It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# The Real Next Level BS of the Vaccine Controversy.

page: 4
100
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:15 AM

Links to my data (thanks to spiegelonline.de):

CDC: 400-500 deaths when there were 3-4,000,000 cases of measles in the 1960s.

Robert-Koch-Institut : Admission of vaccination damages in Germany: (1999) 21 cases of more than 2,000,000 vaccinations. BUT, those 21 cases are for ALL vaccinations, not only for MMR. Those are in the 0.2%-area (found in that same document, look at the last page).

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:55 AM
Exellent post!

S+F.

Nice to see I'm not the only one who thought this episode was a bit fishy.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:17 AM

Actually, here in the US, the percentage of people who have contracted and died from measels from 2000-2012 is at less than 0.02%. That equates to .2/10,000, or 1/50,000. Since then, the rate of death in those who have contracted measels is, for all statistical purposes, is 0.00000%. (remember, those numbers are of people who have died who have contracted it...that does not even represent the relation to the total population)

Your stats that you post do not measure up when you do the math with actual CDC numbers (which is where I got my figures), at least here in the U.S.

As for the immunization number you posted, there is no way to know how accurate that is, because it's so widely ___believed___ that the immunizations are safe that people don't relate symptoms of something to the vaccine itself. That number, at best, is a made-up guess and nothing more.

Remember--cold, hard facts, not lukewarm, squishy ones

edit on 25-2-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:19 AM

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Actually, here in the US, the percentage of people who have contracted and died from measels from 2000-2012 is at less than 0.02%. That equates to .2/10,000, or 1/50,000. Since then, the rate of death in those who have contracted measels is, for all statistical purposes, is 0.00000%.

This is not how statistics work.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:01 PM

It's how generalized percentages work using two sets of determined numbers.

I did not package this as probabilities or statistics, per se--it is packaged as taking a set of known numbers and finding the percentage. It's not difficult to do.

But, please, feel free tell me exactly what I did wrong in showing what a percentage one known number is in relation to another known number, noting that I did not say that the probability of contracting and dying is X.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:33 PM
This is one of the best damn threads I've read in a while. Thanks for putting out all this research and information, Electric. You did a great job and you've put together the words perfectly that so many of us are thinking. S&F!

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:35 PM

A >0 likelihood of death is not 0%. Measles kills between 1 in 300 and 1 in 1000, not 0%.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:36 PM
Looking at the HAPI press release, my first thought was, "Why don't they identify the four vaccines they had tested? That seems important." I went looking for more information, and found this exchange between a HAPI member and a skeptical blogger. About halfway down, it has a copy of the test report. The test was conducted on four vaccines: Prevnar (PV7), Comvax (Hib and Hep B), Pediarix (DTaP, Hep B, and IPV), and Energix B (Hep B).

Several things should be noted about this test. First, it carries this disclaimer: "Non-Standard analysis-for investigational purposes only." There are no reference ranges available for any of the tested elements. We have to provide these ourselves. There are no error bars with these tests, so we don't know how accurate they are. There is a world of difference between, say, 0.01 (+/- 0.0005) and 0.01 (+/- 0.1). But I'll work with what's available to me.

As controls, or upper and lower limits if you prefer, I'll look at a vaccine that admittedly contains thimerasol, and at drinking water. The thimerasol-containing vaccine, multidose Fluzone, contains 25 micrograms Hg per 0.5 mL. We'll call that 50 micrograms Hg / mL to keep things simple. The EPA's limit for mercury in drinking water is 0.002 ppm. To keep conversions simple, I'm going to assume everything has a specific gravity of 1. My math sucks, but hopefully doing two comparisons will help catch any errors I might make. Now, let's compare the HAPI test subjects to the controls:

Prevnar: The FDA's clinical review of Prevnar states that it is preservative-free. HAPI's test found 0.001 ppm mercury in their Prevnar sample. Since the amount of mercury found in the Prevnar sample is half that allowed in drinking water, it is feasible the detected mercury comes not from a preservative, but from water. The amount found in the sample is 0.002% of what's in the multidose flu vaccine. In any case, the amount of mercury is certainly negligible, and would have no effect as a preservative or a neurotoxin.

Comvax: The FDA's package insert for Comvax states it contains no preservative. HAPI's test found 0.003 ppm mercury. If this result is correct, some mercury may have been contributed by a source other than water. Still, it's only 0.006% of the multidose flu vaccine's mercury content. As we don't know the uncertainty of this measurement, I suspect there is no statistical difference between what they reported here and water.

Pediarix: According to the FDA, Pediarix contained a trace amount of thimerasol before 2007. Since this test was conducted in 2004, we should expect it to find some mercury, but less than Fluzone. That is what the test found. The Pediarix sample had 0.019 ppm Hg. That is several times what want in water, but less than 0.4% of what's in Fluzone. The lab's findings are about what you would expect.

Engerix B: There have been several formulations of Engerix B. The first contained up to 50 micrograms Hg/mL. The "preservative-free" version approved in 2000 contained up to 2 micrograms Hg/mL. Finally, a "thimerasol-free" version was approved in 2007. HAPI's test was conducted in 2004, so it does not reflect the thimerasol-free version currently on the market. They found 0.331 ppm Hg. That's within the range advertised for the preservative-free formulation. More than water, but less than 1% of the multidose Fluzone.

Although HAPI's test report is not very complete, taken at face value, it showed what the confirmed the information provided by the FDA. Thimerasol-free vaccines have about as much mercury as tap water. "Trace" vaccines have less than 1% of what their thimerasol-preserved counterparts contain. This report should strengthen confidence in the FDA and its partners in industry.

What conclusions can be drawn with respect to the alleged autism link? One of the tested vaccines used thimerasol as a preservative before 2000, then reduced it to trace levels, and has been thimerasol-free since 2007. Another tested vaccine contained trace levels of thimerasol, and has also been thimerasol-free since 2007. If the mercury-autism link is real, we should expect to see a steadily declining rate of autism diagnoses, with inflection points around 2003 and 2010. Controlling for all the other factors would be a beast, but I think HMOs or public health departments could do it.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:42 PM

Why is it a minute number of measles cases sends the public running to the hills, panicked. Yet millions dying from diabetes doesn't create any panic whatsoever, and high fructose corn syrup is in every school lunch?

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:49 PM

*sigh* I'm talking about in the United States, since that's where I live.

That's why I tried to make it clear when I started my initial comment with, "Actually, here in the US, ..."

Seriously--I tried to be very specific and make that clear. Hopefully pointing out my specificity will help make it specific...again.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:06 PM

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

*sigh* I'm talking about in the United States, since that's where I live.

THose stats are for the US.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:05 PM

Well, first of all the form of mercury you find in water, and in foods like fish is "methyl-mercury" not "ethyl-mercury" which is the form of mercury found in vaccines.

...
Methylmercury is commonly found in fresh or salt water fish as a result of bioaccumulation (increasing concentrations in tissues over time). Methylmercury occurs in varying amounts depending on the type of fish, with higher concentrations of methylmercury typically found in larger fish that are higher up on the food chain, particularly shark, swordfish, and tilefish (1)
...

www.epa.gov...

They are not the same type of mercury. Now, before I continue showing you again the results of biopsies on the brain tissue of animals which shows toxicity from the accumulation of ethyl-mercury from vaccines, let me show you this little gem of information again.

Mercury Exposure and Children’s Health
Stephan Bose-O’Reilly, MD, MPH,a Kathleen M. McCarty, ScD, MPH,b Nadine Steckling, BSc,a and Beate Lettmeier, PhD
a Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Information Systems and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT—University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T, Austria
b Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
...

Abstract.

Acute or chronic mercury exposure can cause adverse effects during any period of development. Mercury is a highly toxic element; there is no known safe level of exposure. Ideally, neither children nor adults should have any mercury in their bodies because it provides no physiological benefit. Prenatal and postnatal mercury exposures occur frequently in many different ways. Pediatricians, nurses, and other health care providers should understand the scope of mercury exposures and health problems among children and be prepared to handle mercury exposures in medical practice. Prevention is the key to reducing mercury poisoning. Mercury exists in different chemical forms: elemental (or metallic), inorganic, and organic (methylmercury and ethyl mercury). Mercury exposure can cause acute and chronic intoxication at low levels of exposure. Mercury is neuro-, nephro-, and immunotoxic.
...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Coincidentally, studies that were done on animals, including monkeys, which were subjected to vaccination have shown accumulation of inorganic mercury in the brain and other organs with the ethyl-mercury group of monkeys having higher concentrations of inorganic mercury than the methylmercury groups.

I am not going to repost all the abstract again, but will post specific parts of such abstract. This particular abstract is about the accumulation of mercury from thimerosal vaccine on the brain of monkeys.

Thimerosal and Animal Brains: New Data for Assessing Human Ethylmercury Risk

Julia R. Barrett

...
Because of the lack of pharmacokinetic and toxicity data for ethylmercury, methylmercury has been used as a reference for ethylmercury toxicity based on the assumption that the two compounds share similar toxicokinetic profiles. However, a new animal study shows that methylmercury is an inadequate reference for ethylmercury due to significant differences in tissue distribution, clearance rates, and ratios of organic to inorganic mercury in the brain [EHP 113:1015–1021].

During their first two years, children in the United States may receive more than 20 routine vaccinations. The rise in childhood autism has sparked concerns that thimerosal-derived ethylmercury may be at least partly to blame for some of these cases—concerns that are largely driven by awareness of methylmercury’s neurotoxicity.
...
In the current study, researchers assigned 41 newborn monkeys to one of three exposure groups. Seventeen of the monkeys were injected with vaccines spiked with thimerosal for a total mercury dose of 20 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) at ages 0, 7, 14, and 21 days, mimicking the typical schedule of vaccines for human infants. At the same ages, another 17 monkeys received 20 μg/kg methylmercury by stomach tube to mimic typical methylmercury exposure. A third group of 7 monkeys served as unexposed controls.
...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Of note, to this day the multi-dose flu shot, and some other vaccines contain 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5Ml dose, or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.

...
At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.
...

www.fda.gov...

Remember that the monkeys were subjected to the same amount of vaccine doses given to a child with 20 micrograms of total mercury per kilogram per dose.

Now, let's continue and see what they found, which I had already posted but for the sake of responding to your question will post that part again.

...
Brain concentrations of total mercury were approximately 3–4 times lower in the thimerosal group than in the methylmercury group, and total mercury cleared more rapidly in the thimerosal group (with a half-life of 24.2 days versus 59.5 days). However, the proportion of inorganic mercury in the brain was much higher in the thimerosal group (21–86% of total mercury) compared to the methylmercury group (6–10%). Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group. Inorganic mercury remains in the brain much longer than organic mercury, with an estimated half-life of more than a year. It’s not currently known whether inorganic mercury presents any risk to the developing brain.
...
Given these findings, the researchers caution that risk assessments for thimerosal based on studies using blood mercury measurements may not be valid, depending on the design of the study. Further, the observed differences in distribution and breakdown of mercury compounds between exposed groups indicate that methylmercury is not a suitable model for thimerosal toxicity.

The researchers emphasize, however, that the risks associated with low-level exposures to inorganic mercury in the developing brain are unknown, and they describe other research linking persistent inorganic mercury exposure with increased activation of microglia in the brain, an effect recently reported in children with autism. They recommend further research focused specifically on the biotransformation of thimerosal and its neurotoxic potential.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

(to be continued below)

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:49 PM
Now, the above research was done in 2005, and since, and even before then, there have been many numerous studies done on the neurotoxicity of ethylmercury and adjuvants like AI and it has been found time and again that these substances cause oxidative strees, can cause inflammation of organs and brain (encephalopathy), and mitochondrial disease. And all these health problems have been linked to many cases of autism, encephalopathy and other neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's. Not to mention the damage in other organs as well.

Another interesting fact is that during the development of the child/fetus in the mothers womb, the child is subjected to the vaccinations the mother gets. So, in light of all this research isn't safer for a person, more so a pregnant mother, or parents, to use vaccines that do not contain these compounds and adjuvants, or at least only contain small traces of them?

In the case of the MMR vaccine you can ask your doctor for a compound that will help fight the inflammation that the MMR vaccine can cause which can affect the brain. Again, ALWAYS consult with your doctor or your child's paediatrician. I am not giving specifics, you have to ask your doctor or your child's paediatrician.

BTW, I might as well make a disclaimer, I don't work for ANY vaccine manufacturer, and I don't gain ANYTHING material from giving this information out. Don't have any stocks on any vaccine company, or related group or company either.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:13 PM
Very impressive thread with outstanding facts provided. That is all I can say right now because it is going to take me days to read all the links you provided and all your one handed typing you did. I Salute your thread S&F

Regards, Iwinder

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:59 AM

originally posted by: MysterX

The answer is simple. Wakenfield has been made into a scapegoat, an excuse to dismiss the "vaccine controversy", and the NLBS people of ATS fell for it.

Most people don't realise that Dr. Andrew Wakefield (not Wakenfield), way back in the late 90's wasn't actually jumping up and down screaming about an identified link between certain vaccinations and resultant, sometimes immediate neurological disorders materialising in some of the children who received them.

He was actually trying to highlight and get some official attention and research into POSSIBLE links..here was a Dr. who true to his Hippocratic oath which included 'DO NO HARM', who thought it important the medical establishment ought to be made aware of a POSSIBLE link and act on that information in a way that would benefit patients.

They acted on that information all right...only problem was, they acting in a way that was geared up to protecting the pharmaceutical industry and not the patients, and Wakefield became the sacrificial lamb to be slaughtered on the altar of pharma profits and the medical establishment.

Wakefield was doing his job as a Doctor, and lost everything including his professional reputation as a result of it.... although in my view, by speaking out about a possible damaging link to kids resulting from the MMR vaccine...i think he's shown he is more caring and Humanitarian, exactly what his oath as a Doctor demanded of him incidentally, than any of the bastards who crucified him for it.

You've missed a few key points.

He had patented an alternative to the triple vaccine 9 months PRIOR to releasing the results of his "study".
There were ONLY 12 subjects in it, hardly a study at all, more a series of case reports.
He was paid over £400,000 to testify as a professional witness against the pharma company who made the MMR (this was never declared to the Lancet when he published his "study" btw. Conflict of interest maybe?).
He stated during the press conference that there may be a link to autism from the MMR but, and here's the kicker, HIS PAPER DIDN'T EVEN SUPPORT THAT!
"...did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described,...
Feel free to dig it out yourselves, it's all there in black & white.

"He was actually trying to highlight and get some official attention and research into POSSIBLE links..here was a Dr. who true to his Hippocratic oath which included [b]DO NO HARM', who thought it important the medical establishment ought to be made aware of a POSSIBLE link and act on that information in a way that would benefit patients."

Do no harm eh?
Do you consider performing colonoscopies, lumbar punctures and giving barium enemas to children when medically (and ethically) unnecessary as DOING NO HARM?
A fundamental principle of paediatric medicine is that no more than a blood test should be taken from children unless it is absolutely necessary for their health.
Even though NONE of those tests were approved by his hospital's ethics committee he made them suffer extremely invasive tests so he could prove his theory and push his OWN VACCINE!

If you can prove that even one of the points I've made is untrue then please do so.
Remember, I've asked you to use proof.
If you can't then I suggest that you re-think what you feel about him.

It really amazes me that he's held up to be some sort of martyr when he's just a greedy, unscrupulous bastard.

edit on 26/2/15 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:30 AM

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Another fact that wasn't presented is that there have been outbreaks of Mumps, and other diseases which have occurred and the mayority of people who contracted these diseases were up to date on their vaccinations.

Case on point.

Mumps Outbreaks in Canada and the United States: Time for New Thinking on Mumps Vaccines

Heikki Peltola1,
Subhash V. Kapre2,
Mikko Paunio3,
Rajeev M. Dhere2

1HUCH Hospital, Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Helsinki, Finland
2Serum Institute of India, Pune, India
3World Bank, Washington DC

Reprints or correspondence: Dr. H. Peltola, HUCH Hospital, Hospital for Children and Adolescents, PO Box 281 (11 Stenbãck St.), 00029 HUS Helsinki, Finland (heikki.peltola[at]hus.fi).

Abstract

Mumps epidemics in Canada and the United States prompted us to review evidence for the effectiveness of 5 different vaccine strains. Early trials with the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain demonstrated an efficacy of ∼95%, but in epidemic conditions, the effectiveness has been as low as 62%; this is still considerably better than the effectiveness of another safe strain, Rubini (which has an effectiveness of close to 0% in epidemic conditions). The Urabe vaccine strain has an effectiveness of 54%–87% but is prone to cause aseptic meningitis. Little epidemiological information is available for other vaccines. The Leningrad-Zagreb vaccine strain, which is widely used in developing countries and costs a fraction of what vaccines cost in the developed world, seems to have encouraging results; in 1 study, the effectiveness of this vaccine exceeded 95%. Aseptic meningitis has also been reported in association with this vaccine, but the benign nature of the associated meningitis was shown recently in Croatia. Also, the Leningrad-3 strain seems to be effective but causes less-benign meningitis. No mumps vaccine equals the best vaccines in quality, but the virtually complete safety of some strains may not offset their low effectiveness. Epidemiological data are pivotal in mumps, because serological testing is subject to many interpretation problems.
...
Among 363 male patients in Iowa, 27 (8%) had cases of orchitis, and of 1254 patients involved in the epidemic, 4 (0.3%) developed encephalitis [4]. Several cases of meningitis, deafness, oophoritis, mastitis, and pancreatitis have been diagnosed in patients involved in the outbreaks. Because the manifestations and severity of disease in vaccinees do not much differ from those found in nonvaccinated populations [7, 8], vaccinees with disease have not gained much from vaccination. Among 1798 patients in the United States, only 123 (7%) were unvaccinated, 245 (14%) had received 1 dose of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, and 884 (49%) were vaccinated twice [3]. In the first outbreak in Canada, 9 (69%) of 13 teenagers had received 2 doses of MMR vaccine [1]. There remains little room for discussion as to whether most cases involve vaccine failure; they do.
...

cid.oxfordjournals.org...

The same can happen with Measles, and other diseases. Not to mention the mutations that can incur in these viruses in just one year, not to mention several years.

So the claim that the measles outbreak was because "anti-vaxxers" could be for all intent and purposes false, since other outbreaks have occurred and the mayority of people were vaccinated against that virus yet they got sick.

Yep, the mumps vaccine (whether single or part of the MMR) doesn't provide as much protection as would be liked, but even 50% effectiveness is still better than none.

However, look at the numbers in the highlighted part you've posted at the end.
7% of the cases were completely unvaccinated.
Since the vaccine has around 90-95% uptake, that would mean that pretty much 100% of those who were unvaccinated contracted the disease.

Doesn't have the same ring to it when it's presented like this does it?

As for the measles mutating, whilst the genotype may change, the serotype doesn't.
The vaccine protects against the serotype so any fluctuation in genotype doesn't make it less effective.

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:37 AM

Where you posting from buddy?

I've not seen you about much so I looked at your previous posts - there are none and when I look at your join date....

The '?' is missing from your profile posts page too.

You a glitch or a shill?

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:48 AM

originally posted by: and14263

Where you posting from buddy?

I've not seen you about much so I looked at your previous posts - there are none and when I look at your join date....

The '?' is missing from your profile posts page too.

You a glitch or a shill?

I'm neither.
I think there may be a glitch on the system though as here's my profile.

edit on 26/2/15 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:55 AM

Just having a bit of fun. Nothing to take personally.

If you’ve ever had the date on a mobile phone, iPod, or computer software mysteriously switch to December 31, 1969, you may have thought it was simply random. However, the reason behind this odd glitch is a nice little tidbit of computer trivia.

Unix is a computer operating system that, in one form or another, is used on most servers, workstations, and mobile devices. It was launched in November 1971 and, after some teething problems, the “epoch date” was set to the beginning of the decade, January 1, 1970. What this means is that time began for Unix at midnight on January 1, 1970 GMT. Time measurement units are counted from the epoch so that the date and time of events can be specified without question. If a time stamp is somehow reset to 0, the clock will display January 1, 1970.

So where does December 31 fit in? It’s because you live in the Western Hemisphere. When it’s midnight in Greenwich, England, it’s still December 31st in America, where users will see December 31, 1969 - the day before Unix’s epoch.

edit on 26-2-2015 by and14263 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 09:42 AM
It surprises me that very few question the mechanism of a "no-fault" vaccine court. By it's very nature, it is designed to allow victims of adverse effects (that apparently don't happen) to be compensated while at the same time officially putting a "NO LINK HERE" stamp on each and every case that gets compensation.

How can you have unbiased research on a subject when every case that is officially recognized is officially stamped with "no-fault/no-link/case-details-sealed" because of the settlement terms.

Since it is the only venue allowed for such cases, victims of adverse effects have no other choice. If you wan't compensation, sign the settlement/NDA etc.

I am just saying that it should raise suspicions that almost all other medical procedures have the normal court system as the venue for damages, where fault can be made and has led to many many faulty medications being pulled and real unbiased research suddenly coming to light.

However the one industry telling you everything is perfectly fine has its own special "no fault" court.

top topics

100