The actual problem is that the surveys routinely ignore all the articles showing vaccines causing problems. There is always a lot of attention to whether thimerosal causes autism, or whether MMR causes autism. There is never any examination of whether the aluminum in vaccines causes autism, or whether getting any vaccine at all at a critical period of brain development causes autism, or whether getting too many vaccines too soon causes autism*, for all of which there are published peer reviewed papers indicating a likelihood they do, or the contaminants in vaccines cause autism (contaminants suggested in the literature include human DNA, which is suggested to cause autism, Simian retroviruses, Simian virus SV-40, and Mycoplasmas), nor any comparison of vaccinated to fully unvaccinated individuals. I did a quick survey of the surveys cited above, and none of them considers aluminum. I also wrote a survey article on some of the literature suggesting early and adjuvanted vaccines cause damage, and none of the dozens of peer reviewed papers I found suggesting damage is cited in the IOM’s numerous 800+ page surveys. My survey can be found at
http://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/03/08/example-1-pediatrician-belief-is-opposite-the-published-scientific-evidence-on-early-vaccine-safety/
If you read later posts in that blog you will find more criticism of the cognitive biases and outright omissions in the vaccine safety and effectiveness literature. Basically there is extensive scientific evidence indicating that any vaccine that happens to come during critical periods of brain development may harm development, and that various cumulative effects of vaccines may cause problems. The safety surveys basically only compare patients who got one specific vaccine and many others to patients who got many others, so they are blind to the kinds of damage that seem likely to be occurring. Also, the only RPC study I know of that injected saline or vaccine randomly into children and followed their health (not whether they got a specific disease) for more than a few months found the vaccine recipients (a flu vaccine) got 4 times as many respiratory illnesses as the recipients of the placebo.
*The paper of Stefano et al that is sometimes cited as showing this, upon closer examination effectively only compares patients who got DTP and other vaccines to patients who may have gotten DTaP, but did not get DTP, and got other vaccines. See the survey above for more discussion. I’ve never seen any other paper mentioned on the subject.
I would be very grateful to people who can supply citations to articles I haven’t yet found contradicting my conclusions, for example other RCP studies following health for a prolonged period, especially of children.
When you start looking at specific elements, contaminants, or compounds instead of the vaccine as a whole, the number of possible comparisons increases exponentially, and it would be impossible to analyze them all in detail. Just look at all the correlation comparisons that were made using the LessWrong survey (it’s near the end of the post in main). Those were just the ones with extremely high significance (a more stringent requirement than many published papers). If a contaminant in vaccines is the cause, for it to show up in a study focusing specifically on the contaminant, but not in a study of the vaccine itself would indicate only a small correlation or a flaw in one of the studies; the latter being much more likely.
But from an outsider’s perspective, look at this way: Who is more likely to be biased, medically trained doctors who went through 8 years of school and several more of residency learning about this stuff to reach their present position or the “scientist” on that blog you linked who never even states his/her specialty and others like him/her? From my perspective, you’ve got a huge uphill battle to convince me.
Well, read what I wrote. It’s demonstrable that the IOM and the other review boards are ignoring whole literatures just by searching their PDF for all of the results I’ve cited. They have no defense to aluminum, they never even study the subject, and both animal results and epidemiology show its damaging. And it is being introduced into neo-nates in amounts 100′s of times greater than what they get from diet in the first six months, with the injections bypassing about 6 or 7 filters evolution has created to keep it out. They also have no coherent articles whatsoever studying the issue of whether too many vaccines too early are causing problems. Every single study they ever do compares individuals getting large numbers of vaccines to other individuals getting large numbers of vaccines, and they ignore all the epidemiology that compares people getting many vaccines to people getting more vaccines, like regressions on vaccine compliance across states or regressions on infant mortality by number of vaccines in national series, all of which show damage. The only randomized placebo test I’m aware of of a vaccine that followed the health of the children, rather than whether they got a specific disease, found recipients of the vaccine got 4 times as many respiratory ailments as recipients of the placebo. Comparisons of vaccinated to unvaccinated, for example in the third world where you get decent statistics, also report the vaccines are raising mortality dramatically. Every animal study studying the challenge of immune systems of post-natal animals with injections reports its damaging to immune system and/or brain development. All of this the surveys simply ignore, rather than rebut or provide any evidence on the other side of.
If you don’t make the effort to look at the literature when I’ve laid it out for you, you are going to avoid discovering the plain fact that medicine has become a cargo cult science, and they don’t actually know what they are doing. The notion that committees of Doctors and/or government officials make better than random decisions about health care practices, or understand the import of scientific literatures, is fanciful, but also empirically disproved. This may impact your health and wallet in a big way if I’m right, and I am, so its worth paying a little attention to. its also a representative of an even wider phenomenon about the world, that a lot of what you think is real is actually crowd think delusions.
The actual problem is that the surveys routinely ignore all the articles showing vaccines causing problems. There is always a lot of attention to whether thimerosal causes autism, or whether MMR causes autism. There is never any examination of whether the aluminum in vaccines causes autism, or whether getting any vaccine at all at a critical period of brain development causes autism, or whether getting too many vaccines too soon causes autism*, for all of which there are published peer reviewed papers indicating a likelihood they do, or the contaminants in vaccines cause autism (contaminants suggested in the literature include human DNA, which is suggested to cause autism, Simian retroviruses, Simian virus SV-40, and Mycoplasmas), nor any comparison of vaccinated to fully unvaccinated individuals. I did a quick survey of the surveys cited above, and none of them considers aluminum. I also wrote a survey article on some of the literature suggesting early and adjuvanted vaccines cause damage, and none of the dozens of peer reviewed papers I found suggesting damage is cited in the IOM’s numerous 800+ page surveys. My survey can be found at http://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/03/08/example-1-pediatrician-belief-is-opposite-the-published-scientific-evidence-on-early-vaccine-safety/
If you read later posts in that blog you will find more criticism of the cognitive biases and outright omissions in the vaccine safety and effectiveness literature. Basically there is extensive scientific evidence indicating that any vaccine that happens to come during critical periods of brain development may harm development, and that various cumulative effects of vaccines may cause problems. The safety surveys basically only compare patients who got one specific vaccine and many others to patients who got many others, so they are blind to the kinds of damage that seem likely to be occurring. Also, the only RPC study I know of that injected saline or vaccine randomly into children and followed their health (not whether they got a specific disease) for more than a few months found the vaccine recipients (a flu vaccine) got 4 times as many respiratory illnesses as the recipients of the placebo.
*The paper of Stefano et al that is sometimes cited as showing this, upon closer examination effectively only compares patients who got DTP and other vaccines to patients who may have gotten DTaP, but did not get DTP, and got other vaccines. See the survey above for more discussion. I’ve never seen any other paper mentioned on the subject.
I would be very grateful to people who can supply citations to articles I haven’t yet found contradicting my conclusions, for example other RCP studies following health for a prolonged period, especially of children.
When you start looking at specific elements, contaminants, or compounds instead of the vaccine as a whole, the number of possible comparisons increases exponentially, and it would be impossible to analyze them all in detail. Just look at all the correlation comparisons that were made using the LessWrong survey (it’s near the end of the post in main). Those were just the ones with extremely high significance (a more stringent requirement than many published papers). If a contaminant in vaccines is the cause, for it to show up in a study focusing specifically on the contaminant, but not in a study of the vaccine itself would indicate only a small correlation or a flaw in one of the studies; the latter being much more likely.
But from an outsider’s perspective, look at this way: Who is more likely to be biased, medically trained doctors who went through 8 years of school and several more of residency learning about this stuff to reach their present position or the “scientist” on that blog you linked who never even states his/her specialty and others like him/her? From my perspective, you’ve got a huge uphill battle to convince me.
Well, read what I wrote. It’s demonstrable that the IOM and the other review boards are ignoring whole literatures just by searching their PDF for all of the results I’ve cited. They have no defense to aluminum, they never even study the subject, and both animal results and epidemiology show its damaging. And it is being introduced into neo-nates in amounts 100′s of times greater than what they get from diet in the first six months, with the injections bypassing about 6 or 7 filters evolution has created to keep it out. They also have no coherent articles whatsoever studying the issue of whether too many vaccines too early are causing problems. Every single study they ever do compares individuals getting large numbers of vaccines to other individuals getting large numbers of vaccines, and they ignore all the epidemiology that compares people getting many vaccines to people getting more vaccines, like regressions on vaccine compliance across states or regressions on infant mortality by number of vaccines in national series, all of which show damage. The only randomized placebo test I’m aware of of a vaccine that followed the health of the children, rather than whether they got a specific disease, found recipients of the vaccine got 4 times as many respiratory ailments as recipients of the placebo. Comparisons of vaccinated to unvaccinated, for example in the third world where you get decent statistics, also report the vaccines are raising mortality dramatically. Every animal study studying the challenge of immune systems of post-natal animals with injections reports its damaging to immune system and/or brain development. All of this the surveys simply ignore, rather than rebut or provide any evidence on the other side of.
If you don’t make the effort to look at the literature when I’ve laid it out for you, you are going to avoid discovering the plain fact that medicine has become a cargo cult science, and they don’t actually know what they are doing. The notion that committees of Doctors and/or government officials make better than random decisions about health care practices, or understand the import of scientific literatures, is fanciful, but also empirically disproved. This may impact your health and wallet in a big way if I’m right, and I am, so its worth paying a little attention to. its also a representative of an even wider phenomenon about the world, that a lot of what you think is real is actually crowd think delusions.