'You might feel a bit of a prick' Photo by Jeremy Selwyn - Pool/Getty Images
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ritchie-100x100.png)
Anti-vaxxers are “nuts”. That was Boris Johnson’s summation last week, as he visited a London GP surgery to discuss expanding coverage of the flu vaccine. In a time of mealy-mouthed advice from the government on the pandemic, this was a refreshing moment of clarity.
Vaccines really do work, and have saved millions of lives — indeed, it’s perhaps the biggest irony in medicine that one of the most effective and beneficial interventions known to humanity is the one that’s regarded with the most mistrust and suspicion. With the Prime Minister, we might ask: why can’t these recalcitrant anti-vaccine fools just trust the experts?
But it might be unwise to take such a black-and-white view of the anti-vaccination movement. For although the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines is clear, scientists and doctors have been anything but immune to missteps and errors in how they’ve dealt with them over the years. Pitting the wacky, hidebound anti-vaxxers against the sober, all-knowing experts risks glossing over the mistakes those experts have made in the past — and failing to learn from the cautionary tales.
Last week was a big week for vaccines. As well as the government’s flu vaccine push, initial results from two new COVID-19 vaccine trials appeared in the journal The Lancet — one from the UK and one from China. They join a US trial from the week before in showing that their candidate vaccines have tolerable side-effects and definitely do cause an immune response. These Phase I and Phase II trials are just the first — albeit crucial — steps on the way to finding a working vaccine. Next, we move to larger, Phase III trials that involve many thousands of people, testing whether those who get the vaccine are actually less likely to catch Covid-19 than those who are injected with a placebo.
It does feel somewhat ironic that The Lancet in particular is taking the lead in publicising the research on Covid-19 vaccines: besides being a super-prestigious medical journal, the main public claim to fame of that particular journal is in publishing one of the worst and most damaging vaccine studies of all time. That was, of course, Andrew Wakefield’s notorious Lancet article linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Its appearance in 1998 fanned the flames of the anti-vaccine movement, with crushing media suspicion falling on the MMR — and a resulting deadly surge in measles cases in the UK and worldwide.
Many large, high-quality studies have since found that Wakefield’s MMR-autism correlation — as well as his cockamamie theory about how the attenuated virus from the vaccine causes gut- and brain-related symptoms — is untrue. Worse, though, is the fact that Wakefield wasn’t just wrong — he was a fraud. He fabricated the medical records of every single one of the children in his study to make it appear as if their autism symptoms had come just after the MMR, whereas many had shown symptoms before, or a long time after, receiving the vaccine.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeInteresting that at the start of your article you state that “it might be unwise to take such a black-and-white view of the anti-vaccination movement” but then you conclude that “when the COVID-19 vaccine comes…it’ll join the ranks of the most important medical discoveries of all time”. Sounds a bit “black-and-white” to me and certainly a bit of a prejudgement both about the vaccine and the virus which may well be on the wane despite alarmist media reports.
I am not anti-vaccination but I do have a healthy questioning mind. I do not blindly accept what I am told. Some vaccines are more effective than others and some have more side effects, just as some diseases are more of a threat than others. Some vaccines are bundled up together simply because it is cheaper and more convenient for the authorities to do so. Also, as Elizabeth Hart points out in the comments, there are many conflicts of interest at play.
I have a strong, healthy body and have confidence in it to fight many illnesses. I do not take antibiotics or any medicine without very good informed reason. You rightly refer to the ‘experts’ views on facemasks, “first advising that they were useless and maybe even dangerous…then mandating their use”. When Boris talks about anti-vaxxers being “nuts” and second waves of this “deadly virus” there is a suspicion that he is just paving the way towards mandating the vaccine. I would strongly object to a Government forcing me to take any medicine. If that makes me “nuts” then so be it.
Experts haven’t had a good few years. They need to make it clear when there is limited evidence from which to draw their conclusions – masks – and where there is a massive amount of evidence collected over many decades – vaccines.
Quite, but there’s a difference between experts and real scientists. Real scientists would do as you say because they know they don’t know everything as that’s how science is. Experts on the other hand are people that governments love to listen to as they stick to their guns and make out they know it all, just like politicians really.
Science = humility and uncertainty; experts = conceit and certainty.
Politicians prefer to listen to the latter.
Politicians big business can buy the latter more easily.
Sorry, did not mean to down vote!! I agree with what you say
ðŸ‘ðŸ»
To “test his eyes” Cummings drove to Barnard Castle where there is a huge vaccine centre of GSK. He went on a Sunday when there would have been no-one else around to see him collect a big box of “documents about vaccines”. Johnson was involved in the Garden Bridge corruption. Only crooks are allowed to become senior ministers, it’s like some gang membership thing.
So Dominic Cummings a well known figure had to do his own delivery driving despite being rather busy as the PM’s chief political advisor? If they wanted collect a big box of “documents about vaccines” couldn’t they have just used the Royal Mail? If you’re going to create a conspiracy theory at least make it logically consistent
(sorry, it seems I can only post as a reply to someone else’s post.)
I’m impressed by the intelligence of debate in the comments below. However, in public life debate has been reduced to: “Good people believe this and bad people believe that.” Nobody can imagine life without motor cars. So if someone mentioned that cars can be made safer, that person is a science denier, or a nut case. And if this person has a position in society – his career must be destroyed, he must be ridiculed and pilloried. So, is the author saying it was a mistake to remove mercury from vaccines, was it? Wow! And as far as I can recall, Wakefield was never anti-vaccination, only suggested that the combination of several vaccines together was implicated in complications. Many scientists who pilloried Wakefield publicly, flew their newborns to another country where they could receive the vaccines as separate doses, spaced over a period of time.
Yes, Anna, you are correct about Wakefield. At the time he was not anti-vaccination, and advocated the single measles, mumps and rubella shots. He is now anti-vaccine after many years of investigating the issue. However, there was no fraud found in his paper, and the Lancet should publish it. I am always looking for a good source of solid, alternative journalism. UnHerd is proving itself to be as unreliable as the main stream media by rehashing false narratives.
Spiked is another good source of journalism, not the sort that just pushes their opinions in your face. BTW, I still doubt if Wakefield, or any of the other “anti-vaxxers” are really anti-vaccinations? Not according to what I’ve read so far? They’re (a) pro ensuring safety, especially as science develops and we learn more about passive and active immunity (b) anti an ever-lengthening list of compulsory vaccinations (c) anti vaccinations against diseases that are not deadly.
Mr. Ritchie here simply hasn’t done his homework or listened to reasoned views. I can only wonder who is paying him…..
It’s curious the way some people, when they encounter someone with a different opinion, jump so quickly to the conclusion that they have been paid to do so. I find that some of the people who disagree with me do so because they have access to a different set of facts, or have assessed the balance between competing positions differently to me. A few are deranged, but the smallest group in my experience are the corrupt or downright evil. Perhaps I’m just lucky.
Wakefield falsified the records of the kids he was examining. The Lancet withdrew his paper because it was both fraudulent and unethical. He was struck from the medical register for similar reasons.
I’m sorry if this doesn’t fit your narrative, but it’s the reality.
There are billions of dollars behind the pro vaccine narrative, and just a bunch of concerned parents and ethical physicians behind the rational-use-if-vaccines (there’s no such thing as an antivaxxer… that’s just a swear word created by big Pharma PR to vilify those who challenge the safety of their products). Which do you think is most likely to be corrupt and lie to you?
People who challenge big Pharma have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose; big Pharma destroys their lives and careers, threatens rags like Lancet with withdrawal advertising unless they debunk previously published articles… just think about it. What do you think is more likely? Big Pharma using its vast wealth to silence scientific challenge to its incredibly Profitable revenue stream, or parents and physicians telling lies …. for no gain at all?
There are some that think Richard Horton should’ve suffered the same fate. If not for this then for the Meadow/Clark episode or the letter to gaza or the Iraq war incident. There is no doubt Wakefield was correctly struck off.
Totally agree. Stuart Richie is clearly being paid… and not by UnHerd.
Name five?
Yeah, black and white….then that massive grey area between the two extremes…
Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned Americans on Thursday to be cautious about any new coronavirus vaccine, pointing out that key parts of testing are being skipped.
“The Moderna vaccine, which is the lead candidate, skipped the animal testing altogether,” Kennedy said during an online debate on mandatory vaccinations with renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.
“In the low-dose group, one of the people was so sick from the vaccine they had to be hospitalized,” he explained. “That’s six percent. In the high-dose group, three people got so sick they had to be hospitalized. That’s twenty percent.”
In spite of these significant problems, “they’re going ahead, and making two billion doses of that vaccine.”
Another problem with the testing of the coronavirus vaccine is that it’s tested not on “typical Americans,” but a carefully selected group of people who don’t suffer from certain conditions.
“They use what they call exclusionary criteria,” Kennedy said. “They are only giving these vaccines in these tests that they’re doing to the healthiest people.”
“If you look at their exclusionary idea criteria: You cannot be pregnant, you cannot be overweight, you must have never smoked a cigarette, you must have never vaped, you must have no respiratory problems in your family, you can’t suffer asthma, you can’t have diabetes, you can’t have rheumatoid arthritis or any autoimmune disease. There has to be no history of seizure in the family. These are the people they’re testing the vaccine on.”
Incorrect. According to NIH press release dated 27 July, they are going ahead to the Phase III clinical trial, not to manufacture.
Story is from last week, so could be right about PIII trials….It’s gonna be a slam dunk anyway. Nothing is gonna stop this happening, it’s in the plan.
Several of the leading vaccine candidates are starting production now, while their trials are continuing. The hope is if the trials succeed, then they will be able to take hundreds of millions of doses to market immediately.
As long as vaccines are not mandatory let those who will do so and those who won’t do so.
That is not what the report in NEJM at DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483 said. One participant in the high-dose group reported a severe adverse event: a fever which was investigated in clinical care before recovering at home. There is no mention of any other severe adverse event (except soreness or swelling around the injection) or any participant requiring treatment in hospital. Of course, it’s possible that the authors of the paper somehow misreported, but it seems more probable that Mr Kennedy misunderstood or mis-spoke.
“…Results of immunogenicity testing of the 45 enrolled participants excluded findings for day 36, day 43, and day 57 for 3 participants who did not receive the second vaccination and for time points at which specimens were not collected (in the 100-μg group: 1 participant at day 43 and day 57; in the 250-μg group: 1 participant at day 29 and 1 at day 57)…”
No, they didn’t explicitly say so, but the above makes it fairly clear that there were 3 issues, the 3 cases that Kennedy refers to in his article.
…and half a million children rendered disabled in Gates’s Indian vaccine roll out…or was that not mentioned in the final paper either?
If they were not reported explicitly, then either they did not occur or there would have been significant misreporting.
Why would a report on a novel Covid vaccine mention the claimed side-effects of a polio vaccine?
The effects are not claimed but validated.
Claimed or validated, why would you expect to see polio vaccine side-effects mentioned in a report on a novel Covid vaccine?
I agree!
Well you wouldn’t, but if you did, you’d at least expect polio vaccine side effects mentioned in the proper context, explaining that 2.5bn children have received the polio vaccination (of which the alleged 500,000 would be a 0.02% fraction) and explaining how many children would die and be disabled if there were no polio vaccination programmes.
It might be helpful to you to read the book “DIssolving Illusions”. I found it an eye-opener.
Why would I want to read anti-vaxxer shit? I haven’t the time to do a full academic literature survey on this subject, nor the expertise to appreciate it. I am intelligent and educated enough though to understand these limitations.
I could recount to you the story of how my own child suffered as a result of other twats not getting their kids vaccinated though. No doubt you would not be interested because it wouldn’t fit your narrative.
The NEJM paper is sweeping safety problems under the rug.
https://www.statnews.com/20…
Of course early phase testing is done on healthy people. Later testing is done on a different basis, in order to determine the vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing or reducing the severity of the disease across all sections of the population.
I wonder if the vaccine trials will be complete before those in progress on Hydoxychloroquine.
I think we know the answer to that one…
HARVEY A. RISCH, MD, PHD , PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: “When this inexpensive oral medication [hydroxychloroquinine] is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.”
https://www.newsweek.com/ke…
I don’t even understand why there are trials for chloroquine. It has been used as an anti-malarial for years and the mechanism by which it can help a patient suffering from Covid is well understood: It can inhibit entry of the virus into the endosome inside the cell, thus preventing the manufacture of new “baby” viruses. Here is a lecturer explaining this mechanism, in a lecture on treatment of Covid patients. Aimed at medical professionals, so quite technical, but he is an excelletn lecturer, so a fairly intelligent person will be able to follow the reasoning.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
It seems a link sends your comment into the spam folder.
I don’t even understand why there are trials for chloroquine. It has been used as an anti-malarial for years and the mechanism by which it can help a patient suffering from Covid is well understood: It can inhibit entry of the virus into the endosome inside the cell, thus preventing the manufacture of new viruses. If you’re interested in the treatment of Covid-19 patients, search for Ninja Nerd lectures. These lectures are aimed at medical professionals, but he is an excellent lecturer, so anyone with some intelligence can follow it. He has several lectures on Covid 19. I’m referring to the one on treatment, where he explains the mechanism of chloroquine (and other drugs, such as Remdesivir): COVID-19 | Coronavirus: Treatment, Prognosis, Precautions
6,000 medical practitioners are taking the FDA to court at this moment for banning the release and use of HCQ. Those doctors have used it on over 3,500 patients on this pandemic, all of whom, survived. That is why they requested an audience with the Whithouse to make a public statement, but Youtube, Google, and Facebook have systematically taken down every single video. That tells you everything you need to know. The WHO, CDC, and our own government have systematically, and knowingly lied to us, and are still doing so. It should also be noted that Prof Chris Witty received £40. million in funding from the Gates foundation, as did Ferguson, and the BBC. There is no way on God’s earth that I would take a vaccine from these criminals.
The lawsuit is by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group with about 6000 members. I doubt they are all involved personally. I find nothing in the douments about the 3,500 patients.
40 million dollars went to a consortium of university research groups one of which was headed by Prof Whitty in 2008. I find no record of grants to the BBC, but the Gates Foundation has given grants to “BBC Media Action”, a charity.
Like Bill Gates, the BBC uses its ‘charitable’ arm to launder money received from big business and the globalists.
Exactly. This was never about public health and always about the agenda of the island owning psychopaths (Soros, Zuckerberg, Bilderberg etc)
But it doesn’t work. That’s the bottom line here. It has been tested and found wanting.
Why do people continue to harp on about this busted non-treatment?
The British trial for hydroxychloroquine was sabotaged; when the paper was published it showed that massive overdoses were used in the trial; doses that have never, and would never, be recommended for any condition. Look it up. NB The recommended dose? 200mg x 2 within a week….
Scientists can be bought off just like politicians.
I have looked it up and you have misread.
She misread? John Campbell would have to agree with her. https://youtu.be/2uzXHnUViro
And while vaccines have long involved genetic meddling with disease and animal, bird and human material, the Covid-19 vaccine, will, it has been said, be genetically ‘rewired’ so it genetically ‘rewires’ the individual who is vaccinated.
What idiot thinks that is a good idea?
Exactly, they want to alter our RNA. This could have a profound impact on the future of mankind. We would be genetically modified beings. This is a crime against humanity, pure and simple.
Are you being ironic? If not then there is absolutely no evidence to support what you state.
There are about a hundred vaccines under development at the moment. Presumably “the Covid-19 vaccine” in this case refers to the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273? Fortunately other candidates such as the Oxford ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 are based on more traditional protein antigens.
Hard to deal with the idea of genetic rewiring. Epigenetic change is almost exclusively in utero and is about gene expression not alteration
Well, of course. The tests have to cater for the possibility that the treatment is more risky than thought for people who are not in a good state of health, especially since in this case animal trials were waived. Human trials usually go in three phases. Phase I is small groups of healthy individuals. Phase II investigates dosage and side-effects. Phase III is large groups investigating efficacy.
Is it possible that Mr Kennedy did not know this? It seems unlikely.
Dr Ritchie, in your article discussing ‘wacky, hidebound anti-vaxxers’, you’ve made some sweeping statements about ‘vaccines’. For instance you say “…the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines is clear…”
Is it?
Have you undertaken research into vaccine effectiveness and safety?
How much do you know about all the vaccinations recommended on the NHS schedule? Including the combination shots and revaccinations, and vaccinations for adults as well as for children?
Do you think it acceptable that citizens are hindered from questioning vaccination policy and practice, and the ever-increasing number of vaccine products being added to schedules? In countries such as the UK and Australia, these are taxpayer-funded medical interventions.
Are you aware that there is a serious lack of transparency and accountability for vaccination policy, and that this area is awash with conflicts of interest?
Academics involved in vaccine industry-funded clinical trials are also involved in the government committees which recommend vaccine products for national schedules. What do you think about that?
Do you know that Professor Andrew Pollard, the chief investigator of the Oxford COVID19 vaccine trial, is also the Chair of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises UK health departments on ‘immunisation’? Work on the Oxford COVID19 vaccine trial is funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and others, and the University of Oxford has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca on this vaccine development.
Do you see any conflict of interest between Professor Andrew Pollard’s roles as chief investigator on a vaccine clinical trial and Chair of the JCVI?
Elizabeth Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
I mean, yes, he is aware of those sorts of things. He literally wrote a book about bad science, advertised at the bottom of the article, which I’m reading at the moment. It’s as well written and easy to read as this article so I can heartily recommend the purchase.
I didn’t read his article as some sort of blind apologetics for vaccines. But his core point is right – vaccines have managed to wipe out some very nasty diseases. It’s right for people to question the institutional processes that control vaccine management. At the same time, it’s not wrong to admit where they’ve worked.
You seem to be suggesting that it’s a bad thing to have an expert on vaccination and immunisation chairing a committee advising the government on vaccination and immunisation? Incidentally, the Oxford Project Leader for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is Prof. Sarah Gilbert.
Elizabeth Hart was asking a question, not making a statement. Therefore she was not suggesting anything.
But that didn’t stop you constructing the straw man, and thus beginning your reply with “You seem to be suggesting….” when clearly that is not the case.
This gives you zero credibility.
I also think you are willfully missing the point.
And no-one trusts “experts” any more, largely because they have been stupendously mendacious, inconsistent and just plain wrong. This has led to confusion in some and distrust in others. Either way, most people do not now trust what experts have to say.
That’s wrong as a general principle, and wrong in this particular case too, as her follow-up comment makes clear. She seemed to be, and indeed was, suggesting that it was “very problematic”.
‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ – obviously not a suggestion!
Thank you 🙂
Why ask the question?
Nigel, do you think that Elizabeth Harts questions weren’t a stream of suggestions?
Do you really believe Mr. Pinch has “zero credibility”?
Have you researched every answer to every question in every debate Mr. Pinch has ever been in?
And what is the point Mr. Pinch is missing?
Do we really have free will?
Why am I asking this endless stream of questions, that don’t suggest anything?
Richard Pinch, I see a very serious conflict of interest in having a chief investigator on a vaccine clinical trial also be Chair of the committee advising the government on vaccine products for the schedule.
Independent and objective specialists in infectious diseases should be the ones considering what is required to deal with disease outbreaks, and I suggest this is not always a vaccine.
I am finding the concept of ‘vaccination and immunisation committees’ very problematic. Countries such as the UK, the US and Australia have these committees, and they seem to be conduits for the vaccine industry, rubber-stamping an ever-increasing number of vaccine products for schedules.
There are present and past members of these committees with conflicts of interest. Vaccination schedules are contaminated with these conflicts of interest, and I am campaigning for an independent and objective review of bloated vaccination schedules.
Incidentally, the University of Oxford website providing information on Andrew Pollard states: “Professor Andrew J Pollard is the chief investigator of the global clinical trials of the Oxford COVID19 vaccine sponsored by the University of Oxford…” I’d provide a link, but links seem to make comments go off to ‘pending’ or ‘spam’..
There is no question that somebody who is working towards developing an anti-COVID vaccine has at least the appearance of a conflict of interest if he is also sitting on the government committee on vaccines.
I would also add, that Dr. Fauci is also seriously conflicted, since the Moderna vaccine that he and NIAID are pushing so hard is being co-funded by NIAID. And of course if NIAID/NIH develop the first successful anti-COVID vaccine, then funds will keep pouring in to the NIAD coffers from congress.
Thank you for at least attempting to achieve some balance in this debate, but you make a category error in relation to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are like fairy stories, myths, literature, bible stories, parables, they are not believed and perpetuated because they are thought to be literally and absolutely true, they are perpetuated because they contain great truth.
The great truth contained in the conspiracy theories around this rush for a Covid 19 vaccine is that Governments invariably balls things up. The anti Bill and Melinda Gates conspiracy theories are based on the fact that Gates’s billions were made from cornering the market with a product that needs updating every verse end, something akin to rent seeking. And most people do not wish to see themselves as the means by which an already very rich man can seek rent from the state by supplying a product which will be automatically redundant in a few months or years because the virus it is claiming to destroy will itself mutate. The population is suspicious it will have to pay through taxation to keep funding the research and roll out of new versions of vaccines against new forms of Covid.
It is not stupidity to err on the side of caution, it is not nuts to think a man who made us dependent on his products for our livelihoods, to a large extent, can imagine the still greater remuneration he will achieve by making us dependent on his product for our lives.
So my advice to the Government is give up trying to persuade people either way. Champion personal liberty and choice in all things, those who invent stories that take hold in the minds of the population are equally as brilliant as those who come up with scientific discoveries. Dickens invented Mrs Jellaby in 1852, Darwin came up with his theory of evolution in 1858. The entirely fictional Mrs Jellaby is alive and well, she has evolved and now spends all day signalling her virtue by sharing memes about poor black people on the internet. There is as much truth in fiction as in fact.
Alison, as you allude to, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is exerting extraordinary influence over international vaccination policy.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest funder of the WHO, with the Gates Foundation-backed Gavi Alliance in fourth place, behind the US and UK governments (as currently noted on the WHO’s Contributors webpage).
In regards to the Gavi Alliance, this was set up in 1999 with a $750 million pledge from the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation is a key Gavi partner in ‘vaccine market shaping’.
Bill and Melinda Gates pledged $10 billion for the ‘Decade of Vaccines’. Check out the ‘Decade of Vaccines Collaboration’, consisting of the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the GAVI Alliance, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the African Leaders Malaria Alliance and others, including many governments, health leaders, non-government organizations and other agencies.
At the recent Global Vaccine Summit, hosted by the UK in June 2020, the Gates Foundation-backed Gavi raised “more than $8.8 billion from 31 donor governments and 8 foundations, corporations and organisations to immunise 300 million children and support the global fight against COVID-19”. (See: ‘World leaders make historic commitments to provide equal access to vaccines for all’ on the Gavi Alliance website.)
And check out the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. CEPI was launched in Davos in 2017 and co-founded by, guess who, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the governments of Norway and India, the Wellcome Trust, and the World Economic Forum.
CEPI is an “innovative global partnership between public, private, philanthropic, and civil society organisations. We’re working together to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks”.
In other words, CEPI is working to develop massive global vaccine markets.
To date, CEPI has secured financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, the European Commission, and the governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Norway and the United Kingdom.
CEPI seems to be a bit cagey about clearly defining vaccine industry involvement, but representatives of Sanofi Pasteur, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Takeda are on its Scientific Advisory Committee.
Check out CEPI’s website for more info, including the about / who we are webpage.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg… There’s a massive international web behind the burgeoning global vaccine industry…and it’s time it was investigated…
Agree with your general point about conspiracy theories containing just enough truths to remain plausible, but really have to pull you up on this:
Do you really think that the very first Windows machine would be useful/functional today? This is utter madness. Bill Gates didn’t cunningly design a device predicated around needing updates – technology moves on. This applies everywhere to everything. Those that don’t update and innovate go bust (Amstrad, Acorn – even almost Apple at one point).
Gates (and Microsoft) made his millions by keeping at the edge of the curve and making sure his products were kept relevant and easy to access.
Wrong ” Gates via MS made his money via a monopoly, which was why he was successfully prosecuted ” but, as ever, it was already too late as the previous competition (e.g. Netscape) had already been eliminated
I’m reading this on a computer running Open-Source OS and Libre Office. I don’t need to pay Mr Gates for anything. Competition, and free of charge!
Thanks for the tip.. I hate the man and all his island-owning psychopathic friends. So hate paying to use his software as well.
You’re a wise man Ralph
Spot on.
He has an advantage over his competitors; a lack of conscience.
Incorrect I am afraid.
The original argument was that he deliberately designed something that intrinsically needed upgrading in order to make money, which is not the case. I.e. the implication is that he could have designed something that never needed upgrading but chose not to in order to make money. Which is nonsense.
How he conducted business with Microsoft in terms of creating a monopoly or cornering the market is irrelevant to that point. If it wasn’t going to be Gates it would have been someone else. I don’t care for Gates particularly either way, but he didn’t invent or monopolise the fundamentals of computer technology.
Does that make sense?
You’re both right and wrong. The very first Windows machine would indeed not be useful . functional today, but then it was not useful . functional in 1985 when it was launched. In fact it was never sold commercially but included as a runtime extension with DOS. Windows 2 never saw the light of day and Windows 3 went through several major revisions before it was considered usable.
I’d been an IT pro for over a decade then and us old hands laughed when told that such an atrocity would become the de facto standard for small computer systems.
But unfortunately Microsoft’s rivals that had Graphic User Interface systems that actually worked (Including DEC, HP, Xerox, Sun and even ICL did not hsve the might of the US Department of Defence, nor the malfeasance of the CIA behind them.
But you can go back even further, to the first IBM / Intel PC launched in 1981 and running MS DOS from floppy disks. If you dig down deep enough into the monstrosity that is Windows 10 you will find the same DOS kernel as ran that first generation of machines.
I have a laptop with Win 10 loaded, I mostly use SUSe Linux but if I have to do anything with Microsoft software I find myself cranking up Windows, going into command (CMD) mode and running it from te DOS command line. I get far more done that way and the OS does not keep trying to tell me, in the manner of Harry Enfield’s annoying neighbour character, “Naaaah! You don’t wanna do that.”
The real reason older computers are no longer useable is planned obsolescence. For years Microsoft’s (and Apple’s) business model was based on making us buy a new computer and software every three years.
And that should explain why I will not go anywhere near anything with which Bill Gates is associated no matter how peripheral his involvement.
Conspiracy Theory is in no way analogous to Myth.
Brilliant
With childhood diseases like measles there is a dilemma. I caught measles as a young child, before measles vaccines were available. Measles tended to spread widely amongst children and most of us recovered quickly. It is generally better to get measles as a child, than later. A small proportion of children (don’t recall the exact figure, maybe 0.001%?) get a very severe case causing lasting damage or even death. Vaccination for them is safer.
Here is the dilemma. Once you start widely vaccinating, the amount of virus in circulation is so low that the chance of getting it naturally as a child is negligible. Thus, in order to protect your child from getting a bad case as an adult, you must vaccinate.
If we were to stop vaccinating now against measles, it could take a generation or more for the natural infection process of my childhood to re-establish. In the mean time, unvaccinated children would grow to adulthood unprotected, and some would become severely ill. So we are now hostages to a vaccination success.
Should we have indulged in mass measles vaccination, making us permanently hostage to it, for the sake of the tiny minority of very severe cases? Most parents, who don’t know if their child might be one of the unlucky ones, would probably vaccinate.
If, however, we could work out who was susceptible to a severe case, we could vaccinate them alone. We are on the cusp of a personalised medicine revolution. That is the hope for a future without making societies hostage to permanent mass intervention.
In the year that I got measles, also before the vaccine, there were 763,531 notified cases and 152 people died of it. So about 0.02%
There is no simple equivalence between then and now. Numerous other factors need to to be taken into account e.g the quality and quantity of foodstuffs, levels of poverty etc. When I was growing up in the late 1940’s and early1950s, many families were still having to use food stamps. There was considerable poverty and consequently often poor hygiene standards. The air was heavily polluted from the coal fires everyone used for heating.
If vaccines were really as safe as is often asserted there would be far less resistance. Unfortunately, it’s not true. In the UK, adverse events are not well publicised and many are not even reported. In the USA, serious adverse events number anything from the 60,000+ that are reported to a probable considerable multiple of that, since it is reckoned that only some 10% of events are reported.
After a court ruling that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”, the vaccine makers were given blanket immunity from prosecution and a Vaccine Injury Court was established to examine cases and award compensation. To date, compensation for vaccine-caused injury totals more than $4.35 billion.
Comparisons of the prevalence of illness in vaccinated and unvaccinated children show unequivocally that unvaccinated children are far healthier. The rate of autism-spectrum illness in children is now 1 in 36. It used to be 1 in 400 or 500. There is a very clear correlation between that escalating rate of illness and the staggering increase in childhood vaccination levels in the USA.
Andrew Wakefield will be vindicated. He was a sacrificial victim – by no means the only one – of an industry that cares more about profits than human health.
Bill Gates’ desire to vaccinate 7 billion people – at an estimated cost of 700,000 dead – is literally insane.
No, Wakefield had an idea that vaccines caused autism. He set up an investigation that will have showed no correlation so he “adjusted” his results to fit the outcome he wanted. And he did adjust almost every data point that it was possible to adjust.
Bedwetting journalists, and others with no science background then asserted for several years that the cause of autism was the MMR vaccine.
The journal that published the article then compounded the issue by at first supporting his results, then backtracking and several years later pulled the paper from their journal record.
The rise in autism is due to more awareness rather than an increase in the proportion of those on the autism spectrum.
My Great Uncle was probably autistic, but he was born in 1910 and so will not have been diagnosed.
On “Bedwetting journalists”
It makes me laugh and scowl to recently read in the Daily Mail how “sadly” misinformation about MMR has proliferated for years, when the Mail was one of the principle proliferators of that misinformation.
Reminds me of the volte face all of the tabloids did on Diana the day she died.
In response to your comment that it is an increased awareness or diagnosis that is the cause of increasing ASD. Here is an interesting piece of information I propose for your consideration, approximately 40% of kids with ASD are non-verbal, do you think as a society, we didn’t notice that 40% of our kids weren’t able to talk or communicate until now?
N J That’s a mathematical error – if 40% of a subset is X that doesn’t mean we should notice X in 40% of the WHOLE population (of kids in this case)
Thank you for pointing this out, to clarify the math & comment (since I was referring to the ASD population, and you are referring to total population), 40% of the autism population, ASD rates are currently 2%-3%, so that is approx. 1% of total population (assuming ASD has been around forever and not growing). I still believe if 1% of the population didn’t speak, that is still incredibly significant on a total population basis and society would have noticed before now. Most people think of ASD at the higher end of the spectrum, but this isn’t the reality for most of these kids and families.
Around 100 years ago the terminology used was “mentally defective”, graded into various levels of “deficiency”. The proportion of the UK population so classified was about 0.1% around 1890 but rose to about 1% when measures started to be taken to assess and care for such people, maybe 2% in children. It’s hard to equate the various labels with modern diagnoses, but one may assume that ASD would have been included.
I’m going by Egan’s 2001 thesis, which studies late 19th and early 20th century Scotland.
Yes, see Mark Blaxill’s “Denial”, where this is demonstrated.
Autism has been around forever, just with different names.
Back in my parents day kids with severe autism were called mentally retarded, and those with minor autism were just considered odd.
If you go back further, babies who seemed normal but all of a sudden went strange- like how autism presents- were called changelings.
Many of these individuals with ASD are unable to live independently, so if ASD has been around forever, we would be able to see this 2-3% ASD in the 65yr+ population easily.
One of the biggest new developing problems the school & health systems are seeing now, as generations of the increased rates of autism populations are starting to age out of the school systems, there is no infrastructure in place, because society has never had to deal with numbers at this level before. A political economist, Dr. Toby Roger, who has studied this subject at great length from a viewpoint of the coming societal cost, said in a recent interview:
“In 2015, autism cost the United States $268 billion. “¦And they project that if autism continues at its current rate, that autism will cost the United States one trillion dollars by 2025.
The first wave of vaccine injured kids are aging out of the school system and they need adult residential care.
And there is no plan at the federal level or at the state level for how to manage this wave of autistic adults.
Within six years, autism is going to cost the United States more than the U.S. Defense Department budget.
This is a tsunami of costs that are already here, and yet, government isn’t talking about it. Politicians don’t talk about it. And they continue to be engaged in denial.”
The numbers are growing significantly every year, it is a coming storm most aren’t aware of.
NJ and others – You can find the truth about the autism increase and what really caused it by searching for “Experts Catastrophe” and then reading Chapter 3 (pdf only). Cheers.
Anyone with an interest in ASD and the numbers of children affected by ASD, now and in the past, must read ” Denial ” by Olmsted and Blaxill. The more we assume we know it all, now, the more need to read the book !
See “Denial” by Mark Blaxill.
No, back in the day, children with genetic issues involving neurodevelopment problems, and also children with severe brain damage were called “mentally retarded.”
The rate of such genetic issues dropped when techniques to identify them prenatally were developed, and abortion was offered.
Modern obstetrical techniques and access to maternal health care decreased the number of children born with brain damage.
“Changelings” could refer to a number of medical conditions, including seizures that could have come from children being exposed to a number of dangerous chemicals, including mercurochrome (used as a home antibiotic), lead (found in old glassware, water pipes, paint), and arsenic (used as rat poison).
There is no evidence that children described as “changelings” had autism.
What is unique about regressive autism is that there were no descriptions of children who had developed normally and then lost developmental skills.
Leo Kanner was very specific in his 1943 paper on autism: THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY NO DESCRIPTION OF CHILDREN LIKE THIS ANYWHERE IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE. That was why he wrote his paper.
Just look at the stats. It cannot be ignored the parallel between number of vaccinations and cases of brain damage/autism. This is much more obvious in the U.S. where children are recommended to have over 20 vaccinations before the age of 15 MONTHS! Check out the CDC schedule.
There is already data showing a decline in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome during lockdown as parents avoid doctor visits and vaccination. Will a bit more time also reveal a drop in Autism?
No. Do the research on the genetics of autism.
The rise in autism has reached epidemic proportions, from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 64, or 59, or 20 in boys in NJ. No gene is causing this. Additionally, the rise in Type 1 diabetes in America’s youth can not be explained by genes.
Rather than simply repeat “correlation is not causation”, let me recommend the excellent book Spurious Correlations by Tyler Viglen. It shows, for example, that there’s a convincing correlation between beef consumption and people getting struck by lightning. (I say this not to discount the serious plight of children with brain damage or autism and their parents, of course.)
The revenge of the Hindu gods is backed up by the statistics. Hard evidence of a Hindu Pantheon who can wreak revenge on beef eaters.
(btw this is sarcasm)
It is very obvious in the UK where the schedule is no longer any shorter. Meanwhile in Northern Ireland (the province actually has an annual ASD schools census) they now have a 4.2% rate of ASD – risen from 1.2% 11 years ago – with 64% of cases being rated at the highest level of disability, while in Belfast the rate is 6.9%. All UK schools are in crisis because of the numbers of children with neurological disability – the Department of Education tends to get the blame in England but the problem goes back to Department of Health and Social Care who have no explanation apart from bluster. If we now have disability at historically high and unsustainable levels the problem obviously lies at the DHSC not the DOE, which just struggles to keep up. Rather than attribute omnicompetence to the DHSC would it not be truer to to remark that they “couldn’t run a piss-up in a brewery”.
So, if Autism is just being more aware, pray, where are all the Autistic adults who must have existed throughout history, and really , up until about forty years ago??????
Have a look about, there are plenty of older adults that have great difficulties with life and change, communication and personal interactions. Many lack social and emotional awareness and don’t know how to act or react to others.
Many just get on with their life as best they can, and negotiate life as it comes at them. Most wouldn’t accept that they are on the ASD spectrum somewhere, but they will be.
Please see “Denial” by Mark Blaxill. The rise in autism is not due to awareness in diagnostics.
Yes it is, look around your community and you will see many mental asylums or sites of them. All now closed, We are mentally healthier but more likely to attribute any failing to mental conditions.I do not use my condition as an excuse I work with its strengths and try to manage the weakness’s.
Well, as someone said, “There is no simple equivalence between then and now. Numerous other factors need to to be taken into account”. Many things have changed and correlation is not causation. We simply do not know which of them might cause an increased rate of diagnosis of ASD. One possible candidate is increased awareness of the conditions and better diagnosis, for example.
There is certainly an irreducible risk to vaccination, and in the UK there is a Vaccine Damage Payment that recognises that. It is foolish to pretend that vaccination — or anything else in medicine, or life for that matter — is completely without risk. The question is, what is that level of risk?
At the beginning of the millenium the adult rate of ASD was held to be 2 in 10,000 in the UK. According to the latest schools census in Northern Ireland the rate is 4.2% (420 in 10,000), 6.9% in Belfast. 64% of those were in the highest category of disability. This a catastrophe about which our goverments are silent and cannot be accounted for remotely by “awareness” or “better recognition”. And nobody has remotest how were are going to cope or how this is going to stop.
Have a look at the UK Government’s Coronavirus pages – the vaccine damage payment now excluded vaccines for any type of “influenza”
The version I’m looking at includes
yes! well said.
The chances of Andrew Wakefield being vindicated are somewhat similar to Lord Lucan riding past my front door on Shergar. He was found to have falsified records, mistreated patients (children) and a litany of other transgressions. Rightly struck off.
Read his court records and then rewrite your claims. As you must.
I agree that he is not a nutter. He’s a fraud of the first order.
https://www.bebee.com/produ…
I don’t think so. He dropped the libel case and was ordered to pay all costs.
Read and the charges against him stand. What records were you reading?
Doctors in the past saw Measles as a disease of poverty in terms of its seriousness. For kids living in good conditions it was mild.
Are you sure about that figure of 0.02%? 152 of 763,521 is…
0.0199% if you want to be that precise.
I was born in November 1959 in London. My mother recalls me having measles around 18 months of age (this would have been in 1961, and is unlikely to be laboratory verified”¦) She was a young mother, only 19 years old and I was her first child. She was shocked to see her baby covered in spots and called the doctor to the house.
My mother recalls the doctor said I had measles, but told her not to worry, they would just run their course (a rather more benign message than we receive nowadays”¦) My mother said the spots lasted about ten days and I did not seem to be too adversely affected. She said “it did not put you off your food in any way” and “you used to sleep right through the night from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am.”
In 2012 I had serological testing (i.e. a blood test) to check my immunity for measles, mumps and rubella. According to these tests I understand I am ‘protected’. It seems I have natural immunity to measles due to having this disease as a child. Somehow I must have had exposure to mumps too, but I do not recall having obvious symptoms of this disease. It’s likely I had rubella vaccination as a girl.
My mother also mentioned that she was diagnosed with having the mumps when she was fifteen years old, in Ireland (again, unlikely to be laboratory verified). She said: “The pain was so bad I can’t describe it.” This seems to fit with the idea that these diseases can be more severe in older individuals.
I had mumps at Christmas when I was about 11. Damn sore throat and had to stick to custard, but over it in a few days.
Well done. Me too. My son however went through an extremely painful experience. It is possible to be so affected that sterility results.
I had read that the mumps element of the MMR doesn’t always give the same duration of immunity as natural infection (or the other elements of the MMR), which some anti-vaxers state as justification not to vaccinate children against mumps. the alternative being the need to regularly boost mumps vaccination throughout post-puberty adulthood when sterility can be caused.
I’m not sure whether the mumps vaccine has been tested for safety in adults though? It seems at least a remote possibility that the vaccine itself could cause sterility in some cases, as typically the list of adverse effects mirrors the list of side effects of the disease itself.
The UK lost its measles free status in 2019 and had between 1-5 deaths from measles March 2019-February 2020 (ECDC). On 29 September 2019 Matt Hancock told the Conservative Party conference that the UK is looking “very seriously” at making vaccinations compulsory for schoolchildren
(https://www.newscientist.co…
The justification for making vaccinations mandatory is that it is for the greater good. This is not dissimilar to the argument that the Chinese Government might make when riding roughshod over individuals or communities that stand in the way of its economic development plans. A nation that had mass starvation a few decades ago is now an economic powerhouse with the majority of the population benefiting. But where do you draw the line between the greater good and the loss of liberty? For me, the right to choose over my own body and those of my children is pretty fundamental.
The big problem with the measles vaccine is different – unlike immunity from catching the disease it wears off. Most people in there late 50s or older have had the disease and have life-long immunity. Vaccinated people have a lesser immunity which can not be compensated by more vaccination (after the second go it is also highly ineffective). Furthermore, new strains have developed which the vaccine is less effective against. It means we now have a large vaccinated population with poor immunity, and if a virulent new strain were to develop we would be in at least as much trouble as we are at present with SARS-CoV-2. After 50 years of measles vaccine we are potentially in deep water.
Interesting assertion. What evidence do you base it on?
I included this explanation elsewhere:-
This model will not work and this has been known for a long time. Because the type of immunity a vaccine offfers against measles is much weaker than lifelong immunity from the natural disease the vaccine has gradually been destroying herd immunity against measles, and may lead to pandemic disaster. see:
John Stone, ‘Measles vaccination has substituted one problem for another’, BMJ Rapid Responses 20 June 2019
(This lists 10 studies and I have at least another 20)
John Stone, ‘There should open discussiion about vaccine safety’, BMJ Rapid Responses 2 January 2020
We could easily be over-run by new strains of measles or morbillo viruses because of vaccination. The recent bulge in measles in the UK was was due to the B3 strain against which the vaccine is largely ineffective (but fortunately is not that deadly).
John Stone, ‘Propaganda should not be allowed to overwhelm policy’, BMJ Rapid Resonses 23 October 2019.
I approach this without ideology but there could be dangers to trying to outwit nature.
Quoting yourself in letters not research does you no credit.
There is no evidence to support these statements. Vaccinated people live longer.
Yes, natural immunity wears off, but my understanding is that before a measles vaccine natural immunity in adults was continually boosted by exposure to periodic low level reinfection during outbreaks of wild strain measles in the community.
The unforeseen problem with a measles vaccinated population is that as periodic outbreaks of wild measles are no longer prevalent, there is no low level booster re-infection. As there has been an increase in the incidence of shingles among adults there might be a some connection.
Fortunately the pharmaceutical industry has stepped in to fill the gap by producing a Shingles vaccine,
Shingles? You have confused measles with chickenpox.
Apologies. You are correct.
The UK lost its measles free status in 2019 and had between 1-5 deaths from measles March 2019-February 2020 (ECDC). On 29 September 2019 Matt Hancock told the Conservative Party conference that the UK is looking “very seriously” at making vaccinations compulsory for schoolchildren.
The justification for making vaccinations mandatory is that it is for the greater good. This is not dissimilar to the argument that the Chinese Government might make when riding roughshod over individuals or communities that stand in the way of its economic development plans. A nation that had mass starvation a few decades ago is now an economic powerhouse with the majority of the population benefiting. But where do you draw the line between the greater good and the loss of liberty? For me, the right to choose over my own body and those of my children is pretty fundamental.
Perhaps, a better strategy would be to discover what makes children susceptible to a very serious bout of measles, and vaccinate only them.
Exactly! But lazy doctors take the short cut, causing enormous damage.
You, I’m afraid are one of the people the psychologist writing the article refer to negatively. With justification.
Lazy people do the damage. Look at life expectancy in USA which has increased for 50 years and now is reversing as the gluttony takes its tole.
Since having Measles, Mumps, Chicken Pox etc., in childhood, protects one as an adult on many counts – against Cancer, Strokes, Heart Disease – why would we vaccinate any child?
Because there are very significant risks for some children. And there are insignificant risks against. Do the research.
How do you assess the risks against, when there is no adequate reporting system (at least in the US) for adverse events following vaccination? The system in the US, VAERS, was severely flawed from the very beginning, and only got worse. Fewer than 1% of adverse events noted by doctors in the medical records are ever reported to VAERS, as noted in the 2010 CDC-funded Harvard Pilgrim report.
You can’t do a reasonable risk/benefit analysis unless you have accurate data for both risks and benefits.
And even the benefits are sketchy, as vaccines don’t give lifelong immunity; antibody production wanes within a couple of decades, leaving older adults far more susceptible to childhood diseases like measles, mumps, and chickenpox than they ever would have been before the vaccines were introduced, necessitating boosters, which confer shorter and shorter periods of immunity with each successive booster.
I have and there is no evidence for this assertion.
You are right, up to a point. The immune system has to be trained on real world challenges to learn the differences between self, symbionts, renegade self (eg. cancer), and invader. The drive to eliminate all risk unbalances the system. (I would say that the same problem exists in the mental development of our children, too).
So, given the small mortality risk of Measles, Mumps and Chicken Pox, mass vaccination may well do more harm than good.
There are some diseases with a very high probability of a poor outcome (polio, diphtheria, and increasingly again tuberculosis), where, given the choice, I would vaccinate my child.
I don’t think that vaccination should be compulsory. It is very rare that a pathogen is so inflexible (like smallpox) that total elimination is even possible, although herd resistance (which can control epidemics) might be.
Except every vaccinated population has done better (except for the contaminated batch in 1955. Even the complications which were too high in some cases were better for the population as a whole. Vaccination programmes care about everyone but do not care about the individual. As an individual you are gambling but only a very little and the odds are in your favour.
It is hard to disentangle the general rise in prosperity from the benefits of universal vaccination.
Measles, for example, was relatively harmless to me and my contemporaries in England, because we were generally healthy and decently fed (even in the 1950s). At the same time, measles in certain poor countries had a significant mortality rate (as well as lasting problems for some of the recovered).
Since I was a child, the world has transformed from 85% very poor, to just 15% very poor. I would expect that penetration of vaccination programmes has been made possible by the rise in prosperity.
An additional thought to ponder when considering universal vaccination for mild childhood diseases is that once you start, you have to continue, because many of them are more serious when contracted as an adult. Without the herd resistance acquired in childhood, devastating epidemics amongst adults could result.
i don’t think we can take for granted that our existing, highly organised, system will survive forever. If our civilisation collapses, the return of epidemics would be brutal and unforgiving.
We should give serious thought to lessening our dependence on so many “too-big-to-fail” systems. Amongst these is universal vaccination against diseases which are mild in childhood but serious for adults.
Further to my previous reply:
There is a wonderful scene in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” where the new, ministry imposed, “Defence Against Dark Arts” teacher announces sanitised, entirely theoretical, course whose sole purpose is to ready the students for their exams. Harry Potter objects that it will do nothing to help them meet real world challenges (such as the return of Voldomort and his Death Eaters).
I think that captures beautifully the hubristic attempt to make everything risk free.
Is there published peer-reviewed evidence for that?
Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
Compare those tragic deaths to the very many autistic children who, in varying degrees, lead very difficult lives because of vaccine damage. Despite what this author says, they DO exist. That’s why the government pays out millions in compensation.
Stop it. Do the research.
That does assume that vaccine protects against measles and that when we have had a measles epidemic it was (a) spread by unvaccinated and not vaccinated children, (b) that unvaccinated and not vaccinated children were the only ones who caught measles, (c) that measles does not mutate, (d) that all cases of measles are diagnosed and notified. Those are all assumptions and not facts.
I remember reading in the comments to another article s reference to 2 studies showing that the flu vaccine increased the probability of getting infected by other respiratory viruses, including coronaviruses. If those studies are indeed correct, it strikes me that one might want to be rather careful in the widespread adoption of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Further, if the side-effects mentioned in a comment below for the Moderna vaccine were so severe as to require hospitalization, and the vaccine itself uses mRNA technology that has never been used before for any currently available vaccine, I for one would be very cautious about getting a shot(s), at least not until it has been tried on millions of people to ensure that there are no dangerous and long-lasting side effects.
Your first point is particularly relevant, given that Boris is encouraging us all to get flu shots this winter to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed. And one of the studies you mention (Cowling et al, Clin Infect Dis 2012;54:1778) is cited in a letter to the BMJ by a retired paediatrician – hardly your average anti-vax nutter!
It’s not impossible that said paediatrician is an anti-vaxer. (I’m not saying (s)he is mind.) Wakefield, after all, was a qualified physician, as are all those nutters who practice homeopathy.
I doubt you bothered to read Wakefield’s research and his court case records, so we can presume your use of the term, nutter, is without substance.
I doubt Wakefield’s research or court case made any mention of homeopathy practitioners.
I think he was referring to homeopaths as nutters, not Wakefield. He was a fraud.
Appears there are quite a few pieces of research showing this ” one that comes to mind was a Hong Kong study using a true placebo that found that flu-vaccinated children were 5 times more likely to develop a Covid-like respiratory illness
Id be interested to know more about this study.
I am generally, pro-vaccine, but it apepars to me that the high level of uptake of flu-vaccine in the UK and Italy may have contributed to either an overhang of older-people waiting to be infected with COVID, or even that a flu epidemic in say Germany may have protected against COVID, preventing it taking hold.
I think it’s Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine Cowling et al, 2012: PMC3404712
The other infections seem to have included just one case of coronavirus.
Thanks very much!
A 95% chance that relative risk has increased by a 1/3 is not to be sniffed at.
Normally the sort of displacement effect that real virus infections might be creating wouldn’t be of concern, after all, ‘flu is far worse than a cold.
If influenza does displace coronavirus, an infection worse than most ‘flu, then the vaccination program might have to go back to the drawing board, especially around ‘flu vaccinating younger people to prevent a rapid spread of ‘flu in older people.
I saw an article regarding that claim published in March this year. I’m not sure if it was about the same study but it definitely showed that those who had received the flu vaccine were more likely to contract covid 19. I’m guessing that the immune system is primed to resist flu type infections. It would be interesting to know if they also contract other forms of coronavirus.
Johann, look at the picture of at the head of this article, that’s Boris Johnson getting his flu shot in October 2019. A few months later he was apparently very ill with COVID-19. Did the flu shot make him more vulnerable?
It’s also notable that most of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 have been in the elderly, a cohort which is pressed to have flu vaccination. I wonder how many of those people had flu vaccination?
An interesting thought. However, I suspect that Boris was none too careful when he went visiting the COVID ward, shaking hands with patients and then probably not washing his hands with hand sanitizer afterwards.
Incidentally, at least in the US, healthcare workers in hospitals are forced to get flu shots (at least where I am). They too have been particularly badly hit, but then they do come into contact with many infected patients so there innoculum is likely to be large.
And the data showing how many Covid cases and deaths had previously had the Flu vaccine would be where?
I would like to see that data!
I don’t think anyone would admit that Broris’ flu shot might have made him more vulnerable Elizabeth, but the timing of his illness struck me as extraordinarily convenient as it coincided with a massive push by the Big Phama cartel to drum up orders for untested and undeveloped vaccines.
‘ A recent military study shows military personnel evaluated who received the flu vaccine were at 36 percent increased risk for coronavirus with varied benefit in preventing some strains of the flu.’
https://www.disabledveteran…
Which study? “Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017″“2018 influenza season”, published in Vaccine volume 38.
Which coronavirus? Well, obviously not Covid19 in this study. In fact, the coronavirus family includes a variety of the common cold.
“Extremely convenient” is code for “I won’t explicitly say what I’m implying because it’s so patently ridiculous, so I’ll just leave this hanging”.
You can infer what you like, but I wasn’t implying anything, I was simply stirring the pot
I think all sort of things but I do not really think that Johnson’s illness was play-acting.
Yes, in the north of Italy people received a ‘new’ flu shot earlier in 2019 and look what happened there.
Here’s the mechanistic evidence for the flu shot causing severe COVID-19.
There’s a strong similarity between chicken/egg proteins in the flu shot and SARS-CoV-2 proteins.
The flu shot causes the development of allergy to egg proteins. Once infected with SARS-CoV-2, the allergic reaction due to cross-reaction will result in severe disease.
Serological examination of IgE- and IgG-specific antibodies to egg protein during influenza virus immunization.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go…
BLASTP comparison:
orf1ab polyprotein [Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] vs. chicken/egg proteins
poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 14 isoform X3 [Gallus gallus]
Sequence ID: XP_025008461.1 Length: 1861 Number of Matches: 1
Related Information
Gene-associated gene details
Genome Data Viewer-aligned genomic context
Range 1: 864 to 1036 GenPeptGraphics
Alignment statistics for match #1 Score Expect Method Identities Positives Gaps
60.1 bits(144) 1e-07 Compositional matrix adjust. 57/183(31%) 86/183(46%) 22/183(12%)
This is the reason why allergy medications such as antihistamines (cetirizine/famotidine) help in COVID-19.
Dual-Histamine Blockade with Cetirizine – Famotidine Reduces Pulmonary Symptoms in COVID-19 Patients
https://www.medrxiv.org/con…
I left a detailed response to Alison Houston’s earlier comment on this article, providing information relevant to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s influence on international vaccination policy, including reference to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), which was co-founded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and which is funding the Oxford COVID19 vaccine trial.
My comment has been ‘detected as spam’ and removed. What is going on? My comment is not offensive, and is absolutely relevant to this article, which mentions Bill Gates, but my response disappears. Other comments of mine have also disappeared, including one on Freddie Sayers’ interview with Anders Tegnell, which included reference to the policy of vaccinating children to protect the elderly, a matter which raises serious ethical questions.
It’s very difficult to discuss vaccination matters in public forums, where people questioning vaccination policy and practice are often censored.
UnHerd claims “to push back against the herd mentality with new and bold thinking, and to provide a platform for otherwise unheard ideas, people and places”.
People with legitimate questions about vaccination policy and practice are often deliberately ‘unheard’. We are currently in the midst of a global push for fast-tracked experimental coronavirus vaccine products – there must be an opportunity for the public to engage in this conversation which is relevant to us all.
I request my comments which have been dispatched to spam be reinstated.
Earlier this morning there appears to have been some issues with posting comments, I had to try several times and email the site before I could get a comment posted. Did you get a red banner below the comment box with an error message in it?
Re posts going missing…I think that might be ta site tech problem rather than a deliberate attempt at suppression, but could be wrong.
No Nigel, my comment with information about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation appeared to be published, but when I looked later it had disappeared, and in my register of comments was noted as “Detected as spam”.
It’s also notable that this article has had a change of title. When I saw it published this morning (in Australia) it was titled ‘Don’t dismiss the anti-vaxxers’, but it was subsequently changed to ‘The truth about vaccines’. I guess someone somewhere couldn’t bear the original title’s inference that there might be legitimate concerns about vaccination.
I have had similar post on a different article marked as spam and removed. Mine could not be construed as controversial in an way. So I hope it is an over active spam filter rather than anything more sinister. Either way unherd should have a word with their discussion board provider
And now I have had one of my post removed from here too. Come on Unherd whats going on!!!
Fair enough.
And well spotted, in the UK this morning the article was entitled “Don’t dismiss the anti-vaxxers”.
Email the site with your questions, wouldn’t mind seeing any replies though…
I, sincerely, suggest you keep your posts about the safety of rushing through a new vaccine, and posts about ethics of vaccinating children to protect the elderly apart from the ones about Bill Gates.
Then your more mainstream criticisms of vaccine policy won’t get undermined by your ‘questions’ along the lines of “Have you heard about blah blah blah that Bill Gates might be doing?” Which though not libelous aren’t questions at all.
I suspect that governents around the world are about to make a huge mistake, that’ll have anti-vaccination hard-liners such as yourself rubbing your hands with glee, after the fact.
The fact that Bill Gates, in his retirement, chooses to try to do good with his money is a distraction from governments pretty much en masse acting foolishly, because their electorates are too spoiled to cope with the fact that very old people die.
Adrian, did you see my post on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation before it disappeared?
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is basically running international vaccination policy, including via the WHO, to which they are the biggest donor.
It’s astonishing that software billionaire Bill Gates is calling the shots on vaccination, and is now dictating that the global population has to be vaccinated with fast-tracked experimental coronavirus vaccines “to get us back to normal”.
Bill and Melinda Gates have world leaders at their beck and call, and it’s taxpayers’ money, not just theirs, which is going into the pot. It’s time for accountability.
See: GatesNotes: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine. 30 April 2020.
No I didn’t see the post, unfortunately. Thanks for bringin my attention to it.
I agree it is not good to have a genius in human-computer interaction (which Bill Gates in my opinion is) unduly influencing public health policy, a sphere in which it is unlikely that Gates is also a genius.
I suspect that it would be easier to sell the public a foreseeable story of an imminent tragedy. A tragedy caused by a race for a vaccine, a World Health Organization past their sell by date, a western world unable to cope with even reading about death in the newspapers, a scientifically illiterate political class, a hysterical press, a man who wants to be remembered for more than a software company that ran out of his control decades ago, and all of the other actors in this confederacy of dunces, than it is to sell some half baked evil mastermind conspiracy theory.
I see a tale of hubris not of malice.
Stuart,
You have a touching faith in doctors/medical scientists.
They are under immense pressure to rush through a vaccine from all governments, the immense prestige of being first and, of course, the money involved.
This pressure has already lead to shortcuts in thoroughly testing the upside and downside of a vaccine.
Therefore, this leads me to be very cautions in having the vaccine, until a year or two has passed. Hopefully by then the downsides might have been discovered and ironed out.
Bill Gates as good as admits this in GatesNotes: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine. 30 April 2020. Having identified the issues and possible problems with a COVID-19 vaccine, he then advocates rolling it out to “low-income countries” first: in part because in these countries “more people have poor underlying health that makes them more vulnerable to complications”. If there are any issues with the vaccine, these poor “more vulnerable” people will no doubt reveal the complications fairly quickly before it is rolled out on mass to the richer countries.
I live in one of these poor countries in Africa, regularly visited by Bill Gates and he’s on first-name terms with our ineffective, but dictatorial head of state. Unlike in the wealthy countries, the majority of people in these poor countries are young, and therefore not in the Covid-19 “death-zone.”
While we wait to carefully test the vaccine we can be confident that millions will die of C-19. This is all about relative risk. If, hypothetically, a million lives might be saved at the risk of 1,000 vaccine caused deaths, then the vaccine should be deployed. And we should keep working to make a better one that causes 10 deaths in a million.
Is it that simple? If the millions of lives saved each get an extra 3 weeks of low quality-of-life old age but the vaccine injuries and deaths occur amongst younger people then is that either best or morally right.
This article is an exercise in ad hominem typology. A fundamental question is how could we even begin in less than a decade to establish the safety of any of the products which 7.8 billion people are supposed to accept on trust. We could discuss Wakefield, but even if anything you said about him was true, it would be a red herring. If one man researching vaccines was a bad scientist, does it mean that a whole class of products are safe in perpetuity – that is an argument anyone who purports to think scientifically ought to apologise for.
A big question is why – if vaccines are safe – do we need these relentless hate campaigns against their critics. In fact, nothing could ensure the lack of safety of the products, or scientific objectivity, than this relentless hostility to criticism. Everyone is being told that if they dare speak up about harm that they will be humiliated and ostracised.
I am UK editor of Age of Autism
The author of this article I notice works at Kings College, where Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has made large donations. Also what about the amount of money involved, UK government alone has pumped in 210 million just for R and D. Also Gates has said himself that Governments must be liable for issues with the vaccine in the future and not drug companies. I am not a medical expert or a scientist but my gut feeling is that the whole thing stinks !
Gates is now likening people who criticise the vaccine programme (ie “antivaxxers”) to people who trade in child pornography, and the question is why?
By sleight of semantic hand people criticising the vaccine programme become “anti-vaxxers” (that is very bad people whom Gates now compares to people trading in child exploitative imagery) but the trouble is that truly the vaccine programme is a heavily protected, cosseted racket and it is no wonder that governments and certain affiliated academics do not want us to talk about it.
My wife, a retired research nurse, will not take any vaccine developed as fast as it is (less than 5 years). She knows how long it actually takes simply to do all the relevant safety tests. These are clearly being bypassed with this Covid vaccine. One has to wonder why there is a rush? Maybe it’s because they need to make money fast faced with these inconvenient facts :
* They have never yet developed a vaccine for ANY coronavirus before now
* A Coronavirus strain mutates and is gone within two years (SARS, MERS anyone?)
* T-Cell research is rapidly progressing and papers are homing in on a 60-80% existing immuniuty to Coronavirus.
* It’s disappearing fast and in the UK it is already plummeting to be less dangerous than your house (2019 – 18 deaths per day from domestic accidents)
I’m NOT an anti vaxxer. I’m an anti “lets make money and to hell with safety” attitudes that big pharma demonstrates all the time and is blindingly obvious based on all the money they keep paying out in compensation! The US is VERY bad.
Malcolm, re “It’s disappearing fast…”
In May, Professor Adrian Hill, who is part of the team working on the Oxford vaccine, “revealed that his team now faces a major problem, throwing the September deadline into doubt. In short, their adversary is disappearing so rapidly in the UK that the next phase of trials has only a 50 per cent chance of success. Without Covid-19 spreading in the community, volunteers will not catch the disease, leaving scientists unable to prove that their vaccine makes any difference”. See: ‘Exclusive: Oxford University Covid-19 vaccine trial has 50 per cent chance of ‘no result”. The Telegraph, 23 May 2020.
So now they’re off-loading trials to South Africa and Brazil…
See for example: ‘South Africa vaccine trial caused a shock due to the number of people infected’, (AS website, 11 July 2020). This article reports: “Trials’ Sub-investigator Clare Cutland stated that 202 patients have been enrolled and administered the vaccine so far. Cutland added that 21% of individuals who enrolled for the trial by Monday, had already contracted the Covid-19 virus (35 patients out of 162). “All of them were asymptomatic on the day of their [nasal] sample collection. Global studies are revealing that many people infected with Covid-19 are either asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. Because of the high numbers of asymptomatic Covid-19 cases enrolled in the trial to date, it means one out of every five participants will have to be excluded from certain planned analyses, which could affect the power of the study” she said.”
“T-Cell research is rapidly progressing and papers are homing …”
T cells have a homing function and they home to where the virus entered the body. So if the virus is injected as with a vaccine, they home to the skin. So T cells/protection induced by natural COVID-19 infection cannot be compared to T cells induced by vaccines because they may be protecting the wrong parts of the body. They have to make intranasally administered vaccines. I am not aware of any major player doing that.
Well said
I think it’s very inappropriate to use the term “anti-vaxxers” in this context.
I’ve had all my jabs, and go to the GP surgery for additional ones prior to holidays.
I took my son for all of his, including MMR at the height of the scare.
I am not an anti-vaxxer.
But I do think this case is different. The COVID vaccines are definitely being rushed through, and there are enough reasons, as mentioned by other commenters, to be very cautious about it.
I will not be first in the queue
The pro vaccine position is based on the premise that the modern world, westerm medicine, science, industrialisation, Englightenment, rational thought, facts, statistics etc are all good things.
Personally I agree, vaccines seem to have such an overwhelmingly positive effect eg smallpox vaccine has saved 100s millions of lives. There are/have been some relatively small side effects, some of this comes down to the Trolley Problem – do we save a million people but kill 1 person and so on. All easy to dismiss unless it’s your child.
However contrast the recent media/gov/corperation reaction to recent protests, where facts are continually ignored, where reality is brushed aside – where the Enlightenment, rational thought are all under direct attack. Capitalism, that tricky thing that has improved the lives of billions is declared evil and so on. Also see the governments lies and half truths around covid, again supported/ignored by the media, lockdown to flatten, now lockdown forever.
None of this should stop the adoption of vaccines where required, however when we live in a world where the elite go along with any latest fashion and lie freely then don’t be suprised that people are suspicious.
I agree. Contempt is rarely persuasive.
There is no evidence vaccines saved millions of lives.
There is evidence that improved hygiene and nutrition saved millions of lives, and that vaccines then took the credit.
Check out Pediatrics 106, 2000, Guyer et al “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century” it’s freely available on sci-hub.
Agreed and quite correct. I was staggered to discover this recently.
Measles was the key and I kept seeing a graph showing how US mortality from measles had practically flatlined to zero before any vaccine was introduced! Yet MMR is still publicly stated as being the reason when quite obviously it never was.
I checked the relevant data for UK via ONS and PHE and it’s exactly the same. Compared to early 1940’s 98-99% of measles deaths per year had already gone before MMR was introduced in 1988.
Measles vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1968 and had been more-or-less widely administered for several years by 1988. MMR is only one form of measles vaccine.
I was waiting for someone to post that 😉
So, using ONS & PHE data, 95% of measles deaths had already gone by 1968 when the very first (single shot) measles vaccine was introduced. PHE state that widespread coverage (over 90%) was not achieved until MMR was introduced from 1988.
So again, the vaccines had little or even nothing to do with this reduction, but took the credit
As Magnus stated, it’s due to clean water, improved sanitation, better living conditions
Not correct. ONS data shows that the number of cases for 1967 was 460,407, compared with 160,402 for 1946.
Later: I see you wrote “deaths” not “cases”. That would be 204 versus 99.
Thanks for the reply; however you cherry-picked the one year in the 1940’s that had the lowest no. cases & deaths as your comparison. 1940 & 1941 both had ~400,000 cases with 857 deaths from measles in 1940 and 1,145 in 1941. So let’s compare these with 66 & 67.
2,002 deaths from measles in UK in 40-41 versus 179 in 66-67 gives a reduction of 91% without any vaccine.
Use a 5 year spread comparing 40-44 with 63-67 and there’s still a large 86% reduction
So your chosen years (following the mass movement of children and in the middle of the Blitz) still only gives 91% not the claimed 95%. I avoided the war-time years on account of the disruption to normal life and in particular public health and hygiene and health care. Taking the first five post-war years and comparing with the last five years pre-vaccine we get 1703 versus 494, which is 70%. And so on.
Clearly post-war reconstruction, rebuilding and improving the public health infrastructure and the introduction of free National Health Service had an effect, and a significant one. But the figures for the late50s and early 60s suggest that the improvement was levelling off, and post-vaccination there was a significant further drop.
These exaggerated claims of 98-99%, then 95%, then 91% do little to support what, if more moderately presented, would have been a fair point. If you had said, say, two-thirds of the improvement in the polio death rate was due to improved public health and hygiene, and one-third to vaccination, that would have been a reasonable position consistent with the data. But to say that “mortality from measles had practically flatlined to zero before any vaccine was introduced” isn’t.
Correct.
Can’t compare #cases with #deaths
Diphtheria was a killer in the 1930s and before. Vaccination stopped it in its tracks. As for the idea that measles vaccination was not and is not a game changer, why have we had significant outbreaks following anti vaccination by various communities.
When they look at recent measles outbreaks in the US, 13% to 20% have actually been vaccinated, so it would seem the vaccines don’t appear to be providing immunity as we would expect. As well, initial vaccine failure may also play a part, i.e. studies show 2%-12% of children who receive an MMR vaccine do not respond to the vaccine. Then, when you add into the equation that the population that has lifelong immunity (from having had wild measles) is diminishing, and more of our population relies on vaccine immunity (which is clearly not as effective or as long lasting as the wild immunity) our risk of outbreaks would naturally go up. Basically, the vaccine doesn’t seem to be working as well as we have been told, and we are perhaps beginning to see unintended consequences.
In my view it’s fairly simple, the people which want to be vaccinated shall do so, the ones which don’t live with the risks happily ever after.
Why do the pro vaxxers worry about the unvaccinated, they should be worry free? Or don’t they trust the vaccination?
The government has no right to mandate vaccinations.
I think it’s section (6) in the UN charter of Human Rights that outlines very clearly that any drug/vaccine can be refused for any reason. However I do believe that compulsory vaccinations are coming soon. Either they’ll ignore the human rights (again) or make it impossible to travel/work/live without proof of having had them
“make it impossible to travel/work/live without proof of having had them”
The most likely scenario I fear.
That’s certainly how it used to be. I had to get vaccinated against smallpox to travel abroad. Hmm, smallpox. I wonder what happened to that?
But more to the point, it’s how it is now. View the NHS website to see which countries require which vaccinations before you can get in.
I thought all children were vaccinated against small-pox until it was eradicated? I certainly was. I can remember having to travel with a little yellow vaccination book which held a record of everything you had ever been vaccinated against.
Mandatory vaccines are here – in California, if you want your child to be able to attend public or private school, they must be fully vaccinated according to the current government schedule. SB276 & SB277. Other states are trying to pass similar legislation every year.
Truly hope it is that simple, and I agree with you
“We mustn’t give any credibility to conspiracy theories.”
I disagree. At the start of the C-19 pandemic there were those, including me, who suspected that the virus was an escapee from the Wuhan lab and were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. It is now widely accepted that that was exactly what happened. Where one doesn’t know for sure, the law of probabilities apples and too many “coincidences” should always raise suspicions and be subject to further investigation.
On the subject of vaccines, as a child in the 50’s I was vaccinated against all the usual – small-pox, diptheria, polio etc. and it was considered normal. Maybe there were children adversely affected but I don’t remember knowing any. Yet in my early 20’s by law I had to be innoculated against cholera to go on holiday to Malawi. It made me very ill indeed for a few days and for a fortnight I was unable to use the arm that had been injected. I was one of six in the party and the others had no ill-effects. Even so, that would represent a “serious” side effect in 18% of recipients albeit a very small sample. I have been wary of vaccines ever since.
I am not an anti-vaxxer and appreciate how many millions of lives have been saved and the near eradication of small-pox for example. However, I am seriously concerned about how rapidly this vaccine for C-19 is being developed and have little faith that long term side-effects will be identified simply because there won’t be a “long term” in which to identify them. I think I can easily be forgiven for not trusting “modelling”, especially if that brief is given to people like Neil Ferguson.
My own feeling is that while attempts to find a vaccine should continue, more emphasis should be placed on finding effective treatment for the very tiny percentage of people who suffer from the worst effects of C-19.
Perhaps read the article in last Saturday’s telegraph “the woman with the whole world in her hands” i.e Professor Sarah Gilbert. It may or may not help you I found it both informative and inspiring.
I did read it and I have also seen Professor Sarah Gilbert being interviewed. She comes over very well indeed and I would certainly give a lot of weight to anything she says. However, like all researchers, scientific and otherwise, she needs to be funded and also needs to produce the results to justify the funding. Follow the science by all means, but never forget to follow the money as well.
She needs to believe in what she is doing, and it is not surprising she talks it up. However, the project has progressed even though they found back in April that the vaccinated monkeys had caught the disease, and were potentially contagious. Even Bill Gates was admitting last week that none of the present products would work with a single application.
As written, this suggests that they had caught the disease from the vaccine, which was not the case.
I don’t agree that it is possible reading and it certainly not an intended one. Obviously, the purpose of the trial is to expose the vaccinated animal to the virus, so it must have been disappointing that they got it all the same. Initially it was reported that they had not caught it, but when the data was published 3 weeks later it transpired that they had.
Thanks for clarifying that
What worries me most is that they dare not test it on those who need it most – the elderly and the infirm. Unless they are working on the theory that if everyone else is vaccinated the virus will die out, but what if it doesn’t and just keeps on killing off the vulnerable?
This article is such a hack-job. It’s not worth any more comment. The comments, on the other hand, are pretty informative.
Ah bless. No mention of the Lancet publishing an article denouncing the use of Hydroxychloroquine alongside zinc, etc. and then having to be retracted when the scientists around the world condemned the article. Nothing about the three people who produced the article based on fake data being attached to Big Pharma. The frontline doctors in the USA have come out and said no one has to duie as they know it works. one of the doctors has treated 350 cases and no deaths, the oldest patient being 92 years old.
Furthermore we have Remdesivir being pushed to the top of the tree as the go to drug for fighting covid. This has NOT been properly trialled By Gilead (main investor is one Bill Gates) and is being used by doctors (forced by their governments) on the front line. In France yesterday it was used on 5 patients, 4 of whom had kidney failure.
Vaccines
Why also have you not mentioned that NONE of these vaccine trials have included animal trails. They have been omitted from trialling. Now why is that?
It appears you are just another Big Pharma product. Most people are not anti-vaxxers. They now see the way Big Pharma puts wealth before health. Short cuts to the revenues with scientists bought and paiud for to support their greed …. not to mention the politicians that turn a blind eye.
Yes, and the doctor who put out a video about hydroxychloroquine having worked on 350 patients had the video removed from YouTube and Twitter etc. Very, very sinister, whether she is right or wrong.
I’m not anti-vax, I believe in understanding the data, I’m a rational empiricist.
I’m also the proud father of a wonderful young woman who crashed into Autism around a week after having her MMR.
I don’t know if they were connected events or not. The fact is, neither do you as there has never been an objective review of MMR. I stress objective.
She’s 25 now, she lives in a care setting in the countryside and for 23 of her 25 years she’s bravely struggled with a horrible disability.
I knew Dr Wakefield and Dr Shattock and whilst I was interested in their work, always also listened to the more moderate voices who opposed them. You are probably aware that many more medics are very suspicious of MMR but thanks to the kind of attitudes displayed in your article as an example are afraid to speak out. I’ve always had a balanced point of view and would ask that amongst many people impacted by MMR, vaccination and so on, there should be more respect for people like my daughter whose life chances have been ruined, possibly by an intransigent public health system which at the time and still refuses to assist people who want single jabs.
I’m sorry to hear about your daughter’s reaction to MMR and you’re right to point out the lack of objectivity. I worked with a little boy, for which there is video evidence of a before and after, who was ‘normal’ prior to MMR and within a week crashed into Autism, as you so eloquently put it. Interestingly he was somewhat unwell when he had his MMR and I have often wondered whether there is an environmental component to adverse reactions. Given the acknowledgement by doctors that we still know so little about the gut and the mind-gut connection I will not be at all surprised when this link is shown to be a factor in the MMR/ Autism debate.
That said some people are just more susceptible. I reacted horrifically to Diptheria (DPT) as a child (1970’s) so much so I couldn’t have any other vaccines. Given my reaction and my research (PhD specialising in Austism) I decided to pay for individual vaccines for my children, single measles for both, Rubella for my daughter. I need to now get mumps for my son (he’s 15). I totally agree that if single vaccines were available on the NHS then the uptake would be significantly higher. The fact they aren’t is interesting…I suspect if the Government agreed to it then it would be seen as an admission that the MMR is not safe.
People are rarely staunchly one way or the other regarding vaccines but most are rightly sceptical of something that could have potentially life altering consequences. To brand us as ‘nuts’ or to not take seriously the very real consequences some people experience is dangerous. With Covid19 it seems as though the Government are hell bent on saving the one at the expense of the million, to use the train track analogy.
Lyn, I wonder if Andrew Wakefield’s biggest sin was that he threatened the future combination vaccine market by calling for single vaccines?
Note this quote from Andrew Wakefield, noted in a Brian Deer summary: “It’s a moral issue for me,” he announced at the 1998 press conference, where he called for a boycott of the triple MMR in favour of breaking it up into single measles, mumps and rubella shots, to be given at yearly intervals. “I can’t support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination until this issue has been resolved.”
Again, is this the real story, that as well as threatening the combination MMR, Wakefield threatened the market for other combination vaccine shots, e.g. such as the 6-in-1 vaccine shot we have now, i.e. diphtheria, hepatitis B, Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b), polio, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis)?
Where is the evidence a child’s immature immune system can deal with something impossible in nature – contracting three or six different diseases at the one time.
Mere common sense would say such combined vaccines are potentially destructive to normal function.
“your daughter’s reaction to MMR”
David Wood was, very fairly, at pains to emphasise say that he did not assert that his daughter’s condition was a reaction to MMR. Please don’t misrepresent him, especially on such a distressing topic.
David Wood actually says:
I’m also the proud father of a wonderful young woman who crashed into Autism around a week after having her MMR.
I don’t know if they were connected events or not. The fact is, neither do you as there has never been an objective review of MMR. I stress objective.
David Wood made it very clear that he had no concrete evidnce MMR caused it but no concrete evidence it didn’t. He is clearly deeply concerned THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF MMR.
He said: I don’t know if they were connected events or not. The fact is, neither do you as there has never been an objective review of MMR. I stress objective.
Honestly Stuart, this is a poorly written article way below the normal standards of this site.
The Pandemrix and Dengvaxia scandals (to name just a few recent ones) really were scandals, not just minor “mishaps”. The public has every good reason to be skeptical about NEW and relatively untested vaccines and the ethics and motives of vaccine manufacturers. This is self inflicted harm the vaccine industry has done to itself over the years, where the public is footing the bill in most cases, because manufacturers are “indemnified” and cannot be pursued for damages. Why do they need this “arrangement” you might wonder, if their products are allways as safe as is claimed?
I also find it curious Stuart that you are writing an article about COVID 19 vaccine candidates without mentioning a tiny little detail called “mRNA”. Do you think Stuart that this is an irrelevant factor in people’s skepticism? maybe you should look up how many “mRNA” vaccines are beyond the experimental stage?
For the record: I’m no Antivaxxer, both me and my family (inc. kids). have followed normal vaccination programs. I myself had a vaccine no later than last year before travelling to a more exotic country
This an extremely one-sided and disappointing article that certainly does not tell the truth about vaccines. I had expected better from Unherd but perhaps I am judging it against the standard set by Freddie Sayers. You need to do more research, especially into Gates and the Wakefield case and unnecessary vaccines like Gardasil.
Those of us who have seen toddlers transformed from being chatty and entertaining to vacant and uncommunicative – pretty much overnight – at the time of their third MMR jab may well seem nuts to you, Boris and others here but it is happening too frequently to be pure coincidence and simply “increased awareness”.
I agree, I have unfortunately seen the same tragic results.
I think the thing about this article is that unHerd have published quite a lot of evil heretic stuff, so it’s only fair to give the saints a turn to speak. The fact that this is about as decent as those saints can come up with does speak for itself!
I realise that this is a sensitive topic but it is worth examining this assertion. We’ll take as null hypothesis that sudden loss of function or regression will be observed at a random time in the first three years (“random” meaning not “without cause” but “with cause not related to any known intervention”). About 1% of a child’s first three years can be described as within a few days of a vaccination. Hence on the null hypothesis we would expect about 1% of cases of sudden loss of function or regression to be observed within a few days of a vaccination. Assuming about 1% of the population with ASD then that’s about 6000 cases a year and so about 60 being detected within three days of a vaccination.
So the question is: What is the reported number of cases per year of sudden loss of development or regression within a few days of a vaccination? “Pure coincidence” would suggest a number around 60. Is it significantly more?
Not sure I follow your logic. However, nature is never sudden. Always gradual. A mother can deny for a long time that there is something “odd” about her baby, but relatives and friends would have noticed a long time ago. Sudden onset must mean that there was a cause, around the time of the onset: a fall, a severe fever….
Nonetheless, what is reported by some parents is a sudden retrogression on the part of their children — “pretty much overnight” was the phrase used above. In some cases, it is said this this follows within a few days of a vaccination, and some parents have come to believe that there is a casual connection. So I’m asking — I don’t know — whether the number of such reports is statistically significant.
You raise an important point, though, that the retrogression might be noticed, or conscious recognition become inescapable, as a result of bringing the child into a clinic.
It seems to me that the main agent in conquering (or at least ameliorating) the death rate from wild pathogens has been a supply of clean water, for drinking and washing away our outputs.
Vaccines are a footnote.
You are correct and the evidence attests to just that. And in times past doctors knew that, however they are no longer taught such truths.
Quote: Standing before his colleagues on October 19, 1970, Harvard’s Dr. Edward H. Kass gave a speech to the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America that would likely get him run out of this same profession today.
At the time, Dr. Kass was actually the President of the organization, which made the things he had to say about vaccines and their impact on the reduction in American mortality rates even more shocking, at least by today’s standards. Forty-eight years after Dr. Kass’ speech, vaccines have taken on a mythological status in many corners of our world, hyped up by the people who benefit the most from their use. Of course vaccines saved the world. Of course every child should get every vaccine. If you don’t vaccinate, you will enable the return of deadly childhood diseases. If you don’t vaccinate, your child will die. If you question vaccines, even a little, you’re an “anti-vaxxer” who should be shunned and dismissed!
But what if most of the history about the role vaccines played in declining mortality isn’t even true?
In his famous speech, Dr. Kass took his infectious disease colleagues to task, warning them that drawing false conclusions about WHY mortality rates had declined so much could cause them to focus on the wrong things. As he explained:
“”¦we had accepted some half truths and had stopped searching for the whole truths. The principal half truths were that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past”Š”tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc.”Š”and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy, thus providing the American people with the highest level of health available in the world. That these are half truths is known but is perhaps not as well known as it should be.”
Dr. Kass then shared some eye-opening charts with his colleagues. I’m trying to imagine a President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America sharing one of these charts today at a meeting of public health officials. I picture someone turning the power off for the room where he’s presenting and then he gets tackled and carried off the stage”¦
From Vaccines Did Not Save Us, Children’s Health Defence.
There is a reason why new vaccines take several years to develop. It seems likely that corners are being cut with this one, which may or may not go wrong.
One fact of which we can be certain is that if unanticipated side effects did emerge, every effort would be made to cover them up. That is how governments behave.
I shall not be accepting this vaccine until it has been in widespread use for at least a year. It is of course beneficial for me if others take the opposite view.
The pandemic has been turned into a political weapon by the Leftist Democrats in the USA. The bureaucrats have shown themselves to be completely inept and make decisions based on political outcomes rather than on science.
In the USA there have been vaccine “accidents”, side effects, and times when “things” haven’t gone according to what we were told.
The fact is vaccines are not completely safe, the fact is vaccines are a huge money making opportunity for a few people, the fact is when Big Pharma offers these vaccines to the public part of the “study” is a risk analysis to determine how much money the vaccine will bring in as opposed to the payout to settle law suits from when “things haven’t gone according to plan”.
We aren’t being told that the new virus is turning out to be similar in effect to the seasonal flu and that the statistics for the Corona virus 19 have been intentionally inflated for political reasons to make it appear more deadly than it really is.
The misleading focus on the vaccine for COVID-19 being the savior of human kind is that immunity will come naturally to 90 percent of the population without taking the vaccine.
One more thing that isn’t mentioned is that the vaccine for a Corona Virus works until the virus mutates. That is why there is a new flu vaccine every season. The money makers at Big Pharma make a guess, sell us the new improved vaccine for a mutated virus and half the time the vaccine does not work.
Another point that is not mentioned is how the vaccine is cultured or grown. Usually this is in animal tissue. If you think you are getting a pure product you are mistaken. The injection of the vaccine contains not just the intended protein DNA of the vaccine but DNA from other viruses and debris from the host tissue.
Then there is the point about the adjuvant that is added to improve the response of the vaccine. You should know what is added.
Do vaccines work? Yes they do.
Are vaccines dangerous? Yes, they can be.
Should you just believe everything they tell you? They said themselves that sometimes things don’t go according to plan.
Decisions on whether to take a vaccine or not should be made on a case by case basis. Personally, in the case of COVID-19, I would not want to take the vaccine in the first offering. That is when the errors and over sites, if any, will become evident. The problem with waiting for the COVID-19 vaccine is that the virus will likely mutate and make a vaccine for a specific virus ineffective.
The severity of the disease will depend on each individual’s health and immunity at the time they are infected.
I see a contradiction in your paragraph warning us of the dangers of contradictions. <–Which I suppose means that I spot irony.
Admirably, you call for clear-headed thinking based on data citizens can glean from transparent and honest communication from government. And then you say “We mustn’t give any credibility to conspiracy theories.” So, if you ask us to discard our right to skepticism even as you acknowledge the existence of conspiracy-like behaviors such as the “noble lie”, then where does that leave us? Who becomes the arbiter of “legitimate skepticism” versus conspiracy mongering?
Why, the arbiters would be a small group of supremely intelligent people- such as, for example, the author of the above piece!
“Guardians”, anyone? (except these Guardians definitely have a financial interest)…
“if vaccines are as safe as sugar water, why do the pharmaceutical companies need to have complete financial immunity and be protected by a battalion of lawyers from the US Department of Justice?” – Judy Mikovits
I’m disappointed to see unherd running a propaganda piece. I thought better of you.
There is a reason that no pro-vaccine scientist will debate Robert F Kennedy Jr on vaccine safety, and that is because no one watching the debate would choose to vaccinate their children. Check out his debate with Alan Dershowitz at https://www.youtube.com/wat…
There are lots of good, peer-reviewed resources on vaccine safety. One of the best is vaccinepapers.org, which includes the full-text research it cites.
Another is Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense site: https://childrenshealthdefe…
If you are interested, I can recommend more helpful sources.
I hope you will have RFK Jr for an interview!
Well said
There is indeed, and I can illustrate from this summary of one of his claims made elsewhere.
Let’s examine this in detail.
Correct. That accusation was indeed made. That doesn’t mean that it was true, of course. The claim was that the vaccine contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) which had been used as a basis for a contraceptive injection (the Talwar programme). This is the “sterility formula” referred to.
Incorrect. Laboratories tested for hCG using off-the-shelf pregnancy tests, which react to hCG in the urine of pregnant women. The tests react to many other things, and are not scientifically valid as a test for hCG specifically.
Equivocation: the phrase “the sterility vaccine” is used to refer to two different things as if they were the same. WHO agreed that the Talwar programme had been a contraceptive based on hCG, but explicitly denied that they had been involved in it at all. They did not “admit” and indeed explicitly denied, that the Kenya tetanus vaccine under discussion was a “sterility vaccine” at all. But in this context, the equivocation, referring to the two programmes as if they were a single thing (“the sterility vaccine”) was used to distort and indeed reverse the meaning of the WHO statement.
There are several things about this analysis. Firstly, the claims made are intellectually dishonest. It is impossible to read the WHO denial and report it as an admission without being aware that this is a fundamental reversal of the truth. Secondly, it is based on a rhetorical trick — referring to two different things as if they were the same — and a rhetorical trick not uncommon among lawyers with a bad case to argue. Thirdly, it takes time and effort to refute — Brandolini’s law — and that isn’t possible in a debate. That’s why scientists tend not to determine the validity of scientific theories by public debate with lawyers.
There is no point in debating with someone who argues this way.
The Talwar vaccine has been around since 1972 and Serum Institute of India have recently been experimenting with a new version – I have the view that RFK Jr is a lot more trustworthy than WHO which has been found with its trousers down many times, not least over the 2009 Swine Flu episiode.
See Peter Doshi, ‘Calibrated Response to Emerging Infections’, BMJ 9 December 2009
See Jacob Puliyel, ‘ Ethical questions surround vaccine to reduce fertility’, Sunday Guardian Live 28 May 2018.
A question about the Talwar vaccine is why does it exist if the purpose is not subtefuge?
So is it your view that the equivocation revealed by the little study I presented is a sign of trustworthiness, then, rather than as I would suggest, intellectual dishonesty?
I’m not discussing here what the Talwar vaccine is or is not about — I’m mentioning only because it is what Kennedy deliberately confused with the Kenyan tetanus vaccine.
If you want to call the study dishonest that is you choice, and if you do not want to discuss the Talwar vaccine, 48 years old and apparently still with a place in the world, that is your choice too. But I certainly do not assume it is not being used anywhere.
I don’t think you’re reading me correctly. The intellectual dishonesty is in Kennedy’s conflation of two things he knew, or ought to have known, were different, and the “little study” was my analysis of Kennedy’s equivocation.
Somewhere in this blog you said some wise things about not making assumptions about people who disagree with you.
Thank you, and I judge Kennedy on the basis of a rational analysis of his argument, not on basis of any assumption about the conclusion he came to,
You are just adding to the untruths of the vaccine industry. It is nothing more than a money/numbers game. With NO liability, the vaccine manufacturers can put out products, damage people and then the governments have to pay compensation to those recipients that have been harmed. Look at the volume of compensations paid out so far by U.S. and UK governments; if vaccines are so wonderful why are people compensated?
You have repeated the same lie about Wakefield. HE didn’t publish that article alone there was a whole team of people working on the MMR vaccine side-effects. I have seen the damaging results of the MMR vaccine in Denmark at close quarters. Just look at the vaccine and autism statistics and see the parallel; there is at least something that needs to be investigated LONGTERM.
The vaccine gold standard, polio, is held up as proof of efficacy, but it was dying out BEFORE the vaccine was widespread.
Just think about it. To inject somebody, in that act, you are bypassing the bodies immune defenses.There is every chance that this will cause damage when actual poisonous substances are part of that process.
As for Bill Gates, forget about chips, you only have to know he is patent holder of some potential vaccines to see he has an interest to push them, especially when there is no liability to the manufacturer. Once sold, the profits are all yours. Governments have signed contract to say no liability will be claimed against the producers even before they have been tested! Hello!
Well said, but when it comes to disease and death, people do not want facts or reality, but fantasies and deception. To believe the lie is more comfortable than accepting the truth.
Well said, fantastic. This article so obviously biased, I am surprised Unherd have published it.
When a Covid vaccine comes it will not even nearly “join the ranks of the most important medical discoveries of all time”. This is ludicrous hyperbole, characteristic of the rest of this surprisingly trivial article. The most that could be said, if a successful vaccine were produced, is that it is the first vaccine to be successful against any coronavirus. It may well be the first vaccine produced by novel gene-sequencing methods, or the first to be based on RNA, and certainly will come at the end of a worryingly (though no doubt impressively) truncated development period. Most certainly, it will be a technological solution grasping at a problem that may not even need to be solved; as has been suggested in UnHerd, it is quite plausible that there will be an endemic equilibrium in which SARS-CoV 2 ends up as the fifth coronavirus causing seasonal colds. In any event, the creation of a vaccine for Covid-19 will not compare in any meaningful way with real medical discoveries like the prevention of cholera (which even preceded the germ theory of infection) or the discovery of antibiotics, which have genuinely save many millions of lives, including my own, in infancy.
“when the COVID-19 vaccine comes…it’ll join the ranks of the most important medical discoveries of all time”
Yeah, creating a vaccine that doesn’t work for a virus that doesn’t exist will rank as one of the greatest scientific achievements ever.
Why do we even need a covid 19 vaccine? A solution in search of a problem. I wonder if the author thinks antivaxxers should be hunted down and have a needle plunged into their arms against their will. During the polio crisis everybody understood the danger of polio. They could see it with their own eyes and children were severly effected. This virus by comparison shows almost zero risk to the public at large yet a vaccine for this is going to be some kind of great achievement? That is laughable. This looks like nothing but a power grab of big pharma and Bill Gates trying to run a new monolopy in biotech. It is nothing but a fraud. Probably the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humankind.
Thank you.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/resea…
What people did not realise in the Fifties Polio epidemic was that having had tonsils and adenoids removed made adults and children vulnerable, and vaccinating children for other diseases made them vulnerable to SPP, with paralysis often beginning at the injection site. This was recognised by doctors and warnings were given but largely ignored so as not to diminish public faith in vaccines.
Polio provocation it is called and there is an interesting report on it. By Dr Stephen Mawdesley, titled Polio provocation ““ the health debate that refused to go away.
Dr Stephen Mawdsley is the Isaac Newton-Ann Johnston Research Fellow in History at Clare Hall, University of Cambridge. His article ‘Balancing Risks: Childhood Inoculations and America’s Response to the Provocation of Paralytic Polio’ is published in the OUP journal Social History of Medicine.
There is also interesting research from the Fifties on the tonsil link.
A gross misrepresentation of Wakefield both then and now and a gross misrepresentation of so-called anti-vax. This is a really poorly informed opinion piece, sorely lacking in understanding and real knowledge.
Wakefield was not working alone, he was part of a team. He was not ‘anti-vax’ but recommended separate vaccines rather than all 3 together. There is some current evidence that autism does have links to vaccine and certainly that there are side effects from vaccines, including some which destroy lives. Some are listed on the vaccine inserts! (Do you think the manufacturers make them up for fun?)
Many in the so-called anti-vax movement want safer vaccines, not no vaccines. They want proper scientific trials (random control trials) on vaccines against placebo (not against previous vaccines), rigorous assessment of ingredients (including of adjuvants), comparisons of vaccinated against non vaccinated in terms of ling term health, assessments of the impacts of live and non-live vaccines in terms of their different impacts on the vaccinated and the community. If you don’t agree with those, then you’re a believer in scientism not in science.
Why do vaccine manufacturers have indemnity? No other pharmaceutical product leaves its manufacturers free of liability form the adverse reactions it causes.
Carly, to read an independent review of the vaccines-autism theories, you can gargle “Experts Catastrophe” and read chapter 6 (pdf file). The data makes clear that vaccines did not cause the autism increase but neither is there clear enough evidence to justify a conclusion that “vaccines do not cause autism”. The increase was caused by mercury vapour from non-gamma-2 amalgams, as explained in Chapter 3. Cheers.
The problem we are facing with Covid19 is not with vaccination per se, but the fact that it has been politicised and mercantilised on a large scale. The infection itself has become a vehicle for economic warfare, whether by design or opportunism. The cure for this can only be a political and economic one, and we are justified in being suspicious of any party with a vested interest coming forward with solutions which stand to give them overwhelming financial gains at a time when the world is on its knees. The same applies to anything coming from the WHO or other institutions whose trust has now been irrevocably eroded, having apparently been corrupted and bought in a hidden political cause.
There is plenty of evidence that treatments for the illness have been selectively marginalised and their professional proponents deplatformed where they are based on products which do not serve the commercial interests of the pharmaceutical giants. Under these circumstances it is entirely reasonable to remain sceptical of both the effectiveness and safety of these aggressively marketed solutions, which amounts to an onslaught on the public by a professional and political class which has become a proxy for both global corporations and political blocs.
Oh, and don’t think that a reputation as a premiere scientific journal is any guarantee of either fairness or reliability. The crisis of peer review, validation and replicability in science has spread from the ‘soft sciences’ into core areas now, and Nature, Science, BMJ, NEJM and others have many questions to answer, as does the system which has propelled so much poor science into unwarranted prominence. We have another disease, ‘acquired credibility’, which affects reputable publishing as well as the alternative fringes, and in some ways more insidiously.
Very sound commentary from “xtu artb” here. Very much in line with the book Experts Catastrophe of which chapters can be found on the web.
Your Unherd mission statement sounds open and broad and engaging.
This article though, does not offer a broad or intelligent look at the complex subject of vaccines. This doesn’t surprise me, there has never been open discourse in public on the topic. The only insight people are offered is wholly biased and censored, and added to that, generous amounts of witch hunt rhetoric thrown around to silence the heretics e.g. ‘conspiracy theorist’ ‘flat earther’ ‘anti science’. I am one such heretic who was drawn to this subject when Andrew Wakefield was pilloried in the 90’s. I think the primary interest for me is the censorship.
What is heartening though, are the comments below.
Jane, the “pro-vaxxers” always write like this, a rich mix of utter contempt, ad hominem “reasoning”, and declarations of perfect “clarity” with no need to actually show how that clarity is arrived at. To the Big Pharma, a million dollars is peanuts, of which they have plenty to fund their misinformation. And just one of those peanuts can fund a huge amount of bribing, compromising funding/defunding, and misleading publicity. And yet, being dishonest is hard work and tends again and again to score own goals. Cheers.
What needs to be addressed is the incredible moral righteousness of a lobby which protects all its products from public scrutiny and criticism – the constant appeal to the greater good and the alledged dastardliness of the critics. Each time the stakes get higher, and this time it is the highest of the lot: total global dominion – the message is do as they say or the entire global economy and all normal human activity will be lost for good. But what is the basis of trust? Any product that arrives on the market will be years short of being tested adequately, while anybody who says this is instantly demonised and held up to ridicule.
In 2009 only about 10% of the British population assented to having the Pandemrix vaccine against Swine Flu, which quickly became identified with condition of narcolepsy, but this was Scandinavian regulators, not our own MHRA. Making critics the popular object of hate is a complete democratic systems failure.
Not correct, at least in the implication that the remaining 90% did not assent. The NHS obtained about 11 million does and some 6 million were given. So it is correct that only about 10% of the population received the vaccination but not because the remaining 90% refused it.
It is indeed the case that Pandemrix appears to have caused about 100 cases of narcolepsy in the UK: about 10 times the normal rate.
The NHS started off by ordering 132 million doses – two for everybody – and cut further and further back presumably as they realised that no one who wasn’t captive wanted it.
Not of Pandemrix. That number includes Celvapan. The UK initially ordered 60 million and cut it back to 11 million actually delivered.
So, no actual evidence , just a presumption that 90% “did not assent”, then.
On 25 September 2009 Fergus Walsh reported for the BBC:
“The UK has contracts for up to 132 million doses of pandemic vaccine – enough for everyone in Britain to receive two shots.”
In the end it was decided by the JCVI that one dose was sufficient for most people, but it also looks like most people decided to give the vaccines a pass, or as ths the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, Heidi Larson wrote in the Financial Times (28 February 2018):
“In 2009, during the swine flu pandemic of the H1N1 influenza virus, poor public co-operation and low acceptance of the vaccine was a wake-up call. The public might fall for faulty science, but the more worrying trend in 2009 was the lack of civic responsibility and co-operation. Governments should see in this an urgent need for a new social contract.”
But of course if they had not been so irresponsible many more would have succumbed to narcolepsy (which I can tell you is no joke). Celvapan was an elite product which was not provided in any quantities.
Yes, and the very same day the BBC carried an article by Emma Wilkinson (8274374 on their website), making it clear that was 60 million Pandemrix and the rest Celvapan.
Yes, but the 6 million doses used were mostly Pandemrix, and your point is? I believe only 36,000 doses of Celvapan were used in the end for people with allergies.
Should the vaccine industry be pursuing research into ‘Covid-19’ vaccine products if the majority aren’t adversely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly when it’s already suspected that vaccination is unlikely to be effective for the most at risk group, i.e. the elderly?[1]
Should annual or even possibly bi-annual coronavirus vaccination, be foisted upon individuals who are able to deal with this virus themselves, e.g. children and younger people?
Is it ethical to vaccinate children with ‘Covid-19’ vaccine products to protect the elderly?
Shouldn’t appropriate treatments and preventatives be developed for those at risk, rather than mass vaccinating populations who aren’t at risk?
We really need to talk about this, because if coronavirus vaccination is implemented this is risking making future generations dependent on repeated coronavirus vaccination.
Think about the comment I made earlier about Heidi Larson and her statement that “we’ve shifted the human population to vaccine-induced, to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity”.
That is a stunning statement! Do people understand the repercussions of this?
We need to talk about this, and not just the so-called ‘experts’.
Reference:
1. Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at-risk older people, say scientists. The Guardian, 24 June 2020.
And when we look at serious and chronic disease rates in children today, and suggestions they will not live as long as their parents, it is even more critical we protect them and the future of humanity.
A fair question. As you will have seen from the Guardian article you refer to, Prof. Openshaw went on to explain that older people would be protected by herd immunity, and by immunisation of health and care workers. But more generally, not pursuing research now means that we would never have the option of deploying any vaccine in the future, and closes off the possibility of finding a vaccine (out of the hundred or so candidates being developed right now) that does more directly protect those most at risk. So, do we really want to foreclose that option now?
Richard, in the space of a few months, we have a new virus, an apparently new disease, ‘Covid’, and a ‘race for coronavirus vaccines’ to vaccinate nearly eight billion people around the world. This race is being driven by Bill Gates and the vaccine industry, and countries such as the US, UK and Australia which are invested in the vaccine industry.
Do you think we could spend five minutes or so thinking about this?
I’ve made my argument above challenging the imposition of coronavirus vaccination, and add to that it appears the vaccine companies are likely to be protected from liability, as we’ve heard in regards to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine being protected in most countries.
Do you know that in Australia the Australian Biosecurity Act 2015 facilitates making coronavirus vaccination compulsory, with refusers facing five years imprisonment and/or a A$63,000 fine?
So under risk of great penalty, Australian citizens could be coerced into having fast-tracked, experimental vaccines, with the vaccine manufacturers being protected from liability – are you up for that Richard?
I suspect most Australians are oblivious to this, and how did this legislation get slipped through our politicians. Who was behind this?
As I’ve outlined previously on this thread, there are other coercive vaccination laws in Australia, i.e. the No Jab, No Pay/Play laws for children, which were campaigned for by the Murdoch media (News Corp) that is conflicted in being a corporate partner of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, which is involved in vaccine research and development.
There are masses of conflicts of interest in international vaccination policy and these need to be examined. There must be a moratorium on adding any more vaccine products to already grossly bloated vaccination schedules.
I personally don’t agree with coronavirus vaccination, this is not justifiable and might cause enormous damage, as I’ve already outlined above.
Again, we need a conversation on this, and not just among the closed group of questionable and conflicted ‘experts’.
As it happens, I’ve long thought that the UK should have a national no-fault insurance system for healthcare incidents, just as we have a national healthcare system. The insuring body could then pursue claims of fault or negligence if it saw fit after the injured parties had been compensated. That would extend or subsume the current vaccine injury system.
In a corrupted system, nothing will work. Who decides what’s a vaccine injury? $53 billion is used to corrupt the “medical scientific consensus” in the US alone. See openpaymentsdata.
First. you have to DESIGN vaccines to be safe. Then if you want to earn trust you have to be honest about injuries caused by vaccines, fix the vaccines and compensate the victims. We are nowhere near any of those requirements being met.
Continuous vaccine safety improvements are required by law in the US. But the US HHS has flouted that law for 30 years. And you expect people to trust the vaccine safety claims being made?
See “Stipulated Order Confirming Non-Compliance With 42 USC …”
When the government breaks its own laws with impunity, it is the end of civilization. Under such circumstances, it is foolish to be making claims that vaccines are safe.
The US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is a horribly broken system that compensates a small fraction of vaccine injuries. For the COVID-19 vaccine even the VICP does not apply. You have go through a different red tape channel called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). This is what you get when you have corrupted governments that are controlled by corporations, pretending to be democracies.
We don’t even know if the vaccine works. And you are ASSUMING it prevents transmission? It took 20 years for the US FDA to figure out that the DTaP vaccine does NOT prevent transmission and actually causes colonization and herd spreading of B. pertussis.
There is nothing wrong with pursuing research that is done right. Vaccine safety has been an oxymoron even in ordinary times. Now we have vaccines being developed (NOT DESIGNED OR ENGINEERED) at warp speed. That is the definition of insanity.
See details here of how to do it right: “ERVEBO Ebola vaccine will create a rice allergy epidemic, add to numerous autoimmune diseases, cancer and make Ebola disease even more severe. Design for safety and vaccine safety regulation remain abject failures. Incompetence or indifference?”
Of course I don’t know whether any of the hundred or so proposed vaccines will be effective at all, any more than anyone else does. But some measure of prevention of transmission will probably be part of the assessment.
“Is it ethical to vaccinate children with ‘Covid-19’ vaccine products to protect the elderly?”
And a related question: “What is the advantage of vaccinating a group, not at risk, over allowing natural infection amongst them?”
As a mother, whose child definitely has been damaged by vaccines and which has caused us as parents and her endless months of suffering and distress, I beg to differ. We were able to heal her from the worst consequences, although life-long allergies remain. Her husband had similar reactions to vaccines as a baby (and why would there be any need to vaccinate a baby at two or three months, before their immune system is even developed?), but as his parents did not do the same amount of research, he is still badly affected. I wouldn’t wish it on anybody and have become a vaccine-critic ever since. I’ve had measles and mumps, and people who had measles as a child have a 40% reduced risk of developping cancer later in life. Measles viruses have been succesfully used to treat cancer patients. You will certainly not find me queuing for a corona-vaccine, and governments everywhere would do better to teach their populations how to strengthen their health rather than get toxic metals injected into their bodies through vaccines. In the US, 54% of children are chronically ill, they have received more than 60 vaccines by the time they start school…
Prophylaxis of any kind often has side effects for a minority. It does not make sense to do blanket prophylaxis for ills that are serious only for a similar sized minority.
If possible, one should try to identify who is susceptible to serious damage from, say, measles, and vaccinate those children. The rest should be allowed to get the disease naturally (as I did when I was small).
I do not understand the “anti-vaccination movement”. Look around and count how many children with smallpox, measles or poliomyelitis you find.
What should be discussed and analyzed with scientific and social criteria if “a new vaccine” has been properly investigated and its safety profile gives an acceptable risk ratio
Francisco
Find me a single vaccine which has been double blind safety tested against genuine placebo. The new Oxford vaccine was going to be but then they switched to a meningitis “placebo” with lots of side effects.
But, look around at how children now have lifelong, chronic conditions such as: Autism (now as high as 1/32, 3% of our current generations), Asthma, Allergies, ADD, ADHD, Learning Disabilities, etc. When the US had only 7 injections of 2 vaccines on their schedule (in 1986), approximately 12% of children had these conditions. Since liability was removed (Act passed in 1986, you could no longer sue Pharmaceutical companies in the US for vaccine injury), the vaccine schedule has now increased to 50 injections of 12 vaccines through the age of 18yrs, and now 54% of our children have chronic illness. Parents are looking for answers as to why their children are sick.
A pilot study from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University found that 33% of vaccinated preterm babies had a neuro-developmental disorder compared to 0% of the unvaccinated preterm babies; and vaccinated children in this study had an increased risk of 290% for eczema, 390% for allergies, 420% for ADHD, 420% for autism, and 520% for learning disabilities. There have been more studies completed since this one that show similar outcomes. The CDC refuses to complete a similar comparison study with the 10 million medical records it currently has. Why?
Everyone assumes that the safety research has been thoroughly done and reviewed by our health authorities. It hasn’t. As examples:
ICAN recently filed a lawsuit under The Freedom of Information Act in a US Federal Court requesting the CDC to provide them with all studies, research, clinical studies, etc. that they used to determine and support their frequent statements that DTap, HepB, Hip, PCV13 and IPV do not cause autism. ICAN won, and the CDC was forced to admit in paperwork filed in a US Federal Court that they have NO studies or research that supports their repeated statements that DTap, HepB, Hip, PCV13 and IPV vaccines do not cause autism. They cannot back this up with science when required to do so by order of a US Federal Court! Of course this has not been widely reported.
ICAN also filed another lawsuit with the FDA, “…requesting the clinical trials that [were] relied upon by the FDA prior to approving any currently licensed influenza or Tdap vaccine for use in pregnant women as an indicated use.” The FDA’s response: “We have no records responsive to your requests.” This confirms the FDA had no documented safety research before approving use of these vaccines in pregnant women.
These important questions of safety are not being answered for vaccines that have been given to society for decades (let alone a new vaccine), and growing scientific evidence is showing they are not as safe as we think they are.
You state an often asserted fact that the 1998 article in the Lancet resulted in a “deadly surge in measles cases in the UK and worldwide”. At least in respect of England & Wales there is no evidence of this. ONS reported less measles cases in England & Wales every year for 9 years after the article, and after 3 measles deaths each year in ’97, ’98, and ’99, there have been fewer deaths every year since (between 0-2).
This reads as one of several assumptions against the so-called anti-vax movement in the article.
The article also states that to be anti vaccine one must be “grossly ignorant of the evidence for the near-miraculous effects of vaccination on human wellbeing.” Do you have any studies to cite to support this assertion? I have only heard the hypothesis that live vaccines may have positive effects and that killed-virus vaccines have negative effects. I am not aware of any vaccines having ever been tested for their impact on well-being in general prior to launch – vaccines are only routinely tested for immune response to ascertain their efficacy, and adverse reactions over a varying period of time reviewed for safety approval.
We do know that vaccines have “non-specific effects” as demonstrated by various studies of Dr Abey and Christine Stabell-Benn. The latter of whom has a very clear and concise TED talk that I would recommend hearing. It is hard to make sense of why those behind vaccination schemes in the third world are not investigating the more than 3,000 child deaths every day that may be associated with DTP vaccination, which could be avoided (According to Dr Stabell Benn) by simply amending the order vaccines are administered.
Addendum: Nobody needs a covid vaccine. The flu vaccine doesn’t prevent the elderly and infirm from dying. If you are at weakened at the end of life, often pneumonia develops as a result of a failing immune system; no vaccine can prevent that, it is natures way of ending the bodies life. The efficacy of the annual flu vaccine is 40% according to NHS statistics, BUT there is evidence that it actually weakens the immune system, making one more vulnerable to other pathogens.This covid vaccine would be yet one more attack on the bodies NATURAL immune system. Man has survived millennia by developing natural herd immunity, why would this process not continue?
I’m going to put my own faith in unHerd immunity.
If vaccines were safe, why don’t the vaccine makers put their money where their mouth is? Why are they hiding behind liability protection?
In two words: punitive damages.
Let us suppose that society has determined, rightly or wrongly (and many of those commenting here would say wrongly, of course) that it wants a vaccine against a disease and proposes a campaign of mass vaccination. Out of tens of millions of cases, there is bound to be one for which the subject suffers a serious or even fatal episode immediately afterwards, whether or not it has anything to do with the vaccine. The unfortunate subject or their family will naturally blame the vaccination, and in a litigious climate, sue the manufacturer. They only have to persuade a judge or jury that there’s a 51% chance that the vaccination caused the damage to get an award and, if they can persuade judge that the manufacturer was somehow culpable, they will get punitive damages as well. Since there’s always one more test that the manufacturer might have done, there’s a good chance of doing that. Punitive damage awards could be as high as $10 billion. This will ruin the manufacturer.
So the manufacturer will look at the likely outcome of doing this particular line of business, namely, manufacturing the vaccine that society wants, and politely decline, since the risk of being bankrupted by a punitive damage claim is too high.
So what does society do to get its vaccine? One option is to compel the manufacturer to make it by legal mandate or by other means such as nationalisation of existing companies or setting up a new manufacturer in public ownership. Most of these courses would involve society carrying the risk anyway. So the course of action usually employed is for society, acting collectively, to take the risk of the course of action which they have mandated by granting an indemnity to the manufacturer and a public liability scheme to support those who can show themselves to have been injured by that mandate. That gives the manufacturer the business confidence to embark on production of the vaccine that society wants.
I would be more enthusiastic about Vaccines if there was a single placebo controlled safety study for any of the childhood vaccines on the current schedule, and if the non placebo controlled safety studies looked at adverse events occurring after more than say 4 days.
There is NO way of assessing risk when there are no placebo studies.
It appears Stuart Ritchie reads very limited vaccine studies, and not the ones showing harm, and regurgitates the old Andrew Wakefield misinformation. Nowhere in the Lancet paper does it say MMR causes autism, has he not read the paper??
I am a retired GP and witnessed severe brain injury, SUDI, eczema and asthma, not to mention bacterial infections post vaccination. The public is right to be wary.
Well said. It is indeed ironic that a medical experiment with our babies and children, who are meant to be the future of humanity, should be carried out without those responsible, ensuring proper research and safety studies are done. What other product is sold where the manufacturers can be so irresponsible, and indeed, be protected from lawsuits? I can think of none.
If a child’s cot caused half the injuries that vaccines do they would be off the market in an instant.
In the vaccination age we have seen epidemics of Autism, Diabetes, Cancer, SIDS, auto-immune diseases, allergies, Asthma, in ways never seen before.
Chemo wards are packed full of children in ways never seen before. And no-one dares to do the one study, they call it unethical, which could settle the issue – comparing health and diseases in fully, partially and non-vaccinated children.
No doctor should vaccinate a child without it and no parent should allow their child to be vaccinated without it.
Why did Stuart Ritchie write this article? What was his motivation? It seems it was ultimately to defend vaccine products. Was The Vaccine Confidence Project involved in this, I’m intrigued to know?
I’ve looked at Ritchie’s publication list on the King’s College London website, and can’t see any evidence of him being involved in vaccination research, not even from a psychological perspective.
He’s promoted his UnHerd piece, previously titled ‘Don’t dismiss the anti-vaxxers’, on Twitter, saying “I argue that being fully open about the previous scientific screwups on vaccines is better than just calling anti-vaxxers “nuts” (even if they are)”.
There’s no attempt by Ritchie to present a serious unbiased argument about people’s concerns about vaccination. Instead his patronising article is riddled with cliches which serve to maintain the stereotype that people questioning vaccination are ‘nutty anti-vaxxers’.
Ritchie reinforces this message throughout the article with the anti-vaxxer theme – ‘Anti-vaxxers are “nuts”‘, ‘the anti-vaxxer movement’, ‘wacky, hidebound anti-vaxxers’.
And of course there’s the obligatory attack on Andrew Wakefield and his ‘notorious’ Lancet paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism which “fanned the flames of the anti-vaccine movement” and “will forever be a stain on The Lancet”.
For information, here’s the concluding statement of Wakefield et al’s ‘notorious’ Lancet paper which was actually an ‘early report’*: “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”
The rest is history…i.e. a ton of bricks fell on Andrew Wakefield when he called for measles, mumps and rubella vaccines to be given as single shots until the matter was resolved.
* Dr AJ Wakefield et al. RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. Early Report. Volume 351, Issue 9103, P637-641, February 28, 1998.
So do you think Andrew Wakefield’s famous Lancet paper was indeed fraudulent, and that if so, that might be important to the discussion? Do you not agree that “a ton of bricks” might be expected to , and indeed should, “fall on” a scientist who falsified an entire set of data and made completely untrue claims?
I don’t know the truth about the Wakefield/MMR saga…
However, I do know the way this matter has been handled has served to deflect scrutiny of other vaccine products on the schedule, e.g. aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines – i.e. the 6-in-1 diphtheria, hepatitis B, Hib, polio, tetanus and whooping cough/pertussis combination shot that is injected into babies at 8, 12 and 16 weeks old; the meningococcal B vaccine that is injected into babies at 8 weeks, 16 weeks and 1 year; the pneumococcal vaccine injected into babies at 12 weeks and 1 year; the 4-in-1 ‘booster’ diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough/pertussis and polio combination shot for children from 3 years and 4 months; the two doses of HPV vaccine routinely offered to girls and boys from age 12 to 13; and the 3-in-1 ‘booster’ tetanus, diphtheria and polio combination shot at age 14. (This is on the UK NHS schedule.)
That’s quite a load of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products and revaccinations. How many readers of this article and comments have had all these vaccines? None I would wager…
I’ve been trying to get accountability for this for years now, and meeting with brick walls at every turn.
What would Stuart Ritchie know about that? Precious little I suspect…
Again, I wonder what was Ritchie’s motivation for writing this article?
“I don’t know the truth about the Wakefield/MMR saga…”
It seems, though, that you’re taking a stance on it, when you write “a ton of bricks fell on Andrew Wakefield when he called for measles, mumps and rubella vaccines to be given as single shots until the matter was resolved.” Most people would say that the proverbial bricks were a result, not of his calling for separate vaccinations, but of his paper having been declared fraudulent. Whether or not you think it was fraudulent, it is certainly the case that it was widely declared so.
I think the ton of bricks fell on Andrew Wakefield because he threatened the combination MMR vaccine product. That’s what I think.
And as I raised in my earlier response to Lyn G, by calling for the use of single vaccines in regards to measles, mumps and rubella, was Wakefield seen as a threat to the future combination vaccine market?
I provided you with information on the aluminium-adjuvanted combination vaccine products that are pressed upon children now in my previous response to you. Did you read it?
Also, they were just the aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines. In addition babies are given rotavirus vaccination doses around 8 weeks and 12 weeks. The Hib/MenC vaccine is given to 1 year-old babies. The measles/mumps/rubella MMR is given at 1 year, and again at 3 years and 4 months. The MenACWY vaccine is ‘routinely offered’ to teenagers in school Years 9 and 10.
Flu vaccination for young children and primary school children is also on the NHS schedule. Recently Professor Peter Openshaw admitted “children who do not often get severe flu” are given the nasal spray flu vaccine to protect their grandparents. And now, because the “Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at-risk older people” a Lords committee was told “children may have to be immunised to protect their grandparents”. (See The Guardian, 24 June, 2020.)
I’ve provided details of the vaccine load on children via the NHS vaccination schedule – do you think people should be forbidden from asking questions about these taxpayer-funded vaccine products?
What do you think about the ethics of vaccinating children against diseases which aren’t a particular risk for them to protect the elderly?
That’s a very good question, of course. I agree with Prof. Openshaw that under certain circumstances (flu rather than Covid, probably) the risk to the elderly is minimised by preventing the transmission of the disease among those who transmit it most, and that’s children. But that’s not an ethical statement but a practical one.
Most people would agree, I think, that vaccination carries some risk. The consensus is that it is small, but it is certainly not zero. So the extent to which society is justified in imposing that risk on one group for the benefit of another group is a question that can only be answered collectively, that is, through political processes. We have had a consensus in the past, underpinned by a no-fault insurance by society for those who suffer the random, rare but very serious consequences of acting in the best interests of society as a whole. One of the things this article is about is the social and psychological forces at play to disrupt that previous consensus.
What we can say is that we are close to a Tragedy of the Commons. Consider, say, measles. If everyone else is agreeing to let their children be vaccinated, then any individual parent’s rational course of action is to refuse vaccination. That way their child is spared the risk of the procedure, but the herd immunity created by everyone else having the vaccination will protect the unvaccinated child equally well, and the single exception is causing no additional risk to the rest of the population.
But if it is rational for any one parent to refuse vaccination, then presumably they will all do so, each acting in their own child’s individual best interests. But then no child will be vaccinated, there will be no herd immunity, and the disease will spread, posing a much higher risk to each child than the vaccination would have done. So, paradoxically, each individual apparently acting in their own best interests leads to a worse outcome.
Now we have a further ethical dilemma. If everyone acting independently and wanting a better outcome actually leads to a worse outcome for everyone, is it ethical to let people take a course of action that will lead to a worse outcome for them than the one they want? Or is society not only entitled but even obliged to rescue parents from the unintended but inevitable consequences of this paradox?
Richard, I’ve provided you with details of vaccinations on the children’s schedule – which ones of these have you had in your life time? And how many doses of each?
It isn’t relevant — please don’t ask personal questions like that. If you want to discuss ethics of vaccination, fine. If you want to discuss my medical history, not fine.
Of course it’s relevant to ask what vaccines you have had, when you appear only to willing to support mass populations of children being vaccinated against diseases which aren’t a particular risk for them, such as flu, to protect the elderly. Flu vaccinations are annual medical interventions, not sweets.
In regards to the ethics of pressing this medical intervention on children every year, I’ll be raising this matter with those who are accountable.
Children are being vaccinated and revaccinated with an ever-increasing number of vaccine products being pumped out by the vaccine industry, and rubber-stamped by obliging vaccination committees. We have no idea of the long-term cumulative consequences of this vaccine load.
It’s extraordinary the medical establishment isn’t asking questions about this, but just compliantly injects these kids with more and more vaccines, and apparently laps up the industry-funded propaganda published in the blessed ‘peer-reviewed literature’, e.g. The Lancet.
For the record, I’m not sure what vaccines I had as a child (born in London in 1959). Presumably diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis? Polio? Smallpox? Think I remember having the rubella shot? I certainly didn’t have anything like the number of vaccines children have now. I’ve had two flu shots as an adult, but I don’t plan on having any more.
No, it isn’t. It’s an attempt to personalise the discussion and impute bad faith to people who disagree with you. That’s not a helpful way of having this sort of discussion.
Willing to support discussing it in an objective manner: yes.
So clearly you don’t want to disclose which vaccines you have had…or not had…
Meanwhile, the children’s vaccination schedule continues to increase, including carrying the burden of being vaccinated to protect the elderly.
Yes, that’s right, glad we’ve got that settled. (By the way, even if I was inclined to discuss the matter, I doubt that I could recall anyway!)
For which there are arguments on both sides. Perhaps you would like to articulate some? In a complex society we all carry burdens for each other. I pay taxes so that children can be educated, for example.
But as a child, were you vaccinated to protect the elderly?
Since I have asked you to stop, and explained that I decline to discuss my personal medical history, and we have agreed that you understand that, I’m going to say that this has to stop. If you refer to my vaccination history again I shall ask the site moderators to remove your access for harassment.
I’m happy to have a discussion about the general principles of vaccination, inter-generational fairness and indeed many other things. I’m not going to tolerate being badgered to discuss personal topics by someone who knows perfectly well that I have explicitly said I do not want to discuss them.
I think you owe me, and the other readers of this thread, an apology.
What is interesting is I have met many young parents who were vaxxed to the max and who now suffer chronic conditions and who blame vaccines and are refusing to vaccinate their babies. Swings and roundabouts.
I think many older people would NEVER want to see their children or grandchildren used as labrats. Ask them?
As to Measles, those born before the vaccine provided Herd Immunity to the entire community. In the vaccination age, where the vaccine gives some sort of temporary immunity to some people we have lost Herd Immunity.
As someone who had Measles along with all my friends, siblings, schoolmates I honestly cannot see what the hysteria is about.
As someone who has researched the history of Measles and other minor childhood diseases, yep, had them all, I am at a complete loss to understand why we are subjecting children to the vaccine experiment. I remain grateful my children just avoided the vaccine age because I was aware early and the hysteria had not yet begun.
Really? The answer to such questions is just about always a matter of money, money, money, and even more money. You don’t even have to tell the truth to get it.
What is so shocking about recommending single vaccines if there is any doubt about multiples? Common sense most would say. Hardly a medical sin on Wakefield’s part.
Among the allegations against Wakefield were that he had undisclosed interests in a single vaccine product (Patent GB9711663.6) before the trial, and in a lawsuit against an MMR manufacturer; and then abused his patients trust to falsify the data in his paper to make a fictitious case against multiple vaccines. If that’s true — and a lot of people say that it is, and that’s what the GMC ruled — then that is indeed a “medical sin”.
Can you provide proof Wakefield falsified an entire set of data? And, since he was working in a team and alongside a highly noted specialist, Professor John-Walker Smith, who was later fully exonerated, how do you think Wakefield managed to falsify and entire set of data and hide it from his eminent colleague?
“Can you provide proof Wakefield falsified an entire set of data?”
No, and I was careful not to say so. Others have said so, and shown what they and the GMC considered proof.
“how do you think Wakefield managed to falsify and entire set of data and hide it from his eminent colleague”
Stuart Ritchie, the author of this article, has written an entire book on how that sort of thing happens. It is easier, and commoner, than you might think. It is usual in some subjects for the head of a laboratory or the principal grant-holder on a research project to be credited as a co-author whether or not they have contributed to the writing of a paper.
Indeed, as Prof Walker-Smith said to the GMC (day 97) “We all rely on trust. I trusted Dr Wakefield.”
“Professor John-Walker Smith, who was later fully exonerated”
Not correct. The High Court found that the GMC case had been procedurally irregular. The allegations against him were not about the validity of the research findings, but that he had improperly engaged in research on patients under the guise of treatment. The court further ruled that “in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion” had been drawn. That isn’t “fully exonerated”.
Without clear proof the claim is meaningless. But I agree the sloppy, shoddy nature of science-medical research makes anything possible.
Having read the court report I can only say I did not see anything saying Wakefield falsified an entire set of data.
I can accept ‘fully exonerated’ might be a step too far given the cautious, politically correct, ‘dance’ the court did in exonerating him.
But, I would add, any exoneration raises questions about the entire process and everyone involved, including Wakefield.
Many of the claims now made about Wakefield, cannot be found in any record of the enquiry against him and his research.
Trial by media and trial by the drug lords is the way of it in science-medicine
Not necessarily meaningless, merely unproven.
That was the allegation in The Times.
Ah yes, well, The Times is Murdoch and Brian Deer worked for the organisation. Sadly, the media is not to be trusted and I say that having been a journalist for many decades.
Roslyn, the bottom line on Dr Wakefield is that for years they sneered at him to sue for libel. Then when he did, the very wealthy BMJ came up with a ridiculous false excuse to avoid the trial. One word: why?
And sadly it seems to me that Richard here is coming to this subject with his mind already closed to the possibility that all the lies about Dr Wakefield might actually be indeed lies. Cheers.
Please don’t make ad hominem remarks like that. It doesn’t advance the argument and makes it look as if you’re lacking in evidence or logic.
My question to Mr Ritchie is, do you support voluntary vaccination for Covid-19, should a vaccine be invented or do you believe it should be mandatory?
If so, at what point does mandatory medicine become an abuse of human rights and what measures could be put in place to compensate anyone harmed by the vaccine? Remembering of course the tragedy of Narcolepsy resulting in too many, from the Pandemrix ( H1N1) vaccine, which was also rushed through.
Also, since children appear to be relatively untouched by Covid-19, would you support any such vaccine only being used for adults, since long-term effects of a vaccine can take, well, some time and children should not be subjected to such risk, particularly when the evidence shows it to be unnecessary.
Probably the best bit of pro-pharmaceutical BS propaganda I’ve seen …. well … ever!
Are they paying you? They’re definitely paying Bojo, so I think you’ve definitely earned your 30 pieces of silver with this piece of rubbish.
I’m seriously wondering whether to continue reading UnHerd if this hysterical and wildly opinion-based article passed muster.
There are so many errors of fact and thinking (The biggest is calling The Lancet a reputable scientific publication), that I just don’t know where to start. So I won’t bother. The other commentors have covered the journalistic failings admirably.
If I see anything this biased in UnHerd again, I will no longer support you. We come here for intelligent editorial, not this clap-trap.
I’ve been sitting here for twenty minutes wondering where to start commenting on this arrogant claptrap. He just knows he’s right and anyone holding views in any way divergent from his is wrong, doesn’t he? And if he thinks the Wakefield business is all done and dusted, he might be interested in being introduced to the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Tell me ‘why isn’t the Lancet a reputable publication’?
I am 52, not obese and have no relevant other medical factors regarding CV19. I believe I have had it though no tests to confirm that.
As such the disease presents much less risk to me than a hastily prepared and barely tested vaccine. I take the flu’ jab most years and readily had both my children inoculated with everything going.
When ten thousand people have had the vaccine and five years have elapsed I will be delighted to participate but until then I’d rather not.
The attempt by so many who make their living around the health sector to make the vaccine industry sound sweetly reasonable is emetic and the writer here is far from immune. “Mis-steps and errors” as he puts it is extremely euphemistic when it comes to the conduct of the pharma sector generally and the vaccine part of it in particular. Anti-trust activity is only the tip of the iceberg of criminality and widespread corruption by the industry of the public health officials of the US and elsewhere, and massive sums are spent on PR companies that keep the plates spinning.
The CV19 hoax, for that is what it has been – a rebranding of seasonal flu to mask the intent of the perpetrators – is the culmination of a descent to hell that has overtaken public health and now makes a stain on the medical calling that demands full and decisive redress. Truth is now a rare bird living in fear of extinction. We need to face that. The facts are all out there to be seen if we care to look.
Quote: “It is not uncommon today for biotechnological knowledge and specific medical interventions to be invoked as the major reason for most of the modern (twentieth century) decline in mortality. Responsibility for this decline is often claimed by, or ascribed to, the present-day major beneficiaries of this prevailing explanation.” John and Sonja Mckinlay.
In 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published the seminal work on the role vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive decline, some 75%, in mortality seen in the twentieth century.
Here are some of the major points their paper made:
“¢92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950 [before most vaccines existed]
“¢Medical measures “appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900″“having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances.”
They write:
“Even if it were assumed that this change was entirely due to the vaccines, then only about one percent of the decline following interventions for the diseases considered here could be attributed to medical measures. Rather more conservatively, if we attribute some of the subsequent fall in the death rates for pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and diphtheria to medical measures, then perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical intervention in the major infectious diseases considered here.
Indeed, given that it is precisely for these diseases that medicine claims most success in lowering mortality, 3.5 percent probably represents a reasonable upper-limit estimate of the total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900.”
‘ Vaccines really do work…’
SOME vaccines work in SOME situations; vaccines for coronaviruses notoriously do not and there still is no vaccine for the Common Cold and despite vaccination each year for ‘flu, tens of thousands die, more in the 2017/2018 season than have allegedly died from Covid.
Vaccines are not advised in people whose immune system is burdened, that would be those most at risk of serious disease or mortality from Covid.
We know that vaccination certainly is pointless in healthy under 60 year olds, and since a sizeable cohort of above 75s have been show to be asymptomatic or only mildly.
We know Covid was nosocomial spread, not via the general population.
We know coronavirus mutate so vaccines become useless.
So exactly what is this vaccine for? Politics? Yes.
Vaccines should only be developed and recommended for proper health reasons, not for political reasons. If a vaccine is developed for Covid, it will let Governments off the hook of their own making, by their disastrous, disproportionate reaction to a ‘flu strain. as all the observed evidence at the beginning showed was a bad ‘flu strain serious only in a specific cohort, over 75 AND in poor health.
This is why the mask fiasco and the ‘second wave’, so that Big Pharma can be assured their vaccines will be bought and they can make their millions, unlike last SARS vaccine when the virus disappeared, as this one almost has, and people saw no need for vaccination. Governments had millions of dises unused, the pharmas millions of doses unsold.
If a vaccine can be rushed through for political expedient, what is the point of the regulatory process at all? Supposedly it is there to ensure the treatment is not worse than the disease.
A political vaccine is dangerous, supporting its use because vaccines can be valuable in other circumstances is low grade thinking.
What does work mean? The antibody/Titer theory appears ‘dead in the water’ with studies showing those with high levels becoming very sick and those registering no levels remaining well?
If we put off minor childhood diseases until they emerge as major adult diseases then that helps no-one. Vaccination has become a cult with all of the fanaticism and propaganda such things require and create.
Polio for 92% of people in the past amounted to no more than mild Flu-like symptoms. What caused the Fifties anomaly, the epidemic of severe paralytic Polio? Good question. Links were made at the time with the practice of removing tonsils and adenoids, common from the early 20th century when antibiotics made surgery safer and millions could be made whipping them out – and the predisposition of recently vaccinated children, Diptheria etc., to develop SPP, with paralysis often beginning at the injection site.
Now we have vaccine-derived Polio. Surely it is time to take a deep breath and re-assess this obsession with vaccines?
“vaccination certainly is pointless in healthy under 60 year olds”
Not if it creates a sufficient degree of herd immunity to prevent the spread of the disease through the population as a whole. I don’t say that this would indeed happen, but it is certainly possible, even probable, and so one cannot be certain that it is pointless.
A similar paradoxical situation applies to flu, which behaves differently of course. Given limited supplies, under some circumstances it makes sense to immunise children, who spread the flu much more, rather than the elderly, who are more at risk if they do catch it.
Worth remembering: vaccination was invented to deal with deadly viruses, not to try and defeat death.
Everyone over 80 dies many of them live their last few years with very poor quality of life.
Very true. Although by the time vaccines came around mortality rates had plummeted because of improved living conditions. Vaccines were never necessary.
A noted US epidemiologist said of the Measles and using a vaccine against it, and I paraphrase, :
It is like Everest, it is there and because we can.
Hubris is alive and well in the world of science-medicine. And I have no doubt he meant well even if the stats did not support his position of Measles as a deadly threat in a First World country in the 1960’s.
It’s a sad fact that even today, many, maybe most, people in the world do not live at a level of the United States in the 1960s. For example, probably around a quarter of the world’s population do not have access to clean drinking water and sanitary toilets. Perhaps a third do not have ready access to primary health care. As a consequence of these and other inequalities, something like 100,000 people a year die of measles. So do we conclude that vaccines are unnecessary because none of those deaths occur in wealthy countries such as the US or the UK?
Vaccines do not provide immunity in any form akin to natural or lifelong immunity, and they are a ‘ toxic’ onslaught on the human body, if only because animal, human and bird material have never been combined in nature in such a way and so no human has evolved to deal with it.
Vaccines are designed to trick or confuse immune function into reacting to a non-threat. The pathogen cannot present as a threat and so when the Adjuvant does, it is hoped, in the confusion, the immune system will also react to the harmless disease. How that can help a child’s immature immune system become robust and reliable is a question never asked.
Perhaps worse is that never in nature is a child’s immune system confronted with three disease threats, as the MMR does, or six, or more disease threats, as multiple vaccinations in one visit does, at the same time. How an immature immune system responds to such an artificial threat, along with the artificial nature of the vaccination process is a question which should be asked.
Surely a sensible approach is to improve living conditions, because we know that works, instead of mucking around with children’s bodies.
You touch upon the sole reason why mortality rates plummeted long before vaccines. But, we both know, there are big bucks in vaccines and not in improving living conditions.
As to sacrificing the health of our children in the First World, for the fantasy that vaccines help children in the Third world, I don’t see that as an argument.
Logic and common sense, not found much in science-medicine today, would say that the toxic nature of vaccines would have negative impact on children who are malnourished and living in Third World conditions. And guess what? The data is coming out showing that is the case.
So not only are First World children sacrificed for nothing, we are harming Third World children. But how much do we hear about the harm vaccines do in places like Africa?
Published in the peer-reviewed journal EBioMedicine in 2017, the study is titled, “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment.”
Researchers from the Research Center for Vitamins and Vaccines, Statens Serum Institut (Denmark), and Bandim Health Project looked closely at data from the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau. The scientists in this study closely explored the concept of NSEs, “nonspecific effects” of vaccines. They found that the data for African children who had been vaccinated with the DTP vaccine:
“was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP. . . . DTP is the most widely used vaccine. . . . All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus, or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease, it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”
And even in the late Seventies doctors were protesting against the vaccine obsession.
Dr. Archie Kalokerinos said:
first it was just a simple clinical observation. I observed that many infants, after they received routine vaccines like tetanus, diphtheria, polio, whooping cough or whatever, became ill.
Some became extremely ill, and in fact some died. It was an observation, It was not a theory. So my first reaction was to look at the reasons why this happened. Of course I found it was more likely to happen in infants who were ill at the time of receiving a vaccine, or infants who had been ill recently, or infants who were incubating an infection. Of course in the early stages of incubation there is no way whatsoever that anyone can detect the disease. They turn up later on.
Furthermore, some of the reactions to the vaccines were not those that were listed in the standard literature.
They were very strange reactions indeed. A third observation was that with some of these reactions which normally resulted in death I found that I could reverse them by giving large amounts of vitamin C intramuscularly or intravenously. One would have expected, of course, that the authorities would take an interest in these observations that resulted in a dramatic drop in the death rate of infants in the area under my control, a very dramatic drop. But instead of taking an interest their reaction was one of extreme hostility. This forced me to look into the question of vaccination further, and the further I looked into it the more shocked I became. I found that the whole vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax. Most doctors are convinced that they are useful, but if you look at the proper statistics and study the instance of these diseases you will realise that this is not so.”
“And if you want to see what harm vaccines do, don’t come to Australia or New Zealand or any place, go to Africa and you will see it there.”
That’s a confusing and, I would say, confused way of describing it. Firstly, antibodies are tyoically generated in response to a antigen which may be a protein, such as the protein case of a virus, a sugar or some other chemical. They bind to that specific antigen. So if a virus is deactivated so as to leave its protein case the same, but incapable of growth in the body, the antigen is in fact the same as the threat. Calling this a “trick” is beside the point: it’s making use of the way the bodies immune system reacts to any foreign substance, parthogen or not — the bodies natural immune system learns to recognise the antigen. The immune system does not “know” that an antigen is a “threat” or not , and does not have to be “tricked” — it develops antibodies anyway. In the viral protein case, it is ready to produce antibodies against the protein case of the active virus in exactly the same way as it has been stimulated to do against the inactivated virus. The principle of vaccination (in its original sense) against smallpox is that cowpox and smallpox virus have very similar proteins: sufficiently similar that antibodies against the relatively harmless cowpox virus are also effective against smallpox. The Oxford covid vaccine will consist of a different and harmless virus genetically engineered to have a similar protein case to the covid virus.
The exact way in which adjuvants work is not currently known. But to say that “it is hoped” they work is not correct. There is evidence that they work from trials, even if the exact mechanism is not known. I agree that it would be better to know what that mechanism is. But not every vaccine relies on adjuvants.
A child’s immune system is being challenged by all sorts of possible antigens every day, from all sorts of bacteria and virus particles in the environment, as well as any other antigenic substances that enter the body by any route. As the child develops, its immune system develops responses to different classes of challenge. These numerous challenges are actually part of how the system matures. It seems likely that early exposure to a wide range of challenges is beneficial — it has even been suggested that the environment of a child in a wealthy country may be “too clean” in not providing a suitable range of challenges.
I agree, for all sorts of reasons. But it’s not an either/or question. We know that vaccination works too: indeed, smallpox has been eradicated, which is undoubtedly a good thing.
The Adjuvant, usually Aluminium, provokes a response because it is a clear threat in ways the ‘dead’ or ‘weakened’ pathogen does not. And I have read enough of the literature to make it clear that the theory is, as the body reacts to the introduction of a real threat, it will also react to the introduction of non-threats at the same site.
I think that amounts to trickery and confusion although the medical language is rather tidier.
This is the official explanation- An adjuvant is an ingredient used in some vaccines that helps create a stronger immune response in people receiving the vaccine. In other words, adjuvants help vaccines work better.
However, most vaccines developed today include just small components of germs, such as their proteins, rather than the entire virus or bacteria. Adjuvants help the body to produce an immune response strong enough to protect the person from the disease he or she is being vaccinated against.
That says to me, the Adjuvant is toxic enough to provoke a response, a ‘stronger’ response, which will mean the immune system will be on ‘red alert’ for any other possible danger, i.e./ the non-threat of the disease.
Sounds like trickery and confusion to me. Otherwise, why bother with the Adjuvant?
Professor Chris Exley, who has studied Aluminium and its dangers for 30 years, has talked about the issue. There are various videos around with him doing so. Well, there were. He has also been blacklisted for raising questions about Aluminium, a known neurotoxin linked to Autism and Alzheimer’s, being in vaccines.
It just cannot be overstated how different this virus is from that or those of the seasonal flu.
This virus does NOT stimulate, nor require, a strong or reliable humoral adaptive (i.e. antibody) response. The flu DOES, and this is important, making vaccination an important (partial) contributor to herd immunity each season.
It is more than likely that the new vaccines for CoV-2 will have little impact. For one, most societies will probably already have a lot of herd immunity already (indeed, many do today) once vaccines become available. For two, most or all vaccines are likely to have a relatively weak effect in comparison to a real infection (i.e. endogenous/cellular virus replication), relying too heavily upon B-cell stimulation. Vaccine developers do not really know how to do much of anything else today.
My own unique case history (I have NO B-cell function at all wrt almost any virus or bacterium antigen) with flu strongly suggests that I am better off without a flu shot. In a season in which I have been vaccinated I have never failed to get strong infections from one or more of that season’s strains of virus (I am almost 62). When I have not had a flu shot I have during some years avoided any symptomatic infection.
My point, or inference, is that CoVs behave in the immunocompetent much like flu behaves in me. In both cases, humoral adaptive response can be weak, not present and/or unimportant. Artificial stimulation of a B-cell response can impair the overall human immunological response in many ways. Some are understood and some are not.
Meanwhile, there is no question whatsoever that broad vit D adequacy in populations would wipe out CoV-2 entirely, and hugely reduce flu as well.
Within a few years the current “novel” CoV will likely look trivial. The flu will still be as much a threat as always.
Nothing at all is likely to be “discovered” from the enormous number of vaccine development efforts, other than a reinforced sense that vaccines will not be an effective tool for most viruses. That has already been the experience of history — the flu shot is the exception and not the rule. And it is only a partial contributor to herd immunity to flu — intrinsic, or natural endogenous, adaptive response is more universal and probably more important.
Admittedly, there is a huge availability of resources (i.e. money from governments) that has been made available this time. That is not likely to much improve the odds of success of vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 IMO. The molecular properties of the virus itself are what is most important.
I have 2 children and both of them have had some very serious reactions to vaccines. I still believe in vaccinating- those children who can safely tolerate them. But for those who can’t, they should never be forced. This is what is happening in some states in the US- including California and NY. Where mandates are not protecting those children that could face serious harm. They are being kicked out of school. Its a mess. This is where it crosses the line for me.
And yet it is not possible to assess which children cannot safely tolerate vaccines until it is too late. That is the problem and that is why parents must be allowed to choose, if, or when and how it is done.
That’s a perfectly defensible position, of course. What is your view of the Tragedy of the Commons paradox which I outlined below, that everyone rationally acting in their own (or their child’s) best interest individually leads to an outcome which is actually worse for each individual?
I missed your outline of the Tragedy of the Commons ….
everyone rationally acting in their own (or their child’s) best interest individually leads to an outcome which is actually worse for each individual?
Why must it be worse? Also, society generally breaks into groups of, the very obedient and easily frightened; the middle grounders; and the rebels. More people are in the first two groups.
As to vaccines, it has to make sense and demonstrate sense. People took to the streets against the earliest Smallpox vaccines and the City of Leicester became famous in the 1890 epidemic for refusing vaccines and instead improving hygiene and isolating the sick and having least cases and least mortality in the UK.
The max-vax age rode on the back of the Polio Epidemic, something else which if properly researched shows that there is more ignorance than knowledge surrounding it, including in the medical profession – FEAR.
Then in essence lies, were told about the minor childhood diseases like Measles etc., to create more FEAR and so it goes.
No paradox really. Just Fear as a tool to empower and dominate others. Always more dangerous when mixed up with good intentions.
I grew up before the max-vax age and my kids just missed it so it makes absolutely no sense to me when I read the hysterical fear-mongering used to push vaccines.
I explained at length in another comment a little way down but briefly, if everyone else is vaccinating their children, then herd immunity will protect one child and it is rational for any one individual not to vaccinate theirs. But if everyone acts that way there will be no herd immunity and every child is worse off.
Oh the herd immunity theory. Just a shame the reality does not live up to it……
Quote from the book Experts Catastrophe:
Vaccines appear to fit into the same third-rate paradigm as other issuings from the pharma trade. As with other drugs, first an exclusive patented profitable product is identified and then money is invested in persuading everyone that it is crucially important. I think you should consider a recent book titled “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History” (Humphries & Bystrianyk, 2013). And a more recent one by Tetyana Obukhanych, who got a PhD in immunology then on reflection decided her education had been very defective anyway. On the internet you can see some of the fanatical personal attacks such non-conforming authors get subjected to by corporate-aligned people.
You could also consider these comments from a study recently published in a top peer-reviewed journal (Wang et al., 2014).
“The reported coverage of the measles”“rubella (MR) or measles”“mumps”“rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99% in Zhejiang province. However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high. …. measles, mumps, and rubella remain common diseases throughout Zhejiang province. …. Therefore, the elimination of measles and control of mumps and rubella are urgent public health priorities in local regions.”
Note that this report is telling us that not just one but all three famous infections (measles, mumps and rubella) have not been effectively countered even by 99% double-coverage of those vaccinations in a population of 50 million. This huge study alone suffices to cast large doubts on the vaccine industry’s scientific credibility.
But maybe you are thinking that that Wang report is just a one-off anomaly, like the famous anecdotal report of men landing on the moon. Well, here are three more I have learned of from Tetyana Obukhanych:
Nkowane et al 1987 Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population: epidemiology, chains of transmission, and the role of vaccine failures. Am J Public Health.
Boullane et al 1991 Major measles epidemic in the region of Quebec despite a 99% vaccine coverage. Canadian J Public Health.
Sutcliffe et al 1996 Outbreak of measles in a highly vaccinated secondary school population. Canadian Med Assocn.
The evidence highlighted by Dr Obukhanych and others shows that measles vaccines do indeed generate some sort of immunity, but that it usually lasts only a few months or years, in contrast to the lifelong immunity created by having a relatively trivial natural measles infection in childhood. And this has two adverse consequences. Firstly it increases the risk of measles in older people, for whom it can be more harmful. And secondly it prevents mothers passing on their immunity to their babies, with the result that those infants lack that natural protection and are thus at risk of an infection which can be deadly at that unnatural age.
Four further things reflect this dubiousness of vaccine science. Firstly that their manufacturers have been granted some peculiar exemption from the normal legal liability for harm caused. Secondly that they are not required to prove actual effectiveness, but merely that they generate some antibodies, even though there is a lot more to the immune system than those antibodies which clearly don’t have effects equivalent to those of the infections themselves. Thirdly that people are often bullied into enforced acceptance of them. Fourthly,
Cheers.
Oh the herd immunity theory. A shame the reality does not coincide with it…..
Excerpt from book Experts Catastrophe:
comments from a study recently published in a top peer-reviewed journal (Wang et al., 2014).
“The reported coverage of the measles”“rubella (MR) or measles”“mumps”“rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99% in Zhejiang province. However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high. …. measles, mumps, and rubella remain common diseases throughout Zhejiang province. …. Therefore, the elimination of measles and control of mumps and rubella are urgent public health priorities in local regions.”
Note that this report is telling us that not just one but all three famous infections (measles, mumps and rubella) have not been effectively countered even by 99% double-coverage of those vaccin-ations in a population of 50 million. This huge study alone suffices to cast large doubts on the vaccine industry’s scientific credibility.
But maybe you are thinking that that Wang report is just a one-off anomaly. Well, here are three more I have learned of from Tetyana Obukhanych:
Nkowane et al 1987 Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population: epidemiology, chains of transmission, and the role of vaccine failures. Am J Public Health.
Boullane et al 1991 Major measles epidemic in the region of Quebec despite a 99% vaccine coverage. Canadian J Public Health.
Sutcliffe et al 1996 Outbreak of measles in a highly vaccinated secondary school population. Canadian Med Assocn.
That “high” is a figure which is actually lower than it is for the UK (where it was 25.7 per million in 2017). The context is in the title of the paper Difficulties in Eliminating Measles: it’s high if you’re aiming to eliminate the disease, but low if you’re aiming to control it. I don’t think that a case rate of the order of 10 per million represents a failure of herd immunity, but on the contrary tells us that the disease has been “effectively countered”
You have the same name as the author of that book: are you in fact the same person?
The Leicester method did include vaccination: for doctors and nurses, not to mention that about a third of the population had already accepted vaccination. Leicester still had a rate of infection higher than London.
In terms of the Tragedy of the Commons:
The tragedy of the commons is an economic problem in which every individual has an incentive to consume a resource at the expense of every other individual with no way to exclude anyone from consuming. It results in overconsumption, under investment, and ultimately depletion of the resource.
I would say it highlights the major problem and danger of science-medicine today, i.e. the desire to reduce the human condition and body to the purely material and mechanistic, i.e the no more than a bag of chemicals approach.
The ‘tragedy’ may work for a consumable product but it does not work for a human being or his or her body.
Where modern medicine does so much harm is that it is designed for a generic human who does not exist and that applies particularly to vaccinations and medications. Little wonder it is one of the major killers, third in the US, in the world.
Modern medicine is dangerous because it and its overlords see the human body as a mere resource. Modern medicine is a profit and power-driven industry where patients come a long way behind profits and power. This is why so much science-medical research is corrupted or just plain wrong.
Of course the Lancet is taking the lead in publishing about the vaccines. It is, of all well-known medical journals worldwide, probably the purest example of one beholden and dedicated to the interests of the pharmaceutical industry (i.e. its advertisers) over and above anything else. It is a propaganda rag.
Lest I be thought overly critical of this British journal, I contrast the BMJ as one of the least beholden, and most responsible, medical journals in the world at present and in recent decades.
Consider the EAT-Lancet Commision, for which the mass-produced refined-food industry supplements in the same role as big pharma. Nakedly transparent and obvious fraud and propaganda for hugely powerful commercial interests, once again.The kind of cheap junk, totally incompatible with the human digestive system and evolution, promoted is the PRIMARY cause of ill health (so-called “chronic” conditions) all over the world.
The Lancet is a thoroughly corrupted publication, and has been for a long time.
I think one of the problems is that you can’t conflate the issues surrounding the Covid 19 vaccine with general anti vaccination sentiment.
I am not and never have been anti vaccination, so my familiarity with the different arguments is not good enough to comment in general terms. However, I do believe childhood vaccinations are important and there take up should be encouraged.
If we throw Covid vaccinations in to the mix; this is a slightly different issue. The problem is many people advocating the current dystopian ‘new normal’ measures mandate that this will need to be endured until we get a vaccine. My argument would be that the appearance of a vaccine is too uncertain – and the new normal too inimical to human health and well being – for us to be able to make a return to normal dependent on a vaccine materialising.
Rather than depending on a vaccine turning up in the final reels like some deus ex machina, for a disease like Covid, it may be better to give useful advice on preparing and looking after our immune system; maintaining good over all health and changing our habits when interacting with vulnerable persons who may be at greater risk, and so require greater protection.
It would also be legitimate to suggest the money for the development and purchase of a vaccine would be better spent on developing cheaper drugs to lessen the severity of the
disease or even build respiratory disease specific hospitals (as mentioned in the interview with Professor Carl Heneghan on this channel).
In light of all this, the Covid vaccine does come across as a bit of an unhealthy clutch for humanity. By all means perfect the art of developing them (Covid provides an ideal opportunity for that), but don’t make anything dependent on it.
David Slade, you say: “I do believe childhood vaccinations are important and there take up should be encouraged.”
Can you name all the vaccinations and revaccinations on the children’s and adult’s schedule in your country?
Have you had all these vaccinations yourself that you believe others should be encouraged to take up?
Do you expect to be properly informed about the risks and benefits of each vaccine, and allowed to make an informed decision before consenting to this medical intervention?
I am not an expert on this subject, as I said. So I can’t answer your questions I’m afraid – whatever vaccinations I had were when I was a child and I can’t remember what they were.
My point is I have no reason to inherently be distrustful of vaccinations – the theory behind them is sound and in certain circumstances they have proven ability in preventing childhood illnesses that killed infants in previous times.
In some circumstances their efficacy is questionable but they may offer some statistical benefit on a population basis (influenza). In some circumstances (and this was really what I was getting at), they are possibly a ‘nice to have’ but ultimately a bit of a self defeating distraction (Covid 19).
I’m afraid you’re assuming a level of knowledge in being able to converse with you on this that I simply do not – by my own admission – possess.
If you think childhood vaccinations are necessary, can I ask, where do you see the need in the increase from 2-3 vaccines at older ages to more than 50 vaccinations in the first five years of life, beginning within hours of birth, if not in utero.
Let us remember, in the developed world, those children who grew up before the Seventies were not dying in droves and had all of the minor childhood diseases.
Those children born in the early Seventies probably had Polio but many had nothing else. My children did not. And they were not dying in droves either.
And then from the late Seventies the vaccinations increased. Why? No solid medical or scientific reason – simply profit.
I read once that no medical intervention can be truly understood until at least two generations have grown up to live relatively healthy, normal lives, the first giving birth to the second. If we take 70 as a reasonable age that is 140 years from say the mid Seventies when the max -vax age took off. By my guess we have around a century before science can categorically state vaccines are safe and what their effects might be.
Surely in the name of sanity and common sense vaccinations for children should be a minimum, because we know that works fine, not a maximum as labrats, for at least another 80 years at least.
I wasn’t aware of the increase in vaccines available as you point out; that’s very interesting and you make valid points, I don’t think anyone would disagree with your last paragraph and I am not qualified to provide a blanket defence or rebuttal of vaccination.
I think all I would say is I wouldn’t assume malignancy of intent just because profit is involved. There is no truly altruistic pursuit that doesn’t generate profit for someone (including charity); that’s how we provide incentives for innovation. At the same time, its legitimate to ask if this profit has produced over zealousness and compromised objective analysis
I guess keep an enquiring mind – but don’t default to distrust. That’s about all I can realistically say without getting way out of my depth..
You rightly refer to the number of vaccinations in the first five years of life, beginning within hours of birth, if not in utero. The added risk of the latter is that vaccines are not tested on pregnant women for obvious reasons.
Interesting to note that at the end of 2014, Brazil announced the introduction of the Tdap vaccine for all pregnant women. This is despite several studies having concluded that activation of the maternal immune response, which can be brought about by vaccine, adversely affects fetal brain development.
Brazil subsequently had an outbreak of Zika virus where an estimated 1,600 babies were born with microcephaly, or abnormally small heads, from September 2015 through April 2016. The epidemic took health professionals by surprise because the Zika virus had been known since 1947 and was not linked to birth defects.
There were headlines across the world and a degree of panic in the USA and elsewhere as the Zika virus headed north. Brazil was braced for another massive increase in microcephaly in 2016-17. Bill Gates promised a Zika vaccine and high tech solutions such as genetically engineered male mosquito releases.
In the end, increased cases of microcephaly disappeared almost as fast as they had appeared,
To my knowledge, very little research has been done to establish whether pregnant women receiving the Tdap vaccine were at greater risk of microcephaly following Zika infection. Indeed, there are many unknowns about why this disease came and went so quickly, why other countries were not badly affected by a rise in Zika related micrcephaly or why some areas of Brazil were worse affected than others.
What we do know is that it subsided without the need for a Zika vaccine. The unanswered questions highlight that we need to improve our knowledge and understanding of some diseases before jumping on the high tech bandwagon as a first resort
So you don’t know what vaccinations are on the schedule, but you feel confident to say: “I do believe childhood vaccinations are important and there take up should be encouraged.”
Are you a bit more questioning about a ‘Covid 19’ vax, as that might be one you’re compelled to have? I presume you’d like the right to give your ‘informed consent’ to that medical intervention?
I’m not expecting you to answer my questions David as you’re obviously not equipped to do that.
I want people who are responsible for vaccination policy and practice to be accountable and answer my questions.
I’m posting my concerns about vaccination here as there currently is no accountability, this area is a conflicted shambles.
It’s generally ‘unheard’ of to have this type of discussion on a public forum, usually this discussion is censored, and I have been censored many times. So I appreciate that UnHerd have let these comments run, even if the original article was very poor.
It would be useful if people who don’t know what they’re talking about would get out of the way.
COVID-19 severity is caused by dirty vaccines contaminated with coronavirus-like proteins, that programmed your immune system to develop an allergic reaction to the SARS-COV-2 virus upon infection.
So if you are vaccinated, it is already too late to “look after your immune system”.
See: “Immunological mechanisms explaining the role of IgE, mast cells, histamine, elevating ferritin, IL-6, D-dimer, VEGF levels in COVID-19 and dengue, potential treatments such as mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, Vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and azithromycin” in Zenodo for details.
No need. We already have the cheap medicines available over the counter. Cetirizine and Famotidine.
See: “Dual-Histamine Blockade with Cetirizine – Famotidine Reduces Pulmonary Symptoms in COVID-19 Patients” in medrxiv.
I haven’t anything insightful to say, other than this string of comments is one of the best I’ve scrolled through. Far better and more balanced than the article itself.
I did read an article some time ago talking about a study which showed parents questioning vaccines were in general, far better informed than medical professionals. Needs must I suppose.
What bothers me is how vaccines are made and I simply do not believe science-medicine has any understanding of unexpected outcomes from the combination of animal, human and bird material in the making of vaccines, never seen in nature and probably impossible in nature, and the genetic meddling which goes on, again, totally unnatural, of not just animal, human and bird material but of diseases.
Genetics is a very young ‘science’ and remains more theory than fact. It is on this basis our children are used as labrats.
There’s a very interesting paper “‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK” at DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00544.x
The section on the “discourse of ignorance” is particularly relevant here, I think.
You open up with this statement below, but you are in fact peddling the herd mentality towards vaccines. Having an argument in the comments section does not make this in any way a fair debate. publish someone who is not widely considered “nuts” who can explain another POV.
“As you may have guessed from our strange spelling, UnHerd aims to do two things: to push back against the herd mentality with new and bold thinking, and to provide a platform for otherwise unheard ideas, people and places.”
Thank goodness for Unherd: it has saved my sanity over lockdown!
These comments in particular have restored my faith in intelligent and non-vitriolic discussion of this usually devisive topic. I will recommend reading the whole thread to anyone who has a healthy interest in wellbeing.
I was lucky in having parents courageous enough to not have their children vaccinated. They had studied physiology and nutrition and decided vaccines were too dangerous and probably not at all effective and indeed not necessary. We were, however, fed on home grown organic produce and kept at home in bed when ill with colds or flu. I was brought up to take responsibility for my own health and was in my 60’s before I had my first medicine – pain killers for toothache!
I am hearten to know that many people are aware that vaccines can take little – or I would say no – credit in the already lessening of the seriousness of many diseases when they were introduced. As has been stated in other comments here, nutrition and hygiene and general higher quality of life are the universal reasons for better health.
Further to discussion on this article, I’ve challenged the medical establishment about the plans to vaccinate children with fast-tracked experimental coronavirus vaccine product to protect the elderly. I argue it is not ethical to vaccinate children against a virus which is not a direct threat to them.
Vaccine products are medical interventions which have risks, and it appears vaccine manufacturers will be protected from liability for any resulting side effects, leaving children to bear the consequences.
Arguing against children being vaccinated to protect the elderly is not to negate the risks of SARS-CoV-2 for the elderly, but efforts should be concentrated on finding medications to help them directly, children’s right to their own natural defences should not be sacrificed in this regard.
See my rapid response published on The BMJ – Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly? 5 August 2020.
Another thing that fuels the conspiracies is that in the U.S., vaccine makers are not liable for any adverse effects, and a government fund was set up to pay out claims. This lends credibility to the idea that these adverse effects actually exist. These are not scientifically proven cause and effect, but rather legal settlements, but every reported event is counted as another “case” that proves vaccines are not safe.
Not really. It’s well-known that (closed, journal based) peer review “is not a form of quality control”, as Gelman puts it, and it’s deeply unjust to blame The Lancet for what some spectacularly incompetent and irresponsible (science) journalists did with Wakefield’s paper despite the accompanying commentary with its explicit warning to them.
**We mustn’t give any credibility to conspiracy theories.**
“Conspiracy’ theories” is strawman. If people have shared aim and/or foe, doesn’t follow they’re ‘conspiring’. For example LibLabCon / Goldman Sachs / Branson / FT/ CBI / Marxist left were for Remain. Whether that constitutes *conspiracy* is otiose.
CV-19 is as political as ‘climate’ and demographic dissolution, to name two other ’causes’ around which the same ‘globalist’ corporate interests coalesce, principally officialdom / ‘deep state’ and global capital / media. No publication has been more avid in its CV-19 alarmism than The Economist – why should that be?
I’ve been inoculated against any number of lethal infections over the years, most recently Yellow fever and Hepatitis A – top-ups prior to trips to East Africa. But why should one submit to a vaccination for a relatively harmless virus from which under 70s are at no more risk statistically of perishing than from a road accident?
I previously had a flu jab 10 years ago after being nagged by my wife, whose employer insisted on vaccination as a condition of sick pay over the flu season, only to contract flu two weeks later. Most adults of sound mind already know from experience that respiratory viruses continually evolve else we couldn’t repeatedly be infected by them. Why should this one be different?
The fearmongering over CV-19 shouldn’t be allowed to distract us from the basic facts. As German pulmonologist Dr Woflgang Wodarg explained re CV-19: ‘The emperor has no clothes’, i.e. it’s just another ‘corona’ shaped virus. But these ‘sceptics’ are largely ignored by the media. Though some have been given a platform here. Unlike this one who parrots the orthodoxy however convoluted.
Having spent decades living in Third World countries and rejected the proffered vaccines I can assure you, they are optional not required.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nephew of former American President John F. Kennedy, in a lengthy piece exposed Bill Gates agenda in India and his “obsession with vaccines”.
A month later, based on an intercepted human intelligence report, a controversy erupted in Nigeria whereby it was revealed that Bill Gates offered $10 million bribe for a forced vaccination program for Coronavirus to the Nigerian House of Representatives.
Bill Gates Agenda In India Exposed By Robert Kennedy Jr
In Robert Kennedy Jr.’s own words:
Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.
Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.
Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.
In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.
In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.
During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”
In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade. Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.
A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.
Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.
In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.
Not what the report (NEJM, doi 10.1056/NEJMoa1102287) says. If 151 of the 5,949 children died after the vaccination, that’s 2.5%, compared with an infant mortality rate for the country as a whole of 3.5%. So the death rate is no more than you would expect from any other group. In fact, as the report makes clear, the death rates in the vaccinated and the control group were the same within statistical limits. Similarly, febrile episodes occured at a slightly lower rate in the vaccinated group than the control group, although again the same within statistical limits.
In summary then: there is no evidence in the report to say that the vaccination trials were responsible.
I think there is a misunderstanding about what came from where, and probably due to my not referencing properly.
The above post has nothing to do with NEJM. The Kennedy articles I have posted on here are nothing to do with the NJEM either, they were from other sources available on the internet.
The African Vaccine roll-out by Gates is mentioned by Kennedy, and has nothing to do with the article in NEJM, and neither has the Polio vaccine roll-out by Gates in India, the one that disabled half a million children.
The only reference to NEJM re the Covid vaccine is the one you first referenced, and I posted a small piece of the text from the paper below, this was in reference to Kennedy’s assertion that 3 people had been hospitalised as a result of the trial and your assertion that there wasn’t.
Does that help?
Well, since it was referring to a trial reported in the paper I cited, and since that report contradicts the assertion you ascribe to Kennedy, I think it has quite a lot to do with it. I tend to prefer peer-reviewed scientific publications to “other sources” “on the Internet”.
I was disappointed to read that BOJO stated the “AntiVaxers are nuts”. That seems to me to be a generalization to support a pre-determined opinion. Yes, people who believe that Bill Gates is injecting us with micro-chips are most likely not correct. However, I followed Bill Gates from early Internet Explorer time back in the early days of Micro-Soft. Based on his business practices, Bill Gates is not one I would want to associate with or have any business dealings with. Johnson is very intelligent and educated, he must be aware of the occasional issues with vaccines. Also, anyone who uses the term “experts” to justify a decision is naive or lying. Experts are a dime a dozen and fall on all sides of every topic. Now I am thinking Boris is a tad bit more political than I previously believed.
By neglecting to mention the UK Government’s own “Vaccine Damage Compensation Programme,” Stuart Ritchie dissembles and thus contributes to the innate mistrust people have for vaccines:
https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-….
Does anyone know why the title of this article changed from “Don’t Dismiss the Anti-Vaxxers” to the “Truth about Vaccines”.
It would be interesting to see a face-to-face discussion with the ” debunked” “fraud” – Dr Wakefield, and this writer.
There are precious few discussions between independent specialists who have concerns re vaccine safety ( who may not be anti vaccine and those on the other side of the divide). Not sure why this is.
Here’s an interesting ( rare) recent chat between a vaccine skeptic and one who isn’t:
Bobby Kennedy Jnr V Dershowitz on vaccines: https://youtu.be/IfnJi7yLKgE
“Vaccines do work,” until the immunity they confer wanes, and then you’re left possibly even more susceptible than you were before you got the vaccine, especially if you are now much older, or now have health issues you didn’t have when you were a small child.
You kind of left that part out, Mr. Ritchie.
You also left out the part where people who have HAD serious adverse reactions to vaccines, or whose children have had them, have valid reason to doubt that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Perhaps there are more of those people than you are aware of? I mean, when there isn’t an adequate reporting system, how would you actually know?
Since you are a psychologist, I would hope that you understand that, for ANY medical intervention, the human being actually RECEIVING that intervention is the only one who has the right to weigh the risks and benefits, and make the final decision, even if it goes against the most aggressive advertising in history.
A few years ago a remarkable discovery was made and it was something simply not imagined – that the brain and immune system are physically connected via lymphatics.
At the time it was said textbooks would have to be rewritten. But not it seems vaccine textbooks which seems odd. Vaccination tricks and confuses immune function into reacting to a non -threat by the use of an Adjuvant (poison) which does trigger a response. How effective will a constantly confused immature immune system become? Good question – never asked.
Surely any meddling with immune function will impact the brain, regardless of the neurotoxins like aluminium and Mercury present in vaccines?
Neither do we really know what the future outcomes may be of injecting humans with a mixture of animal, bird and human material, in form and process, impossible in nature. And that is without getting into the genetic meddling which goes on with disease, animal, human and bird material in the making of the vaccine.
Such hubris does not make for responsible science or medicine. And yet here we are, with our kids playing labrat 50 times in the first five years of life and possibly 80 times if they make it to 18. I mean seriously, what sane person thinks that can be good?
Me oh my…
The publication of sweeping statements and titles that can be quoted later, unfortunately.
New bio technology possessing the potential of irreversible germ line changes in humanitty.
Rushed to testing amidst public hysteria.
No isolated virus.
Unproven track records settled out of court. For profit
Cytokine storms resulting in impairment or death.
17 years of attempted, yet failed vaccine implementation.
Concerning adjuvants.
Suppressed, viable outpatient treatment and care pathway failures. Resulting in deaths.
Mandated interventions which carry the potential for detriment.
A lack of moratoriums, surprisingly, on yet more dangerous validated viruses that require true social distancing because of their. seriousness. Why are we keeping variola strains?
The mention of public office conduct issues by seriously credentialed individuals.
You cannot mandate trust nearly as easy as it is possible to violate trust.
Instead of a moratorium on gain of function research there seems to be a moratorium on reason.
Humanity will suffer until the powers that be will devour each other in the absence of any remaining diversity.
I am shocked this went to print in any fashion.
Dr Leah Remeika-Dugan, re controversial gain of function research, what do you think about the opinions of Vincent Racaniello, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, see below. Worth thinking about in light of the still murky origins of SARS-CoV-2…
So a ‘gain of function’ simply means that you take a virus and you change it in some way so it does something new, so it does something that it didn’t do before. That’s all that means. It’s quite simple. So you could for example take this H7N9 virus and make it resistant to an anti-viral drug, that would be a gain of function”¦
So, to really understand how this virus works, and really any other virus, we do gain of function studies all the time. We don’t make a big deal of it, we don’t write letters telling the world that we’re going to do them because that’s not the way science works. Science works by just doing your experiments. We do this because we would like to see what kinds of changes would lead to a gain of function, and what would be the consequences.
So, in the case of this virus, these investigators want to make the virus drug resistant. As you know, there are a couple of anti-virals that you can use if you get influenza ““ Tamiflu, Relenza ““ and these investigators want to make the virus resistant. And the reason they want to do that is to see if a drug resistant mutant would have any properties that would make it scarier in people.
So there is really a goal to these experiments. They want to know if you change the virus what might be the consequences for people. And as I said this is done all the time but these virologists decided to tell the world about it.
These comments are from an interview broadcast on Dispatch Radio in August 2013, I prepared a transcript.
If you search for Arrogant scientists and dangerous ‘gain-of-function’ experiments ““ a letter to the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), you’ll find my webpage which discusses controversial gain of function research.
I can’t find your notification from the unherd site.
Sorry for the delay.
Due to a limit of time, I’ll be brief.
Anything with the potential for great good, also has the potential for grave harm in nefarious hands.
Best Wishes,
Thanks for your reply. I can’t seem to uptick (??) Phone seems ‘vexed!’
The OTHER part of the adaptive immune system/response is the cell-mediated subsystem (i.e. T cells, of many different types and functions). B cell stimulation is MUCH, MUCH more feasible than T cell stimulation, by vaccination, BECAUSE antibodies act outside of cells for the most part.
The limited stimulation of T cells induced by some vaccines is only because the T cells and B cells interact and communicate. Indeed, most generation of antibodies (by B cells) is not possible without T cell “assistance”.
Because the cell-mediated response detects the signatures of intracellular virus replication, it is hard to imagine (much less implement) a means of vaccine stimulation without actual virus replication occuring in the cells.
The cell-mediated response is by far the more important adaptive response to viral infection. And the humoral response is relatively unimportant with both alpha and beta CoVs, in comparison to flu especially.
These facts are fundamental. All of the hype and taxpayer monies being thrown at new vaccines for this weak pathogen won’t change the basic properties of the CoV. Fortunately we will not need any vaccine — natural human immunology will take care of it, and already largely has in most of the more densely populated and heavily traveled regions of the world.
The gross ignorance of human immunology in the press, governments, the medical profession and general populace is just stunning. Similarly, complete inability to correctly interpret statistical data and its collection methods is also nearly universal.
Most people today believe that Measles is akin to the Black Death. But that is just because they do not know their history.
Quote: It’s true that during the 1800s, and even into the early 1900s, measles was a big killer. In fact, all infectious diseases were the leading cause of death”whooping cough, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, and others already mentioned, killed millions. How deadly these diseases were is often emphasized. The implication is that without vaccines, we would return to those dark and deadly times. Massive deadly plagues would all return, and the advances we made because of vaccines would all be wiped out.
However, looking at mortality records, there is something that is never mentioned. The death rate for all infectious diseases had plummeted before the introduction of vaccines for all those diseases.
For example, in the United States the mortality rate for measles decreased by more than 98% before the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963 (Figure 1). In England, we see the same thing”a dramatic decrease in deaths before the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1968 (Figure 2).
The same can be said for other infectious diseases such as whooping cough”massive declines in death before the introduction of any vaccine. Scarlet fever, which was during the 1800s a bigger killer than whooping cough or measles, went to near zero without the use of a vaccine.
Before the advent of a measles vaccine, measles was generally considered a mild illness. Even the British Medical Journal remarked in 1959 at this particular medical practice that over a 10 year span there were few complications from measles and that all children recovered……….
In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week . . . In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.[14]
Things were dramatically better before 1963 and the introduction of the first measles vaccine. In fact, if we look at all the causes of death from the United States Vital Statistics in 1962, we see that measles accounted for 0.02% of deaths that year (Figure 3). In 1962, measles was sixth from the bottom for causes of death. You can look through the list of causes of death and find almost everything from “Birth Injuries” at 28,199 to “Ulcers” at 12,228 to “Asthma” at 4,896 were far higher than the 408 deaths attributed to “Measles” that year.
From Measles The New Red Scare, in Foreign Policy Journal.
Figures 2 and 5 of that paper seem to me to show a decrease to about 1950 followed by a levelling off until the introduction of the vaccination programme, followed by a further decline.
Read the full article with graphs –
Measles The New Red Scare, in Foreign Policy Journal.
I did, and those are the graphs I was referring to.
So, I take it that your argument and position is that unless something is going to kill patients , there should be no vaccination. What exactly is your position: that vaccines are pointless and harmful, that it’s all a scam, that more people die from other causes so it’s not worth trying to deal with this or that infection?
I believe vaccines are unnecessary and poorly tested with negative health aspects which vary depending on the individual. I do believe that a time when come when vaccination will be limited if not discarded as the most destructive medical experiment in human history.
But that is my belief. My only position is personal choice. I don’t care what others do. I would also wish doctors and nurses were informed about how vaccines are made and what they can do and I wish the public would also become better informed.
But, pretty much, keep vaccines as personal choice and I don’t care.
I do not believe vaccines are a scam per se: I believe they were created largely with good intent, albeit sourced in terrible ignorance, and they are pushed today out of fear and some good intentions and even more ignorance and they have become almost cult-like in their structure and are a huge profit-driven industry. A dangerous combination.
They are simply not necessary. But, doctors and humans do many foolish things which are not necessary and I have great respect for the placebo effect which is more powerful with a needle than a pill.
We have gone from 2-3 vaccinations in the early Seventies, at older ages, to more than 50 in the first five years of life, beginning within hours of birth if not in utero. Anyone who thinks that makes sense is just not thinking.
And tracking the max-vax age we have epidemics of Autism, Diabetes, Auto-Immune diseases, Asthma, Allergies and levels of Cancer in children never seen before. The chemo wards are chockers in the max-vax age. Chronic and serious disease is worse in general and more so in general.
Sure, vaccines might not be the cause but we will never know until adequate, independent studies are done.
So, one thing is certain, vaccines have not brought good health. I am just grateful to have missed them and been able to ensure my children did as well.
I also believe while science-medicine has greater technical knowledge of the human body, it remains largely ignorant as to how the human organism works as a combination of (not in order) physical, mental, emotional, psychological, spiritual, environmental, circumstantial.
Any good doctor and I have read many books by some, would admit that each disease is unique in the patient. In other words, there is no generic human or generic disease. Modern allopathic medicine is designed for generic humans who do not exist. That is simpler, and where the money is, although it rarely cures. Having body parts regularly removed or medication for life are not cures.
Holistic medical modalities are rejected without consideration because they don’t deliver the same level of profits. Tough luck for the patients.
And while there is evidence showing those fortunate enough to have had the minor childhood diseases as children, Measles, Mumps etc., have greater protection as adults against stroke, heart disease, Cancer etc., this is ignored in the name of vaccines which are not necessary and were not necessary even when they were invented.
Read medical history to see what doctors thought of kids getting and having these diseases in the decades prior to the vaccination age. They often reported improved health in children and recognised that the killer and true disease, was not the particular pathogen, but poverty.
There is also evidence showing that the common cold and Flu are an excellent workout for the immune system and involve a great deal of cleanup, including of Cancer cells.
In short, disease has always been with us and no doubt we have evolved in ways that it serves a purpose, for good and ill. So, improving living conditions is a must for it reduces incidence and knocks down mortality rates.
Just as science-medicine was once ignorant of the fact that the human body is awash in bacteria and viruses necessary for health and survival, so I take the view that disease per se: is not necessarily a bad thing to be summarily ‘removed.’ Not that vaccines have removed diseases despite the claims.
I can see that some people are vehemently anti vaccine and spend a lot of time immersing themselves in the search for evidence of the dangers, flaws and mal- intentions of those who develop and manufacture vaccines. Most people, however seem happy to get their annual flu vaccines and to have their children vaccinated . Vaccination rates here are in the 95% region, By a long, long way, the majority of people here are hoping for a Covid vaccination. I wish all the anti vax people good luck and hope in your quest to avoid getting a vaccination, you also avoid a Covid ill health or deaths amongst friends and family.
You need to be more considered about your presumptions and stereotyping.
Vaccines are medical interventions that are given to mass populations of people, and they should be held to a high standard of justification.
It’s entirely appropriate to question the over-use of vaccine products, just as it’s appropriate to question the over-use of antibiotics, opioids, anti-depressants and other medical products.
Also, I provided details of vaccinations on the UK NHS children’s schedule in a couple of my previous comments.
Given your vehement support for vaccine products, are you willing to share how many of the vaccinations and revaccinations on the UK NHS schedule you have had, including the combination shots?
As I said, good luck and good health to all you anti vaccine people ( and if you are genuinely at all interested then I get my annual flu shots, plus god knows how many shots of different types when I was a child: the usual UK childhood vaccinations from the then incredibly scary looking syringes, plus many vaccinations when my parents worked in Africa, India and east Asia. )
Good luck
Then you are fortunate enough to be able to cope with the process. As someone who has lived in India and four African countries, without being vaccinated, I can assure you, that your vaccines were not needed and luckily you have not paid a price for having them.
Everyone is different and I trust you have good health until a ripe old age. But vaccines have dangers and should never be mandatory.
“luckily you have not paid a price”
Not so fast. Even heart disease and stroke are the long term results of vaccine injury.
“Role of bovine adiponectin contaminated vaccine induced autoimmunity in the etiology of type 2 diabetes, atherosclerosis related coronary artery disease, cerebral infarction, obesity and polycystic ovarian syndrome; epicutaneous immunotherapy home remedy as a potential prevention or treatment approach” in Zenodo.
Re coronavirus vaccines, you might want to check out this article: AstraZeneca to be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries. Reuters, 30 July 2020.
Some quotes from the article:
AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine hopeful by most of the countries with which it has struck supply agreements, a senior executive told Reuters.
With 25 companies testing their vaccine candidates on humans and getting ready to immunise hundred millions of people once the products are shown to work, the question of who pays for any claims for damages in case of side effects has been a tricky point in supply negotiations.
“This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects,” Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra’s senior executive team, told Reuters.
Enjoy your fast-tracked experimental vaccine… Perhaps you should give some serious thought to a risk/benefit analysis, particularly if the virus is waning…
Having avoided vaccines for most of my life and been fortunate enough to grow up in the age when they were rare, and having spent decades living in Third World countries without vaccines or health issues, and having better health than most of those I know who vax to the max, I thank you for your concern but remain comfortable in my knowledge-based decision.
I fully support those who wish to be constantly vaccinated to do so and merely hope their children are not harmed in any way.
My question to you would be – do you know how vaccines are made, what they are designed to do, and how they interfere with natural immune function? I doubt many of those who line up to be vaccinated have any idea what is being injected into their body. If they did, I doubt many would agree to drink it.
COVID-19 severity is due to contaminated vaccines you received. Coronavirus-like proteins in vaccines caused you become allergic to the SARS-COV-2.
Sadly I have to preface here by mentioning that my own careful independent review concludes that the autism increase was not caused by vaccines (but instead by mercury vapour from non-gamma-2 dental amalgams). The thing is that there is a huge herd mentality preoccupied with “what side is this person on?”. I am on no side other than the side of honest enquiry wherever it leads. You can read my independent review by searching for “Experts Catastrophe” and then reading Chapter 6 (pdf file only) I was publishing autism research long before these vaccine theories had even been dreamt of. I am a scientific discoverer with expertise in this very area..
This article is an absolute disgrace to unherd. It contains utterly trivial level of evidence in support of its cheap assertion that the case for vaccines is “clear”. Instead, as usual with pro-vaccine apologists, it indulges in a deluge of very nasty slanderous falsehoods, rather as Paul Offit’s book did.
Dr Wakefield was highly incompetent at epidemiology (which does put him in the company of a great many others) but there is no crime in being wrong about the science. He was a very honest (and naive) person who didn’t realise until too late just how hugely nasty is the corporatised “healthcare” system and its pseudo-research. An example of the untruths in this article is the claim that Wakefield’s article claimed that autism was associated with MMR. Anyone who has actually read the paper knows that (a) Wakefield was only one of numerous distinguished authors of the paper, and (b) it ended by stating “We did NOT show an association of autism with MMR”. There are numerous other nasty lies about Dr Wakefield in this article here (and repeated all over the place elsewhere, as Big Pharma has many $$millions to fund its misinformation with). Its author is simply parroting the same old lies put out by the propaganda lies system.
For many years, the vaccine-pushers sneered and taunted Wakefield to sue for libel. In due course he DID file a libel action against Brian Deer and the BMJ. But then those defendants, rather than allowing the matter to be made clear in court, chose to go to every possible length of bogus excuse to avoid that libel trial. So much for their years of sneering, and their willingness to come to open fair debate.
If the corporate quacks had simply published the honest truth, and not indulged in a nasty character-assassination of an innocent man, the various autism-vaccine theories would have died a natural death long ago. But instead as usual they chose to publish extensive lies. And once people see you lying to them, they will NEVER trust you again.
I do not normally support any “censorship” of any content. But this nasty article is such a disgrace that none of the people of unHerd should allow its libellous filth to remain on their website for a moment longer.
On the contrary, the most quacky discovery of all time. Because it has been known for years how to strengthen the immune system with vitamins c, d, a, zinc, selenium, etc, to the extent that any vaccine would be irrelevant anyway. Just those safe treatments are not profitable enough for the vaccine quackery industry.
From the book Experts Catastrophe:
Vaccines appear to fit into the same third-rate paradigm as other issuings from the pharma trade. As with other drugs, first an exclusive patented profitable product is identified and then money is invested in persuading everyone that it is crucially important. I think you should consider a recent book titled “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History” (Humphries & Bystrianyk, 2013). And a more recent one by Tetyana Obukhanych, who got a PhD in immunology then on reflection decided her education had been very defective anyway. On the internet you can see some of the fanatical personal attacks such non-conforming authors get subjected to by corporate-aligned people.
You could also consider these comments from a study recently published in a top peer-reviewed journal (Wang et al., 2014).
“The reported coverage of the measles”“rubella (MR) or measles”“mumps”“rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99% in Zhejiang province. However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high. …. measles, mumps, and rubella remain common diseases throughout Zhejiang province. …. Therefore, the elimination of measles and control of mumps and rubella are urgent public health priorities in local regions.”
Note that this report is telling us that not just one but all three famous infections (measles, mumps and rubella) have not been effectively countered even by 99% double-coverage of those vaccin-ations in a population of 50 million. This huge study alone suffices to cast large doubts on the vaccine industry’s scientific credibility.
But maybe you are thinking that that Wang report is just a one-off anomaly, like the famous anecdotal report of men landing on the moon. Well, here are three more I have learned of from Tetyana Obukhanych:
Nkowane et al 1987 Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population: epidemiology, chains of transmission, and the role of vaccine failures. Am J Public Health.
Boullane et al 1991 Major measles epidemic in the region of Quebec despite a 99% vaccine coverage. Canadian J Public Health.
Sutcliffe et al 1996 Outbreak of measles in a highly vaccinated secondary school population. Canadian Med Assocn.
The evidence highlighted by Dr Obukhanych and others shows that measles vaccines do indeed generate some sort of immunity, but that it usually lasts only a few months or years, in contrast to the lifelong immunity created by having a relatively trivial natural measles infection in childhood. And this has two adverse consequences. Firstly it increases the risk of measles in older people, for whom it can be more harmful. And secondly it prevents mothers passing on their immunity to their babies, with the result that those infants lack that natural protection and are thus at risk of an infection which can be deadly at that unnatural age.
Four further things reflect this dubiousness of vaccine science. Firstly that their manufacturers have been granted some peculiar exemption from the normal legal liability for harm caused. Secondly that they are not required to prove actual effectiveness, but merely that they generate some antibodies, even though there is a lot more to the immune system than those antibodies which clearly don’t have effects equivalent to those of the infections themselves. Thirdly that people are often bullied into enforced acceptance of them. Fourthly that those who refuse are not challenged with any scientific arguments but instead are vilified as supposedly evil criminals putting others at risk. So I find vaccines to be at best very..
Since amalgam fillings have been used for 150 years where was Autism prior to the 1970’s when it began to appear? I know a common claim is that Autism has always been around, just not diagnosed, but the question remains, why were schools not set up to deal with Autistic students until recent decades and where are the institutions full of all those now adult Autistics?
The reality is the appearance and rise of Autism tracks the age of maximum vaccination. Certainly there may be other factors involved like ultrasounds in pregnancy, largely unresearched; C-sections and the massive use of antibiotics, but Autism was not known until the serious vaccination age and in places like Africa, unknown until vaccination campaigns.
Roslyn Ross, good question, but based on bad information!
The notion that “amalgam fillings have been used for 150 years” is one of the most whopping lies of the “health” corporatocracy. There was a huge change to dental amalgams in 1976 with the change to non-gamma-2 amalgams, which emit 20-50- times more mercury vapour.
And you are entirely correct to challenge the notion that autism has not increased. There is a huge disinformation operation to pretend that increase has not happened. You need to search for “Experts Catastrophe” and read the Chapter 3 which explains all about the catastrophe of non-gamma-2 amalgams.
I suggest that you also read the Chapter 6 as indicated above (websearch for “Experts Catastrophe”). The graph 6.4 therein, from Mark Blaxill, appears to show vaccines and autism concurring. But the improved graph 6.5 shows that the relationship does not stand up to more informed analysis. You need to also take into account the other evidence, both empirical and theoretical. The still-unfaulted antiinnatia theory of autism (Chapter 7) predicted autism resulting not from a big hammer-blow process (vaccination) but from a constant genetic-info-being-held-hostage process (constant chronic breathing of mercury vapour).
Apart from that you are just stating true facts that happen to also agree with the fact of dental amalgams being the main cause of autism nowadays. Cheers.
Re: changes to amalgam. I don’t know about you but most children I know don’t get amalgam fillings, or any fillings, until they have their adult teeth which is beyond the age of seven. Yes, I know some dentists do fill ‘milk teeth’ but generally it is not common.
So, hard to argue, even if you are correct this is affecting children. Also, many cases of Autism begin in very young children, long before any dental fillings, i.e. 18 months to 2 or 3 years, and as parents identify, following vaccination.
I just do not think the practice of putting amalgam fillings in the teeth of children aged from 1-5 years is common enough to support your case.
What is the rate of dental fillings for children aged 1-5 years in the developed world? I doubt it would come even close to Autism figures.
While amalgam fillings are bad, they cannot explain why 75% of autism cases test positive for folate receptor alpha antibodies (FRAA) directed against bovine FRA. Milk protein contaminated vaccines cause the development of autism.
“Milk containing vaccines cause milk allergies, EoE, autism and type 1 diabetes” in the BMJ.
“Autism pathogenesis: Piecing it all together, from end to beginning “¦” in Zenodo.
If that’s supposed to be a quote from the paper, then it is not. The paper ends by saying
The Royal Free, most unusually, held a press conference to announce the results of the paper, at which Wakefield suggested the use of single vaccines rather than MMR, and a video was released in which Wakefield called for MMR to be suspended.
Indeed he did, in Texas in 2012. The judge there dismissed the case because it was outside her jurisdiction.
which was patently untrue, unless you believe the BMJ’s ridiculous claim that people did not read the BMJ in Texas. It remains the case that instead of welcoming a fair trial, the defendants insisted on finding any excuse to avoid it, not least by raising that jurisdiction nonsense.
Which means exactly the same as what I wrote above. I don’t have the paper on hand to check its exact last words, I have other things to get on with than trying to engage with the ocean of lies about Wakefield.
Firstly, it does not mean the same, and secondly, you put it in quotation marks, suggesting that it was a quote from the paper, which it was not. It took me one minute to find it online using a popular search engine.
Well, I’m not familiar with Texas law, but I assume a Texas judge is. But when a British doctor sues a British journal and a British journalist over events that occurred in Britain, it seems reasonable to refer the case to a British legal jurisdiction.
I venture to suggest that when you set aside the time to accuse the author of this article of “slanderous” comments about Wakefield, you might have set aside a little time to substantiate your accusation. It doesn’t look well to make an accusation of that kind and then walk away from it.
He was living in Texas at the time, and the BMJ etc were all published worldwide including in Texas.
The bottom line is that instead of welcoming the fair trial they had been sneering about for years, the defendants insisted on finding any excuse to avoid it, not least by raising that jurisdiction nonsense. And the reason for that is that this ocean of lies would have been exposed in that trial.
And while my quotation marks were clearly incorrect there, those closing sentences do mean exactly the same. I must say that you are not coming over as a very objective student of this matter, but rather one who has already made up his mind and has no plans to reopen it too soon. Cheers anyway.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But I’ll take it that being reduced to an ad hominem argument shows that you yourself are no longer interested in evidence-based argument on this subject.
I don’t think there is any truth in the statement that Wakefield was “highly incompetent at epidemiology”. The Lancet paper had nothing to do with epidemiology, it was a case review. All the stuff about epidemiology came from Brian Deer and the Sunday Times.
Dr Ritchie, you discuss Andrew Wakefield in your article – do you know it was Rupert Murdoch’s The Sunday Times and Brian Deer who went after Andrew Wakefield? See: Focus: MMR – the truth behind the crisis, 22 February 2004.
Do you know the Murdochs have links to the international vaccine industry? That’s via the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, which is involved in vaccine product research and development. The Murdoch Children’s Research Institute’s Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group (VIRGo) has received funding from vaccine companies GSK Biologicals, Seqirus, SanofiPasteur, Merck, Novavax and Janssen, and is planning to be involved with COVID (SARS-CoV-2) Phase II trials. Other vaccine trial work includes Bexsero meningococcal B booster vaccination, funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.
The original Murdoch institute was established in 1986 with the support of Rupert Murdoch’s mother, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, and her family and others.
The Murdochs’ News Corp Australia is a corporate partner of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, and the News Corp tabloids in Australia are very aggressive in their promotion of vaccine products.
It was the Daily Telegraph and other News Corp tabloids that led the ‘No Jab, No Play’ campaign for coercive vaccination in Australia. This was subsequently obligingly adopted as policy by politicians across the political spectrum, i.e. Tony Abbott (Liberals), Bill Shorten (Labor) and Richard Di Natale (Greens), and enacted as the No Jab, No Pay law in January 2016, under Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister (Liberals).
The Federal No Jab, No Pay law, and subsequent State No Jab, No Play laws, mean that children have to be compliant to the vaccination schedule for early childhood, i.e. these are coercive vaccination laws which essentially make vaccination compulsory for most children to access benefits and childcare.
Of course, many people would argue children should have vaccine products to minimise infectious diseases. But it’s not that simple as the No Jab, No Pay/No Play laws are forcing compliance without question, and destroying the ideal of ‘informed consent’ before a medical intervention. Children are now subject to an ever-increasing number of vaccinations and revaccinations on the children’s schedule.
The Australian National Immunisation Program schedule is awash with conflicts of interest, i.e. vaccine industry-associated academics are on the government committees which ‘recommend’ these vaccine products, and generally rubber-stamp them for the schedule. The vaccine industry has effectively hijacked Australian vaccination policy.
There are legitimate questions to be asked about vaccines, and I’m specifically interested in the live MMR second dose, varicella/chickenpox, whooping cough/pertussis, meningococcal B, HPV, annual flu vaccination, and all the aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products. In light of the conflicts of interest, I really want an independent and objective review of the whole schedule.
I understand the No Jab, No Pay bill for coercive vaccination was raised in 2015 by Scott Morrison, who was Social Services Minister at the time, and is now Prime Minister.
I wonder if the No Jab, No Pay bill was discussed by Scott Morrison and Rupert Murdoch during their cosy private lunch, which was revealed in The Sydney Morning Herald in September 2015, see Scott Morrison will almost certainly lead the Liberals. The question is when?
Politicians do so like to have media moguls onside, who knows what they might proffer to secure support?
People in the UK are familiar with the Murdoch tabloids, The Sun and the previous News of the World, along with The Times/Sunday Times, so you know the modus operandi.
There’s quite a story of serious conflicts of interest to expose about the Murdochs’ News Corp and the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, if only we had some astute and independent journalists to take it on…sadly we haven’t got any in Australia…
In the current dire corporate and biased media situation, people have to do the investigative work themselves…
What is overlooked in Australia is the rich can get on fine without benefits and they can do what they like.
Mr Ritchie, no doubt with best possible intention, you are still pandering to the mawkish shriekers who regard C-19 as the greatest threat to civilisation since the Black Death. It is not.
‘Official’ figures state that so far it has killed a mere six hundred and eighty thousand, whilst a little over eleven million souls have recovered. In percentage terms that is 6% dead, 94% survive.
Tomorrow, the 2nd of August is the anniversary of the Battle of Cannae, (537AUC/216BC). On a sunny afternoon in what is now Apulia, the Roman Army is thought to have suffered about fifty thousand dead at the hands of one of the greatest commanders in history, Hannibal.
In today’s terms that would represent six hundred thousand killed on a sunny afternoon in Apulia. It’s about time we put this
C-19 hysteria in its correct historical perspective.
Never let facts get in the way of propaganda, power and profits.
Please watch Dr Vernon Coleman for the best information
With childhood diseases like measles there is a dilemma. I caught measles as a young child, before measles vaccines were available. Measles tended to spread widely amongst children and most of us recovered quickly. It is generally better to get measles as a child, than later. A small proportion of children (don’t recall the exact figure, maybe 0.001%?) get a very severe case causing lasting damage or even death. Vaccination for them is safer.
Here is the dilemma. Once you start widely vaccinating, the amount of virus in circulation is so low that the chance of getting it naturally as a child is negligible. Thus, in order to protect your child from getting a bad case as an adult, you must vaccinate.
If we were to stop vaccinating now against measles, it could take a generation or more for the natural infection process of my childhood to re-establish. In the mean time, unvaccinated children would grow to adulthood unprotected, and some would become severely ill. So we are now hostages to a vaccination success.
Should we have indulged in mass measles vaccination, making us permanently hostage to it, for the sake of the tiny minority of very severe cases? Most parents, who don’t know if their child might be one of the unlucky ones, would probably vaccinate.
If, however, we could work out who was susceptible to a severe case, we could vaccinate them alone. We are on the cusp of a personalised medicine revolution. That is the hope for a future without making societies hostage to permanent mass intervention.
Since a Measles vaccine was never needed and vaccines do not create immunity – they fail to have effect in 10-20% of people, wear off in 2-10 years and require boosters, and simply delay Measles threats to when the disease is dangerous, i.e. adulthood. Why bother in the first place?
As to who is susceptible to a severe Measles bout, that is easy, doctors worked it out long ago – those living in poor conditions with poor nutrition. Before the vaccination age, Measles as a threat was seen as a disease of poverty and beyond that, a minor childhood disease from which most recovered easily, and as is recorded, with better health.
The key question is who is going to have a bad reaction to vaccines and beyond knowing around 20% of the population are highly sensitive, but with no measure for it, beyond parental knowledge, the only solution for vaccines is personal choice.
I hope you are right about personalised medicine, something holistic modalities have always done. However, the nature of allopathic medicine is generic and it is incapable of becoming personalised medicine without a radical change, and massive drop in profits. Allopathic treatments are generic – surgery, vaccines, medications, all created for generic humans who do not exist.
How do you change that to something like Homeopathic medicine which uses symptoms as a guide but which treats the individual, not the disease? No money in Homeopathy or most other holistic medical modalities, hence no interest.
A lot packed up in that. Let’s take it step by step
Who said that and on what basis? Needed to do what? If you want to eliminate the disease, vaccination is almost bound to be involved.
Obviously incorrect as stated. If you mean that not every vaccine always creates perfect permanent immunity in everyone, well nobody ever claimed that they did. If you mean that no vaccines ever produces immunity in anyone, that’s clearly not true. The issue, as the next sentence makes clear, is, how much immunity.
If “they” refers to measles vaccines, we need to see a reference for that. A quick search produced “An assessment of measles vaccine effectiveness, Australia, 2006″“2012”, a review suggesting “Vaccine effectiveness was estimated at 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.5″“98.0%) for one dose and 99.7% (95% CI: 99.2″“99.9%) for two doses of measles vaccine. For at least one dose, effectiveness was estimated at 98.7% (95% CI: 97.9″“99.2%).”
Miller (1987) observed protection for 21 years in the UK.
This fails to distinguish between direct individual protection and herd immunity. If a sufficiently high degree of the population are immune, then the disease will not spread and indeed tend to die out. The protection for an adult in the UK comes directly, if they have had the disease or been vaccinated, and indirectly from the fact that they are extremely unlikely to encounter the disease at all. The WHO objective is in fact to eliminate measles in the same way that smallpox has been eliminated.
“The WHO objective is in fact to eliminate measles”
Never underestimate the stupidity of the WHO.
We are finding out now that if there was circulating measles, mumps, rubella, the population will have strong natural ongoing immunity to those diseases which would have made COVID-19 a nameless, harmless, common cold-like-coronavirus, due to cross protection.
“Homologous protein domains in SARS-CoV-2 and measles, mumps and rubella viruses: preliminary evidence that MMR vaccine might provide protection against COVID-19” on Medxriv.
It depends what you mean by “bad” and “highly sensitive”. About 20% of children will have a “minor” reaction that includes a temperature and feeling unwell to some vaccinations, and 50% for whooping cough, whereas other vaccinations very much less. “Severe” reactions, deserving medical attention, although not necessarily damaging, occur with frequencies ranging from 1 to 300 per million. Again, whooping cough is the outlier.
But there’s a paradox about individual choice. How do you propose to know ahead of time whether or not any given child will suffer reactions, minor, severe or serious?
“frequencies ranging from 1 to 300 per million”
Vaccinologists admit they have no clue how vaccines work/fail/hurt humans. Numbers like these are arrant nonsense. Vaccine damage can occur years later. Vaccinated mom can give birth to a vaccine injured child. Who’s counting that?
I really don’t think that’s true.
See “How long do vaccines last? The surprising answers may help protect people longer” in Science.
“Immunological mechanisms of vaccination” by Pulendran.
Have you been following the discussion about immunity after coronavirus? There seems to be a lot of uncertainty on this matter. And most people do not seem to be troubled by this coronavirus.
Goodness knows how they’re working on coronavirus vaccines when so much is unknown about immunity…
Looks like we’re heading towards a massive experiment, have the guinea pigs given their ‘informed consent’?
I didn’t say — of course — that vaccinologists claim to know everything. That would be absurd: as absurd as the claim that they “admit they have no clue how vaccines work”.
David, you have asked a very important question, i.e. “Should we have indulged in mass measles vaccination, making us permanently hostage to it, for the sake of the tiny minority of very severe cases?”
Consider your question in light of a statement made by Heidi Larson at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit in December last year[1], i.e.
Bear in mind that Heidi Larson is an anthropologist and Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, a ‘Big Brother’ organisation which promotes vaccine products and monitors dissent about vaccination, which is called ‘vaccine hesitancy’. The New York Times described The Vaccine Confidence Project as “a London-based academic endeavour that monitors anti-vaccine websites for rumors and conspiracies and addresses them before the messages go viral”.[2] The Vaccine Confidence Project is located at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Academics such as Larson, who aren’t actually ‘experts in vaccination or immunology’, are often given a platform to promote vaccination in the mainstream media, including taxpayer-funded media such as the BBC, which Larson described in her WHO lecture as “my faithful BBC”. Indeed, the BBC is faithful to the vaccine propaganda machine, along with so many others such as The Guardian, Murdoch media etc. You will look in vain for critical analysis of vaccination policy and practice in the corporate/mainstream media.
Consider for example the BBC Newsnight program “Why the anti-vaccination movement is wrong”, aired in September 2018. Dr Pauline Paterson, another member of The Vaccine Confidence Project, was given a platform on this BBC program attacking ‘the anti-vaccination movement’, but failed to disclose The Vaccine Confidence Project is funded by the vaccine industry. This is a constant pattern with these people, failing to disclose conflicts of interest. I submitted a rapid response to The BMJ including reference to the failure to disclose conflicts of interest on the BBC Newsnight program, look for BMJ rapid response ‘Pharma-led Chorus’ dominates the public narrative on vaccination, 6 February 2019.
These days there appears to be more transparency on The Vaccine Confidence Project’s ‘Partners & Funders’ webpage, i.e.
Funders: European Commission, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, University College London
Partners: Brighton Collaboration, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Chatham House, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), European Commission, European Medicines Agency, Gallup International, Imperial College London, International Pediatric Association, International Vaccine Institute, LVCT Kenya, National University of Singapore, ProMED, Public Health England (PHE), Public Health Foundation of India, Sabin Vaccine Institute, World Health Organization (WHO)
In the past The Vaccine Confidence Project has also received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but of course the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is still influential in The Vaccine Confidence Project because it is the No. 1 contributor to the WHO, with the BMGF-founded Gavi Alliance in fourth place behind the US and UK, plus the BMGF has tentacles across global ‘public health’, it’s basically running the show.
David, I’ve given you some background on Heidi Larson and The Vaccine Confidence project. What do you think about Larson’s comments about the human population being shifted to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity, made at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit in December last year?
References:
1. Plenary lecture – Professor Heidi Larson – Vaccine safety in the next decade: Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019.
2. How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers. The New York Times, 19 January 2019.
3. World Health Organization: Funding by contributor – updated until Q2-2020.
David, you have asked a very important question, i.e. “Should we have indulged in mass measles vaccination, making us permanently hostage to it, for the sake of the tiny minority of very severe cases?”
Consider your question in light of a statement made by Heidi Larson at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit in December last year[1], i.e.
“…we’re in a unique position in human history, where we’ve shifted the human population to vaccine-induced, to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity. And that’s on the great assumption that populations would cooperate. And for many years people lined up, the six vaccines, people were there, they saw the reason. We’re in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations. We don’t have a choice but to make that effort, to make that extra…
Our biggest, one of our biggest challenges, I think now, is getting rid of the term anti-vax, getting rid of the hostile language, and starting to have more conversations, to be open to questions, to make people feel like they shouldn’t be judged when they’re asking questions. As crazy as those questions might seem to you, as, as stupid as they might seem, or as ignorant as they might seem. We can’t risk losing another person’s confidence in safety right now.”
Bear in mind that Heidi Larson is an anthropologist and Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, a ‘Big Brother’ organisation which promotes vaccine products and monitors dissent about vaccination, which is called ‘vaccine hesitancy’. The New York Times described The Vaccine Confidence Project as “a London-based academic endeavour that monitors anti-vaccine websites for rumors and conspiracies and addresses them before the messages go viral”.[2] The Vaccine Confidence Project is located at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Academics such as Larson, who aren’t actually ‘experts in vaccination or immunology’, are often given a platform to promote vaccination in the mainstream media, including taxpayer-funded media such as the BBC, which Larson described in her WHO lecture as “my faithful BBC”. Indeed, the BBC is faithful to the vaccine propaganda machine, along with so many others such as The Guardian, Murdoch media etc. You will look in vain for critical analysis of vaccination policy and practice in the corporate/mainstream media.
Consider for example the BBC Newsnight program “Why the anti-vaccination movement is wrong”, aired in September 2018. Dr Pauline Paterson, another member of The Vaccine Confidence Project, was given a platform on this BBC program attacking ‘the anti-vaccination movement’, but failed to disclose The Vaccine Confidence Project is funded by the vaccine industry. This is a constant pattern with these people, failing to disclose conflicts of interest. I submitted a rapid response to The BMJ including reference to the failure to disclose conflicts of interest on the BBC Newsnight program, look for BMJ rapid response ‘Pharma-led Chorus’ dominates the public narrative on vaccination, 6 February 2019.
These days there appears to be more transparency on The Vaccine Confidence Project’s ‘Partners & Funders’ webpage where it lists vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Merck as funders, and Public Health England and the World Health Organization as partners, among others.
In the past The Vaccine Confidence Project has also received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but of course the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is still influential in The Vaccine Confidence Project because it is the No. 1 contributor to the WHO[3], with the BMFG founded Gavi Alliance in fourth place behind the US and UK, plus the BMGF has tentacles across global ‘public health’, it’s basically running the show.
David, I’ve given you some background on Heidi Larson and The Vaccine Confidence project. What do you think about Larson’s comments about the human population being shifted to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity, made at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit in December last year?
References:
1. Plenary lecture – Professor Heidi Larson – Vaccine safety in the next decade: Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019.
2. How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers. The New York Times, 19 January 2019.
3. World Health Organization: Funding by contributor – updated until Q2-2020.
Very interesting. It sounds as if Prof. Larson is fully aware of the dependency question.
One of the things that worries me about this is the degree to which we have made our civilisation fragile to so many too-big-to-fail systems. Sooner or later they will fail, and with them our entire civilisation. Then we shall see mass starvation and uncontrollable pandemics, because there was nothing on a smaller scale to fall back on.
When it comes to vaccinations, they should be available for the really terrible diseases like smallpox, diphtheria, polio, tuberculosis etc. (on a voluntary basis).
For diseases like measles which are relatively benign, we should not be trying to eradicate them. The best defence is natural immunity. We need a strategy to restore the natural order (perhaps starting to vaccinate later and later, until we need only vaccinate adults). Ideally, we should try to find out if there are any genetic predispositions to severe childhood cases and vaccinate those (although I suspect that those might also be the ones who react badly to vaccines).
I am a physicist, not an expert in vaccines. However it is my job to ask questions about systems. (By the way, I always told my students, “the only stupid question is the one you don’t ask!”).
Polio is harmless. When infected if you injure a muscle using an injection (ANY injection or vaccine), only then the virus gets access to muscle and damaged nerve fibers to create crippling polio. Crippling polio is iatrogenic. We are repeating that with AFM now.
Pl. see “Injections and acute flaccid myelitis: the dog that hasn’t barked” by Dr. Cunningham, in the BMJ.
Vinu, consider below this comment from Jonas Salk, in response to Ronald Schultz’s comment about maternal antibody in puppies*:
“In polio, the immune response that’s required is not the same. It’s altogether humoral, and in fact, it is so efficient that all you need is the capacity to respond rapidly. The only individuals who become paralyzed are those who have a sluggish immune response to the intestinal component of their infection. The immune response, as evidenced by the appearance of antibody in the blood, is too late to prevent the viremia that occurs. The purpose of immunization is simply to accelerate the responsiveness sufficiently which can be done by inducing enough memory.”
Re: “The only individuals who become paralyzed are those who have a sluggish immune response to the intestinal component of their infection.”
I wonder why some people have a ‘sluggish immune response’?
*(This is from a DVM Roundtable discussion – Safety, efficacy heart of vaccine use; experts discuss pros, cons. December 1988.)
David, I think we’re heading towards disaster with this over-vaccination agenda.
We need to demand a moratorium on the addition of any more vaccine products to the schedule, e.g. coronavirus.
The schedule has blown out of sight, and there are emerging problems that must be considered – we need an urgent review of the schedule, now.
As an example of the issues see my BMJ rapid response below: (You can find the referenced version on the internet.)
Measles vaccination – is anyone worried about shorter term maternally derived antibodies via
vaccinated mothers? (25 September 2018)
In his rapid response JK Anand says “Of course I know that measles vaccine was effective.”
But are we absolutely sure of the long-term effectiveness of measles vaccination, i.e. over coming generations?
A few years ago I came across a paper in The Journal of Infectious Diseases[1,2] which summarises the results of a study comparing highly vaccinated general populations
against unvaccinated orthodox Protestant communities in the Netherlands. The abstract concludes: “Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella, have
lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This
increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.”
The discussion part of the paper provides more detail: “Our observations suggest that mass vaccination with MMR shortens, in due time, the duration of protection by maternal
antibodies against measles, mumps, and rubella. Our study was conducted 20 years after introduction of the MMR vaccine, in 1987, when about 25% of women of childbearing
age were vaccinated with MMR vaccine when they were young. This proportion of women of childbearing age who have been vaccinated with MMR will increase rapidly in the
coming years because the vaccination coverage of each age cohort is >90%. We expect that this will further shorten the duration of protection against measles and rubella by
maternal antibodies in infants and that a decreasing duration of protection against mumps by maternal antibodies will become more detectable among infants in the near future.
From my layperson’s perspective, it seems that mothers naturally infected with measles will pass on maternally derived antibodies of longer duration than mothers who have been
vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. It seems children of vaccinated mothers may become vulnerable to disease sooner. I find this very alarming. It seems nature provides
protection for babies of naturally infected mothers until an age when they may be more likely able to fight the disease themselves. But artificial interference with vaccination could
have repercussions over coming generations as the children of vaccinated mothers may become vulnerable to disease at a younger age, when they may be ill-equipped to deal
with the disease, with possibly disastrous consequences.
I make no pretence to having any expertise in this area, but the implications of this paper are very concerning from a big picture, long-term view perspective re vaccination for
future generations. Are any ‘authorities’ thinking about the big picture here?
PS: I like your stance on asking questions, this certainly isn’t encouraged in many areas now, e.g. vaccination policy and practice.
It seems there’s something missing from the quotation here? That “extra” what? Is it by any chance something to do with the WHO objective of eliminating certain infectious diseases completely? Did you have access to a full transcript of those remarks?
We remain “permanently hostage” to these diseases unless we can eliminate them, as has already been done with smallpox. It took two hundred years from discovery of effective vaccination against smallpox to its eradication, obviously we could and should do better for measles.
Since you’re so keen to pose questions, let me repay the compliment. What do you think about the WHO goal of eliminating certain infectious diseases completely. Would that be a good thing?
Careful what you wish for. Do you want to eliminate commensal gut bacteria? They can cause sepsis and death in the immunocompromised. We have evolved to DEPEND on childhood measles, chicken pox, etc. for good health. As David Barnett correctly points out, the focus must be on preventing severe cases alone.
Certainly not. Indeed, one reason, and in my personal view an important one, for the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is the overuse of antibiotics in farming to reduce animal gut bacteria in order for animals to gain weight more profitably.
Is there any evidence for that proposition?
Richard I have no confidence in the World Health Organisation. This organisation is now under the control of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the BMGF-founded Gavi Alliance, along with countries invested in the vaccine industry, e.g. the US, UK and Australia.[1]
The area of infectious diseases has been hijacked by the vaccine agenda – but is this the best way of dealing with these diseases? I’m increasingly becoming concerned that it isn’t. We need open discussion on this, by independent people who actually know about viruses and bacteria, and who aren’t compromised by industry funding.
It seems to me that we do not have independent and objective specialists in infectious diseases. Instead we have cliques of conflicted academics and medicos who are wedded to vaccination ideology, and can’t think outside this square.
Since Bill and Melinda Gates became involved in this area, things have gone crazy – and there is no accountability.
People are starting to question the motives of these ‘philanthropists’…who just seem to keep getting richer…
Look for ‘Philanthropic Power and Development – Who shapes the agenda?’ Check out Chapter 2 ‘Philanthropic influence and the global health agenda’ for discussion on the Gates’ influence on global health vaccination policy.
There needs to be scrutiny of what is going on…
References:
1. World Health Organization: Funding by contributor – updated until Q2-2020.
What I don’t understand is why Governments would be pushing the Flu vaccine given its poor ‘success’ rate and studies which link it to a greater predisposition to respiratory diseases.
Now, such studies will appear and then become increasingly difficult to find. Why would that be?
Quote : Vaccines against many infectious diseases aren’t considered successful unless they work at least 90% of the time, but flu is particularly challenging, partly because the virus can quickly change. Overall, flu vaccine effectiveness averages around 40%. Last season’s was 39% overall. New York Times article 2020.
The well-respected Cochrane Collaboration’s comprehensive 2010 meta-analysis of published influenza vaccine studies found that the influenza vaccination has “no effect” on hospitalization, and that there is “no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications.” The Cochrane Researchers concluded that the scientific evidence “seem[s] to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.”
In their meta-analysis, the Cochrane researchers accused the CDC of deliberately misrepresenting the science in order to support their universal influenza vaccination recommendation.
And then there are the studies showing a Flu vaccine may hurt not help in regard to Covid. We have yet to see, will we ever see, stats showing how many of the Covid dead received a Flu vaccination.
2020 Pentagon study: Flu vaccines increase risk of coronavirus by 36%
Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of coronavirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals with an odds ratio (association between an exposure and an outcome) of 1.36. In other words, the vaccinated were 36% more likely to get coronavirus.
2018 CDC Study: Flu shots increase risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) in children.
This CDC supported study concluded an increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI) among children <18 years caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period.
2011 Australian Study: Flu shot doubled risk of non-influenza viral infections and increased flu risk by 73%.
A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from non-influenza virus infections. Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73%.
2012 Hong Kong Study: Flu shots increased the risk of non-flu respiratory infections 4.4 times and tripled flu infections.
A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of non-influenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04″8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04″9.83).
2017 Study: Vaccinated children are 5.9 more likely to suffer pneumonia and 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis than unvaccinated children.
Vaccinated children were 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis and 5.9 times more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children.
2017 Study: Vaccinated children are 5.9 more likely to suffer pneumonia and 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis than unvaccinated children.
Vaccinated children were 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis and 5.9 times more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children.
This of course is just all rubbish gleaned from various pieces doing the rounds on social media. The story about the Pentagon study is complete and utter fiction ( an inconvenient truth dismissed by you in your assertion that the original studies mysteriously disappear ). An inconvenient truth dismissed with a convenient untruth
Actually, I don’t think the so-called Pentagon study is “utter fiction”, it’s taken, I suspect, out of context from a paper “Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017″“2018 influenza season” done a few years ago and published in 2020 in which “coronavirus” refers not to Covid19 but to the general class which was at that time more commonly associated with forms of the common cold. The use of the word in this context is of course equivocation. The claim will have been circulated on social media by somebody who either did not know or did not care about the use of the term, or possibly, knew that it was misleading and wanted, for some reason, to mislead.
Exactly
Though there’s an interesting point here about the mysterious disappearance trope. It sets up a barrier against refutation. Pointing to what the published paper actually said invites the pseudo-refutation that that’s not the “real” report which has been mysteriously suppressed. I’m sure that those commenting here are sufficiently sceptical of their own arguments as well as those of other not to fall for it, of course.
Unfortunately there is no objectivity in science-medicine and little integrity or ethics. The system is controlled by pharmaceutical money and power and reliable science is rarely found.
Not me saying that but former editors of The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine and the work of Dr John Ioannadis who concluded, Most Published Research is False.
So, are studies retracted because they are wrong or inconvenient and profit-reducing? Who would know?
A fascinating study and well worth reading. I suppose you realise that it isn’t claiming that “The system is controlled by pharmaceutical money and power”? It’s about failure to design experiments correctly for statistical analysis.
Yes, I am. It was Dr Richard Horton, The Lancet and Dr Marcia Angell, The New England Journal of Medicine who raised issues of pharmaceutical power and influence in research. To name just two.
As someone said, science sold its soul to corporations and Government long ago and is not the noble beast we once imagined it to be.
However Ioannadis articulates many areas where science-medical research fails and pretty soon one has a sense that much research is not worth the paper on which it is printed.
That is dangerous for science but even more dangerous for medicine and society.
“why Governments would be pushing the Flu vaccine”
That is to justify and pay for maintaining vaccine manufacturing capacity for a pandemic vaccine, per WHO. It has nothing to do with protecting against seasonal flu. We know the seasonal flu vaccine is not only an abject failure, it makes the problem worse by causing the development of allergy to the influenza virus itself. Influenza disease is getting worse because now people suffer an allergic reaction upon infection. This is the same disease mechanism that makes COVID-19 and secondary dengue infection so dangerous.
Yes, re “why Governments would be pushing the Flu vaccine”, as you say Vinu, it’s “to justify and pay for maintaining vaccine manufacturing capacity for a pandemic vaccine, per WHO.”
The objective is to increase the use of seasonal flu vaccines so that production capacity will be in place in the event of a pandemic. But when seasonal flu vaccines are so questionable, why should a fast-tracked experimental pandemic flu, or coronavirus, vaccine be expected to be magically effective for all?
Here’s the evidence, a report produced by the World Health Organisation, published in 2006, titled ‘Global pandemic influenza action plan to increase vaccine supply’, look for it on the internet.
The WHO report is very interesting reading. It’s the blueprint for the global influenza vaccine industry, and the ultimate goal to vaccinate all nearly 8 billion of us… And seems like that’s coming to pass now, at Bill Gates’ behest.
According to the 2006 WHO report, countries are being encouraged to “develop an immunization policy to increase demand for seasonal vaccines” and “motivate industry to develop greater capacity for manufacturing vaccines”, i.e. press upon people a generally useless vaccine for a virus that is mutating all the time. And we have no idea of the long-term consequences of this annual revaccination.
Agree Vinu, we need to know much more about the annual flu vaccines they are pushing upon us – are they not only of questionable effectiveness, but are they causing harm?
That study has an interesting history. It was accepted by Frontiers in Public Health and then retracted by the publisher. It was submitted under a different title to Journal of Translational Science, accepted, and then retracted by the second publisher.
However the text is still accessible online and makes it clear that the unvaccinated children were significantly less likely to have been seen by a doctor or a hospital. That might be an indication that they had a significantly better state of health, of course, but given the method of selection of the families, might indicate a confounding factor that the lower rate of diagnosis reflected a greater reluctance of the families involved to engage with formal healthcare, especially for such minor things as allergic rhinitis: ie hay fever. Such reluctance would of course entail a lower rate of diagnosis of a variety of conditions.
Certainly, studies can and should be questioned but why simply do that with those which raise questions about vaccines? Why not do it with those which support vaccines? You may well do so and if you do, then good on you.
Indeed, unless we know who pays for the research, who did it, what questions were asked and of whom, when and where, it would be unwise to believe any study on any topic.
However I find the double-standards very unprofessional in regard to studies which raise questions about vaccines and those which support them.
These studies get harder to find but minor childhood diseases in childhood appear to be protective.
Of course, not surprising, but such information is seen by the industry as an excuse for yet more vaccines. Don’t just let kids get sick as they once did and gain natural immunity and protection, no, add another dozen vaccines to the dozens they already get.
MEASLES: Albonico et al found that adults are significantly protected against non-breast cancers ” genital, prostate, gastrointestinal, skin, lung, ear-nose-throat, and others ” if they contracted measles (odds ratio, OR = 0.45), rubella (OR = 0.38) or chickenpox (OR = 0.62) earlier in life. [Med Hypotheses 1998; 51(4): 315-20].
MEASLES: Montella et al found that contracting measles in childhood reduces the risk of developing lymphatic cancer in adulthood [Leuk Res 2006; 30(8): 917-22].
MEASLES: Alexander et al found that infection with measles during childhood is significantly protective ” it cuts the risk in half ” against developing Hodgkin’s disease (OR = 0.53) [Br J Cancer 2000; 82(5): 1117-21].
MEASLES: Glaser et al also found that lymph cancer is significantly more likely in adults who were not infected with measles, mumps or rubella in childhood [In J Cancer 2005; 115(4): 599-605].
COMMON INFECTIONS: Gilham et al found that infants with the least exposure to common infections have the greatest risk of developing childhood leukemia [BMJ 2005; 330: 1294].
EARLY EXPOSURE TO INFECTIONS:Urayama et al also found that early exposure to infections is protective against leukemia [Int J Cancer 2011; 128(7): 1632-43].
CHICKEN POX (VARICELLA Canniff J., Donson A.M., Foreman N.K., Weinberg A. Cytotoxicity of glioblastoma cells mediated ex vivo by varicella-zoster virus-specific T cells. J Neurovirol. 2011;17(October (5)):448″“454. [PubMed] Canniff et al. reported an association between those individuals with clinical or laboratory evidence of varicella-zoster virus (VZV) infection and lower risk of glioma.A glioma is a type of tumor that starts in the brain or spine. It is called a glioma because it arises from glial cells.
CHICKEN POX IN CHILDHOOD: Silverberg J.I., Kleiman E., Silverberg N.B., Durkin H.G., Joks R., Smith-Norowitz T.A. Chickenpox in childhood is associated with decreased atopic disorders, IgE, allergic sensitization, and leukocyte subsets. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2012;23(February (1):50″“58. [PubMed Silverberg et al. also reported that wild-type VZV infection up to 8 years of age was found to be protective against atopic disorders that are thought to be “mediated by suppression of IgE production and allergic sensitization, as well as altered leukocyte distributions.
“Why is one of the most effective medical interventions known to humanity regarded with such mistrust?”
Because you don’t understand that effective does not make it safe. And it is not even effective in all cases. Trust must be earned. Vaccines are made by the worst corporate criminals. Only the insane will trust them.
“Why is one of the most effective medical interventions known to humanity regarded with such mistrust?”
Because people write articles like this? Because the effectiveness is an artefact of ideological assertion and denial?
A fair point which is likely to be overshadowed by the overblown rhetoric that follows.
Vaccine execs already stole $1 billion on COVID-19 vaccine EXPECTATIONS. No one even has an approved vaccine. You expect these people to make safe vaccines? Make them liable for vaccine safety and see them all disappear into the woodwork. They know they are peddling garbage.
Vaccines must be DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED for safety. But vaccine makers are a bunch of clueless tinkerers that develop vaccines using trial and error. So vaccines are UNSAFE BY DEFINITION.
Arumugham V. ERVEBO Ebola vaccine will create a rice allergy epidemic, add to numerous autoimmune diseases, cancer and make Ebola disease even more severe. Design for safety and vaccine safety regulation remain abject failures. Incompetence or indifference? 2019 Dec 30;
Ironically your article has attracted a number of the very nuts concerned. They will almost to a man profess intimate knowledge of no end of detail – just like on a moon landing denial site you can go down a rabbit hole with these people and spend hours debating the science.
It is bizarre that vaccination attracts this attention. It is the most minimal of all medical interventions. The majority of the population of any developed nation is regularly taking one treatment or another, on a repeated basis – for diabetes, kidney disease, depression, asthma and many other complaints. Yet they single out a single injection as their bete noir. Our immune systems are modulated by new natural pathogens every day yet a single man-made introduction is considered to be some existential threat. Must be the 5G waves getting to people.
“a single injection”…are you for real?!?!
Have you any idea how many injections are given to children nowadays?
Can you name them, all of them, the single shots, the combo shots, the revaccinations?
I was referring generically to the effects of a vaccination. I’m well aware of multiple shots, I have had many myself as I make sure to get them renewed when due and I have 3 children who have had all of their recommended shots. I could probably name most of them – would this make them more or less effective?
…And it’s not just the children, adults are increasingly in the frame – annual flu shots, pneumococcal and shingles shots for older people, pertussis for pregnant women.
There’s more in the pipeline too if they get away with it, e.g. respiratory syncytial virus, strep A, herpes, chlamydia etc, etc.
Where is this all going to end? It’s the children who are copping the most – why aren’t doctors asking questions about this never-ending stream of vaccines and revaccinations? Don’t they know that vaccination policy is dominated by academics involved with the vaccine industry, that they have colonised government vaccine committees, e.g. in the UK and Australia?
And now fast-tracked experimental coronavirus vaccines are in the pipeline, possibly every year…or maybe every six months! For a virus that isn’t a threat to most people, particularly younger people and children.
No-one has any idea of the long-term cumulative effects of this ever-increasing vaccine load. And it’s not just viruses and bacteria in these shots, there are other ingredients in the various vaccines – e.g. adjuvants such as aluminium and MF59; fetal bovine serum; polysorbate 80; neomycin, etc.
It’s time to start looking more closely at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi-funded World Health Organisation which is behind the lucrative over-vaccination racket.
And also at the countries invested in the WHO that are in bed with the vaccine industry, e.g. the US, the UK and Australia, they’re all into developing massive vaccine markets, a lot of this is about big business. And these vaccine manufacturers are largely free from product liability…and now vaccines are increasingly being made compulsory – what a dream come true for the vaccine industry!
Consider the growth of the vaccine market in recent years, from around $5.7 billion in 2002[1] to $46.88 billion in 2019, and projected to reach $104.87 billion by 2027.
Again, it’s time for an investigation, there’s a massive international scandal to be exposed.
References:
1. See 20 Top-selling Vaccines ““ H1 2012. FiercePharma, 25 September 2012.
2. Vaccines Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis… Fortune Business Insights, July 2020.
Vaccines are the best health intervention in terms of the ratio between good effect and bad effect. The more vaccines, the better. They are also one of the cheapest.
All created by vaccines.
And it is extremely important that the modulation occur as NATURE INTENDED. Influenza virus naturally enters via the respiratory tract. IT IS INSANE TO INJECT IT INTRAMUSCULARLY or SUBCUTANEOUSLY. Such inconvenient details cannot be ignored without monumental consequences.
COVID-19 would have been another harmless, nameless common-cold-like coronavirus. But vaccines contaminated with coronavirus-like proteins, turned into a pandemic.
“Immunological mechanisms explaining the role of IgE, mast cells, histamine, elevating ferritin, IL-6, D-dimer, VEGF levels in COVID-19 and dengue, potential treatments such as mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, Vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and azithromycin” on Zenodo.
“Vaccines and Biologics injury table based on mechanistic evidence ““ Feb 2020 Covering over 125 conditions” on Zenodo.
There is nothing “minimal” about vaccines. Small molecule drugs themselves are poorly understood and have numerous side-effects and contamination problems (like the ongoing NDMA disaster).
Vaccines contain tens of thousands of proteins each being 10s of kDa. They are a disaster.
You see, this is the sort of thing that makes people stop reading. Diabetes was recorded and named by ancient Greek doctors about 250BC. It cannot possibly have been “created by vaccines”. Asthma is described in ancient Egyptian texts from even earlier. Depression is described in the classic Anatomy of Melancholy from 1621 and there’s an account in Pepys’s diary of being operated on for kidney stones in 1658, both again before vaccines.
So what you write here is manifestly incorrect.
If you want to make a case that these things are more common because of vaccination, or that some cases may be caused by vaccination, then by all means produce some evidence. But to make sweeping statements that are on the face of it obviously and completely false is going to lose you the attention of even the most sympathetic reader.
This is surely semantic splitting of hairs. VA was surely making the claim that vaccines has been the cause of such complaints in individuals, not that they were not known before.
Oh dear. length inversely proportional to useful content.
Why does this comment keep getting deleted?!
The scene is being set for compulsory coronavirus vaccination…
In Australia, we are now operating under a ‘human biosecurity emergency’ and this relates to ‘human coronavirus with pandemic potential’. This emergency declaration has been extended to 17 September 2020.[1]
The Australian Biosecurity Act 2015 outlines steps that can be taken during this emergency, and it seems that the Director of Human Biosecurity, who is also the Chief Medical Officer, is calling the shots now. This person can direct an individual to comply with a human biosecurity control order, i.e. managing contacts, decontamination, examination, body samples, and vaccination or treatment.[2]
If an individual doesn’t comply with a human biosecurity control order, e.g. vaccination, they are at risk of penalty of five years imprisonment and/or a $63,000 fine.
So if a coronavirus vaccination was available right now, people could be coerced to have it by the Director of Human Biosecurity/Chief Medical Officer. Also keep in mind vaccine manufacturers are likely to have freedom from liability for these vaccine products. So if another ‘human biosecurity emergency’ is declared in future for the coronavirus situation, when and if a vaccine becomes available, individuals could be coerced to have this vaccine product, and the manufacturer would be free from liability if a side effect occurs.
Just let that sink in… I’ve raised this in previous comments, but I’m wondering if readers are taking in the significance of this? Remember, this could also happen in other countries.
Right now in Australia, we are under the power of the Director of Human Biosecurity/Chief Medical Officer – not someone who is an elected individual. There are many unelected individuals in this country who are making decisions affecting all of us in regards to the coronavirus situation, e.g. Chief Health Officers in all the states, and also academics in various disciplines.
I also wonder who initiated the Australian Biosecurity Act 2015, and how this was allowed by politicians, because our rights to bodily autonomy and ‘informed consent’ before a medical intervention have been trashed by this Act.
The situation in Australia is extremely serious, and most people here have no idea…they’re nearly all beguiled by the virus…
References:
1. Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Declaration 2020 made under section 475 of the Biosecurity Act 2015.
2. See the Biosecurity Act 2015, Part 3, Division 2, Subdivision C – When an individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure.
My Goodness! I can’t believe you are quoting Brian Deer to claim Wakefield was a fraud. You need to do some wider research.
When it comes to vaccines, for many, good quality objective research just does not happen. Anyone who reads the court transcript and who has followed the case since and the exonerations of the others also charged, part of the 13 strong team, would know that Deer was dodgy.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nephew of former American President John F. Kennedy, in a lengthy piece exposed Bill Gates agenda in India and his “obsession with vaccines”.
A month later, based on an intercepted human intelligence report, a controversy erupted in Nigeria whereby it was revealed that Bill Gates offered $10 million bribe for a forced vaccination program for Coronavirus to the Nigerian House of Representatives.
In Robert Kennedy Jr.’s own words:
Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.
Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.
Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.
In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.
In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.
During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”
In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade. Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.
A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.
Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.
In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.
This propaganda article was brought you on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
I am a determined anti-waxxer. Those wax capsules on wine bottles are a bloody nuisance and ought to be banned. Perhaps if I start a campaign I will acquire a super model girlfriend like Sir* Andrew Wakefield.
More seriously, mass vaccination campaigns generally seem to be the only things that the state does well, and one of the few things the state should even attempt to do. That said, the mad rush for a C-19 vaccine will probably lead to all manner of disasters.
*I assume he’s been knighted. Most criminals are Knights of the Realm these days.
My eldest child had a very serve reaction to his measles jab which resulted in a hospital trip, but this did not stop me from vaccinating my other children. Why? For the simple fact that vaccines work and prolong life.
But as this article suggests we should be carful of setting up two camps; pro vaxers and anti vaxers. Life is never so straight forward. People have different reasons for being anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine and can fall into both camps at different times in their life.
Furthermore, we should be carful to suggest or give the impression that medicine is a risk free occupation in the area of medicines and vaccines. This is just not true. A short perusal down the incomplete list of medicines that have had their licensed revoked proves this https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…. Or a search for drug trails that go wrong will result in a number of articles. This is a good example of some https://www.independent.co….
There is always a risk in whatever you do in life and people should be educated in the risk, rather than being demonised, belittled or labelled as crazy. For the last 100 years in the UK education has been the key to improving public health, this tradition should continue. And after the debate, it should be left to the individual to choose, especially when it comes to drugs, vaccines or any other medical intervention, and especially when it comes to a vaccine that has being rushed out in such a rapid fashion.
Will I have the COVID vaccine when it is available? If I was over 70 or had a high risk health condition, then absolutely I would have it. I am over 50 with no underlying health conditions and have already had COVID, so have a very low risk of COVID complications in the future. So I think I may wait a bit to see how things develop. Does that make me an anti-vaxer?
I’m sorry but I can’t but help think that those who doubt vaccines and are searching for flaws and dangers have something in common with the followers of Q Anon as featured in another of today’s Unherd items. As far as I’m concerned, Pencillin vaccines ( multiple ones) saved my life as a child similarly vaccines continue to save the lives of millions. And every year,, year in year out millions of travelers have pre- travel vaccinations
In the UK there is no evidence of Coronavirus vaccines being rushed to the point of them not being tested.
And for those sceptical of flu vaccination, there was a massive examination of Covid outcomes amongst those who had flu vaccination s and those who didn’t. The result : very strong and clear benefit from having had a flu vaccination.
For those who for whatever reason prefer not to have a vaccination. It’s you choice
It’s our choice at the moment. If, however, we are placed in a position wherein we’re unable to participate in civil society if we’re not- provably- vaccinated with something presented to us as a Covid vaccine, then it would become a completely different category of choice.
If! For Christ’s sake, there is enough trouble getting people to get tried and tested vaccines.
I think Cyril below hit the nail on the head re choice. You are also likely right in that your life was saved by penicillin vaccines. Mine was also ended by the same drug and therein lies the issue. If it’s mandatory how are we to know who may react to it. I reacted badly to diptheria, I’m allergic to penicillin etc. If I’m forced to have it in order to participate in society where does that leave me?
Personally, any form of mandated vaccine raises a flag in my mind.
What on Earth makes you think you are going to be forced to have a vaccine that harms you
What on earth makes you think it won’t happen. Vaccines do harm or can do harm and in many places are now forced on children or they cannot attend school. Many are compulsory in health-care professions. We already have forced vaccines.
As I say, good luck and good health to all you anti vaccine people
We don’t even have a vaccine yet and it could well be that any effective vaccine is years away. It could also be that, with some probability it will be developed by China who might well be reluctant to let the west get anywhere near it until the Billions of Chinese have had the opportunity.
I wish everyone would calm down about what Gates did or didn’t say. He is Bill Gates and IT businessman and I can hardly see the health bodies throughout the world saying ‘ooh and IT man says it would be a good idea, we must do it
Penicillin is not a vaccine it is an antibiotic that, true, has saved many lives.
And in the vaccination age and the age of overuse of antibiotics, many more are allergic to Penicillin and most antibiotics are increasingly useless. Modern science and medicine has abused a once valuable resource.
“Penicillin vaccines”? Penicillin (or its variant) has no doubt saved my life (and several times) but penicillin is a treatment not a prevention -even injected it is not a vaccine. Interventions to stop people become more ill or dying are in no way comparable to subjecting whole populations to an increasing number of biotech products.
There is no such thing as a 100% safe medicine or treatment . Even the humble painkiller can be fatal for some yet billions are consumed quite happily. If you think prevention is worse than trying and possibly failing to cure that’s your choice but it seems incredibly brutal to me – don’t vaccinate it might cause some side effect, let people die instead. How can you ever defend such a position
Can you provide sources for your claim-
there was a massive examination of Covid outcomes amongst those who had flu vaccination s and those who didn’t. The result : very strong and clear benefit from having had a flu vaccination.
And then there is this:
2020 Pentagon study: Flu vaccines increase risk of coronavirus by 36%
Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of coronavirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals with an odds ratio (association between an exposure and an outcome) of 1.36. In other words, the vaccinated were 36% more likely to get coronavirus.
2018 CDC Study: Flu shots increase risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) in children.
This CDC supported study concluded an increased risk of acute respiratory illness (ARI) among children <18 years caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period.
2011 Australian Study: Flu shot doubled risk of non-influenza viral infections and increased flu risk by 73%.
A prospective case-control study in healthy young Australian children found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from non-influenza virus infections. Overall, the vaccine increased the risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73%.
2012 Hong Kong Study: Flu shots increased the risk of non-flu respiratory infections 4.4 times and tripled flu infections.
A randomized placebo-controlled trial in Hong Kong children found that flu shots increased the risk of non-influenza viral ARIs fivefold (OR 4.91,CI 1.04″8.14) and, including influenza, tripled the overall viral ARI risk (OR 3.17, CI 1.04″9.83).
2017 Study: Vaccinated children are 5.9 more likely to suffer pneumonia and 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis than unvaccinated children.
Vaccinated children were 30.1 times more likely to have been diagnosed with Allergic Rhinitis and 5.9 times more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children.
epic fail
Stuart Ritchie’s failure to mention the UK Government’s “Vaccine Compensation Programme” only contributes to the public’s innate distrust of vaccines:
https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-….
Regarding the flu vaccine being pushed by Boris. I’m sure I read that cases of influenza were down 98% in Australia mainly down to social distancing for COVID being very effective against catching flu.
I guess the same is likely to happen here.
The figures are available on the ONS website. Currently more people are dying from Flu than COVID.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peop…
Or more likely being listed as covid
I cant have Flu Vaccine Grown on ovaalbumin .There are two Flu vaccines made without egg based
Significant omission in Ritchie’s article:
https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-…
I work in agriculture and for a 12 month period a vaccine manufacturer had a failure in production and vaccine was unavailable. What a disaster….now no micro chips in those vaccines!!! I go so far as to say without vaccines we could not live cities and high rise living would be impossible, not to mention the mortality rate in poor countries. Sure there’s been issues and always will be while humans are making decisions. Maybe anti-vaxers inadvertently might have the solution for global warming…massive deaths wiping out populations cross the world.
Infectious diseases and mortality were in decline long before vaccines appeared. We don’t need them to live in cities, we just need good sanitation and hygiene.
In 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published the seminal work on the role vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century.
Published in 1977 in The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, the McKinlay’s study was titled, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.”
Here are some of the major points their paper made:
“¢92.3% of the mortality rate decline happened between 1900 and 1950 [before most vaccines existed]
“¢Medical measures “appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900″“having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances.”
They write:
“Even if it were assumed that this change was entirely due to the vaccines, then only about one percent of the decline following interventions for the diseases considered here could be attributed to medical measures. Rather more conservatively, if we attribute some of the subsequent fall in the death rates for pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, and diphtheria to medical measures, then perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical intervention in the major infectious diseases considered here.
Indeed, given that it is precisely for these diseases that medicine claims most success in lowering mortality, 3.5 percent probably represents a reasonable upper-limit estimate of the total contribution of medical measures to the decline in mortality in the United States since 1900.”
Why are the anti-vaxxers winning, and how do you stop them in their tracks?
https://www.quora.com/Why-a…
How do I argue against anti vaxxers?
https://www.quora.com/How-d…
Vaccines are patently not safe in any categorical sense. Worse, they are poorly tested. And why are people asking questions? Well, it may be because while kids had 2-3 vaccinations at older ages in the Seventies they now get FIFTY in the first five years of life, beginning within hours of birth if not in utero. Why on earth would anyone think that was wise or necessary?
Anyone who grew up before the max-vax age, prior to the Seventies, knows that vaccines in general are not necessary. Anyone who reads history knows that vaccines did not eradicate diseases and neither were they responsible for declining mortality and diminished incidence. Improved living conditions did that.
Anyone who looks at how vaccines are made and what they contain would be dubious about drinking the stuff, let alone having it injected into a baby or child with an immature immune system.
And what have we seen in the vax-max age? Increasing disease and poor health in general and more so in children. Only the gullible would not question vaccines.
Standing before his colleagues on October 19, 1970, Harvard’s Dr. Edward H. Kass gave a speech to the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America that would likely get him run out of this same profession today. At the time, Dr. Kass was actually the President of the organization, which made the things he had to say about vaccines and their impact on the reduction in American mortality rates even more shocking, at least by today’s standards.
Forty-eight years after Dr. Kass’ speech, vaccines have taken on a mythological status in many corners of our world, hyped up by the people who benefit the most from their use. Of course vaccines saved the world. Of course every child should get every vaccine. If you don’t vaccinate, you will enable the return of deadly childhood diseases. If you don’t vaccinate, your child will die. If you question vaccines, even a little, you’re an “anti-vaxxer” who should be shunned and dismissed!
But what if most of the history about the role vaccines played in declining mortality isn’t even true?
In his famous speech, Dr. Kass took his infectious disease colleagues to task, warning them that drawing false conclusions about WHY mortality rates had declined so much could cause them to focus on the wrong things. As he explained:
“”¦we had accepted some half truths and had stopped searching for the whole truths. The principal half truths were that medical research had stamped out the great killers of the past”Š”tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia, puerperal sepsis, etc.”Š”and that medical research and our superior system of medical care were major factors extending life expectancy, thus providing the American people with the highest level of health available in the world. That these are half truths is known but is perhaps not as well known as it should be.”
1977: McKinlay & McKinlay: The most famous study you’ve never heard of
In 1977, Boston University epidemiologists (and husband and wife) John and Sonja McKinlay published the seminal work on the role vaccines (and other medical interventions) played in the massive decline in mortality seen in the twentieth century, that 74% number I talked about in my opening paragraph. Not only that, but their study warned against the very behavior we are now seeing in the world of vaccines. Namely, they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone. Seriously, they predicted that this would happen. (It’s worth noting that the McKinlay Study used to be required reading at every medical school.)
“¦they warned that a group of profiteers might take more credit for the results of an intervention (vaccines) than the intervention deserves, and then use those fake results to create a world where their product must be used by everyone.
Published in 1977 in The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, the McKinlay’s study was titled, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century.” The study clearly proved, with data, something that the McKinlay’s acknowledged might be viewed by some as medical “heresy.” Namely:
“that the introduction of specific medical measures and/or the expansion of medical services are generally not responsible for most of the modern decline in mortality.”
By “medical measures,” the McKinlay’s really meant ANYTHING modern medicine had come up with, whether that was antibiotics, vaccines, new prescription drugs, whatever. The McKinlay’s 23-page study really should be read cover to cover, but in a nutshell the McKinlay’s sought to analyze how much of an impact medical interventions (antibiotics, surgery, vaccines) had on this massive decline in mortality rates between 1900 and 1970.
I am confident the vaccines they make will be safe.
https://www.forbesindia.com…
Good on the particulars of vaccines. Would appreciate an article on the prevention measures in general that suffer for their success as preventing a problem makes many people think there was never an issue in the first place.
Published in September 2000 in the journal Pediatrics and titled, “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century,” epidemiologists from both Johns Hopkins and the Centers for Disease Control reaffirmed what we had already learned from McKinlay and McKinlay:
“Thus vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century”¦nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccine were available.”
The study went on to explain the things that actually were responsible for a massive decline in mortality:
“water treatment, food safety, organized solid waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices.” Also, “improvements in crowding in US cities” played a major role. Clean water. Safe food. Nutrition. Plumbing. Hygiene. These were the primary reasons mortality declined so precipitously. At least according to the data and published science.
Thanks for posting that! I heard about that a while ago and have been looking for it recently. So now I’ve got it. It’s article 11099582 on NIH and Europe PMC too
no one stops to consider that many of these “anti-vaxxers” are likely parents of children with vac
I’ve not held the Lancet in much regard since they published, in the late 80s, a paper unfairly condemning the people and purpose of The Bristol Cancer Help Center.
Well let’s consider the facts:
1. No research centre has isolated and confirmed a SARS-COV2 virus.
2. This is part of the reason that RT PCR Test is scientifically meaningless.
3. As per Dr. Stoian Alexov, head of Bulgarian pathologist, no antibody specific to SARS-COV2 has even been found by pathologist across Europe.
So the elephant in the room is on what basis are they creating a vaccine especially when they don’t even know what the virus looks like???
As well, I would challenge your view that vaccines have been this great innovation. They are useful in certain contexts but improving sanitary conditions and nutrition have had a far greater impact on reducing deaths from diseases than vaccines.
Curious when Unherd will post an article that isn’t hostile to people choosing not to vaccinate? It’s disappointing that the same old, mainstream meh arguments are showing up here.
I was immunised with hep b vaccine in my first job in allied health. So was my 26 year old boss. The occupational health doctors knew and told me that this vaccination was known to have serious side -effects as it had been rushed out too quickly on the back of the AIDS scare, so that synthetic holding agents were used instead of blood plasma. I had an immune system reaction that lasted for 2 years, similar to post viral fatigue that caused speech, language and cognitive difficulties, as well as physical bodily symptoms eg allergic reactions and parasympathetic issues. I was on a disabilities pension for a year at the age of 30 and then was told that I had to pay it all back. I was investigated by a dept of health Doctor who wrote that I was 15 percent disabled a year after the vaccination and that the hep b vaccine was the trigger. I have the letter. My 26 year old boss, in the meantime, developed reactive arthritis and could not walk for 6 months. Before that, I was told, variously,that it was a psychiatric condition, to have a baby as presumably that’s the cure all for females and to get on the now discredited graded exercise program. Hep b is a disease that is spread via scratches, and bites, unprotected sex and needles (drug users) . People want to give this to babies. I also had the polio medication on a sugar lump at school aged 7 when a little boy in our year at a London school became infected. If we respect that some children and adults are allergic to peanuts and seafood, why can’t we accept that some people will similarly be allergic to whatever is in some vaccines? This is not an either/or argument and this needs careful consideration. Not ‘nutty anti vaxxers’vs noble health care practitioners. Many health care practitioners are well aware of the side effects of vaccines.
There is clearly much concern both about vaccines’ effect on the individual and, in particular, about a rushed covid vaccine. However I have not seen much discussion of another point which concerns me. Even if vaccines do work and have no side effects they are by definition protecting those must vulnerable to the disease and therefore are increasing the incidence of such vulnerables in society thus making each generation both ‘weaker’ and more reliant on taking the vaccine. On top of that vaccines will, if they work, increase the number of people in the world which clearly does not come without consequences for us and all life on this planet.
Further it may increase the likelihood of disease mutations to get around the vaccine as has, I have been told by medical research professionals, happened with whooping cough. It certainly should happen if one believes in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the survival of the most fit.
Maybe we should consider not encouraging vaccines at all as, in the long term (even if purely good for all individuals who take them) they must be bad for society as a whole.
You make valid points. However, modern science-medicine rides on the back of its claim to ‘save lives,’ and therein lies the profit factor, as opposed to a system which creates health and a healthier society.
As it stands, life-saving modern medicine is creating generations of chronically or seriously ill people who make a fortune for those behind modern medicine, but who cripple economies and societies in the doing.
It is both a financial and a moral issue. Yes, we should look to save lives but to what end? Our nursing homes are full of aged people, popping a dozen pills a day, with poor health and low quality of life. Even worse, the pill-popping in the name of modern medicine begins decades earlier and we pollute not just people but the planet as the synthesized, artificial waste from these drugs, goes into the environment.
Modern medicine is interrupting and interfering with normal immune function development in our babies and children, thereby compromising their future health and resilience. Antibiotics, vaccines, medications given in pregnancy, childbirth and beyond, damage gut function which damages immune function and brain function.
As knowledge grows about the microbiome and its bacteria and viruses which keep and get us well, one can only hope that vaccinations and medications will be reduced. But is there money to be made from healthy people? No.
This is the greater problem. We have more serious and chronic disease in this age of modern medicine, and worse in children, than ever before. Whatever it does, and no-one disputes its skills in crisis/trauma and surgery, it does not bring good health.
With all this meddling we are creating humans with inferior biological and physiological function. Not only that, we are meddling with genetics in the natural world which may as a result, mutate into something against which we have no defence and which, unlike Covid-19, would be a Black Death scenario.
Modern science-medicine is not just devoid of ethics, morality and reason, it is devoid of common sense and humanity will pay a price for such hubris.
My God, so anti Vaxers are also anti medicine: we should leave nature to take its course – let the weakest die and the fittest survive. Kep the human race strong. Where next – Eugenics?
Unbelievable.
Anti-CORRUPTED medicine. If your immune system is malfunctioning, doctors today attack it with biologics, shooting at IgE, TNF, CD20, you name it. Nature did not evolve these immune system “therapeutic targets” over a billion years to be the bull’s eye for biologics. To understand why the immune system is malfunctioning, doctors need to look in the mirror. $53 billion corrupts the “medical scientific consensus” in the US alone per the openpaymentsdata system.
Regarding THE LANCET Oxford vaccine trial article:
Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial
Flawed approach lacks vaccine safety engineering
As previously described, their approach to vaccine safety that depends on testing alone is fundamentally flawed (1″“4)â .
The authors write: “There was one serious adverse event in the MenACWY group consisting of a new diagnosis of haemolytic anaemia, occurring 9 days after vaccination. The participant was clinically well throughout the study. The event was reported as a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction relating to the MenACWY vaccine.”
The “unexpected” serious adverse event in the control group that received the approved MenACWY vaccine is just another fantastic example of the consequences of this fundamentally flawed approach to vaccine safety.
There was of course nothing unexpected about this predictable, documented (5,6)â adverse event. This is a repeat of the Pandemrix failure that resulted in narcolepsy. There the contaminant was H1N1 nucleoprotein (7)â and likely chicken proteins (8)â that caused the autoimmune disease. Here it is non-target N. meningitidis, C. tetani and bovine milk proteins used as growth media for C. tetani, which all contaminate the vaccine (9)â .
Lack of design for safety, FMEA, means flawed trial design
The authors write: “The risks of inducing lung immunopathology in the event of COVID-19 disease following ChAdOx1nCoV-19 vaccination are unknown.”
They have another fundamental safety flaw. They will cause IgE mediated sensitization directed against not only the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein but also against all adenovirus proteins. So otherwise harmless adenovirus infections will now become life-threatening due to cross reaction. This is exactly the same problem as COVID-19 where harmless coronavirus (CV) has become life-threatening due to IgE mediated sensitization using dirty, CV-like protein contaminated, infected animal derived vaccines (10)â .
The vaccine can induce autoimmune diseases due to molecular mimicry between chimpanzee adenovirus proteins and human self proteins. Where is the analysis? Where is the autoimmune serology pre/post vaccination (11,12)â ? If a design FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) were performed, all these design issues would have been flagged. This would have informed appropriate trial design.
Th2 lung immunopathology was observed in mice following an experimental SARS vaccine (13)â . Why was IgE to vaccine antigens not measured in this trial to check for that? They only measured total specific IgG. To understand Th2 response, you have to separate IgG1,2,3 and 4 subclasses.
Switcheroo: Test one vaccine, ship another?
“The vaccine was manufactured according to current Good Manufacturing Practice by the Clinical BioManufacturing Facility (University of Oxford, Oxford, UK) “
However, mass production will occur in a different facility. So the trial results are invalid. As we saw with Pandemrix and Arepanrix, the same vaccine, manufactured by the same company in two different facilities had completely different safety profiles, thus resulting in the narcolepsy disaster (7,14)â . This is not new or unique. Egg protein contamination in influenza vaccines (and therefore their safety) is known to vary a hundred-fold among vendors, facilities, batches and over time (15)â . Uncharacterized products with parameters that vary all over the map cannot be scientifically studied as I described in my comments posted in the Annals of Internal Medicine (16)â .
T cells are not created equal
T cells activated by an injected vaccine will be imprinted with skin homing markers and home to the skin due to the route of antigen exposure (17)â . This is not comparable to the T cell response during natural COVID-19.
Repeating the Dengvaxia disaster?
Why do they think they will not have the same failure mode as the Dengvaxia vaccine (18)â ?
Conclusion
No safety or cellular immunity claims can be made. The team needs to go back to the drawing board.
References
1. Arumugham V. ERVEBO Ebola vaccine will create a rice allergy epidemic, add to numerous autoimmune diseases, cancer and make Ebola disease even more severe. Design for safety and vaccine safety regulation remain abject failures. Incompetence or indifference? 2019 Dec 30;
2. Arumugham V. Pandemrix and Arepanrix vaccine safety analysis and scrutiny fell short [Internet]. The BMJ. 2018.
3. Arumugham V. Pharmacovigilance is no substitute for good vaccine design [Internet]. The BMJ. 2018.
4. Arumugham V. Vaccine safety: Learning from the Boeing 737 MAX disasters [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 May 2].
5. Arumugham V. Analyzing 23000+ epitopes covering 82 autoimmune diseases in the Immune Epitope Database, 57% have only one and 78% have up to two amino acid residue differences compared to animal, fungal or plant peptides present in vaccines; an unmistakable signature o [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jan 13].
6. Arumugham V. Vaccines and Biologics injury table based on mechanistic evidence ““ Feb 2020 Covering over 125 conditions. 2020 Feb 5;
7. Ahmed SS, Volkmuth W, Duca J, Corti L, Pallaoro M, Pezzicoli A, et al. Antibodies to influenza nucleoprotein cross-react with human hypocretin receptor 2. Sci Transl Med [Internet]. 2015 Jul 1 [cited 2019 May 21];7(294):294ra105.
8. Jacob L, Leib R, Ollila HM, Bonvalet M, Adams CM, Mignot E. Comparison of Pandemrix and Arepanrix, two pH1N1 AS03-adjuvanted vaccines differentially associated with narcolepsy development. Brain Behav Immun [Internet]. 2015 Jul [cited 2019 Nov 2];47:44″“57.
9. Kattan JD, Cox AL, Nowak-Wegrzyn A, Gimenez G, Bardina L, Sampson HA, et al. Allergic reactions to diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccines among children with milk allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;Conference(var.pagings):AB238.
10. Arumugham V. Immunological mechanisms explaining the role of IgE, mast cells, histamine, elevating ferritin, IL-6, D-dimer, VEGF levels in COVID-19 and dengue, potential treatments such as mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, Vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine, ivermecti [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 24].
11. Wraith DC, Goldman M, Lambert P-H. Vaccination and autoimmune disease: what is the evidence? Lancet (London, England). 2003 Nov;362(9396):1659″“66.
12. Verdier F. Chapter 14 – Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Vaccines. In: Thomas JA, Fuchs RL, editors. Biotechnology and Safety Assessment (Third Edition) [Internet]. Third Edit. San Diego: Academic Press; 2003. p. 397″“412.
13. Tseng C Te, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, Newman PC, Garron T, Atmar RL, et al. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One. 2012 Apr 20;7(4).
14. Godlee F. A tale of two vaccines. BMJ [Internet]. 2018 Oct 4;363:k4152.
15. Goldis M, Bardina L, Lin J, Sampson HA. Evaluation of Egg Protein Contamination in Influenza Vaccines. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;
16. Hviid A, Hansen JV, Frisch M, Melbye M. Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2019 Mar 5 [cited 2019 Mar 5];
17. Berin MC, Sampson HA. Food allergy: An enigmatic epidemic. Trends in Immunology. 2013.
18. Arumugham V. Irrational dengue vaccine designs that ignore IgE and IgG4 mediated effects are destined to follow in Dengvaxia’s disastrous direction? [Internet]. 2018.
The US Institute of Medicine (IOM) pointed out that in 93% of the cases, epidemiological studies were useless but mechanistic studies were reliable, regarding vaccine adverse events. However, ALL vaccine safety claims being made today are based only on these broken epidemiological studies.
It is obvious that vaccines cause food allergies, asthma, autism, leukemia, type 1 diabetes and countless other autoimmune disorders, based on mechanistic evidence.
Arumugham V. Vaccines and Biologics injury table based on mechanistic evidence ““ Feb 2020 Covering over 125 conditions. 2020 Feb 5;
In case anyone’s interested, the IOM report was referring to 14 types of adverse event for which they assessed the evidence as “convincingly supports” the association.
(The 93% is 13 out of 14). But the committee did not describe the epidemiological evidence as “useless”, nor indeed did they describe mechanistic studies as “reliable” in general. But the wider point is that the committee were considering evidence of adverse events, in this case for the purpose of assessing compensation. They were not commenting on safety studies at all.
Strangely, though, the same IOM report that you cite came to a different conclusion, based on the same evidence type.
“same IOM report that you cite came to a different conclusion”
That’s why those conclusions are wrong. They are not following/using their own findings.
They describe food proteins in vaccines causing the development of food allergies. But it is buried deep in the text where no one will read it except vaccine injury victims like me. Their “conclusions” will tell you a different story. That’s why you cannot trust them.
“Adverse events on our list thought to be due to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions
Antigens in the vaccines that the committee is charged with reviewing do not typically elicit an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (e.g., hepatitis B surface antigen, toxoids, gelatin, ovalbumin, casamino acids). However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.”
So you describe them as right when they happen to agree with you and wrong when they happen to disagree with you, then?
No, right when they can be independently verified by mechanistic evidence, wrong otherwise.
COVID-19 severity is caused by coronavirus-like proteins that contaminate vaccines. Such contaminants cause the development of IgE mediated allergy to the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to cross reaction. Upon infection, the allergic reaction causes severe disease (slow rolling anaphylaxis). As expected, allergy medications such as cetirizine and famotidine therefore help.
Arumugham V. Immunological mechanisms explaining the role of IgE, mast cells, histamine, elevating ferritin, IL-6, D-dimer, VEGF levels in COVID-19 and dengue, potential treatments such as mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, Vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine, ivermecti [Internet]. 2020
These studies get harder to find but minor childhood diseases in childhood appear to be protective.
Of course, not surprising, but such information is seen by the industry as an excuse for yet more vaccines. Don’t just let kids get sick as they once did and gain natural immunity and protection, no, add another dozen vaccines to the dozens they already get.
MEASLES: Albonico et al found that adults are significantly protected against non-breast cancers ” genital, prostate, gastrointestinal, skin, lung, ear-nose-throat, and others ” if they contracted measles (odds ratio, OR = 0.45), rubella (OR = 0.38) or chickenpox (OR = 0.62) earlier in life. [Med Hypotheses 1998; 51(4): 315-20].
MEASLES: Montella et al found that contracting measles in childhood reduces the risk of developing lymphatic cancer in adulthood [Leuk Res 2006; 30(8): 917-22].
MEASLES: Alexander et al found that infection with measles during childhood is significantly protective ” it cuts the risk in half ” against developing Hodgkin’s disease (OR = 0.53) [Br J Cancer 2000; 82(5): 1117-21].
MEASLES: Glaser et al also found that lymph cancer is significantly more likely in adults who were not infected with measles, mumps or rubella in childhood [In J Cancer 2005; 115(4): 599-605].
COMMON INFECTIONS: Gilham et al found that infants with the least exposure to common infections have the greatest risk of developing childhood leukemia [BMJ 2005; 330: 1294].
EARLY EXPOSURE TO INFECTIONS:Urayama et al also found that early exposure to infections is protective against leukemia [Int J Cancer 2011; 128(7): 1632-43].
CHICKEN POX (VARICELLA Canniff J., Donson A.M., Foreman N.K., Weinberg A. Cytotoxicity of glioblastoma cells mediated ex vivo by varicella-zoster virus-specific T cells. J Neurovirol. 2011;17(October (5)):448″“454. [PubMed] Canniff et al. reported an association between those individuals with clinical or laboratory evidence of varicella-zoster virus (VZV) infection and lower risk of glioma.A glioma is a type of tumor that starts in the brain or spine. It is called a glioma because it arises from glial cells.
CHICKEN POX IN CHILDHOOD: Silverberg J.I., Kleiman E., Silverberg N.B., Durkin H.G., Joks R., Smith-Norowitz T.A. Chickenpox in childhood is associated with decreased atopic disorders, IgE, allergic sensitization, and leukocyte subsets. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2012;23(February (1):50″“58. [PubMed Silverberg et al. also reported that wild-type VZV infection up to 8 years of age was found to be protective against atopic disorders that are thought to be “mediated by suppression of IgE production and allergic sensitization, as well as altered leukocyte distributions.
The scene is being set for compulsory coronavirus vaccination…
In Australia, we are now operating under a ‘human biosecurity emergency’ and this relates to ‘human coronavirus with pandemic potential’. This emergency declaration has been extended to 17 September 2020.[1]
The Australian Biosecurity Act 2015 outlines steps that can be taken during this emergency, and it seems that the Director of Human Biosecurity, who is also the Chief Medical Officer, is calling the shots now. This person can direct an individual to comply with a human biosecurity control order, i.e. managing contacts, decontamination, examination, body samples, and vaccination or treatment.[2]
If an individual doesn’t comply with a human biosecurity control order, e.g. vaccination, they are at risk of penalty of five years imprisonment and/or a $63,000 fine.
So if a coronavirus vaccination was available right now, people could be coerced to have it by the Director of Human Biosecurity/Chief Medical Officer. Also keep in mind vaccine manufacturers are likely to have freedom from liability for these vaccine products. So if another ‘human biosecurity emergency’ is declared in future for the coronavirus situation, when and if a vaccine becomes available, individuals could be coerced to have this vaccine product, and the manufacturer would be free from liability if a side effect occurs.
Just let that sink in… I’ve raised this in previous comments, but I’m wondering if readers are taking in the significance of this? Remember, this could also happen in other countries.
Right now in Australia, we are under the power of the Director of Human Biosecurity/Chief Medical Officer – not someone who is an elected individual. There are many unelected individuals in this country who are making decisions affecting all of us in regards to the coronavirus situation, e.g. Chief Health Officers in all the states, and also academics in various disciplines.
I also wonder who initiated the Australian Biosecurity Act 2015, and how this was allowed by politicians, because our rights to bodily autonomy and ‘informed consent’ before a medical intervention have been trashed by this Act.
The situation in Australia is extremely serious, and most people here have no idea…they’re nearly all beguiled by the virus…
References:
1. Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Declaration 2020 made under section 475 of the Biosecurity Act 2015.
2. See the Biosecurity Act 2015, Part 3, Division 2, Subdivision C – When an individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure.
The scene is being set for compulsory coronavirus vaccination…
In Australia, we are now operating under a ‘human biosecurity emergency’ and this relates to ‘human coronavirus with pandemic potential’. This emergency declaration has been extended to 17 September 2020.[1]
The Australian Biosecurity Act 2015 outlines steps that can be taken during this emergency, and it seems that the Director of Human Biosecurity, who is also the Chief Medical Officer, is calling the shots now. This person can direct an individual to comply with a human biosecurity control order, i.e. managing contacts, decontamination, examination, body samples, and vaccination or treatment.[2]
If an individual doesn’t comply with a human biosecurity control order, e.g. vaccination, they are at risk of penalty of five years imprisonment and/or a $63,000 fine.
So if a coronavirus vaccination was available right now, people could be coerced to have it by the Director of Human Biosecurity/Chief Medical Officer. Also keep in mind vaccine manufacturers are likely to have freedom from liability for these vaccine products. So if another ‘human biosecurity emergency’ is declared in future for the coronavirus situation, when and if a vaccine becomes available, individuals could be coerced to have this vaccine product, and the manufacturer would be free from liability if a side effect occurs.
Just let that sink in… I’ve raised this in previous comments, but I’m wondering if readers are taking in the significance of this? Remember, this could also happen in other countries.
Right now in Australia, we are under the power of the Director of Human Biosecurity/Chief Medical Officer – not someone who is an elected individual. There are many unelected individuals in this country who are making decisions affecting all of us in regards to the coronavirus situation, e.g. Chief Health Officers in all the states, and also academics in various disciplines.
I also wonder who initiated the Australian Biosecurity Act 2015, and how this was allowed by politicians, because our rights to bodily autonomy and ‘informed consent’ before a medical intervention have been trashed by this Act.
The situation in Australia is extremely serious, and most people here have no idea…they’re nearly all beguiled by the virus…
References:
1. Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Declaration 2020 made under section 475 of the Biosecurity Act 2015.
2. See the Biosecurity Act 2015, Part 3, Division 2, Subdivision C – When an individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure.
Everyone involved in thoughts about there being some sort of conspiracy going on or it’s all a plot by Gates or so called Big Pharma has a rather narrow, locked -in western centric view of the world. The chances are that China or a number of Asian countries or even Russia will be first with a vaccine . Whether or not they rush to make vaccines available to the West is a debatable point. If some people are to be believed then China, having created the virus in one of its secret labs , is more than likely well on the way to a vaccine for its people and laughing its socks off at Westerners tying themselves in knots about conspiracies involving Gates, micro chips, dangerous Big Pharma, it’s all a plot etc.
David, you need to get with the program and inform yourself about Gates…
Nobody NEEDS the vaccine, it’s a money spinner.
What rubbish, many Millions have conditions that make them extremely susceptible to even the common flu let alone coronavirus. Are you seriously saying that no one needs protecting. How inhuman and brutal
The Flu vaccine does not protect. It is a guess anyway for what viral combination will be around and its so-called success rate is rarely more than 30%. Would you buy a car on that basis?
As you say, can you provide a source for your claim that the flu vaccination does not protect, or is this just another anti vaccine bit of nonsense?
I don’t do conspiracy theories. I find humans arrogant, ignorant, self-serving, deluded, stupid and greedy enough to create any kind of chaos without the slightest plan.
However, I would be surprised if anyone who took the time to find out how vaccines are made, how they are not tested, how they are administered, along with research into the history of diseases, physiology, immune function, who would not start asking questions about why we are doing this to our children and why those making the vaccines are not and cannot be held responsible.
Read what it in vaccines and how they are made and few would drink the stuff let alone allow it to be injected into their body, let alone the body of their child.
Your choice. There is no such thing as a 100% safe medicine or treatment of any sort .
Yes, I agree which is why all medical treatments must be voluntary and should never be mandatory.
No doubt it is why most Medical Associations in their Codes of Ethics state that no treatment should be given without the informed consent of the patient. Clearly that does not apply to crisis situations when a patient is unconscious, but it does apply to vaccination.
Looking at the performance of the US medical system and drug costs in the US is rather frightening. People having any kind of faith in Big Pharma is unwarranted. Gates is a software monopolist who benefited from his dad’s law firm and patent knowledge. I don’t support a Bill Gates monopoly in biotech which he seems intent on building. Last thing we need is medicines that work as well as his PC operating systems.
How did it come to this. In the so called developed world, we have promising signs of a vaccine becoming available to protect all and in particular those over 65, those overweight, those with diabetes, those on cancer treatments, those with lung, circulatory and heart conditions , those who care and nurse others, and more and what do we get? As reflected in some of the comments below: it’s all just to make money, ‘they will force us into vaccination’ it’s unsafe, only the over 75s need protecting and so on and even, it’s all a conspiracy by Bill Gates and others
A sad reflection of 21st Century ‘western’ society?
David, if the vaccine was just going to be for those at risk, that would be fine.
But apparently it’s not. Bill Gates, the King of international vaccination policy, says: “In order to stop the pandemic, we need to make the vaccine available to almost every person on the planet.”
He also says “we may need a multi-dose vaccine to get enough efficacy” and that “we might end up with one that only stops you from getting sick for a couple of months (like the seasonal flu vaccine, which protects you for about six months)”.
In other words that means repeated revaccination every year…the gift that keeps on giving for the vaccine industry.
Gates also says “I suspect the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule”.[1]
Others have also indicated children might be vaccinated to protect the elderly, e.g. Professor Peter Openshaw of Imperial College London.[2]
Sorry David, but there’s going to be opposition to this. You go ahead and have a vaccination to protect yourself if one comes to pass, but don’t expect others to compromise their own option for natural immunity.
References:
1. GatesNotes – What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine. 30 April 2020.
2. Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at-risk older people, say scientists. Lords committee told children may have to be immunised to protect their grandparents. The Guardian, 24 June 2020.
Why is everyone obsessed with what Gates says or thinks. I can hardly see the Chinese, Russians, hanging on his every word And what on Earth makes you think that any Government is going to make it compulsory just because an IT person says he thinks it might be a good idea?
Really David, do you know anything about the WHO’s influence on international vaccination policy, and that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the top funder of the WHO? Do you know anything about Gavi? About the ‘Decade of Vaccines’? About CEPI, which is also a funder of the Oxford vaccine trial?
I left a detailed comment on these matters earlier in response to Alison Houston, but it unaccountably went off to spam…
David, we are discussing very important matters here. In case you didn’t know, it’s Bill Gates who is leading the ‘race for coronavirus vaccines’, to vaccinate the global population with fast-tracked experimental vaccines. Do you not think this deserves serious consideration? It’s very troubling that you continue to try and deflect critical analysis of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
oh for Christ sakes. Someone , perhaps you posted some quotes from Gates talking about how the whole world will need vaccinating , perhaps multiple times, as evidence of some plot. All he is saying is the Simplest of the ‘bleeding obvious’ .- ask anyone with a bit of sense . The fact is that we will never get rid of the virus and yes , if as likely, the virus mutates, vulnerable people and those over 50 ( who make by far the greatest number of deaths) will,need annual vaccines. So what. I get the annual flu jab , each year we need several slightly different flu vaccines – rolled into one. They don’t get years of testing and they save a lot of lives. With luck we will have the same for Coronavirus. Either that or lots of people over 50 or with other health conditions are going to die. What’s the big deal about Gates funding the WHO .,it’s all basic common sense with no hidden agendas – except in a few tortured minds. How on Earth is one western foundation going to have any serious impact on what the Russians, Chinese and the rest of the world do.
David, can you please clarify your position – do you think vaccines should be compulsory? Do you think coronavirus vaccination should be compulsory?
Vaccine ps will never be compulsory except in China.
Where do you live David? I live in Australia which has coercive vaccination policies/laws.
For example, look up No Jab, No Pay and No Jab, No Play.
What do you think about these coercive vaccination policies/laws?
Look, I can see that some people fret about vaccines and in particular, compulsory vaccine. Here in the UK so far as I know there is no compulsory vaccination yet some 95% plus routinely take all recommended vaccines . If we want to travel to many parts of the world, vaccines are highly recommended and people happily take them, including for their children. Travel to some countries would be a nightmare and very high risk without vaccination and could well involve sending children to their death. If you want to go to some countries they won’t let you in without proof of vaccination – I’m not totally sure but I think the millions of Muslims who go on the Haj ( if that’s what it’s called) from all parts of the world have to show proof of some vaccination ( can’t remember which one) . Compulsory vaccination is not new, vaccination is by no means new, billions of lives have been saved, billions of lives have been protected from debilitating conditions, billions upon billions upon billions of vaccinations have been taken .
Why is there some consternation about a possible ( we don’t yet have one) Coronavirus vaccine – it’s just another one of many and without them, our lives would be so very different, dangerous and perhaps impossible in its current form – no more gap years, no holidays to Asia and Africa, no business trips to such places and more, no overseas jobs in engineering, teaching, finance, agriculture , nursing, health or anything . A large part of the world would be out of bounds. (Interestingly, some warm country diseases are beginning to pop up in Europe so maybe in the next 50 or more years Europeans will require vaccines for these)
Having spent decades living in India and four African countries without being vaccinated, I can assure you, they are not necessary.
Lucky you. I got vaccinated for the same places
Vaccines are already compulsory in many parts of the US or a child does not get to go to childcare or school. How compulsory do you need to be?
In Australia poor parents are forced to vaccinate so they can get benefits. Rich parents can do what they like. How compulsory do you need to be?
It’s your choice! Play the game and take your personal responsibility or get out of the game. In any health care system there has to be a responsibility on the citizen to take responsibility for their health.
There is no such thing as a 100% safe medicine . It’s all about balancing risks. Check your paracetamol leaflet – even the humble painkiller carries some significant risks yet it is taken by billions.
Anti vaxxers are nuts. Well, he’s right isn’t he. In Spain or France parents have to present their children’s vaccination book before they’re allowed to attend school. Should bring in something similar here.