Vaccines and Autism: Expert Exposes DOJ Vaccine Fraud

a reply to: Athetos

Because more kids survive even the autistic ones where you vaccinate.

Mortality rates have improved for many reasons. Vaccines were not introduced in a vacuum. Better diagnostic testing, improved treatments, better overall nutrition, increased access to healthcare -- all have contributed to lower mortality rates, and adverse complications of all kinds.

originally posted by: Athetos
Death or autism you decide.

Could get autism either way with polio. Autism or Austism that confined to a wheel chair.

a reply to: Boadicea

Polio does not affect the mind. Ever heard of Ian Dury?

ETA He walked fine with a cane.

originally posted by: Athetos
Death or autism you decide.

What percentage of the unique vaccines routinely administered prevent death?

a reply to: Boadicea

The vaccine - autism correlation/causation issue is one I have only briefly read up on (did hear Jenny McCarthy on the Stern Show years back). No kids, so this issue hasn’t popped up on my radar, yet...but you present a fairly damning case against TPTB regarding the issue. Well-articulated.

Actually, this is all about letting the public know that the government is well aware of such potential problems and are refusing to even admit it, much less pursue any research. That's the problem.

Plausible deniability. No way the gubmit exposes itself to a ‘big tobacco’/asbestos-type class cert brought by a bunch of state AGs. Covering their arse.

Nice thread — you’ve encouraged me to read up it on

a reply to: superman2012

I would bet that there is a stronger link between autism and psychotropic medications leading to and during pregnancy than there is to vaccines. Prove me wrong.

Eta: Meant to RE OP. I agreed with you more or less, except the genetic thing. I would say its congenital rather than hereditary. I say this because if autism was hereditary it would then be a recessive trait, right? Otherwise the mother or father would also be autistic. Not impossible but i feel like we would be reaching for explainations instead of considering other options in front of our faces.

a reply to: superman2012


As with the cases of Flu shots you can still get the flu, plus the probability of an adverse reaction.

a reply to: Boadicea


Hello- I hope all is well? I come across a couple herbs to do some looking at... It'll BLOW Your mind. I don't want to include any 'bias' BUTT...

"Amla" (Indian Gooseberry)

"Holy Basil"

Take these and You 'may' never get sick again...

Stay Hydrated...

a reply to: drewlander

You could be right -- at least in some cases.

I don't believe there is just "one thing" that can go wrong with vaccines. I'm sure it depends on many factors, and how many factors converge, both inherent and environmental.

One-size-fits-all bandages just don't work for everyone.

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: Boadicea


Hello- I hope all is well? I come across a couple herbs to do some looking at... It'll BLOW Your mind. I don't want to include any 'bias' BUTT...

"Amla" (Indian Gooseberry)

"Holy Basil"

Take these and You 'may' never get sick again...

Stay Hydrated...

Thank you, Jim... I'm checking out the Amla and it sure looks amazing. It's super high in Vitamin C, and I've been reading all kinds of good things about Vitamin C in general. Plus lots of other goodies in it for lots of good things.

I'll have to check out the Holy Basil next...

Thank you!

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: superman2012


As with the cases of Flu shots you can still get the flu, plus the probability of an adverse reaction.

You don't get the flu strain that you were vaccinated for. You especially don't get the flu from the flu shot.

a reply to: Boadicea

That's quite the blanket statement.

Yup it sure is, don't think that ANY sort of refutation of it isn't allowed. Or were you being ironic on purpose?

Could you please link me to the journals with the peer-reviewed double-blind placebo in vivo clinical studies that you've personally conducted and published? Thanks. Much appreciated.

What types of studies are you hoping for? Ones that show vaccines don't cause Autism, or ones that show vaccines work?
You're being very vague in your question.

Actually, this is all about letting the public know that the government is well aware of such potential problems and are refusing to even admit it, much less pursue any research. That's the problem.

Actually, most people are aware that there are adverse reactions. Most people just don't use that as the basis for their outlook though.
Have you looked into your claim that they are not pursuing any research to minimize potential problems and reactions, or is that just your narrow view?

That dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance. Despite the fact that you have no real idea what these vaccines are doing, and knowing that you are being willfully and deliberately lied to about these vaccines, you would also willfully and deliberately inflict certain harm on some to protect others -- presumably yourself first and foremost -- in the name of "herd immunity."

Ignorance and arrogance are the anti-vaxxers playthings.

To think that they know more than people that have dedicated their lives to researching and studying the diseases and vaccines is laughable and pathetic. A few "internet hours" makes someone an expert that can challenge a Dr. when they say they are being "lied to about these vaccines" is silly and careless.
You should do a tiny bit of research into who herd immunity protects and why.

I don't think you do, in fact, "got me".

a reply to: superman2012

I don't play silly word games, and that's all I see in your reply.

Have you looked into your claim that they are not pursuing any research to minimize potential problems and reactions, or is that just your narrow view?

Have you read the OP??? The entire premise of the OP -- with source links -- is that the DOJ and the CDC have been informed and have refused to further research and have destroyed evidence and otherwise covered up the truth.

Not "just my narrow view."

You declare your opinion with absolutely nothing to substantiate or back it up, and then suggest I have a "narrow view?" Please.

Further, if the federal regulatory agencies responsible won't do it, who do you think will? The Big Pharma corps making a huge profit with absolutely no civil or criminal liability on their monopoly??? Because destroying their cash cow will go over so well with their shareholders? Of course not.

a reply to: Boadicea
I figured you wouldn't reply to most of it.

Have you read the OP??? The entire premise of the OP -- with source links -- is that the DOJ and the CDC have been informed and have refused to further research and have destroyed evidence and otherwise covered up the truth.

Yes. Have you read it and all links?? There sure are a lot of "could" talk in there. I haven't seen a paper yet that proves any claim. Sure you can cite Thompson, but have you actually read "his" paper? You do realize that it was a reanalysis of a paper that said the opposite. He distorted facts, and cherry picked examples and forced a square into a circle. There was no science involved, just the opposite.

Also, why do we put any credence or respect in a Dr that originally was pro-vaccine and testified that they caused no harm?? Is it because now he is more inline with your narrow view?

Big Pharma!?!?!? Do you know how much money they make from an outbreak as opposed to a vaccine!?!? Do yourself a favor and either do some research into that, or don't use it as your argument anymore, it's silly and show ignorance of the actual money.

a reply to: superman2012

Yes. Have you read it and all links??

Of course. I wrote it.

There sure are a lot of "could" talk in there.

Um... yeah. That's the point the doctor was making. That vaccines -- in the specific example cited, the MMR vaccine -- could and can cause autism. Not maybe, but definitely.

I haven't seen a paper yet that proves any claim.

Um... again... the point of the OP is that the proof has been covered up... and it's the problem. Lack of evidence does not equal lack of truth. And I'm sure you know that. So if you wanted to know the truth, you would be wanting the evidence, not pretending that because your haven't seen it that it is not and cannot be.

Sure you can cite Thompson, but have you actually read "his" paper? You do realize that it was a reanalysis of a paper that said the opposite. He distorted facts, and cherry picked examples and forced a square into a circle. There was no science involved, just the opposite.

Again, Thompson is constrained in what he can and cannot say. The truth is criminal. You do not know all that Dr. Thompson knows. You know what those covering up the truth want you to know. Which again is the problem.

Also, why do we put any credence or respect in a Dr that originally was pro-vaccine and testified that they caused no harm??

That's not even what happened. As explained in the OP, the doctor is not anti-vaccine, and did not testify that they caused no harm, because the DOJ attorneys would not let him testify AFTER he made clear that vaccines could and can and have caused harm.

Is it because now he is more inline with your narrow view?

Hmmm... my narrow view???

You say: Vaccines never cause autism because I haven't seen the proof.

I say: This doctor says vaccines can and do cause autism in a subset of patients in certain conditions; not all vaccines all the time in all patients, but in certain patients and circumstances.

Which one is the narrow view???

Big Pharma!?!?!? Do you know how much money they make from an outbreak as opposed to a vaccine!?!?

Seriously? Let's see... multiple vaccines for everyone that must be repeated for effectiveness... meaning the failure rate will result in some measles cases and outbreaks... and in the vast majority of cases the measles will be treated with no pharmaceuticals whatsoever... so they might make some big bucks on a tiny minority of measles patients, but the vaccines will be the bread and butter.

In other words, they'll make money either way, and will be quite happy to do so.

Do yourself a favor and either do some research into that, or don't use it as your argument anymore, it's silly and show ignorance of the actual money.

Put up or shut up.

a reply to: Boadicea

As someone with ASD I don't buy it, i've had three shots in thirty years-two tetanus and one flu. Where did my Autism come from? wait a minute...it's the fluoride in the water-no scratch that-it's dem chemtrails! nah screw that, it's because my mother smoked, drank alcohol and use drugs while i was in the womb.

Sure there maybe a very slim chance-perhaps one in 300 million, my friends kids have all had their mandatory six week shots, they aren't autistic.

a reply to: Boadicea

Don’t bother arguing with superman2012...he sees the world through rose tinted glasses and thinks everyone one is stupid to believe anything that he does not want to believe....constantly asks for facts, then still refuses to believe in them.

As to his statement about flu shots...they don’t always work and in a lot of case cause flu illnesses. This I know from family and friends who had the shots, only to end up ill and in one case hospital.

Ever wondered why there so many people with autism?

Watch video testimony from nurses and doctors who gave the vaccines to children only to see their children develop autism.

Good thread

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Boadicea

As someone with ASD I don't buy it, i've had three shots in thirty years-two tetanus and one flu. Where did my Autism come from? wait a minute...it's the fluoride in the water-no scratch that-it's dem chemtrails! nah screw that, it's because my mother smoked, drank alcohol and use drugs while i was in the womb.

Okay...um... So you are the standard by which all things must be measured? I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the autism spectrum is based on a collection of symptoms, for which there is no clear root cause, and can in fact be due to various causes.

Further, the doctor was very clear that the MMR vaccine in particular, and other vaccines in general, can cause autism in certain subsets of the population. He specifically referred to those with mitochondrial issues.

But I will accept you at your word and accept that since you never had the MMR vax, it obviously did not cause your autism.

a reply to: panicman66

Thank you -- I don't mind responding to the skeptics. They serve a valuable purpose in that it's an opportunity to correct misinformation, or confirmation biases, or other wrong thinking. I try to keep in mind that there are far more people reading than commenting, and many trying to learn. I know I've learned from that process. So in the end, I guess it's all good!

I really worry about those flu shots. My daughter-in-law ended up in the hospital a few years ago after a flu shot. She swears never again! But I really don't like the one-size-fits-all approach with flu shots, and I'm not especially impressed with those giving them out. I've been told by the doctor not to get a flu shot because of existing health conditions. I've been hit up to get the shot, told them I cannot and why, and they still insist!!!

For several years now, I've been doing my shopping before the sun comes up, with Lysol wipes in tow, just to avoid them -- and the people shedding their vaccines. Seriously, I cannot believe that such injections are given in markets and drug stores, where anyone and everyone shopping is exposed to exactly what they are supposed to be preventing? How does that make any sense???

I do, however, find it telling that so many purport to want forced vaccinations to protect the immuno-compromised -- including me -- but then create greater risks for us!

originally posted by: panicman66
a reply to: Boadicea

Don’t bother arguing with superman2012...he sees the world through rose tinted glasses and thinks everyone one is stupid to believe anything that he does not want to believe....constantly asks for facts, then still refuses to believe in them.

As to his statement about flu shots...they don’t always work and in a lot of case cause flu illnesses. This I know from family and friends who had the shots, only to end up ill and in one case hospital.

Ever wondered why there so many people with autism?

Watch video testimony from nurses and doctors who gave the vaccines to children only to see their children develop autism.

Good thread

Lots and lots of people usually give up arguing/debating with me because they can't handle facts and the truth. I find it's the ones that throw out words like "confirmation bias" are the ones that don't realize they are doing it themselves.
I have many family members working in the medical field. I have friends that are Drs. I have done my "armchair research" and combine all those factors together, there are a few things I have yet to see presented:
1) One case of Autism caused by vaccines and vaccines only. (Don't you think the anti-vaxxer websites would love to have a martyr??)
2) One scientific study done with results verified proving any of the anti-vaxxer zealots.
3) One anti-vaxxer that knows the difference between the flu shot and getting the flu. Seriously. It's like they know ABSOLUTELY ZERO about their OWN argument! :LOL:
4) That "seeing someone get sick after getting the flu shot" does not equal science. I saw two crows in a field and later that day it snowed, therefore, if you see two crows in a field, it will snow later that day. bahahaha

a reply to: Boadicea


The facts are;

No one knows what causes Autism.
No paper has been released showing a connection, even though there are hundreds of papers showing no connection.
Most of this "religion" of the anti-vaxxer ( yes, religion, because it is completely based on belief and faith) is based on Andrew Wakefields discredited paper and further thrown into the spotlight because of quasi-celebrities.
People like to associate the word "could" with "will" in regards to vaccines causing diseases, when those are two completely different words.
Lack of proof isn't proof.
Proof of no link is proof.
Anti-vaxxers have a narrow view in that they disregard ALL papers showing no link and instead focus on the handful that backs up what they want to believe.
Anti-vaxxers feel they are special and will discover something via an internet search when scientists dedicating their life to their field of study, haven't found anything.
They make much more money if people are sick, no matter how people choose to view it...

That is my condensed version. I have read both sides of this argument and once stood where you are standing. I'm not saying I'm more wise than you, just that I haven't immediately discounted either argument until I read the science behind it instead of internet fear. Again, hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers showing no connection, or a handful showing some sort of connection.

Everyone loves the underdog.