This. I often look at his posts/threads and 'wish' for want of a better word, that I was able to come up with shit like he does, and present it as fact for the appropriate market. There's big money in generalising 'there's big money in pharm' for the tinfoil hat brigade :2 cents:

Yeah. There's big money in telling people something or even anything, they want to hear. No money at all in telling people something they don't.

There is an interesting documentary on Netflix called Kumare.. about an Indian guy, born and raised in the US, who was in film school in NY. Having a lot of exposure to Hinduism and having practiced Yoga all his life and easily faking a heavy Indian accent, he started a cult with him as the leader and made a documentary of the experience.

He just grew his hair out, grew his beard out, started wearing an orange robe, had a cool staff and started booking speaking engagements at yoga studios spreading his message which was as vague as could be "I am nobody, you are your own guru" kind of stuff and making up senseless chants. It is kinda troubling watching people respond to him so strongly, when he is saying absolutely nothing at all. It didn't take long at all for him to amass a following and though interesting, it was a bit chilling.

http://kirtiklis.info/wp-content/upl...07/Kumare.jpeg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XsClqTsTMA...h07m58s243.png

http://montclairfilmfest.org/wp-cont...rt_615x372.jpg

Well...... in order to stamp out diseases we must inoculate all. So I agree with manditory vaccines. But it's very difficult for me to get behind the corrupt system in place.
The government should have the strictest regulations and quality controls on vaccines. Companies shouldn't be able to skimp out for profit at our children risk.

More people have dies from the measles vaccine than have died from the measles in the last 10 years in the US.

Sad to see some people refuse medical treatment even though many of the vaccines we get have nearly eliminated the deathcount formerly caused by certain diseases/illnesses.

Not nearly as sad as parents risking the health of their own children and everyone else's as well...:disgust

http://i.imgur.com/K6aDy2Y.png

Personally, my wife and I decided to delay the administration of vaccines to our son until he was 2 years old, and then we spaced them out more than guidelines suggested. My wife is a Pediatric OT, and Director of Therapy at a clinic here, and our pediatrician respected her choices.

Yes, we wanted him vaccinated, but we did not agree with the government scheduling for them. I would definitely NOT be for some government bureaucrat, with no public accountability, forcing me to inject my son with very powerful medications before we thought that he was ready for them.

We believe that vaccines are essential and lifesaving, but my wife has seen some very strong negative reactions in children under 2 being vaccinated on the schedule currently called for in the US with some serious effects, over the years.

Should we put societal pressure on people to vaccinate their children? Shame them and avoid them? Absolutely.

Should we take away all rights of choice and force vaccinations at possible gunpoint? (since use of force is the ultimate backing of any government law), Absolutely not.





.

Wise decision, holding off till after age 2 dramatically reduces the risks involved :thumbsup :2 cents:

Interesting...

So while your own wife who also happens to be in pediatrics was reluctant to immunize your own children due to firsthand knowledge and experience with the prevalence of adverse side effects you would still be ok with shaming etc.

That seems sort of contradictory to me.

Few things...

When I was growing up, if a kid had mumps, measles, chicken pox, my mom wanted me to play with them. The common perception at that time was it was better to develop a natural immunity to those illnesses. She was not "bad mom who should be punished for putting her kids at risk". She was considered "good mom" for making sure her kids developed immunity from common childhood illnesses that are much worse in adults.

Next, consider the issues with the small pox vaccine for example, widely seen as the greatest victory of science and a worldwide vaccination effort. The problem is the original strain of the vaccine that was used to culture new vaccinations is in too short a supply and the modern synthetically created small pox vaccine is not nearly as effective. Keeping a culture of effective vaccine is difficult because they weaken over time. This has been known since the Chinese practiced inoculations as early as 1000 AD, yes, well before Jenner's cow pox farm girl "discovery".

Finally, there is a vested interest to the tune of trilions of dollars for drug companies to require vaccinations. It does create a powerful conflict of interest and they have been proven time and time again to push unsafe products, including vaccines, under the guise of everyone will die if you don't do it. Just follow the dollar and the people behind AIDS and there is a very big conflict of interest between non elected officials that sit on powerful drug company boards as well as serve as chairmen of the CDC like Robert Gallo... who told the world that one in four people would be dead of AIDS within five years, the day after the patent came through for his company's test, which btw was not a Gold Standard test.

Now, guess what company claims to have created the vaccine for AIDS, which by its very definition is so broad that literally anything from cancer, to TB, to diarrhea, etc. can be a AIDS defining illness, so unless that vaccine is a preventative against all of AIDS defining illnesses, I would hold that vaccine very suspect. This is not the shadowy speculations of "conspiracy theory" this is historical fact. Whereas, a small pox vaccination actually will most likely prevent... you guessed it... small pox.

In this thread, everyone is railing on WHP but he at least has taken the time to read the actual papers, which I also did when I was studying AIDS when I got into porn. In fact, I hung out with Dr. Kary Mullis and Dr. Peter Duesberg, one a Nobel prizewinner whose invention of the PCR DNA test revolutionized genetic science, and the other a Berkeley research scientist widely considering to be the world's leading authority on retroviruses at the time. Their scientific rebuttals to the AIDS hypothesis put both their careers in hot water due to Political pressures. They could not even publish in peer reviewed journals like New England Journal of Medicine, where science, inquiry and challenge and repeatable results, all should hold a higher standard than the motives of drug companies seeking to profit, especially companies that also are literally helping shape National and International policy.

Some vaccines are obviously good. Some are not. People should know more and scientists should be allowed to review the science and not be dictated to by for profit entities because then it is not about scientific method it is about profit motive. :2 cents:

thought that was funny too

Did you read the post? She has no issues with Vaccinations per se, but rather the government mandating them. She has issues with government mandates because of things like forcing people into WHEN they must be administered, and the dangers of government mandates in general. She thinks that they are given too young and without enough time in between them. She totally believes in Vaccinations, just not so young and not so many at once.

The point regarding public shaming is that there is a HUGE difference between people expressing their right to freedom of speech and opposing opinions freely, or in choosing to exercise their right to associate or not associate with people freely... As opposed to the state using force to compel people to vaccinate on the schedule that the state decides.

I can tell my neighbors that they are morons for not vaccinating, and I can keep away from them and keep my kids away from them also. but that is a big difference from sending some guys with guns to their house it force them to do it.

Use of force is world's away from people speaking and associating freely.







.

gfyers are railing on whp for spreading bullshit disinformation, regardless of any papers having been claimed read and more importantly, understood.

Of course I read the post. I read that your wife does not agree with what the government determines as a safe window for inoculation in infants. She chose to make her own judgment call based on the information she had available to her. What is different than that and her deciding what vaccines she feels are "safe enough" and those that might not be? It is a very, very fine line if you ask me. She made a mother's choice based on her medical training as well as her practical experience. Shouldn't everyone have that same right? If a kid can't go to school because he or she wasn't inoculated then that is pretty much the same thing as a gun to one's head if you ask me.

I am not anti vaccine and my kids actually went to Waldorf schools where apparently 1 in 3 parents choose not to immunize, which is not true from my experience btw (most kids in fact had been widely vaccinated against a myriad of things and the school recommended vaccinations). As parents, we chose to do some vaccines but not others, like whooping cough. When the kids caught whatever we kept them from other kids, and that is what my mom did too. She pushed us out to catch mumps and measles but when we got them then we didn't get to go out. To this day, it is so rare for me or my kids to come down with anything that maybe there is something to it.

Every one I know that gets vaccines for flu every year gets a nasty flu. :2 cents:

Fair enough...

But what peer reviewed science journals would you consider worthy of following in terms of scientific debate of any given hypothesis?

Unfortunately, when vast research grant money is used as a threat even those institutions are not immune to the infections of greed.

If fellow scientists are not allowed peer review without that bias tainting their findings, then even the most sacred peer reviewed journals, published openly for the purpose of inquiry and debate, become suspect as just another channel for disinformation in the form of unchallenged hypothesis and unsubstantiated "fact".

So let's review, a well known lunatic who does nothing but rant about illuminati, conspiracies, lizard people, global banking conspiracies, immunization/"they" etc etc etc has a "wife" who is not only highly educated but also works in what most would agree is one of the highest positions of trust in a society - suddenly isn't against immunizations once he realizes he's losing his audience and comes back with a VERY out of character response which is inexplicably lucid, coherent and well reasoned. For years he's done nothing but post anti immunization propaganda and now claims he thinks they are important and for some odd reason has a fairly reasonable position? Really? That's a bit too transparent, even for the most casual observer. Further, well educated , professional people at the top of their field don't tend to marry and have kids with broke lunatics. A highly unlikely relationship .

Some think you are just a troll. Some think you are just trying to bait people into reacting. I don't. I think you are mentally ill and your "wife" and her "amazing education", "inordinately high achievement " in her field and most of what you say aw just fabrications. All your did is what any psychopath and sociopath or similarly disturbed person does. You run your mouth until you can't deny that you've gone too far ... ten you come back with a well crafted, an almost "too good" sounding response.

And where do you think the money comes from that the pharmaceutical companies pay out in lawsuit damages?

It all gets filtered back to the consumer to pay in the long run.

It should also be pointed out that just a few years ago, he was discovered to be a dumb kid living in his parents basement.... and in this very thread claimed to be an educator of doctors.

What I don't understand is why peanut allergy has become such a big thing these days.

Growing up, our family moved around a lot. I went to more schools than I can remember (the actual number is around 10 schools). Not once in all those years and variety of schools did we ever hear about a peanut allergy issue. Never. Notta.

PBJ sandwiches were the perennial lunch item growing up. Everybody brought them to school.

So why now? What's changed?

Merck added Peanut Oil into some of their vaccines, some people end up with antibodies to peanuts, immune to them. This is the same reason why some people end up with autoimmune diseases after vaccination, there is no way of 100% controlling exactly which parts of the vaccine you create antibodies too. Artificially inducing antibodies is a dangerous game, it's a gamble. The problem is that in order for vaccines to be effective we also have to make them dangerous, you can't have one without the other; a safe vaccine is a vaccine which won't work. :2 cents:

Listen to the stories of those who have been harmed by the HPV vaccine

http://sanevax.org/victims-2/

Yes. Everyone should have that same right. I just said that the government should not regulate it.

Also we have the right to keep our kids away from someone who chooses not to vaccinate.

Also we have the right to tell people who completely refuse to vaccinate against diseases that used to kill many thousands of children, that we think they are idiots.

I'm not sure how many different ways to say the same thing so that you understand it. Public shaming and staying away from people who never vaccinate their kids does not take away their right to make that choice. Government regulations do.





.

People are not allergic to peanuts as much as they are allergic to a mold that grows on peanuts. Everyone and anyone that enjoys too much peanuts in their diet can be harmed by this very toxic mold.

From the peanut butter wiki:

The peanut plant is susceptible to the mold Aspergillus flavus which produces a carcinogenic substance called aflatoxin.[14] Since it is impossible to completely remove all aflatoxin, contamination of peanuts and peanut butter is monitored in many countries to ensure safe levels of this carcinogen. In 1990, a study showed that average American peanut butter contained an average of 5.7 parts per billion of aflatoxins, well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration limit of 20 parts per billion.[15][16]

Maybe you should just try not repeating yourself and re-reading what I wrote since I am pretty much in total agreement with what you are saying and completely honor and agree with the choices you and your wife made. :2 cents:

I wasn't calling you or your wife hypocrites. I was saying that out of all the people in this thread that you two made your own decisions based on knowledge and not blind faith. When it comes to vaccines, which WHP is quite correct are dangerous by nature, that is the best way to go and different people will view the information and decide different levels of risk tolerance.

What if your wife thought you should wait till the kids were 10 to vaccinate? That is all I was saying. Then you would have had that "gun" to your head. I bet she faced a lot of pressure to vaccinate and not wait. I know my wife and I did and we aren't even in the health care profession where that pressure it 10 times worse.

I am not anti vaccine. I am anti ignorance. You are clearly not ignorant so I don't criticize your choices or opinions at all in this.

But again, why does it seem to be on the rise these days - and not something that was even an issue a few decades ago?

No one knows...

But there is less incidence of the problem in countries that have less access to vaccinations and antibiotics but even higher peanut consumption...

And that would sort of support what WHP was saying...

:upsidedow

But no one knows for sure.

Who was this directed at? Spermbozo?

Oh, i'm certainly not a "the science is settled" guy. In fact, I rail against that here @ gfy.

we aren't scientists here. We chat about science and our understandings of it is all. WHP is in that group of us.

At the same time, *peer-reviewed* is an expression not many 20 year olds with an infant prolly ever heard of. Let alone spend the vast amount of hours sorting out 1) how to know which are valid and which are not 2) learning the vernacular used in real science documentation and 3) making a logical decision after reading the reams of data collected. not realistic and not needed. Vaccines aren't complicated.

as I understand it, wait till ~2 years old and don't get the all-in-one vaccines. IS there any thing more a responsible parent would do re: vaccinations?

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/images/me...ases-616px.gif

From the CDC : Measles | Cases and Outbreaks | CDC

Wehateporn

Not sure. I agree that is about all the people like us that don't necessarily hold advanced degrees in biological sciences can do, get educated until we are comfortable with the information provided to make wise decisions.

I know WHP might post some crazy stuff on GFY but he is making some salient points and not all his reference material that he has posted on this subject is wingnut by any stretch.

For me at least, it is not conspiracy theory to follow the dollars when one looks at how the CDC and WHO function in terms of health issues and who stands to profit the most from worldwide epidemics. It is just dollars and sense.

The other thing I wonder about is why are parents that have vaccinated their children so upset about those that did not... aren't their kids supposed to be 97% immune anyway?

doesn't europe use a different base? Sesame? i personally have never heard of people with sesame allergies in NA, but i wonder if they exist in Europe...

:upsidedow

it's not 97%. Vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% so an unvaccinated kid will increase the risk of disease for everyone that may be exposed.

Example:

"In a high school of 1,000 students, none has ever had measles. All but 5 of the students have had two doses of measles vaccine, and so are fully immunized. The entire student body is exposed to measles, and every susceptible student becomes infected. The 5 unvaccinated students will be infected, of course. But of the 995 who have been vaccinated, we would expect several not to respond to the vaccine. The efficacy rate for two doses of measles vaccine can be higher than 99%. In this class, 7 students do not respond, and they, too, become infected. Therefore 7 of 12, or about 58%, of the cases occur in students who have been fully vaccinated.

As you can see, this doesn?t prove the vaccine didn?t work ? only that most of the children in the class had been vaccinated, so those who were vaccinated and did not respond outnumbered those who had not been vaccinated. Looking at it another way, 100% of the children who had not been vaccinated got measles, compared with less than 1% of those who had been vaccinated. Measles vaccine protected most of the class; if nobody in the class had been vaccinated, there would probably have been 1,000 cases of measles.?

The logic of this statement is sophist. The measles and mumps can be carried by a vaccinated child who does not get sick but can still infect others. Therefore, regardless of whether a child has been vaccinated or not those viruses can still be transmitted in that population and even if 100% were inoculated some will still contract the illness. Also, your logic assumes all un vaccinated children would contract it which is not necessarily true. It is a hypothetical assumption to the point you are making.

Yes, vaccinated children will stand a higher chance of resistance so please don't think I am trying to debate that. I am just saying exposure is still imminent regardless of whether a kid is vaccinated or not and the traditional method of quarantining a kid that comes down with mumps or measles has worked fine for many many years. Also, modern medicine has seriously reduced mortality from those illnesses regardless.

I think you're completely downplaying a) just how contagious measles is b) the complications that come along with it and c) the economic costs.

From what I've read, there could be a number of causes. Apparently peanuts are used as a soil fixer crop to absorb some nutriants while replenishing others, so it might not be a case of being allergic to the nut, but what it has absorbed.

Others believe that our environment has become too clean, so we are losing the ability to deal with some compounds. I remember reading about one study that investigated the relationship between c-sections and allergies. They found that childeren born by C-section were 5 times more likely to have allergies than children born naturally. So perhaps whatever babies pick up coming down the birth canal, must be vital to helping us deal with the environment we live in.

More than likely it's a combination of many factors.

That is another assumption and not relevant to the point I am making regardless.

There is still a cost associated with vaccinations. There is still a cost to treatment in a vaccinated or unvaccinated individual that contracts it and those costs will be relatively equal.

If anything I am not downplaying the chances of infection but acknowledging them anyway since my proposition takes into account a transmission by a vaccinated carrier transmitting it.

Peanuts are legumes so that is to be expected as it is nothing new when it comes to soil fixing . Been used for millennia that way.

Less mothers are breastfeeding during the colostrum stage so that is more likely than the birth canal notion... never heard about babies picking up anything from the birth canal besides vd. The link to c sections probably is a result of "planned deliveries" which occur with typically working mothers that want to get back to work asap and don't give enough time to breastfeeding while the colostrum is in her milk. But that is just my guess.

From a few days ago, at 31.45 minutes there's a discussion with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Even if we agree with all of the above, the safer choice is still to vaccinate.

You know that is extremely rare, right?

There's no study to show this, as they're not actually studying the adverse effects of the vaccines, this is all based on assumption :2 cents:

Let's say for example that a vaccine induces Asthma, Asthma kills people every day in the US