[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Robert De Niro and Autism – a Tragic Drama of Intimidation

Hash: SHA1

On 04/17/2016 11:48 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> Question - is it possible to have an open public discussion on
> the issue of vaccinations and their level of safety or
> otherwise?

My take, just for the hell of it:

1)  At least the best known early vaccines, and today's flu
vaccines, are placebos.

This is based on British public health statistics, consistently
showing mortality attributed to contagious diseases in radical
collapse before the introduction of vaccines against same, with no
noticeable acceleration in that collapse after the introduction of
the vaccines.  Long story short:  The entire impact of sanitary
sewer systems, safer water supplies, public health policy, public
health education and improved medical treatments for contagious
illness have been attributed to vaccines.

The studies most often cited in support of the effectiveness of
flu vaccines share a methodological error which, when corrected,
eliminates the appearance that flu vaccines have any effect,
either way, on mortality stats.  Long article, well worth reading:

- -matter/307723/

or https://tinyurl.com/9mpzmt8

2)  Vaccines probably do not "cause" autism.  The illusion that
they do would be present either way, as Autistim Spectrum
disorders normally become apparent as developmental delays and
atypical behaviors at about the same age children are given their
first multiple doses of vaccines.  I do think it is very likely
that vaccination triggers earlier appearance of these symptoms due
to the systemic stress of immune system overload, toxic
preservatives, etc. produced by the vaccines.

There are so many possible chemical drivers of subtle, complex,
not-understood neurological disorders like autism that singling
out one cause for an "epidemic" would require detailed studies of
comparable populations who, for instance, do and do not eat
manufactured foodlike product (anything not accurately labelled
"organic"), do and do not live in households that use novel
biochemicals daily (soaps and detergents with synthetic
components, anything "scented", etc.), do and do not live in
regions subject to major environmental toxicity, etc.  Lots of
luck getting that funded.

In summary:

Immunology is the science that tells us how vaccines should work.
 It is a very complex technical discipline, looking at massively
complex organic processes.  Any long term, motivated effort by
immunologists to produce arguments for or against the
effectiveness of vaccines should produce the desired "proofs."
Funding is only available for studies that /assume/ vaccines work.

Epidemiology is the science that can tell us whether or not
vaccines work.  It is a fairly simple and straightforward
discipline, easily understandable by any literate person who makes
the effort, and it tells us that vaccines do not work.

A possible exception:  Veterinary vaccines might actually work.
If so, only because in the process of developing them, massively
iterated "terminal experiments" are possible.  Not so with humans,
alas; all one has to go on there is "according to our PharmaChem
funded research, this /should/ work," and "hey, at least it does
not appear to kill people outright, so where's the harm?"

Personally, I don't use them.

Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)