, a technique which became popular in early radio broadcasting. He illuminated the microbe (usually a virus or bacteria) with two different wavelengths of the same ultraviolet light frequency which resonated with the spectral signature of the microbe. These two wavelengths produced interference where they merged. This interference was, in effect, a third, longer wave which fell into the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This was how Rife made invisible microbes visible without killing them, a feat which today’s electron microscopes cannot duplicate. By this time, Rife was so far ahead of his colleagues of the 1930’s(!), that they could not comprehend what he was doing without actually traveling to San Diego to Rife’s laboratory to look through his Virus Microscope for themselves. And many did exactly that. One was Virginia Livingston. She eventually moved from New Jersey to Rife’s Point Loma (San Diego) neighborhood and became a frequent visitor to his lab. Virginia Livingston is now often given the credit for identifying the organism which causes human cancer, beginning with research papers she began publishing in 1948. In reality, Royal Rife had identified the human cancer virus first…in 1920! Rife then made over 20,000 unsuccessful attempts to transform normal cells into tumor cells. He finally succeeded when he irradiated the cancer virus, passed it through a cell-catching ultra-fine porcelain filter, and injected it into lab animals. Not content to prove this virus would cause one tumor, Rife then created 400 tumors in succession from the same culture. He documented everything with film, photographs, and meticulous records. He named the cancer virus ‘Cryptocides primordiales.’ Virginia Livingston, in her papers, renamed it Progenitor Cryptocides. Royal Rife was never even mentioned in her papers. In fact, Rife seldom got credit for his monumental discoveries. He was a quiet, unassuming scientist, dedicated to expanding his discoveries rather than to ambition, fame, and glory. His distaste for medical politics (which he could afford to ignore thanks to generous trusts set up by private benefactors) left him at a disadvantage later, when powerful forces attacked him. Coupled with the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in purging his papers from medical journals, it is hardly surprising that few heave heard of Rife today. Nevertheless, many scientists and doctors have since confirmed Rife’s discovery of the cancer virus and its pleomorphic nature, using darkfield techniques, the Naessens microscope, and laboratory experiments. Rife also worked with the top scientists and doctors of his day who also confirmed or endorsed various areas of his work. They included: E.C. Rosenow, Sr. (long-time Chief of Bacteriology, Mayo Clinic); Arthur Kendall (Director, Northwestern Medical School); Dr. George Dock (internationally-renowned); Alvin Foord (famous pathologist); Rufus Klein-Schmidt (President of USC); R.T. Hamer (Superintendent, Paradise Valley Sanitarium; Dr. Milbank Johnson (Director of the Southern California AMA); Whalen Morrison (Chief Surgeon, Santa Fe Railway); George Fischer (Children’s Hospital, N.Y.); Edward Kopps (Metabolic Clinic, La Jolla); Karl Meyer (Hooper Foundation, S.F.); M. Zite (Chicago University); and many others. By increasing the intensity of a frequency which resonated naturally with these microbes, Rife increased their natural oscillations until they distorted and disintegrated from structural stresses. Rife called this frequency ‘the mortal oscillatory rate,’ or ‘MOR’, and it did no harm whatsoever to the surrounding tissues. Today’s Rife instruments use harmonics of the frequencies shown on the display screen. The wavelength of the actual frequency shown (770hz, 880hz, etc.) is too long to do the job. This principle can be illustrated by using an intense musical note to shatter a wine glass: the molecules of the glass are already oscillating at some harmonic (multiple) of that musical note; they are in resonance with it. Because everything else has a different resonant frequency, nothing but the glass is destroyed. There are literally hundreds of trillions of different resonant frequencies, and every species and molecule has its very own. It took Rife many years, working 48 hours at a time, until he discovered the frequencies which specifically destroyed herpes, polio, spinal meningitis, tetanus, influenza, and an immense number of other dangerous disease organisms. In 1934, the University of Southern California appointed a Special Medical Research Committee to bring terminal cancer patients from Pasadena County Hospital to Rife’s San Diego Laboratory and clinic for treatment. The team included doctors and pathologists assigned to examine the patients – if still alive – in 90 days. After the 90 days of treatment, the Committee concluded that 86.5% of the patients had been completely cured. The treatment was then adjusted and the remaining 13.5% of the patients also responded within the next four weeks. The total recovery rate using Rife’s technology was 100%. On November 20, 1931, forty-four of the nation’s most respected medical authorities honored Royal Rife with a banquet billed as The End To All Diseases at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson. But by 1939, almost all of these distinguished doctors and scientists were denying that they had ever met Rife. What happened to make so many brilliant men have complete memory lapses? It seems that news of Rife’s miracles with terminal patients had reached other ears. Remember our hypothetical question at the beginning of this report: What would happen if you discovered a cure for everything? You are now about to find out…. At first, a token attempt was made to buy out Rife. Morris Fishbein, who had acquired the entire stock of the American Medical Association by 1934, sent an attorney to Rife with ‘an offer you can’t refuse.’ Rife refused. We may never know the exact terms of this offer. There’s more to this history...and it’s all corruption.” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 2 hours ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said: I literally registered and got access to the library within less than a minute. Its funny you think you are contributing to something sinister just by registering for access. But okay, I'm only going to send you links to studies referencing the autism issue: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763 - Aluminum study in brain - no vaccines https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1708223 - Only examined the frequency of vaccinations in children, not for a correlation between vaccines and autism. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/140/2/e20171419 - A review of Eugenics and Autism. Not a vaccine study. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0946672X16304400 - A vaccine study showing increased risk for TM-HepB vaccine. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-017-1002-6 - Study of heavy metals and autism. Not a vaccine study. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.41 - A review of DNA methylation and autism. Not a research article. Not a vaccine study. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00003/full - A pilot study suggesting a causal link between vaccines and neuropsychiatric disorders. The authors stress that this is only a pilot study and no conclusions can be made. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26218563 - A study of autism rates near industries releasing heavy metals. Nothing to do with vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr087.pdf - A questionnaire to determine autism frequency in a population. Nothing to do with vaccines. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637446/ - Nothing to do with vaccines. A study of mice examining the relationship of autism-like symptoms and heavy metal exposure. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2015/573701/ http://web.archive.org/web/20160703183407/http://issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/2132/4596 http://www.soundchoice.org/scpiJournalPubHealthEpidem092014.pdf http://www.oapublishinglondon.com/article/1368 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70299-0/fulltext?elsca1=ETOC-NEUROLOGY&elsca2=email&elsca3=J34S35F http://www.najms.org/article.asp?issn=1947-2714;year=2014;volume=6;issue=1;spage=41;epage=47;aulast=Kern https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013413001773 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/132/4/631.full https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2013/801517/ http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-14-02227.pdf There are many, many more where that came from. Mentioning vaccines in the discussion does NOT count as a scientific study or evidence. Above, I went through the first ten links. Of these: 8/10 were not vaccine studies. They are completely removed from vaccines, show zero empirical data related to vaccines and nothing can be inferred about vaccines in these articles / studies. 1/10 was a pilot study that implied a temporal correlation between vaccines and autism. Yet the authors themselves stress that this is a pilot study that is merely suggestive and no causative conclusions can be made. 1/10 showed a statistically significant correlation between ONE specific vaccine and autism. So about 80% of what you consider “evidence” is not evidence at all. It didn’t even involve vaccines. 10% of what you consider evidence is weak suggestive evidence and 10% of what you consider evidence is actual significant empirical evidence. So only about 10% of what you are considering evidence, is actual empirical evidence (for ONE specific vaccine). This is a very low efficiency. Imagine scoring 10% on an exam. . . If you want to improve your efficiency, I would examine meta-analyses, because they will analyze the studies that are actually relevant for you. You won’t mis-perceive 80% of what you are seeing to be actual empirical evidence. The meta-analysis I posted above is a broad study that examined evidence that BOTH shows a causal relationship and doesn’t show a causal relationship,. It was conducted by a broad range of the highest experts. If you want to strengthen your argument that there is empirical evidence showing a causative connection, this one article has 10X the power of all the articles you linked combined. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 @DrewNows Like I said, there is a very easy way to test if pathogenic microbes are real. To test if pathogenic microbes are real, one simply needs to pump themselves up with mycobacterium tuberculosis and viral Ebola. . . . There is no need to get twisted in a pretzel. No one is willing to pump themselves full of the deadliest pathogenic bacteria because they know the consequences. They wouldn’t even do it for a million dolllars, because they know they would suffer a horrific death. Just like no one would be willing to test if gravity is real by jumping off a building. It’s easy to create all sorts of thought stories, yet when it comes down to actually testing it, I guarantee you that NONE of the people claiming pathogenic microbes are illusory will volunteer to test their story. Think about it. . . Those claiming pathogenic microbes are illusory can easily demonstrate the truth of their claim by pumping themselves full of the deadliest “illusory” pathogenic microbes. Such a straightforward test that would clearly demonstrate this truth to all of their followers. . . Yet they would never do it. . . They rely on a gullible audience (in this context, they have some value in other contexts). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 19 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said: Mentioning vaccines in the discussion does NOT count as a scientific study or evidence. Above, I went through the first ten links. Of these: 8/10 were not vaccine studies. They are completely removed from vaccines, show zero empirical data related to vaccines and nothing can be inferred about vaccines in these studies. 1/10 was a pilot study that implied a temporal correlation between vaccines and autism. Yet the authors themselves stress that this is a pilot study that is merely suggestive and no causative conclusions can be made. 1/10 showed a statistically significant correlation between ONE specific vaccine and autism. So about 80% of what you consider “evidence” is not evidence at all. It didn’t even involve vaccines. 10% of what you consider evidence is weak suggestive evidence and 10% of what you consider evidence is actual evidence. So roughly 10% of what you are considering evidence, is actual empirical evidence (for ONE specific vaccine). This is a very low efficiency. If you want to improve your efficiency, I would examine meta-analysis, like the one I posted. This meta-analysis was a broad study that examined evidence that BOTH indicates a causal relationship and evidence that doesn’t show a causal relationship,. If you want to strengthen your argument that there is empirical evidence showing a causative connection, this one article has 10X the power of all the articles you linked combined. OK so watch for the come back here. Whats happened is @TrynaBeTurquoise has made the claim that vaccines are linked to autism and that there are solid peer reviewed scientific studies that confirm this. This is important because note that scientific research is considered valid evidence, so if the studies were to show that there was a link @TrynaBeTurquoise would feel thats a definitive result otherwise there would be no point in sharing the docs. After reviewing the studies most of which are not relevant, @Serotoninluv has confirmed that one vaccine has a causal relationship although there could be more in the meta analysis provided. So we can say there are areas that maybe can be looked into more but for the most part the studies show that there isnt much evidence for a link to autism. So the assumption would that @TrynaBeTurquoise is mistaken at least using the scientific method in this case, so the obvious next step would be to rethink and reevaluate your beliefs as the evidence that informs these current beliefs is incorrect. So lets see what happens next, will more evidence be presented or will we see the science be denied which would be shooting yourself in the foot (im very bored in lockdown if youre wondering lol) If you liked whatever i said in this post, check out my youtube channel for actual me talking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 @Consept I wouldn’t say he is entirely incorrect. There are some scientific studies showing a link. That meta-analysis listed several studies. This doesn’t surprise me as there are various forms of vaccines and some specific vaccines are likely one of many inputs that can contribute to neuropsychiatric conditions. This is to be expected since some vaccines contain trace heavy metals, which we know without a doubt causes neuropsychiatric conditions. However, most vaccines appear to be a low risk for most people. So rather than saying the belief is “wrong”, I would say that the belief is overstated. This is super common in science. Scientists love to overstate conclusions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 34 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said: Mentioning vaccines in the discussion does NOT count as a scientific study or evidence. Above, I went through the first ten links. Of these: 8/10 were not vaccine studies. They are completely removed from vaccines, show zero empirical data related to vaccines and nothing can be inferred about vaccines in these articles / studies. 1/10 was a pilot study that implied a temporal correlation between vaccines and autism. Yet the authors themselves stress that this is a pilot study that is merely suggestive and no causative conclusions can be made. 1/10 showed a statistically significant correlation between ONE specific vaccine and autism. So about 80% of what you consider “evidence” is not evidence at all. It didn’t even involve vaccines. 10% of what you consider evidence is weak suggestive evidence and 10% of what you consider evidence is actual significant empirical evidence. So only about 10% of what you are considering evidence, is actual empirical evidence (for ONE specific vaccine). This is a very low efficiency. Imagine scoring 10% on an exam. . . If you want to improve your efficiency, I would examine meta-analyses, because they will analyze the studies that are actually relevant for you. You won’t mis-perceive 80% of what you are seeing to be actual empirical evidence. The meta-analysis I posted above is a broad study that examined evidence that BOTH shows a causal relationship and doesn’t show a causal relationship,. It was conducted by a broad range of the highest experts. If you want to strengthen your argument that there is empirical evidence showing a causative connection, this one article has 10X the power of all the articles you linked combined. I appreciate you carefully reviewing what I posted. Keep in mind I posted a very small % of the compilation of research articles, and autism is just one out of many many study categories. From what I've researched, there are significant conflicts of interests in vaccine studies. Consider that there aren't more of these statistically significant causations for a reason. Quote May 15, 2018 – Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of a 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Subgroup Analysis of Participants From Asian Countries “Conclusions The 9vHPV vaccine is efficacious, immunogenic, and well tolerated in Asian participants. Data support 9vHPV vaccination programs in Asia.“ Comment: From the CDC Pink Book December 2016: Gardasil 9 contains twice the amount of aluminum adjuvant than Gardasil. Each 0.5-mL dose of the Gardasil 9 vaccine contains approximately 500 mcg of aluminum See here. Each 0.5-mL dose of Gardasil vaccine contains approximately 225 mcg of aluminum here. Financial support. This work was supported by Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Potential conflicts of interest. S. M. G. has received grants from Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, GlaxoSmithKline, CSL, and Commonwealth Department of Health through her institution, travel, and accommodation expenses paid by Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, to present at HPV advisory board meetings, and has delivered lectures and received speaking fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD) and SPMSD for work performed in her personal time. L.-M. H. has received personal fees as a lecturer for educational symposium from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. N. B. has received research funding through her institution for this study. H. Y. has received lecture and advisory fees from GlaxoSmithKline K.K. and MSD K.K., Tokyo, Japan. M. C. E., E. M., M. R., C. S., A. W., G. P., and A. L. are employees of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and may have received stock/stock options. S. R. H., S. M., and M. S. are employees of MSD K.K., Tokyo, Japan. March 31, 2018 – Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib and PHiD-CV When Co-Administered with MenACWY-TT in Infants: Results of an Open, Randomized Trial – in this study, this was all given at the same time: DTaP+HepatitisB + 3-valent Polio+ HiB+ 10-valent Prevnar + 4-valent Meningitis C + Tetanus Toxoid (more tetanus). Side effects followed for FOUR days. Conflict of Interest and Source of Funding: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA was the funding source and was involved in all stages of the study conduct and analysis. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA also funded all costs associated with the development and the publishing of the present manuscript. ACM received financial support from the “Fundación Médica Alfonso Carmona”. JMMA received non-financial support and fees for consulting, lectures and expert testimony from the GSK group of companies and has received fees from Pfizer SA and Mundipharma outside the submitted work. XMPP was a speaker, researcher and consultant for the GSK group of companies. JMB served on the Board of Sanofi Pasteur MSD and has received fees from Sanofi Pasteur MSD (for lectures including service on speakers’ bureaus), from the GSK group of companies (for lectures including service on speakers’ bureaus, and as a principal investigator in clinical trials), and from Pfizer (as a principal investigator in clinical trials and for lectures including service on speakers’ bureaus). MW is an employees of the GSK group of companies. YB and DK were employees of the GSK group of companies at the time of the study. YB and MW declared stock ownership in the GSK group of companies. January 8, 2018 – Cost-effectiveness of dengue vaccination in ten endemic countries (full text) “The study was conservative in that it assumed that the incidence of dengue observed during the trial would continue over the 30-year period of the model. As noted earlier, despite substantial year-to-year fluctuation, the number of cases reported to the World Health Organization has actually been increasing rapidly in recent years due to increasing urbanization, travel, and other factors. This upward trend in incidence may make dengue vaccination increasingly cost-effective. DS also received travel funding from Sanofi Pasteur. NB and LC are employed by Sanofi Pasteur. All authors discussed data analyses and interpretation, helped to draft and critically revise the manuscript and approved the final version submitted. January 4, 2018 – HPV vaccination strategies targeting hard-to-reach populations: Out-of-school girls in LMICs (full text) “Opportunities exist for local health authorities and partners to design, implement, and evaluate these strategies in various combinations relevant to local contexts in future demonstration projects or pilot studies to assess which modalities are most effective in vaccinating out-of-school girls. As additional countries consider implementing school-based HPV vaccination programs, efforts should also be undertaken to identify best practices for ensuring that out-of-school girls also benefit from national HPV vaccination programs. … Conflict of interest CB has received funding from Merck to conduct other HPV research, outside the scope of this study. February 9, 2017 – Risk of autoimmune diseases and human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines: Six years of case-referent surveillance (full text) Declaration of interest LG-B reports grants received from the GSK group of companies and Sanofi Pasteur MSD during the conduct of the study and grants received from Hisamitsu, Johnson&Johnson Santé Beauté France SAS, Pfizer Santé Familiale, Laboratoires Urgo, Therabel Lucien Pharma, Zambon France, Sanofi-Aventis France, Laboratoires Bouchara-Recordati, Laboratoires Jolly-Jatel, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare France, Novartis Pharma SAS, Coopération Pharmaceutique Française, Astra-Zeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim outside of the submitted work. IK-P reports personal fees received from AbbVie, Novartis and Sobi for consultancy and meetings outside of the submitted work. BG reports personal fees received from Sanofi during the conduct of the study. TP reports personal fees received from the GSK group of companies during the conduct of the study. PV reports personal fees and other fees for meeting registration, travel and accommodation from Biogen, Genzyme-Sanofi, Teva and Almirall and grants, personal fees and other fees for meeting registration, travel and accommodation from Merck, Novartis and Bayer outside of the submitted work. LA reports grants received from the GSK group of companies and Sanofi Pasteur MSD during the conduct of the study and grants received from Hisamitsu, Johnson&Johnson Santé Beauté France SAS, Pfizer Santé Familiale, Laboratoires Urgo, Zambon France, Sanofi-Aventis France, Laboratoires Bouchara-Recordati, Laboratoires Jolly-Jatel, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare France, Novartis Pharma SAS, Coopération Pharmaceutique Française, Astra-Zeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim outside of the submitted work. Funding The present study (NCT01498627) is a post-authorization safety study requested by the French Health authorities (HAS, Haute Autorité de Santé) and was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. The study used data from and tools developed for the PGRx program, which is owned by LASER. LASER received an unrestricted grant from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA for the conduct of this study. The collection of data from clinical centers, the patient interviews, the statistical analyses and reporting of findings were all conducted independently of GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, under the review of the Scientific Committee for this study. Role of the funding source GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA had no input into the design and conduct of the study or the reporting of results. February 2017 – A Phase III Randomized, Double-blind, Clinical Trial of an Investigational Hexavalent Vaccine Given at Two, Three, Four and Twelve Months (full text) “A hexavalent vaccine [diphtheria–tetanus toxoids–pertussis, hepatitis B vaccine, inactivated poliovirus vaccine and H. influenzae type b (DTPa3–HBV–IPV/Hib); Infanrix-hexa (GlaxoSmithKline Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada); Control] has been licensed in Europe for over a decade (the only hexavalent vaccine available at the time of the study), a period during which improvement in immunization timeliness and stable effectiveness in disease prevention has been observed.” . . . “The fully liquid investigational hexavalent vaccine [diphtheria–tetanus toxoids–acellular pertussis 5, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus vaccine and H. influenzae type b (DTaP5–HB–IPV–Hib)] reported here contains a 5-antigen pertussis component and has a different carrier protein conjugated to the Hib antigen. This report presents results from a pivotal European Union Phase III study (NCT01341639), assessing the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of DTaP5–HB–IPV–Hib compared with Control, when administered at 2, 3, 4 and 12 months, concomitantly with Prevenar 13 (PCV13) (Pfizer, Philadelphia, PA), RotaTeq (RV5) (Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ) and ProQuad (MMRV) (Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ). Another study of DTaP5–HB–IPV–Hib and Control when administered in the 2-month, 4-month, and 11-month to 12-month schedule has also been completed and is described in a separate manuscript. Funding for this research was provided by Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. and Sanofi Pasteur MSD. Although the funding companies formally reviewed a penultimate draft, the opinions expressed are those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors. All coauthors approved the final version of the manuscript. T.V., T.B., A.F.V. and K.P. were investigators for the sponsor supported by research grants. M.F.P., S.A.F., J.X., G.F.L., J.E.S. and A.W.L. are employees of Merck & Co., Inc. and may hold company stock and/or stock options. F.B., S.T. and E.Z. are employees of Sanofi Pasteur MSD COMMENT: I believe this was perhaps one of the most despicable studies I have ever seen…using a FULL complement of vaccines and nearly the SAME VACCINE as the placebo/control. Nearly 100% of babies in both groups had side effects, which were only followed for a dismal 15 days (remember, if they develop seizures or SIDS on day 16 or after, it’s not due to the vaccine, according to the study design.) Prevnar 13 and ProQuad (MMRV) are two of the most neurotoxic vaccines on the market. Thirty children had serious adverse events (SAEs) within the first 30 days, but the types of side effects were not included in the discussion. Arghhh!! All that matters to these poisoners who have been deemed to be “investigators” is that EACH vaccine antigen induces an antibody, the generalized marker of contamination. This “research” should be labeled medical assault, maybe assault with a potentially deadly weapon. I wonder what was offered to coerce parents into sacrificing their children to the Pharma gods? I wonder how many of these children remained “healthy” after at the endpoint of this trial? December 19, 2017 – Herpes zoster vaccine live: A 10 year review of post-marketing safety experience“Over the 10 years of post-marketing use, disseminated HZ with fatal outcome has been reported in an immunocompromised individual. However, the variable quality of spontaneous post-marketing reports, to include incomplete information, has hindered the analysis of several reports. None-the-less, 2 of the 18 reports of disseminated HZ were reports of secondary transmission of disseminated HZ and mechanistically implausible, and 6 were reports from individuals contraindicated to receive ZVL (Table 4). Oka/Merck vaccine strain was detected from specimens obtained from 3 of 6 patients reported to receive ZVL despite contraindications, leaving no doubt as to causality and supporting the contraindication for vaccination in these patients.” “Sponsor’s role This research was funded by Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (sponsor). In conjunction with the external investigators, this research was designed, executed, and analyzed by the sponsor. Although the sponsor formally reviewed a penultimate draft of this manuscript, the opinions expressed are those of the authorship and may not necessarily reflect those of the sponsor. All co-authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Potential conflicts of interest EW, MW, EB, ZP, PS, PA are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and may own stock or stock options in the company. NH reports having served on a safety monitoring committee for one of the postlicensure safety studies included in this manuscript and currently serving on a post-licensure safety monitoring committee for HPV vaccine produced by Merck. AG reports research grants from NIH R01 and from DSMB for GSK Subunit zoster vaccine outside the submitted work. Acknowledgement A special thank you to: Jon Stek, MS (Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA) and Karyn Davis, BA (Merck& Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA) for their guidance and editorial support; Ann Marko, BSN (Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA) for her collaboration through the VZV Identification Program; and Jason Chen, MD (Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons) and Sharon Steinberg (Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons) for their expertise in performing the PCR analysis and VZV strain-identification for several of the specimens. December 14, 2017 – Post-licensure safety surveillance study of routine use of quadrivalent meningococcal diphtheria toxoid conjugate vaccine (full text) Table 4. Investigation of significantly elevated events. Event categoryFindings Diabetes, type 15 cases, all with onset prior to vaccination: Events occurring on days 38 through 165. Difficulty breathing/shortness of breath9 events were distributed between days 6 and 154, with a mean latency of 82 days and median latency of 61 days. There was no obvious pattern to the distribution. Elective procedureNot researched further. Febrile illness47 events: 4 events on day 1; 1 event on day 5; 3 events on day 125; 2 events each on days 121, 137 and 180; occasional other days with 1 case. Fever is a known common adverse event following vaccination. Genital pain5 events: Dysmenorrhea on days 16 and 135; ovarian cyst on day 90; unspecified male genital disorder on day 129; menometrorrhagia on day 171. There was no obvious pattern to the distribution of events in time. On review, they were disparate in type, so we did not investigate further. Hives/urticaria51 events in the 11–16 year age group were distributed between days 2 and 180, with an average latency of 93 days and a median latency of 95 days. Hyperglycemia6 events: Days 4, 16, 126, 130, 150 and 168. There was no obvious pattern to the distribution and we did not investigate further. MononucleosisThere were 5 events, all in the 17–18 year old age group, where such an incidence can be expected. Otitis external5 events: Days 20, 22, 66, 82, and 119. Suicidal ideation/attemptAll events of suicide ideation/attempt for which records were available (5/6) revealed risk factors prior to vaccination (e.g., prior attempts, depression, stressors, alcohol abuse). Tympanic perforationAll events represented planned tympanoplasty surgeries. VomitingThe range of days for 39 events was between day 1 and 178, with an average latency of 96 days and a median latency of 97 days. There was no obvious pattern associated with these vomiting cases; they appear to be evenly distributed within the interval, with >1 event of vomiting occurring on only six days (days 76, 113, 124, 127, 171, and 177). One case of vomiting occurred the day after vaccination which was considered to be related to receipt of MenACWY-D. Acknowledgments: This study was funded by Sanofi Pasteur. Authors Corwin Robertson, Michael Decker, David Greenberg and Ehab Bassily are employees of Sanofi Pasteur. Authors Nicola Klein and Roger Baxter receive research support from GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Merck & Co. – United States, Novartis (now GlaxoSmithKline), Pfizer, Protein Sciences – United States, and Sanofi Pasteur – France. Conclusions: This study did not detect any safety concerns following MenACWY-D and provides reassurance that MenACWY-D administered as part of routine care was not associated with unexpected safety risks. December 8, 2017 – Evidence for Rise in Meningococcal Serogroup C Bactericidal Antibody Titers in the Absence of Booster Vaccination in Previously Vaccinated Children “A substantial minority of children immunized with MCC vaccine in early childhood had a rise in bactericidal antibody titres in the years following immunization in the absence of booster vaccination. This occurs most commonly at around 6-7 years of age corresponding to school entry and greater social mixing and might indicate exposure to MenC carriage. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND SOURCE OF FUNDING: Professor Robert Booy has received funding from Baxter, CSL, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Romark and Sanofi Pasteur for the conduct of sponsored research, travel to present at conferences or consultancy work; all funding received is directed to research accounts at The Children’s Hospital at Westmead. Dr Harunor Rashid received fees from Pfizer and Novartis for consulting or serving on an advisory board. The other authors have no competing interests to declare. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the Oxford Vaccine Group for providing access to the raw data for the UK cohort, and Dr S. DiNatale and Dr Andrea McCracken from GlaxoSmithKline for providing data for the Australian cohort. December 4, 2017 – Enhancing the role of vaccines in combatting antimicrobial resistance(full text) “However, there are many factors, including finance, that inhibit the wider use of existing vaccines (e.g. global coverage of PCV vaccines is only 37%) and there are scientific as well as commercial challenges in developing several potential new vaccines (e.g. for gonorrhoea, tuberculosis, HIV) which would impact AMR. However, convincing decision makers in ministries of health and finance as well as in the scientific community and donors, to invest more in vaccine distribution and development requires hard evidence of cost-effectiveness. The meeting grappled with the problem of how a value could be put on the contribution of vaccines to combat AMR. … Declaration of interests CC has no interests to declare; DMS has undertaken paid consultancies for vaccine manufacturers but not on this topic. Acknowledgments: Funding sources This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under grant number OPP1168067. Comment: So you can work for many vaccine manufacturers as long as the article subject is off topic. December 2017 – Clinical Usage of the Adjuvanted Herpes Zoster Subunit Vaccine (HZ/su): Revaccination of Recipients of Live Attenuated Zoster Vaccine and Coadministration With a Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (full text) “Subjects reporting all-grade AEs and solicited grade 3 AEs were comparable between groups, and there was no evidence of clinically relevant differences in reported unsolicited AEs between study groups. From study start until 30 days after the second HZ/su vaccination, there were 5 serious adverse events (SAEs) in 4 HZ-PreVac subjects and 4 SAEs in 4 HZ-NonVac subjects. None were considered related to vaccination by study investigators. Potential conflicts of interest. M. N. O. has received an honorarium, travel expenses, lodging, and meals as a member of the GlaxoSmithKline Zoster Revaccination Advisory Board; is currently a member of the GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines Policy Advisory Board; and is a member of the data and safety monitoring board of a National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases-sponsored clinical trial of live attenuated Oka/Merck zoster vaccine in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other biologics for autoimmune diseases. D. M. K. has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Biomedical Research Models; has received research funding from Merck, Admedus Immunotherapy, Sanofi Pasteur, Vical, and Immune Design Corporation; and is a co-inventor on patents owned by the University of Washington concerning viral vaccines. "Started from the bottom and I just realized I'm still there since the money and the fame is an illusion" -Drake doing self-inquiry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 @Serotoninluv I would just like to say I have not ever been or am now a militant anti-vaxer. I do think they have some application. And I'm not suggesting vaccine=autism. I think there is a vast dismissal in the mainstream of even the possibility they can cause autism, which imo is highly corrupt and irresponsible. Autism is just one negative on the whole spectrum of negatives where the cons outweighs the pros in many cases. My whole beef is with potential 'mandatory' (they may or may not be) vaccinations for healthy adults, specifically referring to Covid. "Started from the bottom and I just realized I'm still there since the money and the fame is an illusion" -Drake doing self-inquiry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 @TrynaBeTurquoise This meta study is one of the best I’ve seen. It was a broad committee of experts that analyzed all studies for common vaccines for any adverse effects. They grouped the vaccines into four categories ranging from “convincing evidence to reject a causal relationship” to “convincing evidence to accept a causal relationship”. The experts on the committee are independent experts. However, for the vast majority, no conclusions could be made since adverse reactions were very rare. My concern with a coronavirus is not so much mandatory. It’s more the urgency and the fast track. They are going to skip some procedures trying to develop a vaccine in a year. When properly done, it takes several years. Trying to get it out in a year increases the likelihood of adverse effects. I would be much more comfortable if they spent three years and did all the proper procedures. https://www.nap.edu/resource/13164/Adverseeffectsofvaccinesreportbrief.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said: I think the “world of illusion” idea has merit. I think microbes as causative agents can be overplayed and underlying unhealthy conditions (terrain) can be underplayed by many mainstream scientists. . . Scientists want to control the narrative and much of the general population has a “me vs them” mindset, in which “them” are pathogenic microbes. There is much more emphasis on treatment of symptoms, rather than prevention. As well, I think there is a lot to how imagination can lead to a variety of illnesses, in particular neurosis. There are a ton of psycho-somatic related illnesses that people might blame on exogenous agents. And I’d like to see more studies regarding visualization and self healing. For example, visualizing a strong immune system attacking cancer cells. Although, I would speculate that this would be an accessory activity and not itself curative (unless we are talking very high conscious levels). yes it’s interesting, what if neurosis and mental disorders like schizophrenia will manifest physically inside the bowels? However, even if we give the authors a pass on technical misstatements of cellular biology, there is still a problem I see. If we enter into the nonphysical realm that microbes are illusory, then it’s all illusory. You don’t get to point and say that physical thing over there is illusory, yet this physical thing over here is real. There is as much evidence for the physical nature of pathogenic microbes and there is evidence for the physical nature of your body. If you say that physical microbes are actually nonphysical illusions, then you need to say the human body is also a nonphysical illusion. And that is not what the authors are saying. They are saying that pathogenic microbes are nonphysical illusions, yet the bodily is physical reality. We are creators either consciously or unconsciously of our own reality, does that include bacteria, viruses and microbes? Is it possible they can simply physically manifest using these energy bodies? Are we not made up of the same fabric as this entire reality? There is a very simple test to reveal this discrepancy. Give me a volunteer that believes pathogenic microbes are a nonphysical illusion and the body is physically real. Someone who has never had a vaccination. You could pick the #1 guy in this area. He has done all the cleansing and detoxes. He is at the highest level of understanding that pathogenic microbes are illusory. . . We then pump him full of Myobacterium Tuberculosis and throw in some Anthrax. I guarantee you he will learn a lot about the the physical properties of pathogenic microbes and his idea of “illusory” microbes will be updated. tell me there isn’t something going on in regards to energy frequencies of the body and ones ability to ingest poison, look at the Bible stories and many raw vegans who claim to have gone over 30 yrs without getting sick. Not sure about the man made viruses or what not but I think wim hof is onto something regarding the power accessible at high states of frequency 54 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said: @DrewNows Like I said, there is a very easy way to test if pathogenic microbes are real. To test if pathogenic microbes are real, one simply needs to pump themselves up with mycobacterium tuberculosis and viral Ebola. . . . There is no need to get twisted in a pretzel. No one is willing to pump themselves full of the deadliest pathogenic bacteria because they know the consequences. They wouldn’t even do it for a million dolllars, because they know they would suffer a horrific death. Just like no one would be willing to test if gravity is real by jumping off a building. It’s easy to create all sorts of thought stories, yet when it comes down to actually testing it, I guarantee you that NONE of the people claiming pathogenic microbes are illusory will volunteer to test their story. Think about it. . . Those claiming pathogenic microbes are illusory can easily demonstrate the truth of their claim by pumping themselves full of the deadliest “illusory” pathogenic microbes. Such a straightforward test that would clearly demonstrate this truth to all of their followers. . . Yet they would never do it. . . They rely on a gullible audience (in this context, they have some value in other contexts). nobody is claiming illusory pathogenic microbes! Did you read the posts I shared? I heard Ebola is man made and I have a feeling a “deadly virus” would still go straight through a practicing breatharian so fast everyone would be shocked Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said: @TrynaBeTurquoise This meta study is one of the best I’ve seen. It was a broad committee of experts that analyzed all studies for eight common vaccines for all adverse effects. They grouped the vaccines into four categories ranging from “convincing evidence to reject a causal relationship” to “convincing evidence to accept a causal relationship”. These experts on the committee are independent experts. https://www.nap.edu/resource/13164/Adverseeffectsofvaccinesreportbrief.pdf Looking at that study, the majority of those adverse effects are in "convincingly supports" and more in "favors acceptance". Even in the footnotes if some connects among those with some type of health condition already. "Started from the bottom and I just realized I'm still there since the money and the fame is an illusion" -Drake doing self-inquiry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said: Looking at that study, the majority of those adverse effects are in "convincingly supports" and more in "favors acceptance". Even in the footnotes if some connects among those with some type of health condition already. Tbh, I was surprised by how many fell into the “convincing” and “favors acceptance” categories. Most of the adverse effects was anaphylaxis. The PR campaign seems more tilted toward “All is OK”. Also keep in mind that the vast majority went into an “inconclusive” category because adverse effects were very rare. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted April 16, 2020 “nobody is claiming illusory pathogenic microbes! Did you read the posts I shared?” The basis of germ theory is that some pathogenic microbes can cause human illness. The argument against this theory is that there are no pathogenic microbes that can cause any human illness. Anyone can test the theory, Just drink a glass of mycobacterium tuberculosis to find out. If you can’t get your hands on the lethal microbial strains, an alternative is to allow food to spoil such that it is covered with bacteria, protozoans and fungi. Let it get really nasty. Then start rubbing it in your eyes, snort some, plug some, shove some deep into the ears and eat a whole bunch. For those at advanced levels, inject some directly into the bloodstream. . . . Then see what happens. . . It’s very straightforward. This would likely send someone into the ER and there is good chance of permanent damage to the body - and that is mild microbes. The real dangerous ones would be lethal at much lower dosages. You can do as many cleanses, detoxes, fasts, visualizations, mantras etc. as you’d like beforehand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
