I personally know a few people who have developed brain injuries and autism through vaccination. More commonly, I see individuals who have less overt forms of autism following vaccination, and in many cases, if you are watchful, you can see these changes occurring immediately following vaccination. In contrast, on an almost daily basis…
I personally know a few people who have developed brain injuries and autism through vaccination. More commonly, I see individuals who have less overt forms of autism following vaccination, and in many cases, if you are watchful, you can see these changes occurring immediately following vaccination. In contrast, on an almost daily basis I am deluged with colleagues who cite the idea that vaccination causes autism as one of the most harmful forms of medical misinformation and ridiculous unfounded beliefs that has ever been perpetuated on the public.
What a lot of people do not appreciate is how hard it is to produce research that goes against the status quo or questions taboo subjects. As far as I was able to tell from reviewing Andrew Wakefield story, he did everything right (which is why his original study was published). The thing very few people realize, is that it is almost impossible to 100% follow every single rule and regulation, so you run into a situation where law enforcement tends to be extremely selective and typically targeted towards individuals who question the status quo or commit political offenses, thereby making an example out of them so others do not attempt to do the same thing (this is a common tactic used by those attempting to have power, because it allows them to exponentially magnify the force exerted by making a single example out of someone and whoever creates the most power typically ends up being in power).
The specific things Wakefield was accused of doing were very minor and I regularly see much worse things conducted in research that nobody bats an eye towards. However without knowing that context, it makes the allegations against him (many of which were false) look atrocious, and he is thus in the unfortunate situation where he has been made a pariah, not allowed to defend himself against unfair accusations (which is why it is so vital you are giving a platform to him here), and is forced to shoulder a large burden to help these vaccine injured children because almost no one else will. I have tried to debate Wakefield situation with colleagues, and in most cases I found it's a lost cause because of how much their brains glaze over on the topic.
One of the major issues with the vaccination program is that everyone adamantly refuse to ever conduct a controlled study comparing giving the childhood immunization schedule to not giving the child an immunization schedule under the rationalization that "immunization are so beneficial, it is unethical to ever conduct a study where subjects are prevented from being immunized.” Given that as it is extremely unlikely children will suffer significant harm from any of the childhood illnesses vaccinations are provided for (this is analogous to children having an almost 0% risk of dying from Covid), it is highly questionable to argue they are exposed to a significant risk through not vaccinating. Additionally, there are a large number of studies that suggest a childhood immunization schedule is harmful, and the large number of studies showing improved health outcomes for children who are not vaccinated. Hence, if you dissect this argument, it's essentially saying we can never permit a double blind study of the childhood immunization schedule to be conducted because it would be abundantly clear that it is harmful.
When you look through all the research, a pattern then emerges where studies cited that question the benefits of the childhood immunization schedule are dismissed because they are "not randomized control studies” and therefore subject to a variety of biases that make them invalid (ignoring of course the fact that these types of studies are explicitly prohibited from ever being conducted). At the same time, research in favor of the vaccination schedule never is held to that same standard (and these cases correlation DOES prove causation). In a few cases, such as that of the CDC whistleblower, it has also been shown that the CDC worked diligently to conceal and hide a clear link between autism and vaccination that was present within their data set (the FDA has likewise done this with many other harmful drugs; I’m presently writing about how hard they worked to cover up the issues with SSRIs).
In addition to Wakefield, another physician who attempted to produce a study showing the benefits of not immunizing, Paul Thomas, had his medical license revoked after he published his study, for conducting unethical research (plus a few other things). I've read through this case in detail, and I believe a few of Thomas's actions merited disciplinary sanctions (but not as severe as revoking his license), however it was abundantly clear he was targeted for his study because the medical board repeatedly tried to force him to provide the raw data he collected that was supposed to remain anonymous. Thomas had to practice where many of his patients were not vaccinated, and it was hence possible for him to review the charts and compare the health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. I know of other medical practices with the exact same circumstances, who have likewise found the same results Thomas did, but they did not publish their results because they did not want to be exposed to the same scrutiny and treatment Thomas was.
Yep. I grew up in Amish country, and have yet to see a single case of autism, peanut allergies or asthma, or chronic disease from a single unvaxxed Amish kid, and farmlife puts them in contact with every pathogen known to man.
I saw an interview on pbs with a reporter questioning the elder leader of a huge Amish Community in Ohio. The reporter asked " It's been 2 years and your community has not a had a single case of covid, Why is this? The elder gave 3 reasons. None of us are vaccinated, we don't have tv or internet and we only eat our locally grown organic food.
Very low, as all are correlated with childhood vaccination and poor diet. Some of these groups have had signs if issues from too close intermarriage (like the Hutterites) but generally asthma, spectrum etc is almost unheard of.
Their staying away from vaccinations and modern medicine in general (whenever they can) plays a huge role. We're deceived by "science", they're not. Their communities give me hope.
I personally know a few people who have developed brain injuries and autism through vaccination. More commonly, I see individuals who have less overt forms of autism following vaccination, and in many cases, if you are watchful, you can see these changes occurring immediately following vaccination. In contrast, on an almost daily basis I am deluged with colleagues who cite the idea that vaccination causes autism as one of the most harmful forms of medical misinformation and ridiculous unfounded beliefs that has ever been perpetuated on the public.
What a lot of people do not appreciate is how hard it is to produce research that goes against the status quo or questions taboo subjects. As far as I was able to tell from reviewing Andrew Wakefield story, he did everything right (which is why his original study was published). The thing very few people realize, is that it is almost impossible to 100% follow every single rule and regulation, so you run into a situation where law enforcement tends to be extremely selective and typically targeted towards individuals who question the status quo or commit political offenses, thereby making an example out of them so others do not attempt to do the same thing (this is a common tactic used by those attempting to have power, because it allows them to exponentially magnify the force exerted by making a single example out of someone and whoever creates the most power typically ends up being in power).
The specific things Wakefield was accused of doing were very minor and I regularly see much worse things conducted in research that nobody bats an eye towards. However without knowing that context, it makes the allegations against him (many of which were false) look atrocious, and he is thus in the unfortunate situation where he has been made a pariah, not allowed to defend himself against unfair accusations (which is why it is so vital you are giving a platform to him here), and is forced to shoulder a large burden to help these vaccine injured children because almost no one else will. I have tried to debate Wakefield situation with colleagues, and in most cases I found it's a lost cause because of how much their brains glaze over on the topic.
One of the major issues with the vaccination program is that everyone adamantly refuse to ever conduct a controlled study comparing giving the childhood immunization schedule to not giving the child an immunization schedule under the rationalization that "immunization are so beneficial, it is unethical to ever conduct a study where subjects are prevented from being immunized.” Given that as it is extremely unlikely children will suffer significant harm from any of the childhood illnesses vaccinations are provided for (this is analogous to children having an almost 0% risk of dying from Covid), it is highly questionable to argue they are exposed to a significant risk through not vaccinating. Additionally, there are a large number of studies that suggest a childhood immunization schedule is harmful, and the large number of studies showing improved health outcomes for children who are not vaccinated. Hence, if you dissect this argument, it's essentially saying we can never permit a double blind study of the childhood immunization schedule to be conducted because it would be abundantly clear that it is harmful.
When you look through all the research, a pattern then emerges where studies cited that question the benefits of the childhood immunization schedule are dismissed because they are "not randomized control studies” and therefore subject to a variety of biases that make them invalid (ignoring of course the fact that these types of studies are explicitly prohibited from ever being conducted). At the same time, research in favor of the vaccination schedule never is held to that same standard (and these cases correlation DOES prove causation). In a few cases, such as that of the CDC whistleblower, it has also been shown that the CDC worked diligently to conceal and hide a clear link between autism and vaccination that was present within their data set (the FDA has likewise done this with many other harmful drugs; I’m presently writing about how hard they worked to cover up the issues with SSRIs).
In addition to Wakefield, another physician who attempted to produce a study showing the benefits of not immunizing, Paul Thomas, had his medical license revoked after he published his study, for conducting unethical research (plus a few other things). I've read through this case in detail, and I believe a few of Thomas's actions merited disciplinary sanctions (but not as severe as revoking his license), however it was abundantly clear he was targeted for his study because the medical board repeatedly tried to force him to provide the raw data he collected that was supposed to remain anonymous. Thomas had to practice where many of his patients were not vaccinated, and it was hence possible for him to review the charts and compare the health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. I know of other medical practices with the exact same circumstances, who have likewise found the same results Thomas did, but they did not publish their results because they did not want to be exposed to the same scrutiny and treatment Thomas was.
Wow. Brutal. Thank you for your analysis.
Except Sussmans lie was paid by HRC, and used to start a 4 year witch hunt to unseat and impeach a DULY elected US President.
I am fed to the back teeth with this. Dr. Richard Fleming got the same treatment, too. Lucky for us, he like Dr. Wakefield refused to crawl in a hole.
People are so unbelievably stupid because they are too lazy to find out the truth for themselves, because it entails persistence and hard work.
Yep. I grew up in Amish country, and have yet to see a single case of autism, peanut allergies or asthma, or chronic disease from a single unvaxxed Amish kid, and farmlife puts them in contact with every pathogen known to man.
I saw an interview on pbs with a reporter questioning the elder leader of a huge Amish Community in Ohio. The reporter asked " It's been 2 years and your community has not a had a single case of covid, Why is this? The elder gave 3 reasons. None of us are vaccinated, we don't have tv or internet and we only eat our locally grown organic food.
They probably have herd immunity early in 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1DgWYdukZU&t=1s
I bet they don't have other chronic diseases either. I wonder what's the rate of diabetes, heart conditions, cancer, etc. in Amish communities.
Very low, as all are correlated with childhood vaccination and poor diet. Some of these groups have had signs if issues from too close intermarriage (like the Hutterites) but generally asthma, spectrum etc is almost unheard of.
Their staying away from vaccinations and modern medicine in general (whenever they can) plays a huge role. We're deceived by "science", they're not. Their communities give me hope.
"farmlife puts them in contact with every pathogen known to man", which gets their immune system stronger, maybe that's why they are healthier.
🙏🏼🙏🏼