Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implications

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby aa5 on Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:59 am

Patrix thanks for linking that article, few people understand that the sales person has to be a true believer in what they are selling. The Hollywood movie storyline of smart people lying to customers to make money, isn't generally how it works in the real world.

Its why investment sales people who are selling questionable investment products are always these average iq, business degree holding, good looking, well spoken, but uncurious by nature people. They don't view themselves as ripping off people, they really believe in what they are selling.

I don't want to sound negative on sales people generally though. Most sales people are selling legitimate products and serving customers.
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:35 am

Speaking of uncurious:

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion
October 4, 2012

Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

Firstly, what’s an opinion?

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”

Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines. But no-one assumes Dr. Brown is an authority on the physics of nuclear fission; his job is to comment on the policy responses to the science, not the science itself.

So what does it mean to be “entitled” to an opinion?

If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

On Monday, the ABC’s Mediawatch program took WIN-TV Wollongong to task for running a story on a measles outbreak which included comment from – you guessed it – Meryl Dorey. In a response to a viewer complaint, WIN said that the story was “accurate, fair and balanced and presented the views of the medical practitioners and of the choice groups.” But this implies an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise. Again, if this was about policy responses to science, this would be reasonable. But the so-called “debate” here is about the science itself, and the “choice groups” simply don’t have a claim on air time if that’s where the disagreement is supposed to lie.

Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: “there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust,” and it’s not part of a reporter’s job to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise.

The response from anti-vaccination voices was predictable. On the Mediawatch site, Ms. Dorey accused the ABC of “openly calling for censorship of a scientific debate.” This response confuses not having your views taken seriously with not being allowed to hold or express those views at all – or to borrow a phrase from Andrew Brown, it “confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue.” Again, two senses of “entitlement” to an opinion are being conflated here.

So next time you hear someone declare they’re entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, you’ll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way.

Read more from Patrick Stokes: The ethics of bravery

In other words, defer to authority, trust the media and DON’T think for yourself. Patrick’s article, beginning to end, is an anathema to all free thinking persons.

Anti-vaxxers appear to be losing ground in the online vaccine debate
April 2, 2019

As measles outbreaks spread across the U.S., our new look at how information about vaccine safety and reliability spreads online suggests that the tide may be turning against the anti-vaccination movement.
Between Jan. 1 and March 28, 387 people contracted measles in 15 U.S. states. Mumps is also coming back, with 151 infections in just the first two months of 2019. Both of these dangerous and deadly diseases can be prevented by getting the MMR vaccine, which is so safe and effective, and so widely used, that measles was declared eliminated from the U.S. in 2000. But more recently, new outbreaks have struck areas with large pockets of unvaccinated people.
Many states allow parents not to vaccinate their children if they have religious or philosophical beliefs against immunizations. Online disinformation campaigns are spreading false claims about vaccine dangers, boosting the numbers of people seeking those exemptions – and inviting disease into their homes and communities. ^_^
Our research lab has spent years tracking the spread of misinformation on social media, including about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Our most recent update of the data has found that pro-vax information and activity is beginning to push back against, and even overtake, anti-vax disinformation.

Mapping the spread of vaccine (mis)information

In 2016, we mapped the online debate around a 2015 California bill that eliminated the personal-belief exemption to mandatory vaccination rules. We found that several of the most-retweeted accounts using the bill’s main hashtag #SB277 were highly automated, appearing to come from bots.
Two years later, other researchers revealed that some of those accounts belonged to the same Russian trolls that influenced the 2016 U.S. presidential election. :rolleyes: Those now-suspended accounts tweeted both pro- and anti-vaccine messages to stoke discord.
We recently updated this work, looking at vaccine-related Twitter hashtags between September 2016 and September 2018, to see how the vaccine debate continues to play out.
We took a random sampling of 10 percent of the public tweets during that time period. We identified 41,998 posts containing the most popular pro- and anti-vax hashtags. We then classified the 27,590 accounts that generated those tweets as pro-vax (blue) or anti-vax (green) based on whether each one used more hashtags from one side or the other.
We used retweets to visualize the diffusion of vaccine information. A node represents a Twitter account; a link from @alice to @bob indicates one or more vaccine-related retweets of @alice by @bob. We then mapped the largest network of connected accounts for each of four six-month intervals. The two communities of pro- and anti-vax information are quite segregated in the network, indicating that the accounts in one group do not generally retweet messages from the other. In the last year, however, we observe some blue nodes connected to the green clusters, suggesting that pro-vax information is beginning to penetrate the anti-vax community.
Accounts likely controlled by bots are depicted as red nodes in the network. They are prominent on both sides of the online discussion: Consistent with prior research findings, bots share both pro- and anti-vax content.

Our analysis reveals the most influential accounts on each side – the accounts whose tweets are retweeted the most. On the pro-vax side are organizations like @WHO, @UNICEF and @gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, as well as celebrity advocate @ChelseaClinton and pediatrician @luciapediatra.

On the anti-vax side, one account dominates all the others: @LotusOak, which gave as its full name “Vira Burnayeva.” That account was suspended by Twitter in late 2018 or early 2019. Interestingly, another account @ViraBurnayeva (full name “LotusOak”) that posts similar anti-vax misinformation and propaganda is currently among the most influential anti-vax nodes. The names suggest this account is controlled by the same source, illustrating how easy it can be to circumvent social media companies’ efforts to curb vaccine misinformation.
We have found some possible signs of good news: Initially most of the information on Twitter was dominated by people who opposed vaccinations. But in 2017, the scenario appears to have reversed: Anti-vaccine content is now shared only by a minority of users.
If that preliminary finding is confirmed by other research, it could provide evidence that the combined efforts of social media platforms, health organizations, public policy campaigns and grassroots advocacy may eventually overcome anti-vax junk science.

Who profits from vaccine opposition?

The modern anti-vax movement is still around, at least in part, because it makes money. It originated from a disproven, false claim about a link between vaccines and autism in a fraudulent, retracted 1998 paper by British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield. Reportedly driven by financial profit motives, Wakefield falsified data and allegedly abused developmentally delayed children.
His U.K. medical license was revoked in 2010 for unethical behavior, misconduct and dishonesty. But he continues to oppose state bills against vaccine exemptions and profit from promoting anti-vax disinformation, including through his propaganda film “Vaxxed,” which is available on popular streaming platforms.
Others profit from spreading this misinformation, too. For example, InfoWars and Natural News discredit medical science while earning money from the sale of alternative medicine products. The disinformation spreads quickly on social media through a well-connected network of activists and concerned parents.
When enough parents in a specific local community are misled into forgoing vaccination of their children, that area’s vaccination rate falls below the level necessary to confer what is called “herd immunity” on the entire population. For measles, 96 percent or more of a population need to be vaccinated to protect everyone.
Communities with lower vaccination rates are where outbreaks happen. For example, the 2017 measles outbreak in Minnesota followed an anti-vax disinformation campaign targeting Somali immigrants. The current outbreak in Washington affects mostly Slavic immigrants.
Some of the parents may be making their decisions based on what they learn online about vaccination.
On the legislative agenda
Much of this online activity appears to relate to debate in the real world. For instance, many of the tweets refer to legislation or other policy discussions. And there is a fair amount of disagreement in the political world.
At the moment, almost all states grant religious exemptions and 17 states allow parents to refuse vaccinations on philosophical grounds. Congress is studying the issue.
Some states, like Arizona, are working to expand those exemptions, although the state’s governor has vowed to veto such bills.
Other states are pushing in the opposite direction: Mississippi doesn’t have a religious exemption and has rejected attempts to create one. Washington is considering a bill that would grant exemptions only to parents of children with religious or medical reasons to refuse immunizations, much like California’s SB277 did. Rockland County, New York, has banned unvaccinated minors from public places to curtail the spread of disease.
This may be a legislative reflection of the same trend our research has observed online – where pro-vax information is beginning to push back effectively against the anti-vax movement. Children’s lives are at risk. :ph34r:


A. Rahman Ford, Ph.D.
logged in via Twitter
This article is an unfortunate example of vaccination propaganda dressed in the disheveled clothing of academic scholarship. this sort of “research” is intellectually dangerous, blatantly pseudo-scientific and borderline unethical. i guess when the argument is being lost, resorting to scholarly subterfuge is the only option.
the author’s biases are made patent, most obviously in his repeated and rather ignorant use of the intentionally fear-inducing misnomer “anti-vaxxer” instead of the proper label of “vaccine choice.” he quite laughably maintains that vaccine choice activists have been “misled” by false information propagated by some unidentified money-hungry special interest straw men.
of course, he conveniently omits any mention of the enormous profits reaped by vaccine manufacturers. nor does he make any mention of the vaccine injured. apparently, the author doesn’t like it when people think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. it’s a good thing we have objective, disinterested researchers like him to tell us what the truth is.

Filippo Menczer
Professor of Informatics and Computer Science, Indiana University
In reply to A. Rahman Ford, Ph.D.
Aside from ad-hominem attacks, this comment makes only two points:
(1) That our article omits mention of vaccine manufacturer profits. Here is background information about this: ... at/385214/
(2) That our article does not mention “the vaccine injured.” However, claims of vaccine injuries are generally based on false premises and misinformation. Scientific evidence shows that severe adverse effects of vaccines are extremely rare. More at

A. Rahman Ford, Ph.D.
logged in via Twitter
In reply to Filippo Menczer
Thank you, however your selection of citations only serves to substantiate my underlying point. The Atlantic article you cited is obscenely biased against vaccine choice and, with all due respect, i do not find wikipedia to be a legitimate academic reference.

Lucy Hill
logged in via Google
In reply to A. Rahman Ford, Ph.D.
The smart educated people do not want to vaccinate, many people are surprised to find that their own doctor refuses to vaccinate his/her children, but they’ll lose their jobs for not vaccinating yours. This is why they are given significant financial incentives to vaccinate. Let’s have a look into why so many smart and educated people are avoiding vaccines for their own families.
Science is always changing, what is good science today may be considered bad science in 15 years. Unfortunately vaccine science is still in a primitive state, it is kept that way as any type of well-designed high-quality studies are considered ‘unethical’, leaving researchers with their hands tied as to what they can test.
Vaccine safety is only supported by studies which don’t use real placebos, the Vaxxed V Unvaxxed is never allowed, ‘unethical’ they say. Though when independent scientists have performed small-scale studies like this, the unvaccinated come out a lot healthier, with lower rates of asthma, epilepsy, eczema and less neurodevelopmental problems.
Epidemiological studies are known to be both insufficient and easy to cook. These types of studies were used for years to tell the public that smoking didn’t cause cancer. Now the vaccine-maker’s have taken the baton, using the same tricks as the tobacco industry once did. What we really need is mechanistic studies and at the cellular level. Of course this won’t be considered ethical in humans, but we can still use mice, sheep etc, justified for the ‘greater good’ of humanity, studying behaviour and overall health outcomes, then perform post-mortems on the animals to investigate the mechanistic effect of the vaccine and to search for which of the vaccine ingredients remained in the body.
Currently if an expert intends to perform such studies, they will find it incredibly hard to get funding. One timely example is the one of Professor Christopher Exley, one of the leading experts on aluminum, who has been having to crowdfund in order to research the safety of the aluminum in vaccines. When you research something which could potentially have a negative impact on big industry (e.g. compensation payouts, reputations damaged, new improved products required), your funding tends to dry up. Professor Exley is having run a GoFundMe to in order to fund his research (research which has never been performed, safety assumed by industry).
Surely everyone can agree that we all need to demand better science, what is currently being offered is not acceptable, and it would be inhumane to force such products on a population, violating the Nuremberg Code. We also need to consider if the same industry who conspired to trap us in an opioid crisis can ever really be trusted as a guardian of public health? The key driving forces of the for-profit pharmaceutical industry are not compatible with such a responsibility, as we can see from what they have done with antibiotics; trying to sell as many as possible without thinking or caring about the long-term repercussions of antibiotic overuse. Now we see the same with vaccines, overloading the schedule with all kinds of jabs which have never been tested in combination or against placebos, and some of the substances within them still being inadequately safety tested. There is also currently no effective way of tracking how the recipients of vaccines do in the following months and years, so if they are diagnosed with asthma, epilepsy, MS, eczema, peanut allergy etc, it most likely will never be linked with the vaccines which could have caused it. One doesn’t find what one doesn’t look for.
The industry is scared, as they know if solid studies are allowed there could be serious consequences, with powerful individuals being held responsible, reputations ruined and a colossal total compensation sum. That seems potentially the real reason for the push for forced vaccination, so as to remove the unvaccinated controls from the population, their superior health being the smoking gun of the failure of vaccine science.

IMHO, there is no debate. :)

"If you pay professionals to maintain a body of knowledge, it will finally disintegrate. But more importantly, a professional paid specifically to advance a body of knowledge, will freeze it."—Ivor Catt, (The Politics of Knowledge)
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby aa5 on Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:10 am

Hey I haven't read Ivor Catt's work for a long time, thanks for linking it.
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Sun May 05, 2019 11:14 pm


Vaccine Ingredients and Manufacturer Information
(alphabetical order by vaccine)

We have listed vaccine ingredients (substances that appear in the final vaccine product), process ingredients (substances used to create the vaccine that may or may not appear in the final vaccine product), and growth mediums (the substances vaccines are grown in) for vaccines approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and commonly recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC.) Controversial products used to make vaccines: African Green Monkey (Vero) cells, aluminum, cow products, Cocker Spaniel cells, formaldehyde, human fetal lung tissue cells, insect products, and mouse brains.

Though not listed, each vaccine contains strains of the virus being vaccinated against. Each vaccine entry links to the manufacturer's package insert that contains information about dosage, ingredient quantity, and how the vaccine is made. Some vaccines, like influenza vaccines, are modified frequently and you may wish to consult the package inserts online and your doctor for the most current information.


Product - Possible Ingredients (Ingredients depend on which modification is used.)

2-Phenoxyethanol - 2-Phenoxyethanol is a glycol ether used as a preservative in vaccines.

Aluminum - Aluminum is used in vaccines as an adjuvant, which helps the vaccine work more quickly and more powerfully.

Bovine casein - A casein is a family of phosphoproteins commonly found in mammalian milk. 80% of the proteins in cow's milk are casein.

Bovine serum - Bovine "[s]erum is the centrifuged fluid component of either clotted or defibrinated whole blood. Bovine serum comes from blood taken from domestic cattle. Serum from other animals is also collected and processed but bovine serum is processed in the greatest volume."
"Bovine serum is a by-product of the meat industry. Bovine blood may be taken at the time of slaughter, from adult cattle, calves, very young calves or (when cows that are slaughtered are subsequently found to be pregnant) from bovine fetuses. It is also obtained from what are called 'donor' animals, which give blood more than once.
Blood is available from bovine fetuses only because a proportion of female animals that are slaughtered for meat for human consumption are found (often unexpectedly) to be pregnant.
Blood is available from very young calves because calves, especially males from dairy breeds, are often slaughtered soon, but not necessarily immediately, after birth because raising them will not be economically beneficial. Older animals are, of course, slaughtered for meat.
Only donor cattle are raised for the purpose of blood donation. Donor cattle are invariably kept in specialized, controlled herds. Blood is taken from these animals in a very similar way to that used for human blood donation.
Irrespective of whether blood is taken at slaughter or from donors :huh: , the age of the animal is an important consideration because it impacts the characteristics of the serum.
Bovine serum is categorised according to the age of the animal from which the blood was
collected as follows:
•'Fetal bovine serum' comes from fetuses
•'Newborn calf serum' comes from calves less than three weeks old
•'Calf serum' comes from calves aged between three weeks and 12 months
•'Adult bovine serum' comes from cattle older than 12 months
Serum processed from donor blood is termed 'donor bovine serum'. Donor animals can be up to three years old."

Chicken Eggs - Viruses can be grown in chicken eggs before being used in vaccinations.

CMRL-1969 - L-alanine, L-arginine (free base)b, L-aspartic acid, L-cysteine-HCL, L-cystine, L-glutamic acid-H20, L-glutamine, glycine, L-histidine (free base)b, L-hydroxyproline, L-isoleucine, L-leucine, L-lysine, L-methionine, L-phenylalanine, L-proline, L-serine, L-threonine, L-tryptophan, L-tyrosine, L-valine, p-aminobenzoic acid, ascorbic acid, d-biotin, calcium pantothenate, cholesterol, choline chloride, ethanol, folic acid, glutathione, i-inositol, menadione, nicotinamide, nicotinic acid, pyridoxal-HCL, pyridoxine-HCL, riboflavine, riboflavine-5-phosphate, sodium acetate-3H2O, thiamine-HCL, Tween 80, vitamin A acetate, vitamin D (calciferol), vitamin E (a-tocopherol phosphate), D-glucose, phenol red, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, calcium chloride, magnesium culphate heptahydrate, sodium phosphate dibasic, sodium dihydrogen phosphate, monopotassium phosphate, sodium bicarbonate, iron nitrate nonahydrate

Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Serum - glucose, sodium bicarbonate, L-glutamine, pyridoxine HCl, pyridocal HCl, folic acid, phenol red, HEPES (2-[4-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazin-1-yl]ethanesulfonic acid), L-methionine, L-cystine, sodium phosphate mono-basic, sodium pyruvate, vitamins

Earle's Balanced Salt Medium - inorganic salts, D-glucose, phenol red, calcium, magnesium salts

Fenton Medium - bovine extract

Formaldehyde - Formaldehyde is used in vaccines to inactivate the virus so the person being inoculated does not contract the disease.

Human albumin - Human albumin is a blood plasma protein produced in the liver that, among other functions, transports hormones, fatty acids, and other compounds, and buffers pH.

Insect Cells - Cabbage moth and fall armyworm cells are used to grow viruses for vaccines.

Latham Medium - bovine casein

MDCK (Madin-Carby canine kidney cells) - cells from normal female adult Cocker Spaniel (harvested in 1958 by SH Madin and NB Darby), EMEM(EBSS) (Eagle's Minimum Essential Medium with Earle's Balanced Salt Solution), glutamine, non essential amino acids, foetal bovine serum

Mouse Brains - Live mice brains are inoculated with the Japanese encephalitis virus to grow the virus used in the vaccine.

MRC-5 - Medical Research Council 5, human diploid cells (cells containing two sets of chromosomes) derived from the normal lung tissues of a 14-week-old male fetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" in 1966 in the United Kingdom, Eagle's Basal Medium in Earle's balanced salt solution with bovine serum.

Mueller Hinton Agar - beef extract, acid hydrolysate of casein, starch, agar

Mueller-Miller Medium - glucose, sodium chloride, sodium phosphate dibasic, monopotassium, phosphate, magnesium sulfate hydrate, ferrous sulfate heptaphydrate, cystine hydrochloride, tyrosine hydrochloride, urasil hydrochloride, Ca-pantothenate in ethanol, thiamine in ethanol, pyridoxin-hydrochloride in ethanol, riboflavin in ethanol, biotin in ethanol, sodium hydroxide, beef heart infusion (de-fatted beef heart and distilled water), casein solution

Polysorbate 80 - Also called Tween 80, Alkest 80, or Canarcel 80 (brand names). Polysorbate 80 is used as an excipient (something to basically thicken a vaccine for proper dosing) and an emulsifier (something to bond the ingredients).

Porcine gelatin - Gelatin is used to protect viruses in vaccines from freeze-drying or heat and to stabilize vaccines so they stay stable.

Stainer-Scholte Liquid Medium - tris hydrochloride, tris base, glutamate (monosodium salt), proline, salt, monopotassium phosphate, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, ferrous sulfate, ascorbic acid, niacin, glutathione

Thimerosal - Thimerosal is an organomercury compound used as a preservative.

Vero Cells (African Green Monkey Cells) - cells derived from the kidney of a normal, adult African Green monkey in 1962 by Y. Yasumura and Y. Kawakita

WI-38 human diploid cells - Winstar Institute 38, human diploid lung fibroblasts derived from the lung tissues of a female fetus aborted because the family felt they had too many children in 1964 in the United States

Why anyone would subject themselves or their loved ones to any of the above witches brew of poisons is beyond me.

Vaccine peddlers claim that the injection (of trace amounts) of formaldehyde into the bloodstream of children is harmless yet USDOL/OSHA warn against the dangers of skin contact, ingestion and inhalation of formaldehyde.

United States Department of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration

By Standard Number - 1910.1048 App C - Medical surveillance - Formaldehyde

• Part Number:1910
• Part Number Title: Occupational Safety and Health Standards
• Subpart: 1910 Subpart Z
• Subpart Title:Toxic and Hazardous Substances
• Standard Number:1910.1048 App C
• Title:Medical surveillance - Formaldehyde
• GPO Source:e-CFR

I. Health Hazards

The occupational health hazards of formaldehyde are primarily due to its toxic effects after inhalation, after direct contact with the skin or eyes by formaldehyde in liquid or vapor form, and after ingestion.

II. Toxicology

A. Acute Effects of Exposure

1. Inhalation (breathing): Formaldehyde is highly irritating to the upper airways. The concentration of formaldehyde that is immediately dangerous to life and health is 100 ppm. Concentrations above 50 ppm can cause severe pulmonary reactions within minutes. These include pulmonary edema, pneumonia, and bronchial irritation which can result in death. Concentrations above 5 ppm readily cause lower airway irritation characterized by cough, chest tightness and wheezing. There is some controversy regarding whether formaldehyde gas is a pulmonary sensitizer which can cause occupational asthma in a previously normal individual. Formaldehyde can produce symptoms of bronchial asthma in humans. The mechanism may be either sensitization of the individual by exposure to formaldehyde or direct irritation by formaldehyde in persons with pre-existing asthma. Upper airway irritation is the most common respiratory effect reported by workers and can occur over a wide range of concentrations, most frequently above 1 ppm. However, airway irritation has occurred in some workers with exposures to formaldehyde as low as 0.1 ppm. Symptoms of upper airway irritation include dry or sore throat, itching and burning sensations of the nose, and nasal congestion. Tolerance to this level of exposure may develop within 1-2 hours. This tolerance can permit workers remaining in an environment of gradually increasing formaldehyde concentrations to be unaware of their increasingly hazardous exposure.

2. Eye contact: Concentrations of formaldehyde between 0.05 ppm and 0.5 ppm produce a sensation of irritation in the eyes with burning, itching, redness, and tearing. Increased rate of blinking and eye closure generally protects the eye from damage at these low levels, but these protective mechanisms may interfere with some workers' work abilities. Tolerance can occur in workers continuously exposed to concentrations of formaldehyde in this range. Accidental splash injuries of human eyes to aqueous solutions of formaldehyde (formalin) have resulted in a wide range of ocular injuries including corneal opacities and blindness. The severity of the reactions have been directly dependent on the concentration of formaldehyde in solution and the amount of time lapsed before emergency and medical intervention.

3. Skin contact: Exposure to formaldehyde solutions can cause irritation of the skin and allergic contact dermatitis. These skin diseases and disorders can occur at levels well below those encountered by many formaldehyde workers. Symptoms include erythema, edema, and vesiculation or hives. Exposure to liquid formalin or formaldehyde vapor can provoke skin reactions in sensitized individuals even when airborne concentrations of formaldehyde are well below 1 ppm.

4. Ingestion: Ingestion of as little as 30 ml of a 37 percent solution of formaldehyde (formalin) can result in death. Gastrointestinal toxicity after ingestion is most severe in the stomach and results in symptoms which can include nausea, vomiting, and severe abdominal pain. Diverse damage to other organ systems including the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and central nervous systems can occur from the acute response to ingestion of formaldehyde.

B. Chronic Effects of Exposure

Long term exposure to formaldehyde has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of cancer of the nose and accessory sinuses, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal cancer, and lung cancer in humans. Animal experiments provide conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between nasal cancer in rats and formaldehyde exposure. Concordant evidence of carcinogenicity includes DNA binding, genotoxicity in short-term tests, and cytotoxic changes in the cells of the target organ suggesting both preneoplastic changes and a dose-rate effect. Formaldehyde is a complete carcinogen and appears to exert an effect on at least two stages of the carcinogenic process.

III. Surveillance considerations

A. History

1. Medical and occupational history: Along with its acute irritative effects, formaldehyde can cause allergic sensitization and cancer. One of the goals of the work history should be to elicit information on any prior or additional exposure to formaldehyde in either the occupational or the non-occupational setting.

2. Respiratory history: As noted above, formaldehyde has recognized properties as an airway irritant and has been reported by some authors as a cause of occupational asthma. In addition, formaldehyde has been associated with cancer of the entire respiratory system of humans. For these reasons, it is appropriate to include a comprehensive review of the respiratory system in the medical history. Components of this history might include questions regarding dyspnea on exertion, shortness of breath, chronic airway complaints, hyperreactive airway disease, rhinitis, bronchitis, bronchiolitis, asthma, emphysema, respiratory allergic reaction, or other preexisting pulmonary disease.

In addition, generalized airway hypersensitivity can result from exposures to a single sensitizing agent. The examiner should, therefore, elicit any prior history of exposure to pulmonary irritants, and any short- or long-term effects of that exposure.

Smoking is known to decrease mucociliary clearance of materials deposited during respiration in the nose and upper airways. This may increase a worker's exposure to inhaled materials such as formaldehyde vapor. In addition, smoking is a potential confounding factor in the investigation of any chronic respiratory disease, including cancer. For these reasons, a complete smoking history should be obtained.

3. Skin Disorders: Because of the dermal irritant and sensitizing effects of formaldehyde, a history of skin disorders should be obtained. Such a history might include the existence of skin irritation, previously documented skin sensitivity, and other dermatologic disorders. Previous exposure to formaldehyde and other dermal sensitizers should be recorded.

4. History of atopic or allergic diseases: Since formaldehyde can cause allergic sensitization of the skin and airways, it might be useful to identify individuals with prior allergen sensitization. A history of atopic disease and allergies to formaldehyde or any other substances should also be obtained. It is not definitely known at this time whether atopic diseases and allergies to formaldehyde or any other substances should also be obtained. Also it is not definitely known at this time whether atopic individuals have a greater propensity to develop formaldehyde sensitivity than the general population, but identification of these individuals may be useful for ongoing surveillance.

5. Use of disease questionnaires: Comparison of the results from previous years with present results provides the best method for detecting a general deterioration in health when toxic signs and symptoms are measured subjectively. In this way recall bias does not affect the results of the analysis. Consequently, OSHA has determined that the findings of the medical and work histories should be kept in a standardized form for comparison of the year-to-year results.

B. Physical Examination

1. Mucosa of eyes and airways: Because of the irritant effects of formaldehyde, the examining physician should be alert to evidence of this irritation. A speculum examination of the nasal mucosa may be helpful in assessing possible irritation and cytotoxic changes, as may be indirect inspection of the posterior pharynx by mirror.

2. Pulmonary system: A conventional respiratory examination, including inspection of the thorax and auscultation and percussion of the lung fields should be performed as part of the periodic medical examination. Although routine pulmonary function testing is only required by the standard once every year for persons who are exposed over the TWA concentration limit, these tests have an obvious value in investigating possible respiratory dysfunction and should be used wherever deemed appropriate by the physician. In cases of alleged formaldehyde-induced airway disease, other possible causes of pulmonary disfunction (including exposures to other substances) should be ruled out. A chest radiograph may be useful in these circumstances. In cases of suspected airway hypersensitivity or allergy, it may be appropriate to use bronchial challenge testing with formaldehyde or methacholine to determine the nature of the disorder. Such testing should be performed by or under the supervision of a physician experienced in the procedures involved.

3. Skin: The physician should be alert to evidence of dermal irritation of sensitization, including reddening and inflammation, urticaria, blistering, scaling, formation of skin fissures, or other symptoms. Since the integrity of the skin barrier is compromised by other dermal diseases, the presence of such disease should be noted. Skin sensitivity testing carries with it some risk of inducing sensitivity, and therefore, skin testing for formaldehyde sensitivity should not be used as a routine screening test. Sensitivity testing may be indicated in the investigation of a suspected existing sensitivity. Guidelines for such testing have been prepared by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group.

C. Additional Examinations or Tests

The physician may deem it necessary to perform other medical examinations or tests as indicated. The standard provides a mechanism whereby these additional investigations are covered under the standard for occupational exposure to formaldehyde.

Follow the logic, folks.

Formaldehyde - OSHA FactSheet

Formaldehyde is a colorless, strong-smelling gas often found in aqueous (waterbased) solutions. Commonly used as a preservative in medical laboratories and mortuaries, formaldehyde is also found in many products such as chemicals, particle board, household products, glues, permanent press fabrics, paper product coatings, fiberboard, and plywood. It is also widely used as an industrial fungicide, germicide and disinfectant.

Although the term formaldehyde describes various mixtures of formaldehyde, water, and alcohol, the term “formalin” is used to describe a saturated solution of formaldehyde dissolved in water, typically with another agent, most commonly methanol, added to stabilize the solution. Formalin is typically 37% formaldehyde by weight (40% by volume) and 6-13% methanol by volume in water. The formaldehyde component provides the disinfectant effects of formalin.

What Employers Should Know

The OSHA Formaldehyde standard (29 CFR 1910.1048) and equivalent regulations in states with OSHA-approved state plans protects workers exposed to formaldehyde and apply to all occupational exposures to formaldehyde from formaldehyde gas, its solutions, and materials that release formaldehyde.

• The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for formaldehyde in the workplace is 0.75 parts formaldehyde per million parts of air (0.75 ppm) measured as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA).
• The standard includes a second PEL in the form of a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2 ppm which is the maximum exposure allowed during a 15-minute period.
• The action level – which is the standard’s trigger for increased industrial hygiene monitoring and initiation of worker medical surveillance – is 0.5 ppm when calculated as an 8-hour TWA.

Harmful Effects on Workers

Formaldehyde is a sensitizing agent that can cause an immune system response upon initial exposure. It is also a cancer hazard. Acute exposure is highly irritating to the eyes, nose, and throat and can make anyone exposed cough and wheeze. Subsequent exposure may cause severe allergic reactions of the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Ingestion of formaldehyde can be fatal, and long-term exposure to low levels in the air or on the skin can cause asthma-like respiratory problems and skin irritation such as dermatitis and itching. Concentrations of 100 ppm are immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH).

Note: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) considers 20 ppm of formaldehyde to be IDLH.

Routes of Exposure

Workers can inhale formaldehyde as a gas or vapor or absorb it through the skin as a liquid. They can be exposed during the treatment of textiles and the production of resins. In addition to healthcare professionals and medical lab technicians, groups at potentially high risk include mortuary workers as well as teachers and students who handle biological specimens preserved with formaldehyde or formalin.
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Tue May 07, 2019 3:36 am

This mom wants you to know what measles did to her baby

By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN
Updated 4:01 AM ET, Mon May 6, 2019

(CNN)Like all people who believe in facts and science, Jilly Moss is incredulous when she hears anti-vaxers say that measles is no big deal.
Moss has a particularly personal perspective: Her baby ended up in the hospital last month because of the virus.

Alba, who was 11 months old at the time, had a fever that soared over 107 degrees Fahrenheit. Her eyes were swollen shut for days, and doctors had to give her medicine to prevent her from going blind. She couldn't eat or drink and had so much trouble breathing, doctors had to put her on oxygen.

And the doctors, since they'd never seen measles before, misdiagnosed her repeatedly, sending her home, where she became sicker and sicker.

[Really? How many doctors misdiagnosed the baby? What are their names? Do the parents plan on suing the doctors for malpractice?]

At one point, she became totally unresponsive. Her parents thought they might lose her.

"She suffered so much and was so brave," Moss said.

Like all babies under age 1, Alba was too young to get her first measles vaccine. Now, her mother wants the world to know what measles can do to a healthy infant.

"I think it's important that you know I'm not one of these people who are crazy pro-vaccine and is saying 'you must do this' and is throwing it down people's throats," Moss said. "All I want to do is educate people because we as parents did not understand how sick measles could make our baby."

Moss, who stays at home with Alba, and her husband, Richard, a global brand manager for a software company, live in London. They'll never know how their daughter contracted measles.

There have been hundreds of measles cases in London since October, mostly in the northeast part of the city, according to Dr. Anita Bell, health protection consultant for Public Health England.

The Mosses live in southwest London, far from that outbreak, but measles is one of the most contagious diseases.


Since October, there have been hundreds of measles cases in London, the city where the Moss family lives.

The long road to a diagnosis

After developing a high fever, Alba was rushed by ambulance to the hospital on March 24. Doctors diagnosed her with viral tonsillitis and sent her home.

Then, on April 2, a rash appeared on the back of her neck, and her eyes grew red.

Alba's nanny, grandmother and great-grandmother knew exactly what it was. They had all seen measles firsthand.

But many doctors have not. The vaccine, introduced in the 1960s, dramatically reduced the number of measles cases worldwide. The disease was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000 and from Britain in 2016.

Armed with the measles "diagnosis" from Alba's nanny, grandmother and great-grandmother, her parents took her back to the doctor. But he said her rash and red eyes were because of the tonsillitis and sent her home.

Three days later, on April 5, Alba's parents brought her to a different doctor. That doctor also said it wasn't measles and sent Alba home for a third time.

[Again, who was this new doctor?]

"My husband sat up with her all night because he was worried that something just wasn't right," Moss said.

The next day, Alba didn't get better, and she hadn't had anything to eat or drink in several days. Her parents brought her to the emergency room at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, where she was admitted and diagnosed with measles.

[Who diagnosed her?]

'I've never felt fear like that' :ph34r:

The next eight days were a nightmare.

"Her whole body was swollen and lifeless. She didn't make a sound," Moss remembered. "I've never felt fear like that."

At first, doctors thought Alba might need to go to the intensive care unit, but oxygen and breathing treatments stabilized her.

To rule out meningitis and other diseases, Alba had to endure a painful lumbar puncture. The procedure, also known as a spinal tap, involves inserting a needle into the spine to draw out fluid.

Her mother says the lowest moment was when Alba became unresponsive as she was being transported to another room to have a brain scan. Doctors told her parents that her little body was so fragile, she couldn't handle being moved from room to room.

Moss said she and her husband never thought about taking photos of their sick baby, but a doctor suggested that photos would show how sick a child can get from measles.

[Was this the doctor who diagnosed her?]

"He said to post them on social media so people will be aware of just how scary :ph34r: this virus can be," Moss said.
Alba was discharged from the hospital after eight days. Today, nearly a month after her diagnosis, she's still weak, sleepy and prone to coughing fits.

[What’s his name?]

"She's still not 100 percent, and it's going to take her a while to get back to where she was before," her mother said.

Mom strong despite Facebook backlash

After Alba left the hospital, her mother described her illness in a Facebook post.

"Get your children vaccinated," she wrote.

The inevitable backlash from anti-vaxers followed.

"They said I was a bad mother -- that if I had just breastfed longer, she wouldn't have gotten measles. They said the photos of Alba were fake, that I'd made her up. They said I was an actress and getting paid," Moss said. "Some of the comments have been absolutely disgusting, and they've come from other parents, other mamas."

She knows that even prominent people are capable of denying science.

[Science deniers, eh?]

In February, Darla Shine wrote on Twitter that childhood diseases such as measles "keep you healthy."

At the time, Shine's husband, Bill Shine, was the White House communications chief. He now serves as a senior adviser for President Donald Trump's re-election campaign.

"I had the #Measles #Mumps #ChickenPox as a child and so did every kid I knew - Sadly my kids had #MMR so they will never have the life long natural immunity I have," Shine tweeted, adding, "Come breathe on me!"

Moss said Shine is failing to recognize that even though she might have been fine after measles, others are not. After her Facebook post, Moss says, she heard from parents who lost their children to the virus or became blind or deaf.

"I think it would be good for someone in this kind of power with so many followers to read up on the benefits of the [vaccine]," Moss wrote to CNN. "[Shine] could help to spread awareness of the reasons why the vaccine was introduced in the first place."

Last week, Moss posted another message on Facebook.

"To all of the people who are doubting me as a mother and a person [and] in general spreading lies that this is fake news -- your comments are washing over me," she wrote. "Our lives are full of amazing support from our loved ones and complete strangers from across the globe. You can think and say what you want but none of it matters. This is our story and I will continue to share it to raise awareness of just how scary this can be. For parents out there and for my brave brave Alba."

You'd think they'd name all the doctors who allegedly misdiagnosed the child in order to warn readers.

Her son died. And then anti-vaxers attacked her

By Elizabeth Cohen and John Bonifield, CNN
Updated 2:47 PM ET, Thu March 21, 2019

(CNN)Not long ago, a 4-year-old boy died of the flu. His mother, under doctor's orders, watched his two little brothers like a hawk, terrified they might get sick and die, too.

Grieving and frightened, just days after her son's death she checked her Facebook page hoping to read messages of comfort from family and friends.

Instead, she found dozens of hateful comments: You're a terrible mother. You killed your child. You deserved what happened to your son. This is all fake - your child doesn't exist.

Bewildered and rattled, she closed her Facebook app.

A few days later she received a text message from someone named Ron. Expect more like this, Ron warned. Expect more.

The attacks were from those who oppose vaccination, and this mother, who lives in the Midwest, doesn't want her name used for fear the attention would only encourage more messages.

Nothing too cruel

Interviews with mothers who've lost children and with those who spy on anti-vaccination groups, reveal a tactic employed by anti-vaxers: When a child dies, members of the group [What group?!] sometimes encourage each other to go on that parent's Facebook page. The anti-vaxers then post messages telling the parents they're lying and their child never existed, or that the parent murdered them, or that vaccines killed the child, or some combination of all of those.

Nothing is considered too cruel. Just days after their children died, mothers say anti-vaxers on social media called them whores, the c-word and baby killers.

[Oh my G-d!]

The mother in the Midwest, who wants to remain anonymous, isn't alone.


So “anti-vaxers” are a monolithic block of cruel science denying cyber bullies. Is that it, Ms. Cohen?

Make of it what you will, dear reader.
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Tue May 07, 2019 4:59 am

Disclaimer: I don’t endorse RFK Junior’s The site is rife with gatekeepers, controlled opposition, limited hangouts and half truths. IMO, “lifetime/passive immunity” are abstract concepts with no basis in reality. It's not that the MMR vaccine fails to provide immunity. It succeeds in producing illness(es). It has no upside.

May 02, 2019
A Dozen Facts About Measles That You Won’t Learn From MSPharmedia

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~H.L. Mencken

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Children’s Health Defense

So, let’s settle down, people!!! Remember: America is supposed to be “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.” Pharma and its media shills are working at turning us into “Land of the Cowed, Home of the Slave.”

A DOZEN FACTS ABOUT MEASLES that you won’t learn from MSPharmedia:

1) Measles is usually a mild, self-limiting childhood illness.

2) Since 2000, there have been nine reported measles deaths in the U.S. Since 1986, there have been 415 deaths associated with the MMR vaccine according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

3) In 1962, the CDC attributed 408 deaths to measles out of a population of 186 million (risk=2/1,000,000—about double the risk of dying from lightning).

4) The risk of measles mortality is much higher among malnourished children; contemporary science suggests that vitamin A can reduce this risk by over 80%.

5) “Natural” vitamin A cannot be patented so Pharma has no interest in promoting it.

6) Unlike Merck’s MMR vaccine, wild measles infection confers lifetime immunity from measles. Having measles in childhood may also reduce the risk of atopic disease, heart disease, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas and some other cancers.

7) Meanwhile, the MMR is associated with seizure rates five times greater than associated with wild measles, as well as brain damage, encephalitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and dozens of other serious adverse events.

8) Half the kids in Merck’s clinical studies suffered serious gastrointestinal problems within 42 days of the jab.

9) Merck’s MMR vaccine provides meager maternal antibodies to protect infants in their first year when they are too young for the vaccine, putting babies at risk for brain damage and death.

10) Contrary to Merck’s promise, the MMR rarely provides lifetime immunity, putting postpubescent adults at heightened risk for serious injury or death.

11) According to Lancet Infectious Diseases, measles has become more severe in infant and adult cohorts as vaccine-based immunity wanes leaving adults unprotected and infants vulnerable due to loss of passive immunity from mothers.

12) Similarly, instead of providing the promised lifetime immunity, the mumps component of the MMR, simply delays mumps infections until after puberty when it can cause sterility in men and women.
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby CluedIn on Tue May 07, 2019 4:37 pm

My daughter-in-law is in the hospital with my granddaughter right now and once again has to deal with the "why don't you vaccinate" staff. She has come up with a brilliant reply. She now tells them that since the world has deemed children are mature enough to make life altering decisions (transgendering, abortion, etc.) that she is leaving the vaccination choice up to her daughter. My Body My Choice - She can either choose to not take the vaccines or inject the poisons deemed safe. :lol:

The looks from people are priceless!
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Wed May 08, 2019 10:02 pm

CluedIn » May 7th, 2019, 11:37 am wrote:My daughter-in-law is in the hospital with my granddaughter right now and once again has to deal with the "why don't you vaccinate" staff. She has come up with a brilliant reply. She now tells them that since the world has deemed children are mature enough to make life altering decisions (transgendering, abortion, etc.) that she is leaving the vaccination choice up to her daughter. My Body My Choice - She can either choose to not take the vaccines or inject the poisons deemed safe. :lol:

The looks from people are priceless!

Brilliant plan. That’s one way to give them a dose of their own medicine. LOL! :)
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby simonshack on Wed May 08, 2019 10:52 pm

Has (a link to) this book been posted on this forum before?


Anyhow, here it is:

I haven't had much time to look into this, but as far as I can gather, the very eminent author of this report - Alfred R. Wallace - was apparently a "rival" of Charles Darwin (?) Here's what Wikipedia has to say about his anti-vaccination campaign :

Anti-vaccination campaign
In the early 1880s, Wallace was drawn into the debate over mandatory smallpox vaccination. Wallace originally saw the issue as a matter of personal liberty; but, after studying some of the statistics provided by anti-vaccination activists, he began to question the efficacy of vaccination. At the time, the germ theory of disease was very new and far from universally accepted. Moreover, no one knew enough about the human immune system to understand why vaccination worked. When Wallace did some research, he discovered instances where supporters of vaccination had used questionable, in a few cases completely phony, statistics to support their arguments. Always suspicious of authority, Wallace suspected that physicians had a vested interest in promoting vaccination, and became convinced that reductions in the incidence of smallpox that had been attributed to vaccination were, in fact, due to better hygiene and improvements in public sanitation. ... n_campaign

And here we are, in 2019, still debating whether vaccinations are good or bad... :huh:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Posts: 6695
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Thu May 09, 2019 8:52 am

simonshack wrote:Has (a link to) this book been posted on this forum before?

Not that I'm aware of. I just finished reading it and want to thank you, dear Simon, for posting it.


Forty- Five Years of Registration Statistics, proving Vaccination to be both useless and dangerous.



[pp. 38-40]


The result of this brief enquiry may be thus summarized: -

(1.) – Vaccination does not diminish Small-pox mortality, as shown by the 45 years of the Registrar-General’s statistics, and by the deaths from Small-pox of our “re-vaccinated” soldiers and sailors being as numerous as those of the male population of the same ages of several of our large towns, although the former are picked, healthy men, while the latter include many thousands living under the most unsanitary conditions.

(2.) – While thus utterly powerless for good, vaccination is a certain cause of disease and death in many cases, and is the probable cause of about 10,000 deaths annually by five inoculable diseases of the most terrible and disgusting character, which have increased to this extent, steadily, year by year, since vaccination has been enforced by laws!

(3.) – The hospital statistics, showing a greater mortality of the unvaccinated than of the vaccinated, have been proven to be untrustworthy; while the conclusions drawn from them are shown to be necessarily false.

If the facts are true, or anything near the truth, the enforcement of vaccination by fine and imprisonment of unwilling parents, is a cruel and criminal despotism, which it behoves all true friends of humanity to denounce and oppose at every opportunity.

Such legislation, involving as it does, our health, our liberty, and our very lives, is too serious a matter to be allowed to depend on the misstatements of interested officials or the dogmas of a professional clique. Some of the misstatements and some of the ignorance on which you have relied, have been here exposed. The statistical evidence on which alone a true judgment can be founded, is as open to you as to any doctor in the land. We, therefore, demand that you, our representatives, shall fulfil your solemn duty to us in this matter, by devoting to it some personal investigation and painstaking research; and if you find that the main facts as here stated are substantially correct, we call upon you to undo without delay the evil you have done.


Wallace's words are as relevant today as they were in 1889.
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby aa5 on Sat May 11, 2019 10:18 am

Alfred Wallace is something of a cult hero among biology nerds, as he was up there with Darwin in developing the theory of evolution, but received a fraction of the credit. However I don't think those biology nerds know that Wallace was an anti-vaxxer :).

In the book from Wallace that Simon linked, Wallace makes a powerful argument that stood out to me. That for childhood diseases that they were not vaccinating for, there was similar, or even more profound declines in their frequency relative to diseases that they were vaccinating against, during the same time period.

I think the big change was the rising nutrition. The 1700's saw an explosion of biological knowledge. And with that knowledge one of the results was that in the 1700's the protein content of grains increased by 3 times. For thousands of years the protein content had been about the same, and then in one century it tripled. Not only did that increase the protein content in breads, but meat became far cheaper too, as the animals were eating the upgraded protein content grains.
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Sat May 11, 2019 3:14 pm

aa5 wrote:In the book from Wallace that Simon linked, Wallace makes a powerful argument that stood out to me. That for childhood diseases that they were not vaccinating for, there was similar, or even more profound declines in their frequency relative to diseases that they were vaccinating against, during the same time period.

The fact of the matter is that every time a new vaccine has been introduced it's resulted in a slough of new illnesses that are, of course, never attributed to said vaccine.

Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Faculty Respond: Vaccination Resistance

Mistrust, Laziness Still Hinder Flu Vaccination

Last year saw the emergence of a new strain of influenza virus (novel Influenza A[H1N1]) with increased virulence and high contagion. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that this year, the government is tooling up to produce vaccine against this and other seasonal influenza viruses in greater amounts and available at an earlier date than was possible last year.

Getting enough people and the right people to take annual flu shots has always been a hard sell. Some of the reasons for this involve fear of needles, distrust of vaccines and general sloth about one's own health.

• This year's vaccine is made exactly like the seasonal influenza vaccine and so there shouldn't be any side effects except for some sort of soreness at the injection site which in fact not everybody will experience. :rolleyes:

• The standard influenza vaccines, both seasonal and H1N1, are killed [formaldehyde] subunit vaccines. There is no live [?] virus in them and it's biologically impossible for a human to contract influenza from that preparation. This is the vaccine that is recommended for most people and it cannot cause influenza or even an influenza-like syndrome.

• There's also a live weakened or attenuated vaccine--the nasal vaccine--and that virus could conceivably give someone influenza-like symptoms. That is why this vaccine is recommended for healthy people between the ages of 2 and 49, and not for anyone who is immunocompromised.

People who get sick the day after they visit the doctor are either sick with something other than influenza, which they just coincidentally got, or they were incubating a case of influenza and got to the doctor's office a day or two late.

[You really have to strain credulity to its breaking point to swallow that line. I mean, seriously, would you buy a used car from this shyster?]

This year, the target population for the vaccine has been expanded and pretty much includes everyone because young healthy adults were particularly at risk for serious infection as are pregnant women and children aged six months and older.

The good news is that H1N1 as well as another common strain of influenza A and a strain of influenza B are all included in one shot so that only one vaccination will be required for anyone who has already been vaccinated in the past. Combining all the probable influenza viruses in one shot should mean that more people will be vaccinated; however, reluctance to be vaccinated remains and a vital public information effort will still be required to maximize the number of people vaccinated. The biggest challenges for the government will be convincing the public that vaccination is necessary (the outbreak last year was not as widespread as was feared), safe and effective, and producing enough vaccines so that there is no shortfall.

Influenza is a highly preventable disease that can be devastating in terms of morbidity and mortality if it occurs. The most effective way to prevent it is to get as many people vaccinated against it as possible. Everyone who can be vaccinated (there are very few contraindications) should be.

Stephen G. Baum, MD
Senior Associate Dean for Students
Professor, Department of Medicine (Infectious Diseases)
Professor, Department of Microbiology & Immunology

What an abaumination!

Take into consideration the following article which rips the "devastating mortality of influenza" sales pitch to shreds (form the Huffington Post no less).

Don't Believe Everything You Read About Flu Deaths

The CDC's decision to play up flu deaths dates back a decade, when it realized the public wasn't following its advice on the flu vaccine. During the 2003 flu season "the manufacturers were telling us that they weren't receiving a lot of orders for vaccine,"Dr. Glen Nowak, associate director for communications at CDC's National Immunization Program, told National Public Radio.

Lawrence Solomon
01/24/2014 05:40 EST | Updated 03/26/2014 05:59 EDT

Flu results in "about 250,000 to 500,000 yearly deaths" worldwide, Wikipedia tells us. "The typical estimate is 36,000 [deaths] a year in the United States," reports NBC, citing the Centers for Disease Control. "Somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 Canadians a year die of influenza and its related complications, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada," the Globe and Mail says, adding that "Those numbers are controversial because they are estimates."

"Controversial" is an understatement, and not just in Canada, and not just because the numbers are estimates. The numbers differ wildly from the sober tallies recorded on death certificates -- by law every certificate must show a cause -- and reported by the official agencies that collect and keep vital statistics.

According to the National Vital Statistics System in the U.S., for example, annual flu deaths in 2010 amounted to just 500 per year -- fewer than deaths from ulcers (2,977), hernias (1,832) and pregnancy and childbirth (825), and a far cry from the big killers such as heart disease (597,689) and cancers (574,743). The story is similar in Canada, where unlikely killers likewise dwarf Statistics Canada's count of flu deaths.

Even that 500 figure for the U.S. could be too high, according to analyses in authoritative journals such as the American Journal of Public Health and the British Medical Journal. Only about 15-20 per cent of people who come down with flu-like symptoms have the influenza virus -- the other 80-85 per cent actually caught rhinovirus or other germs that are indistinguishable from the true flu without laboratory tests, which are rarely done. In 2001, a year in which death certificates listed 257 Americans as having died of flu, only 18 were positively identified as true flus. The other 239 were simply assumed to be flus and most likely had few true flus among them.

"U.S. data on influenza deaths are a mess," states a 2005 article in the British Medical Journal entitled "Are U.S. flu death figures more PR than science?" This article takes issue with the 36,000 flu-death figure commonly claimed, and with describing "influenza/pneumonia" as the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S.

"But why are flu and pneumonia bundled together?" the article asks. "Is the relationship so strong or unique to warrant characterizing them as a single cause of death?"

The article's answer is no. Most pneumonia deaths are unrelated to influenza. For example, "stomach acid suppressing drugs are associated with a higher risk of community-acquired pneumonia, but such drugs and pneumonia are not compiled as a single statistic," explained Dr. David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services. "People don't necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus -- the viraemia. What they die of is a secondary pneumonia."

Pneumonia, according to the American Lung Association, has more than 30 different causes, influenza being but one of them. The CDC itself acknowledges the slim relationship, saying "only a small proportion of deaths... only 8.5 per cent of all pneumonia and influenza deaths [are] influenza-related."

Because death certificates belie claims of numerous flu deaths, CDC enlisted computer models to arrive at its 36,000 flu-death estimate. But even here it needed to bend conventional medical terminology to arrive at compelling death numbers.

"Cause-of-death statistics are based solely on the underlying cause of death [internationally defined] as 'the disease or injury which initiated the train of events leading directly to death,'" explains the National Center for Health Statistics. Because the flu was rarely an "underlying cause of death," the CDC created the sound-alike term, "influenza-associated death."

Using this new, loose definition, CDC's computer models could tally people who died of a heart ailment or other causes after having the flu. As William Thompson of the CDC's National Immunization Program admitted, influenza-associated mortality is "a statistical association ... I don't know that we would say that it's the underlying cause of death."

The CDC's decision to play up flu deaths dates back a decade, when it realized the public wasn't following its advice on the flu vaccine. During the 2003 flu season "the manufacturers were telling us that they weren't receiving a lot of orders for vaccine,"Dr. Glen Nowak, associate director for communications at CDC's National Immunization Program, told National Public Radio. "It really did look like we needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot."

The CDC's response was its "Seven-Step 'Recipe' for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination," a slide show Nowak presented at the 2004 National Influenza Vaccine Summit.

Here is the "Recipe that fosters influenza vaccine interest and demand,"
in the truncated language that appears on his slides: "Medical experts and public health authorities [should] publicly (e.g. via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes) - and urge influenza vaccination." This recipe, his slide show indicated, would result in "Significant media interest and attention ... in terms that motivate behavior (e.g. as 'very severe,' 'more severe than last or past years,' 'deadly')." Other emotive recommendations included fostering "the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza" and "Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)."

The CDC unabashedly decided to create a mass market for the flu vaccine by enlisting the media into panicking the public. An obedient and unquestioning media obliged by hyping the numbers, and 10 years later it is obliging still.

I, for one, don't believe anything I read (from officialdom) about so called flu deaths.

Official Cause of Death Wrong at Least One Third of Time
James Joyner • Monday, May 13, 2013
We rely on death certificates for epidemiology studies. But they're incredibly unreliable.

That's a conservative estimate. The number is closer to 50%. With regards to the "true flu" (or any "virus" for that matter), the following bears repeating:

Have viruses been isolated?

In case anyone thinks that virus isolation procedures have improved since the 1950s, here is the procedure for isolating the measles virus recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (pp. 84, 252). Prepare a culture of cells from marmoset monkeys by ‘immortalizing’ them, i.e. making them cancerous. (To save money, measles and MMR vaccine manufacturers use cells from mashed chicken embryos instead.) Wearing rubber gloves and splash goggles, add a toxin called trypsin, which poisons the cells and causes some to fall away. Add nutrients and glucose and leave the cells alone for two or three days.

Next add to the cell culture a small sample of urine or fluid from the nose or mouth from a measles patient, and place the culture in an incubation chamber. After an hour, inspect the cells under the microscope to see if any are rounded, distorted, or floating free, as they were immediately after trypsin was added. If they are, the CDC calls this proof that measles virus is present and is causing this illness. There is apparently no need to see the virus or to isolate it from the rest of the poisoned cell culture. The CDC says that if 50% of the cells are now distorted, the culture can be labelled ‘isolated measles-virus stock’. If less than 50% are ill at this stage, two antibiotics are added and if, when viewed a day later under the microscope, there are signs that cells have died or floated free, the culture can then be labelled ‘isolated measles-virus stock.

Virologists rarely attempt the very difficult task of identifying the presence of a whole virus. When they say they have found SV40 in a patient, or the bird flu virus in a dead bird (, or any other virus, they do not mean they have found a whole virus – merely a tiny fragment of genetic code said to be unique to a viral species. But it is virtually impossible to prove uniqueness when so many viral species have mutating codes and so many remain to be discovered – experts say we have studied at most 0.4% of those that exist.

Even when a genetic segment is reliably proved to be part of the genetic code of a protein belonging to a particular virus, this only indicates the protein’s prior presence, not that of the whole virus. It is strange that SV40 genetic code is only found in cancer cells whereas if they really are invading, and not produced locally, they would need to travel through other cells to get there. Sometimes cancer arises without them being present at all. In one experiment all the female rats got breast cancer after being injected with a filtered laboratory culture containing SV40, but no SV40 code was found in those cancers. It is worth remembering that Nixon’s ‘war on cancer’ in the 1970s was based on the theory that viruses cause cancers, but it flopped badly, finding practically no viruses linked to human cancers.

And when the Oncovirus Theory hit a dead end, the HIV/AIDS fraud was introduced; keeping virologists/immunologists in business.
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Mon May 13, 2019 5:11 am

According to the article I posted:

2) Since 2000, there have been nine reported measles deaths in the U.S. Since 1986, there have been 415 deaths associated with the MMR vaccine according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. ... pharmedia/

Well, dear reader, I highly suggest you read the following article in its entirety and decide for yourself how reliable the VAERS numbers are.

Why Did the CDC Silence the Million Dollar Harvard Project Charged With Upgrading Our Vaccine Safety Surveillance System?

Posted on October 24, 2017 by Truth Snitch

There are major problems with the vaccine adverse event reporting system (known as VAERS) which the CDC considers the “front line” of vaccine safety. VAERS was created in 1990 by the CDC and FDA as a means to collect and analyze adverse effects that are associated with vaccines. Unfortunately, the failings of VAERS are “kept from the consciousness” not only of the public, but also from the doctors, pediatricians, and nurses that the public rely on to provide reliable information as to the safety of vaccines. I say “kept from the consciousness” rather than “kept secret” because while these failings are publicly disclosed for all the world to see, they are for all intents and purposes BURIED in documents seldom searched out by the average member of the medical community, much less by the average individual. You could say that the information has been very effectively hidden in plain sight.

By far, the most dire failure of the VAERS system is the vast underreporting of vaccine adverse effects which leads to a dangerous false security in vaccine safety and an erroneous assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Who DOES know about the deadly elephant in the room?

The CDC, the FDA, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), and Congress to name a few. Oh, and an organization called Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc.- but we’ll get to them in a minute.

This is what the CDC says about the VAERS system, “Passive surveillance systems (e.g. VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Because of these limitations, determining causal associations between vaccines and adverse events from VAERS reports is usually not possible.” (emphasis mine)

In 2000, the 6th Report by the Committee on Government Reform addressed the failings of VAERS in its address of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The report states, “The quality of VAERS data has been questioned. Because reports are submitted from a variety of sources, some inexperienced in completing data forms for medical studies, many reports omit important data and contain obvious errors. Assessment is further complicated by the administration of multiple vaccines at the same time, following currently recommended vaccine schedules, because there may be no conclusive way to determine which vaccine or combination of vaccines caused the specific adverse event.”

The same Congressional report notes (on page 19), “Former FDA commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.” (emphasis mine)

The Congressional report above listed 4 limitations that the IOM Committees noted, “1) Inadequate understanding of biologic mechanisms underlying adverse events; 2) Insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series; 3) Inadequate size or length of follow- up of many population- based epidemiological studies; 4) Limitations of existing surveillance systems to provide persuasive evidence of causation; and 5) Few published epidemiological studies.” The report continues by noting that the “IOM warned that ‘if research capacity and accomplishments [are] not improved, future reviews of vaccine safety [will be] similarly handicapped.’”

The IOM has been telling the CDC for over 23 years that they have inadequate information (and none at all in some cases) to advise on the causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events for a majority of adverse events reported. In a 1994 report on vaccines and adverse events the IOM stated, “The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee…Although the committee was not charged with proposing specific research investigations, in the course of its review additional obvious needs for research and surveillance were identified, and those are briefly described here.” (emphasis mine) In 2011, the IOM conducted another study examining the scientific evidence in studies available for 158 vaccine adverse effects. Again, they concluded that they had inadequate information to come to a decision, “The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.” (emphasis mine)

While one might expect a new program (new in 1990) to have a few bugs that need to be worked out, I would expect that when it comes to being able to ascertain vaccine safety, working out those bugs should be priority number one. Certainly today in 2017, a whopping 27 years later, the failure of the CDC to address this monumental danger to public health should be viewed with a skepticism much greater than mere suspicion.

That leads us to the interesting case of the CDC and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School a $1 million dollar grant to track VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for 3 years and to create an automated reporting system which would revolutionize the VAERS reporting system- transforming it from “passive” to “active.”

This project was called Electronic Support for Public Heath- Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). According to the grant final report, the scope of the project was, “To create a generalizable system to facilitate detection and clinician reporting of vaccine adverse events, in order to improve the safety of national vaccination programs.” To accomplish this the team used the electronic medical records at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc, which is described as a “large multi-specialty practice.” Every patient that received a vaccine was automatically identified and followed for 30 days. Within that 30 days the individual’s diagnostic health codes, lab tests, and prescriptions were evaluated to recognize any potential adverse event. Another goal of the project was to evaluate the performance of the new automated system via a randomized trial and to compare this new data to the existing data collected by VAERS and Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Just the preliminary description of this program is head and shoulders above the current functioning of the passive VAERS system. In our current system, adverse events are to be spontaneously reported by parents or health care providers. Most parents aren’t even aware the VAERS system exists, much less aware that they are supposed to be reporting to it. Health care providers are “supposed” to report adverse events, but we have no idea of the efficiency level with which this is occurring, and more than a hunch that this reporting is grossly neglected for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, many vaccine adverse events are never reported because either the parent, patient, or doctor is completely unaware that a subsequent adverse event is in fact due to a vaccine. This new reporting system would remove all of these failures from the equation.

What were the results?

Data was collected from June 2006 to October of 2009 on a total of 715,000 patients. Of those 715,000 patients, 376,452 were given 1.4 million doses of 45 different vaccines. A total of 35,570 possible adverse reactions were identified, so 2.6% of vaccinations were followed by a possible adverse reaction.

Let’s just take a minute to reflect on that last sentence. Out of only 376,452 individuals that received a vaccine at this Harvard practice, the new automated system identified 35,570 possible adverse reactions in a three year period. How does that stack up to the number of adverse effects reported to VAERS? According to the CDC, only 30,000 adverse events are reported every year for the entire US population. This finding alone should have had the CDC saying:

“Houston, we have a problem.” [ :) ]

I’ll quote the findings directly from the report, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

Again, let’s stop and think about this revelation for a moment: fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccination are exceedingly rare (and predominantly minor). According to the CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,274 emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? Simple multiplication would yield vaccine adverse events reports numbering 5,911,700!

Of course, at this point that figure is nothing but a guess. But, again, why do we HAVE To guess? Because in 27 years the CDC has failed to provide a post- licensure vaccine safety surveillance system that the IOM, FDA, physicians, and the public can have confidence in.

The report also states, “Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of the clinician’s usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.

So, WHY aren’t the reports currently being made to VAERS? According to the findings above, clinicians don’t know for sure what a vaccine adverse event is. This isn’t surprising at all considering what we learned from the 2011 IOM report above. There haven’t been enough studies performed for highly trained IOM scientists and physicians to even determine whether or not the majority of the currently suspected 158 adverse vaccine effects are indeed caused by vaccines. How could we possibly expect our average pediatricians or general practitioners to know what a team of IOM personnel have determined we have inadequate information to decide? In addition, this report basically finds that your clinician frankly doesn’t have the time to devote to proper VAERS reporting under the current inconvenient system.

You’d think that the CDC would be jumping for joy that this Harvard team just created a proactive, reliable, automated system that would improve the quality of our vaccination program by improving vaccine adverse event detection thereby increasing public confidence in post- licensure surveillance.

What was the CDC’s response?

Basically, the same response your average college student falls back on when they decide they are no longer interested in continuing a relationship- they cut all lines of communication. No more answering phone calls or emails. You heard me correctly, the United States of America Centers for Disease Control ghosted Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc. For those who are unaware, Google dictionary defines ghosting as, “the practice of ending a personal relationship by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.” Personally, I would hope that I could hold an organization like the CDC to a higher standard, but…

After a one million dollar grant was paid and three years of research conducted on what appeared to be a very successful upgrade to the passive VAERS system, the team’s CDC contacts went MIA. The ESP:VAERS final report states, “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

According to the final report, the only thing left for the CDC to do was link the VAERS system to the Harvard Pilgrim system in order to transmit the data. The team requested that the CDC do this, “However, real data transmissions of non-physician approved reports to the CDC was unable to commence, as by the end of this project, the CDC had yet to respond to multiple requests to partner for this activity.”

What do we, the public, take away from this debacle?

As I see it there are only two options.

1. You give the CDC the benefit of the doubt, assume deep down they have the safety of the public at heart and chalk up their monumental waste of money, time, and a good idea to bureaucratic incompetence.

2. You stop naively believing that the CDC cares ultimately about public safety and realize that the vaccine industry makes way too much money to allow public confidence in the safety of vaccines to be eroded by a surveillance system capable of giving the public a glimpse of the scope and magnitude of the adverse effects vaccines are actually responsible for.

To assist you in your decision making, I’ll leave you with a statistic from the ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) request to the HHS to meet the obligations set forth by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Safety Act regarding the CDC’s role in the vaccine industry market, “When the CDC recommends a pediatric vaccine for universal use, it creates for that vaccine’s maker a liability free market of 78 million children typically required by law to receive the vaccine.” (emphasis mine)

20 Replies to “Why Did the CDC Silence the Million Dollar Harvard Project Charged With Upgrading Our Vaccine Safety Surveillance System?”

1. Prolife Andrew
November 13, 2017 at 2:15 am

So if I understand this article,
1. The government says vaccines are safe but admits there are adverse effects which are “rare”
2. The government funded a Harvard study to improve reporting adverse effects.
3. The study showed that less than %1 of effects are being reported so…
4. The government & media buried the study.
Did I read that right?


1. Truth Snitch
November 13, 2017 at 11:29 am

It certainly appears that way Andrew. According to Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, they were dropped like a hot potato and the CDC gave no reason- they just halted all communication.


Hat tip to Truth Snitch for her well researched/written articles on vaccines!
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Tue May 14, 2019 4:22 am

Ask yourself, dear reader, "Who’s trying to provide clarity and who’s trying to muddy the waters?"

Skeptical Raptor - Stalking pseudoscience in the internet jungle

Posted on 2019/03/31 by The Original Skeptical Raptor

Anti-vaccine Holocaust denial – something else that goes over their heads

Since the anti-vaccine world lacks any evidence to support their tropes, they’ve decided to go with anti-vaccine Holocaust denial as their new operating strategy. But they just don’t understand what they’re doing again.

Recently, as more measles outbreaks occur across the world, there is consternation in governments, schools, and public health organizations about the dropping measles vaccination rates in some areas. As a result, states like California are trying to clamp down on medical exemption abuse, and other jurisdictions, like Rockland County, NY, have banned unvaccinated children from public spaces.

These actions by public officials were implemented to stop the spread of measles, a dangerous, and frequently, deadly disease. As you can imagine, the anti-vaccine religion has been whining and screaming about everything from their individual rights to some cynical conspiracy theory about something or another ever since “mandatory” vaccines became important to public health officials to reduce the spread of the disease.

The worst of this anti-vaccine nonsense is many are trying to compare vaccinations that protect everyone from measles to Nazis murdering Jews. And science denying pro-disease people, like Del Bigtree, an Andrew Wakefield sycophant and producer of the laughably vapid fraudumentary Vaxxed, are sporting the infamous yellow Star of David, called yellow badges or Judenstern (literally Jew’s star, in German) that German Nazis forced Jews to wear before and during WWII.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, another science denying loudmouth and about whom I’ve written plenty, has also gone with the anti-vaccine Holocaust garbage.

Anti-vaxxers believe that they are being marked and targeted for not vaccinating their children (and themselves), just like Jews who were forced to wear the yellow stars.

Now, let us take a deep breath before I write another word.

This is a foul and despicable attempt to compare vaccination, which is intended to save the lives of millions of children, to the Holocaust (see the Notes section, before starting any arguments), which is the systematic murder of six million European Jews. They are not the same, despite how much the anti-vaxxers push this ridiculous trope in memes and posts across the internet.

The yellow star had one purpose in Nazi Germany – it made it easy to identify Jews for discrimination and murder. Jews were not trying to get Germans vaccinated for some horrific purpose (although the anti-vaxxers have often claimed that Jews control vaccines for nefarious motives).

Of course, this comparison falls apart with just the smallest amount of common sense and rational thinking:

1. There is no evidence that anyone has died from vaccination over the past 20 years. Compare this to the murder of six million Jews.
2. In states like California, West Virginia, and Mississippi, vaccines are required before attending school, and there are no exemptions (except medical ones) for children. No one is being forced to be vaccinated, parents who are anti-vax can simply not send their children to school. Public health officials are attempting to protect everyone from diseases, not kill anyone.
3. No one is being forced to wear some sort of symbol that shows that they are vaccinated or not.

The only people who might be causing a holocaust are the anti-vaxxers – if they get their way, and all indications show that they only have an effect in small areas, it could lead to old diseases returning to our children. That’s scary.

Anti-vaccine holocaust denial?

Yes, I wrote that in the headline. The whole argument that vaccinations are part of a new Holocaust is, at its essence, anti-vaccine Holocaust denial. Even though these people think that wearing a yellow star shows that they are being brave against the nasty pro-vaccine scientists and public health authorities, it just shows off their nascent anti-Semitism.

Vaccines have probably not killed anyone in decades (at least a thorough investigation of CDC and published journal articles don’t show any mortality from vaccines), let alone anywhere close to the millions in the Holocaust. So the anti-vaccine holocaust deniers either:

1. Don’t realize that the Holocaust was the systematic murder of six million Jews,
2. Don’t realize that Nazis targeted Jews specifically for murder,
3. Believe that the Holocaust wasn’t “that bad,” so the comparison is legitimate, or
4. Simply don’t believe that six million Jews were murdered, so the yellow star strawman works for them.

If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, you were targeted for enslavement and murder. If you don’t want to have your child vaccinated in the United States or many other countries, you don’t. But you should forgo the privilege of sending your child to public schools (and most private schools) or college. Yes, most colleges these days require full vaccinations.

No one is being sent to a concentration camp to be murdered if they don’t vaccinate. Of course, unvaccinated kids are much more at risk for death from these diseases, so there’s that.

Del Bigtree and others are trying to create something that doesn’t exist. The Holocaust was a heinous crime against Jews. Getting children vaccinated isn’t even in the same universe as that.

So keep going with the anti-vaccine Holocaust denial – it’s not working, because we see through your antics. Vaccines save lives. The Holocaust caused the deaths of six million Jews. Your comparison is disgusting and without merit.

As the Auschwitz Museum wrote in a Twitter post:

Instrumentalizing the fate of Jews who were persecuted by hateful antisemitic ideology and murdered in extermination camps like #Auschwitz with poisonous gas in order to argue against vaccination that saves human lives is a symptom of intellectual and moral degeneration.
The intellectual and moral degeneration of the anti-vaxxers is clear.


A broad consensus of WWII historians (see here, here, here, here, and here) defines the Holocaust as the systematic murder of approximately six million European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II. Although homosexuals, Roma, mentally disabled, Slavs, and other groups were murdered by Nazis, implementation was uneven and was not systematic.

For example, homosexual men were considered “curable” by Nazis (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). That wasn’t a consideration afforded to Jews since they were a “race” in Nazi dogma.

I know that many argue that the “holocaust” includes all of the Nazi genocide, but for academic historians, “The Holocaust” is about the murder of Jews, while the broader genocide has a lot of different terms like “holocaust” (lower case h), holocaust era, Nazi genocide, and other terms.

This differentiation is technical, but it is because of how Nazis viewed Jews – they didn’t consider them human, nothing more than they considered sheep or cattle not human. Nazis called it the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question,” something that did not happen with any other group, despite the horrific crimes committed against those groups by the Nazis.

The Hebrew term, shoah, is often used instead of “The Holocaust” to reduce confusion.

If you want to discuss WWII history terminology, please take it to a blog that discusses WWII history terminology.

Matthew 7:16 comes to mind…
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Vaccinations: The Medical, Legal, and Social Implication

Unread postby ICfreely on Wed May 15, 2019 12:45 pm

YouTube Is Officially Cracking Down On Anti-Vaccination Videos

It’s a wonder that YouTube still provides a platform for

Taking No Prisoners in the Vaccine Culture War

full link:

Thank G-d for BLF. What would we do without her?

Experimental vaccine shows promise in treating MERS

full link:

A team of Taiwan and U.S. researchers has created an experimental vaccine against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. The vaccine has shown promise in trials on mice, and it could begin trials on primates by this year. Currently, there are no vaccines available for MERS, a disease that first appeared in 2012. MERS is highly lethal to humans, with a mortality rate of over 36%. Scientists from National Taiwan University, Academia Sinica and University of Texas Medical Branch have harnessed nanotechnology and research on coronaviruses to develop a vaccine against MERS. Chen Hui-wen Veterinary medicine professor, We used our nanotechnology platform to create this vaccine. After assembly, the vaccine looks like the nanoparticles of the real virus

MERS just suddenly appeared out of nowhere in 2012, eh? It couldn't have been caused by poisonous vaccines in the first place, could it?

And virologists are hard at work (using nanotechnology) trying to create a vaccine to prevent it?

Just WOW!
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest