Studies that link Autism to Vaccinations.

Post Reply New Topic

Read the california bill sb277..

It's really concerning that 100% of the children will have to be vaccinated and the trillion dollar companies have zero liability over what happens to children who are affected in a negative way.

Not that I agree with the bill (since regardless of my personal views on vaccination, I still AM firmly in favor of personal choice), but you are misrepresenting the bill. It does not state that 100% of children must be vaccinated. It says that in order to attend certain centers such as public learning/public education or private schools, children will be required to be vaccinated.

Doctors will not be bursting through the doors of home-schooled children and holding them down to be vaccinated.

It also continues to exempt those who do not vax based on medical reasons. This bill is specific to personal choice non-vaxing only.

Honestly, this is how these "panics" and misrepresentations start. One person reads something incorrectly or incompletely, pushes the panic button and pretty soon it's (the inaccurate information, I mean) all over the internet as "fact."

Again, I disagree with the bill on principle but you're not stating it accurately. By the way, for anyone interested, you can be "grandfathered" in if you apply (personal reasons/beliefs exemption) before a certain date...I know it's in December 2015...can't remember the specific date but concerned parties can look it up.

By the way, if you can name one single "trillion dollar" pharma company, I'd be most grateful. And...very surprised. Even J&J - the largest pharma/biotech company in the entire world - is only worth about $410 billion and that includes profits, assets and market value combined.

We are living with it. That's the problem.

And Pasteur stole from Bechamp as well as others, and wove their ideas into his own. The research on his lab notebooks is clear on this.

Pasteur may have won, but it doesn't mean he was right. According to this article by Alice Stewart, senior research fellow, Department of Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, who cites Gerald Geison's research into Pasteur's lab notebooks, she writes: "although Pasteur was a brilliant experimentalist, he was no exemplar of modesty or ethical rectitude. On the contrary, he often failed to give credit where credit was due, and was not above deliberately deceiving his scientific peers."

(https://www.timeshighereducation.com/bo ... 06.article)

She goes on to record: "Pasteur's first claim to fame was the result of solving a problem of great importance to chemical theory." And that "The notebooks show that this discovery was the result of work by Auguste Laurent… there was no mention by Pasteur either of the true sequence of events or his debt to a close colleague and mentor."

This from "Les 10 plus gros mensonges sur les vaccins" by Sylvie Simon (trans. from the French by Emma Holister):

Pasteur doctored the results of experiments that turned out unfavourably for him, in the manner of a true forger, with the aid of his accomplices. And in order to gain honours and glory, he appropriated to himself various works of other researchers, including Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908), one of the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century, doctor, biologist, naturalist, professor in medical and pharmaceutical chemistry at the Faculty of Montpellier and professor of bio-chemistry and physics at the University of Paris, as well as Dean of the Free Faculty of Lille. Béchamp proved the veracity of Claude Bernard's views on the importance of the bodily terrain of each individual and was the first to understand the microbial cause of infectious pathologies.  
(http://www.whale.to/vaccine/simon1.html)

Quoting further:
"The most characteristic aspect of Pasteur's and his collaborators' dishonesty was the story of a twelve-year-old child who died from the effects of the vaccination administered by Pasteur. The young Edouard Rouyer was bitten on 8th October 1886 by an unknown dog. Pasteur inoculated him with his vaccine using the intensive method and on 26th October the child died. A legal enquiry was opened to determine the cause of his death and Professor Brouardel was put in charge of it. This man, a high-ranking official richly endowed with titles, was a friend of Pasteur's.  

"In Emile Roux's laboratory, they inoculated a part of the child's brain stem into rabbits' brains and, several days later, the rabbits died of rabies. But Brouardel, in agreement with Roux, decided to submit a false witness statement before a justice, to hide the truth. It was a question of avoiding official recognition of a failure that would entail, as Brouardel put it, “an immediate jump backwards of fifty years in the development of science”, as well as the dishonouring of Pasteur, as Philippe Decourt recounts in “The Undesirable Truth, the Case of Pasteur”. The report submitted to the procurer contained a monumental lie:  

“The two rabbits are today, 9th January 1887, in good health, that is to say forty-two days after the inoculations. The negative results of the inoculations performed with the brain stem of this child allow us to dismiss the hypothesis that the young Rouyer succumbed to rabies.” Pasteur declared that the child had died of uraemia.  

"Not satisfied with falsifying the facts, Pasteur and his two accomplices, Roux and Brouardel, set about silencing their opponents who knew the truth. Brouardel even went so far as to affirm that of the fifty people treated with the intensive inoculations, no one had died.  

"In 1886, in France as abroad, the deaths officially counted amongst the failures of Pasteur's method had already risen to seventy-four: forty foreigners and thirty-four French people. Some died showing symptoms of classic rabies, others succumbed to a new condition that was called “laboratory rabies”. These showed symptoms of a rabid form of paraplegia that had been observed in rabbits being used in the culture of the Pasteurian virus (La Méthode Pasteur contre la rage par le Docteur Xavier Raspail 1888). Moreover, Pasteur himself pointed out that during the period of 9th November 1885 to 30th December 1886, out of the eighteen vaccinated of those infected, nine died within the three weeks following the bite."

Speaking of a similar circumstance with another rabies patient, Lewis Wolpert in his NY Times review of "Experiments in Deceit" summarizes: "Pasteur lied. As the notebooks show, only some 30 dogs had been studied, and a third of them had succumbed to rabies. Worse still, not one of them was treated by the method used on Meister." ( http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/07/books ... eceit.html

Yes, Pasteur won. As liars and plagiarists often do. To say he was "right" fails to take the information available about his research fully into consideration.

Last edited by voleregard on 03 Nov 2015, 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you're addressing me I'm not reading anything into your statements. I was responding to the OP and the topic in general.

GSK is a huge one probably not a trillion but huge.

GlaxoSmithKline is actually smaller than the company I mentioned (J&J) and right, definitely not near a trillion. And at least according to Forbes, only #135 on the worldwide list.

http://www.forbes.com/companies/glaxosmithkline/

There actually are no trillion-dollar companies. At least as far as I know. And the top companies in the world are not pharmaceutical companies. There are some biggies, certainly, just not as big as the exaggeration I quoted.

I'm not saying pharma/biotech companies don't make any money. They do. But the exaggerations about "Big Pharma" tend to go over the top - not just by you, but all around the internet. Beating up Big Pharma is an international pastime. To be sure, they all their downsides - but they also keep many, many, many people alive. To be fair. Trust me when I tell you I'm not waving my pom-poms for Big Pharma, I definitely have my own private beef with outrageous medical device and drug costs and with some doctors seeming to "jump the gun" to prescribe medications in various circumstances. Just pointing out how misinformation can get around - I mean you got your misinformation from somewhere, right? I would bet my bottom neuron you're not the only one talking about "100%" of children in California being force-vaxed and the like.

These are questions that should be raised, NowhereWoman. For my part, I used the percentages as an example. And I said "forced" because that is the direction that legislation is heading. Forced innoculation when mandated for both children and adults. There are currently provisions for grandfathering, but the movement is toward eliminating all exemptions, including religious ones.

I believe that with current advancements in genetic testing that the technology exists (or close to it) for identifying the potential genetic predisposition and the mechanism for the impairment, and identifying those who would be clearly impaired by vaccinations.

It could possibly be done if the will existed to do it. But I doubt any research funds are even being channeled that direction. Because any suggestion that vaccines are harmful, even for a small percentage, runs headlong into potential lawsuits for the decades of vaccines already having been issued under the pretense that they were safe for everyone. At this point, findings for vaccine damage on a large scale opens up legal liabilities no pharma co. wants to deal with.

No sane company is going to pursue that line of reasoning to exclude people who might be damaged. It would contravene the gospel that all vaccines are safe.

What I meant by reacting badly ranges from all those you mentioned to many that are not considered. You mention getting the polio vaccine to prevent polio. I have a friend who is in a wheelchair in his 50's from post-polio because of the polio he got from the polio vaccine when he was a child. The vaccines aren't completely preventative anyway.

Much of my research has been in the direction of ME/CFS, and there are similar threads in that community. Like the findings of Dr. Bruno of a correlation between CFS and post-polio.

He says: "…something unexpected, frightening and totally unrecognized happened after the polio vaccine was distributed: The number of cases of CFS/ME went through the roof. …" I'll be the first to say "correlation does not mean causation." The problem is, no research is being funded to explore possibly causation, as if it isn't even possible.

It is a different condition, but there are similarities in how documented correlations are being left unexplored by funding and research.

CFS is A Polio (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9790485)
Parallels between post-polio fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome: a common pathophysiology? by Bruno RL, Creange SJ, Frick NM

and this:

The Neuroanatomy of Post-Polio Fatigue - http://poliosask.org/fatigue.html
"Another similarity between polio, M.E. and CFS is the report that all three groups have shown slowing of the EEG. Further, both CFS patients and polio survivors report subjective impairment of memory and difficulty with word finding. …Drowsiness, lethargy, prolonged sleepiness and even coma were described during the acute poliovirus infection."

If it were a open environment where known toxic ingredients weren't being added into the mixture, there might be some chance of finding exactly what could be done to create a "clean" vaccine. But there's evidently little to no interest in doing so.

Given the findings as they are, there's no clear-cut answer at this stage. Which is why I said it seems uncivilized to mandate a vaccination when we still don't really even know what they're doing to our bodies. There are many more viable options that could possibly pursued if a rational approach were to prevail.

The point is that Pasteur's germ theory of disease was ultimately found to be the correct one. Bechamp's ideas on "microzymes" were simply wrong.

Your article is a classic example of the use of the the red herring. It does not even address the point. It's another example of vaccine deniers reminding me of climate deniers.

I think the bottom line:

We have to do research into what preservatives are put into the vaccines. It's not necessarily the vaccines that might cause the problems--it just might be the preservatives.

I fear the day when there is a mass exodus away from vaccines. We would revert back to the pre-Penicillin days, for all intents and purposes.

It's a public health menace not to be vaccinated--plain and simple.

But we still have to try to prevent whatever adverse effects come with the vaccinations.

I think the bottom line is that several big studies have shown no link between vaccination and autism, even at a population level.

Vaccines do not cause autism.

I don't believe they cause autism, either.

I'm talking about ALL adverse effects.

Please forgive me. Thank you for clarifying that. I got confused. Sorry if I offended you in any way.

Hey Skibum...You're BAD....and that's GOOD!

You know I love Ralph!

And that is my personal opinion. I will not provide scientific proof or documentation to back it up. Sorry if it offends anyone. Anyone can feel free to attack me for it and hate me if you want to.

Last edited by skibum on 04 Nov 2015, 7:34 am, edited 5 times in total.

duplicate post

This is probably where the problem lies. You are placing the statement "I love Ralph" into the same logical category of statements that are open to empirical evidence.

The world would be a lot better off if everyone learned the difference!